PDA

View Full Version : R1b in the Caucasus (other than Armenia) is nearly all in the north in Russia



Pages : [1] 2

alan
06-10-2013, 05:36 AM
this recent study of the caucasus http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/359.full.pdf+html

had a table 3 http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2011/09/02/msr221.DC1/msr221supp_tables_corr.pdf

that showed elevated M269 and derived clades (undefined) among the Bagvalals (Dagestan, Russia- NE Caucasian speakers), Kumyks (north Dagestan, Russia -Turkic speakers),Tabasarans (Dagestan, Russia- NE Lezgic Caucasian speakers), Kuban Nogays (Black Sea Russia-Turkic speakers), Lezgins (Dagestan-Azerbaijan border - NE Caucasian speakers) and Armenians (IE speakers). Sample shows that R1b is low among Georgians and other than the Armenians is nearly all on the north side of the very high main NW-SE ridge of the Caucasus - on the Russian side. South of this only the Armenians have much M269 clades

M73 only looks significant among Kara (Dagestan, Russia) Nogays, the Balkars of the Russia (Russia-Georgian border area just NW of Osseta) and to a lesser degree Karachays (also of the Russia near the Black Sea end of the border with Georgia). All are Turkic speakers. I notice the Turkic Nogays/Nogais are odd in that the Kuban ones have lots of M269 and no M73 while the Kara ones are the reverse of that.

The main geographical pattern I can see is that M269 derived clades (with the exception of Armenia) are FAR stronger represented in the northern part of the Caucasus within the Russian border between the north Caspian and NE Black Sea and is weakest in Georgia. This is very important and seems to have been overlooked due to the lack of maps in this report and the very awkward to use table. There is a mythology based on Armenia that R1b (overwhelmingly L23*) is southern in the Caucasus and not a great match for Maykop. This is a myth that I believe until very recently. Both M269 clades and M73 are resoundingly highest on the north side of the Russian border albeit among north Caucasian language speakers and some Turks.

The distibution of these R1b-richer peoples of the Caucasus is a near carbon copy of the map of the Maykop culture. Its uncanny and I hadnt realise that before because I was fooled into thinking R1b was a south Caucasus thing because of Armenia.

Today it seems the oldest extant local languages in the former Maykop zone are part of the North Caucasian group that sit on the very border of the IE world. However, the Maykop area was on over the great NW-SE ridge of the Caucasus and in the northern Piedmont basically running down to the steppe and I think Bilingualism must have existed here since the copper age.

alan
06-10-2013, 12:17 PM
I suppose the big question is whether M269 and M73 (the P297 brothers) were in the Caucasus-steppe fringe prior to take of c. 4000BC or so or whether they were migrants from somewhere like Iran. Clearly if they were some sort of group on the steppe fringes they were massively influenced by groups to the south. The question is R1b's role in this. Was it native to the Caucasus-steppe interface but culturally heavily influenced or did it arrive with the southerly influences (Iran) c. 4000BC. Neither option massively changes the model because once Maykop was established it was networking with a wide area in all directions. However, it would still be interesting to know but its hard to know when a yDNA line joins a culture like that which networked far and wide. One thing against an origin in many parts of Iran is the early date of the Neolithic. That includes the Zagros. This does not fit well with R1b sleeping until 4 or 5000BC. However my previous reading indicated there were some areas in the Iran plateau that the Neolithic didnt arrive until fairly late c. 6000BC (thats very late by the standards of some parts of Iran). However I am not sure these areas include NW Iran.

The Caucasus seems also to have a late Neolithic take off and certainly the older papers on the Neolithic seems to see this as slow and indigenous with a lot of Mesolithic toolkit being used. I think I have dug up all I can find on the web in terms of Neolithic and copper age Iran but I have not done this for the Caucasus to the same extent as there seems to be a lot less on the web that is free, up to date and in English (as opposed to Russian). I have found a few papers but they tend to not give an overview except one I found from the 90s.

Anyway, I think the anticlockwise circumpontic theory is a good one for explaining the lack of a common language for groups with L23* (and M269* in lesser amounts). It would explain north Caucasian and IE phases and also could explain the genetic flow into Assyrians (and Eurphratic adstrate in Sumerian if you believe in it) through the strong Maykop-Uruk contacts. I think that model should keep everyone happy except perhaps primordalists (who IMO are essentially nationalists and sometimes racists) who would never be happy unless their prefered identity for M269 etc (be it steppe IE, Caucasian, SW Asian) is the earliest. I think this is partly the fault of trees that show languages as coming from some magical root or ground zero and branching. Languages are a lot more plastic than that and spread by networks of people and I am sure the later phenomenon of aerial development always applied even from the earliest days. The western steppes had a multitude of contact with the farming world and several intrusions from early in the Neolithic may have taken place. Again the primordalist mono-clade idea of a pristine isolated steppes is a wrong headed one.

Anyway I need to dig around for more info on the Neolithic of the Caucasus, especially the north Caucasus.

alan
06-10-2013, 01:46 PM
I am noticing that almost all the info on the Neolithic Caucasus is about the southern Caucasus. I am thinking that is possibly because the pre-Maykop culture of the north Caucasus was steppic but I need to understand the chronology and geography a bit better. That Great Caucasus boundery (which is the boundary between Europe and Asia) is spectacular and as I have noted both the Caucasus area of raised M269 and the Maykop culture were on the north (European) side. It actually makes geographical sense to me that Maykop was more linked to NW Iran as the east side of the Caspian looks a much more easy route than a simple north to south route through that massive mountain barrier. Tell you what, when you look at maps it would make a huge amount of sense for Maykop area to be reached from NW Iran (and vice versa) by simply bypassing the east end of the Caucasus either sailing the SW Caspian or using a shore route. Then the watershed of the Great Caucasus mountains essentially dictatea the shape of the Maykop culture running SE to NW from the south-west Caspian to the sea of Azov. Its a perfect position to link Caspian to the Black sea and dominate a network of rivers and bodies of water that would allow access to everywhere from the Capsian to the Urals, the western steppe, the Balkans and Anatolia without getting out of a boat. When you look at a map the position of Maykop makes sense of why it was the heart of the Circumpontic Metallurgical Provence. They couldnt have picked a better location. The fact that M269 is concentrated in these north Caucasus groups and the estimated date of the M269 makes the match absolutely perfect. See map http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/caucasus/images/Caucasus_Borders4.jpg. Makyop is essentially the area in the Russian state although the population are largely Caucasian speakers with a couple of Turkic groups too.

Looking at the physical map it also makes sense of why Maykop with its suggested Iranian roots is earlier than Kuro-Araxes, something that always seemed odd. However with the suggested Iranian origins of Maykop in a new paper it makes complete sense because the Capian route from NW Iran to the north Caucasus makes complete sense. This is very exciting to me became absolutely everything now seems to fall into place.
This is a map of the Maykop culture.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture

I swear is someone made a map of the M269 frequency based on the recent Caucasus paper (except Armenians) it would essentially be identical. Its an incredible fit.

One thing I would say too is the natural connections of Maykop to the south run SE to NW and vice versa linking to Iran and also the NE Black Sea because the Great Caucasus barrier almost dictates it. Direct routes south through the Caucasus look a little pointless when you have that kind of maritime opportunities.

alan
06-10-2013, 02:10 PM
I must admit I cant help having my eye drawn to Baku where a headland sticks out into the west Caspian shoreline at the nearest landfall from Iran to the north Caucasus. In fact it lies right where the Great Caucasus meets the Caspian. Somewhere like that would be ideal for NW Iran-north Caucasus trade to commence. To the south you can see the easy moves in the south Caucasus from the same area that someone from NW Iran would have using the Kura and Araxes rivers. However there was a massive barrier between this Kura-Araxes area and the Maykop area in the form of the Great Caucasus. In contrast, although connected to both the Black and Caspian Seas, the Maykop culture on the north of the Caucasus did not appear to have such useful navigable rivers running parallel to the Great Caucasus and linking the two seas. So a land portage would be required perhaps using the steppe. That of course would be a hell of a lot easier with wheels and horses. Maykop of course may have had a major role in the coming of the wheel to the steppe. In fact the shape of the Maykop culture running SE-NW along the north Caucausus piedmont and steppe edge between the two great seas would make it a route that only could have been fully exploited when the wheel and horses allowed the portage. You could say Maykop and the CMP would not have been possible without the wheel and horses. To make any sense it needed that as well as the Iran metallurgy link. When you put all that together it makes great sense. As does a link with M269. The question remains though as to whether M269 (or its immediate ancestors) were local in the Maykop area and exploiting the opportunities of these links or whether it came with the Iranian links. All this seems obvious but it is only with the new paper on thr Iranian input into the creation of Maykop and the realisation about the true distribution of M269 (probably mostly L23) in the north Caucasus that this all falls into place.

It is also interesting to note that the Kura-Araxes culture area south of the Great Caucasus line is much lower in M269/L23 despite having better communications with the Caspian by river. That might be a hint that the M269 line came from the natives of the north Caucasus-Iran connection rather than from Iran but I wouldnt push that too hard. Probably safer to say it looks like it could have primarily been travelling in some direction on the NW Iran-north Caucasus route but less so on the Kura-Araxes route.

However to push an origin of M269 on the steppe-Caucasus interface I would add one other observation. If there really is an IE 'Euphratic' addstrate in Sumerian that perhaps got there via contact with the Uruk expansion to the south then it would suggest that c. 4000BC or so the Maykop end of the contact zone was speaking a very early form of IE perhaps even older than the Anatolian branch. That makes sense in a steppe-IE model because essentially Maykop was open to the steppes to the north and the Capian to the east but separated from the south Caucausus by a massive mountain chain. In fact you could say its raison d'etre seemed to be to be some sort of link that connected the South Caspian to the north side of the Caucasus and the Sea of Azov using the steppes (and wheels) and into a whole network of waterways of the circumpontic area. So both its steppe and Iranian links are crucial to making sense of it. I am not sure if I would want to push for PIE to have evolved in Maykop but I wouldnt rule it out. Even if it evolved in the Ural steppes it clearly had a huge role in transforming the hunter-herders into the mobile steppe pastoralist groups like Yamnaya.

I think this is the biggest Eureka day I have ever had in feeling it all falls into place.

alan
06-10-2013, 04:42 PM
I looked at the groups in the north Caucasus who have a very low amount of R1b (no more than just 2 or 3 percent)

ingush (Nakh NE Caucasian speakers)
Dargins (NE Caucasian speakers)
Chamalals (Andric NE Caucasian speakers)
chechens (Nakh NE Caucasian speakers)
abazins (NW Caucasian speakers)
Balkars (Turkic likely on Caucasian substrate)
Cherkessians (NW?? Caucasian)
Kabardin (NW Caucasian)

I think its fair to say that while M269 is only higher on the north side of the Caucasus in a few groups, in north Caucasian speaking groups it is nevertheless a very minor component.

Also do not forget that M269 (prob L23) is uniformly rare is the south Caucasus with the exception of Armenians who are thought to be Balkans-derived.

I would need to dig a bit more into the details of the Caucasian languages. However these and another handfull with not much more M269 seem to undicate that M269 is not a common denomenaor of Caucasian speakers even in the north Caucasus where it is well represented among other Caucasian speaking groups. The plot thickens..

I think what this all suggests is that M269 much better penetrated the north side of the Caucasus (other than the Armenians) it is patchy, often virtually absent among many north Caucasian groups. I think this work has more discovered a geographical pattern than a linguistic home for M269. The geography of the north Caucasus area suggests M269 could have (if it was not indigenous to the area) have arrived from the north/NW or from the SE from NW Iran. Indeed it is the overwhelmingly the east end of the north Caucasus in Dagestan which seems to have populations with the most of the M269.

alan
06-10-2013, 10:05 PM
Regarding the Neolithic of the Caucasus (pre-Makop) a recent paper A new approach to the problem of the Neolithisation of the North-Pontic area> is there a north-eastern kind of Mediterranean Impresso potter|by Dmytro Gaskevych states
"all of the already quite abundant radiocarbon dates for the pottery Neolithic of Transcaucasia (Goytepe;Aratashen, level II; Aknashen-Khatunarkh, horizon III–V; Kamiltepe; Aruchlo; Gadachrili Gora), and the Northern Caucasus (Cmi, horizon 3) fall into the 6th millennium calBC (Badalyan et al. 2007; 2010.210; Aliyev, Helwing 2009.38; Hansen, Mirtskhulava and Bastert-Lamprichs 2009.22; Guliev, Gusejnov and Almamedov 2009.30; Rostunov, Ljachov and Reinhold 2009.65; Kvavadze, Jalabadze and Shakulashvili 2010). According to palynological and paleoclimatological data, Neolithic layer ‘C’ at the Chokh site in the Eastern Caucasus was formed in more humid conditions than today. On this basis, it was correlated with the New Caspian transgression and dated to the beginning of the 6th millennium cal BC (Amirkhanov 1987.27–31). New research of sediment records of eleven lakes with reliable chronologies and robust proxies from arid Asian regions fully confirms this conclusion (Chen et al. 2008)."

From a Caucasus point of view this indicates a late arrival of the Neolithic c. 6000BC or later. A late Neolithic is of course something that seems compatible with R1b's lack of much happening in the Neolithic.

Humanist
06-10-2013, 10:19 PM
I posted this on the old DNA Forums, as well as on other forums. It may be relevant to your discussion regarding the Caucasus, R1b, etc.

The Urartian Substratum in Armenian (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.science.org.ge%2F2-2%2FGrepin.pdf&ei=elC2UYiyEbXd4AP69oGYDQ&usg=AFQjCNHI5SkDijIk7XzSIDFTXayDT_06eA&sig2=r35Q4hOxkIuorElaVAzDGQ&bvm=bv.47534661,d.dmg)
John Greppin - 2008


It appears that the Hurrians, first known in Syria, pressed westward (from Central Asia, as some hint [Burney and Lang 1971]) south of the Caspian Sea in the later third millennium, eventually being stopped by the Hittite nation in central Anatolia.

....

It seems unlikely that these Urartians came south into the sub-Caucasus forming this culture stretching from Yerevan to Van and further. Rather, it seems to be the opposite of that: Lezgian was part of a larger group (coming from Central Asia?) certainly by the fifth millennium into the Caucasus and the sub-Caucasus, a time when the first hints of a permanent culture were forming there.

....

Because it seems clear that there is a relationship between Hurrian, Urartian and languages of Daghestan, we can accept the views of many that the Hurrians and Urartians were affiliated with the Early-Trans-Caucasian culture which was in place as early as 5000 BC. Obviously, the ETC culture was not original in the Caucasus had to come from somewhere. Considering the westward direction the people at Urkesh were going, a Central Asia origin is quite reasonable.

....

It is likely that the people of Urkesh and the later known Hurrians were two separate but related peoples, but of similar (Central Asian?) origin. Indeed, the title of the kings at Urkesh was enda (see Ivanov 2002 and Wegner 2007:232-33), a term not used among the Hurrians of central Anatolia, who, only a few centuries later, used the more common word ewri.

alan
06-11-2013, 10:52 AM
I posted this on the old DNA Forums, as well as on other forums. It may be relevant to your discussion regarding the Caucasus, R1b, etc.

The Urartian Substratum in Armenian (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.science.org.ge%2F2-2%2FGrepin.pdf&ei=elC2UYiyEbXd4AP69oGYDQ&usg=AFQjCNHI5SkDijIk7XzSIDFTXayDT_06eA&sig2=r35Q4hOxkIuorElaVAzDGQ&bvm=bv.47534661,d.dmg)
John Greppin - 2008

The new ideas on Maykop and its major influence and its geography would put it in a position to have quickly have become (and probably needed to be) multi-lingual given its wide ranging contacts. I am not sure about its origin language. The problem is even though (if we take Armenians out of the equation) it has a mainly north Caucasus-NW Iran distribution in the Caucasus area. The peoples it is now found in in the north Caucasus are overwhelmingly north Caucasian speakers BUT there ara also quite a large amount of those groups that have only a couple of % of M269. So it looks potentially to me that its not a common denomenator of that language group. Its more of a geographical finding IMO. The main finding being that if you ignore Armenians its distribution is north Caucasus-north Iran. That is also the natural easy route into the north Caucasus from the south or east from the Caspian area as it avoids the great Caucasus ridge which would have been a huge barrier especially in the winter part of the year and probably very dangerous to pass through in terms of getting attacked. It raised all sorts of questions about languages but I cannot say its clear. M269 (L23 really I suppose) has an interesting distribution but its always a minority and frequently virtualy absent among north Caucasian speakers so I am not sure its clearly linked linguistically with north Caucasian. The main finding is its geographical north Caucasus-NW Iran geographical pattern fits Maykop very well and the partly Iranian origins of Maykop suggested in a very recent paper. I think too its impossible to overlook the incredible importance of Maykop influence on the steppes. It had a huge role in influence there and transforming the hunter-farmers there into hierachical mobile pastoralists. Even if it was not originally IE it seems to have been crucial in the creation of the PIE society. Without it PIE society would look very very different.

alan
06-11-2013, 11:04 AM
Regarding the Neolithic of the Caucasus (pre-Makop) a recent paper A new approach to the problem of the Neolithisation of the North-Pontic area> is there a north-eastern kind of Mediterranean Impresso potter|by Dmytro Gaskevych states
"all of the already quite abundant radiocarbon dates for the pottery Neolithic of Transcaucasia (Goytepe;Aratashen, level II; Aknashen-Khatunarkh, horizon III–V; Kamiltepe; Aruchlo; Gadachrili Gora), and the Northern Caucasus (Cmi, horizon 3) fall into the 6th millennium calBC (Badalyan et al. 2007; 2010.210; Aliyev, Helwing 2009.38; Hansen, Mirtskhulava and Bastert-Lamprichs 2009.22; Guliev, Gusejnov and Almamedov 2009.30; Rostunov, Ljachov and Reinhold 2009.65; Kvavadze, Jalabadze and Shakulashvili 2010). According to palynological and paleoclimatological data, Neolithic layer ‘C’ at the Chokh site in the Eastern Caucasus was formed in more humid conditions than today. On this basis, it was correlated with the New Caspian transgression and dated to the beginning of the 6th millennium cal BC (Amirkhanov 1987.27–31). New research of sediment records of eleven lakes with reliable chronologies and robust proxies from arid Asian regions fully confirms this conclusion (Chen et al. 2008)."

From a Caucasus point of view this indicates a late arrival of the Neolithic c. 6000BC or later. A late Neolithic is of course something that seems compatible with R1b's lack of much happening in the Neolithic.

That said, it is possible that these were the non-R1b (vast majority) farmers arriving in the Caucasus and may be distinct from the Maykop-NW Iran (adstrate?) later link from c. 4000BC. That would certainly fit better the sort of dates suggested for M269, L23* etc. R1b in the area has a very Maykop-like distribution (if you ignore the Armenains) but its patchy with some peaks and in some peoples its low to absent. I would tend to think that the Caucasian languages more relate to the pre-Maykop farmers of the north Caucasus. I have no idea what the language of the hypothetical Maykop-R1b astrate would have been. The more information that appears the more the incredible importance of Maykop regarding spreading develioped metallurgy, the idea of Kurgans, wheels etc to the steppe stands out and it opens up all sorts of questions about languages and few answers.

newtoboard
06-11-2013, 03:36 PM
That said, it is possible that these were the non-R1b (vast majority) farmers arriving in the Caucasus and may be distinct from the Maykop-NW Iran (adstrate?) later link from c. 4000BC. That would certainly fit better the sort of dates suggested for M269, L23* etc. R1b in the area has a very Maykop-like distribution (if you ignore the Armenains) but its patchy with some peaks and in some peoples its low to absent. I would tend to think that the Caucasian languages more relate to the pre-Maykop farmers of the north Caucasus. I have no idea what the language of the hypothetical Maykop-R1b astrate would have been. The more information that appears the more the incredible importance of Maykop regarding spreading develioped metallurgy, the idea of Kurgans, wheels etc to the steppe stands out and it opens up all sorts of questions about languages and few answers.

These ideas make some since. Iran has had numerous links with the East Caucasus both in ancient times and modern times up until the Qajars and Russians. How can we be sure modern empires didn't spread this R1b though?

alan
06-11-2013, 10:26 PM
These ideas make some since. Iran has had numerous links with the East Caucasus both in ancient times and modern times up until the Qajars and Russians. How can we be sure modern empires didn't spread this R1b though?

We cant really. However to be spread or pushed into an area by an empire it usually would have to have been in its path (unless you are Joe Stalin). The main finding is a pattern of M269 being higher on the north Caucasus in Russia rather than to the south of the Great Caucasus. However its always a modest minority and sometimes not above noise among north Caucasians so its presence clearly is not a neccessity to have led to Caucasian speaking.

The observation is ultimatley just geographical, showing up as a significant (if patchy at times) band spread from Azov to northern Iran. That at least superficially looks like a 'block'. Its a block that makes geographical sense too. I had never really thought in depth about the geography of the Caucasus but in terms of land movement it really is much easier to spread from either Iran or the steppe into the north Caucasus area than to get there from the south or west and that is born out by the M269 counts in the Caucasus.

So, in the absence of much more detailed data on this including more SNPs and variance we will not have much idea of dates and origins and I think all that can be concluded is that at some point it was most likely spread into the Caucasus from the steppe or northern Iran. I think that is progress though. It has a correspondence with north Caucasian language area (which is the substrate in NW Iran too) and also with the Maykop culture but as I said the north Caucasian language idea is weakened when looking at how many of the north Caucasian speaking populations have very little R1b. I am more hopeful there is a link with Maykop culture though because the recent Iran origin proposed for Maykop does tie in quite well with R1b distribution very well.

However, I think the possibilty that R1b (or rather the P297 clades) are a steppic element in origin should not be ruled out based on a low count in the Ukraine steppes today. The Maykop area was completley open to the north and included the edge of the steppes. Very few of the present population of the historic Ukraine steppes have roots deeper than 250 years in that area and we might be being completely fooled by this into playing down that option. The distribution of L23 strangelu runs up to Azov and picks up again in Moldova but drops off almost perfectly in the Ukraine steppes. could call it the L23 doughnut or the circumpontic L23 gap. I think this looks like the centre may have been removed by the turmoil and population clearances of Ukraine history. The western steppes remains a very viable option that in many ways makes sense other than the Ukraine steppes data. It would be entirely geographically sensible that if western steppe elements were driven south into the Caucasus they would also end up in north Iran. The Great Caucasus naturally drives people from the north in a south-eastern direction, especially if they are following steppe type land and avoiding mountains.

alan
06-11-2013, 11:36 PM
This linguist considered PIE to essentially be a branch of Uralic that had been transformed by contact with Caucasian.

http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art247e.pdf

Rokus in his blog quoted him as saying 'What we do have to take into account is the typological similarity of Proto-Indo-European to the North-West Caucasian languages. If this similarity can be attributed to areal factors, we may think of Indo-European as a branch of Uralo-Altaic which was transformed under the influence of a Caucasian substratum'.

alan
06-12-2013, 04:42 PM
Its worth noting that some archaeologists distinguise between the upland and steppe Maykop groups. Chenynkh notes:

'Equally extremely important is fact that 19 dates for “steppe Maikop” (8) sites fall within practically the same time range, namely 4000-3000 BC (Fig. 7). Furthermore, it is amazing that the calendar age of the Maikop cultures appears to be more
ancient than many other communities, cultures, and settlements (tells) of the Early Bronze Age in the southern bloc of the CMP (Fig. 7). Only sites of the so-called late “northern Uruk” (i.e., well-known Uruk northern expansion) are synchronous
with the Maikop complexes. And we should remember that sites of the Uruk type are extremely poor in metal. That sites of the Kura-Araxes culture are younger than Maikop (Fig. 7) is also surprising. The paradox resides in the fact that the Maikop culture was always considered as a secondary one with respect to Uruk and Kura-Araxes, at least with respect to metallurgy
and metal processing. The problem briefly...(8) By “steppe Maikop” we mean kurgan funerary complexes located in the steppe zone north of the Kuban and Terek basins, between the Sea of Azov and the Caspian Seas, i.e., outside the area occupied by the “native” Maikop culture (Fig. 4). The inventory of these complexes contains items (mainly pottery)
of Maikop appearance'

That is important to note. Steppe Maykop groups are apparently of a similar date as upland Maykop which makes them generally earlier than other steppe Kurgan groups.

I presume the groups Chernynk has in mind include:

Novotitorovka culture, 3300–2700 BC, a Bronze Age archaeological culture of the North Caucasus immediately to the north of and largely overlapping portions of the Maykop culture facing the Sea of Azov, running from the Kerch Strait eastwards, almost to the Caspian, roughly coterminous with the modern Krasnodar Krai region of Russia.

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

There is a logic to the notion that the Maykop network could have been multi-ethnic as it may have involved several elements:

1. People from NW Iran bring metals and other goods/influences (intermarriage would certainly have been common).Language is unclear to me.

2. Peoples of the eastern part of the north Caucasus who would either have had to permit or carry out the movement of the trade by land (wheels?). South-East Caucasian speakers?

3. Natives of the great Caucasus north slopes who would be a problem if not paid off or involved Caucasian speakers?


4. The people of the Kuban river who were located in a vital navigable stretch of the route in the NW Caucasus. Not sure?

5. People with boats on the Sea of Azov (which was once an el dorado for fishing) who could help navigate from there into the enormous network of rivers that could penerate so much of the western steppe. PIEs?

That could have involved several groups of people of different origins although networking like this would undoubtedly have created a gene-flow through alliance marriages, human dowries, settling of craftsmen/traders/miners and warriors as protection and a clade like L23 could and would have flowed in multiple directions along the Maykop network assuming they were involved. There is a modest and sometimes spotty but disticnt circumpontic trail involved in L23 in Iran, the north Caucasus, probably formerly in the Crimea and adjacent and SE Europe and Anatolia. We just dont know at which point in the network L23 hopped on. I dont think L23 is the basal (apparently Caucasian speaking) population in the Caucasus or (formerly) NW Iran though. Its far too thin and patchy and seems unlikely to have dictated language. Iran looks to be far too early involved in farming to be the hopping on point for R1b. If I had to guess I would say that R1b maybe hopped on at Azov or the on the steppe part of Maykop somewhere.

alan
06-12-2013, 10:01 PM
I have been digging about to try and find out information on the immediate pre-Maykop situation in the north Caucasus. I found this one which if primarily about the arrival of cereal in Crimea but which also discusses the north Caucasus area in the Neolithic-copper age period.

http://www.academia.edu/3055988/The_earliest_evidence_of_domesticated_wheat_in_the _Crimea_at_Chalcolithic_Ardych_Burun_G._Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute_S._Telizhenko_M._K._Jones

Interestingly it notes

Formozov (1965) notes a high density of fortified Chalcolithic settlements in the northern Caucasus,situated along the Kuban River, which flows into the Sea of Azov at the Taman peninsula. Sites such as Svobodnoe, Meshoko, and Zamok belong to the Zakubanye culture and date to around the second half of the 5th millennium CAL B.C (Rassamakin 1999;Nekhaev 1992). These were farming villages where large granite cereal grinding stones and flint sickles for cereal cultivation were recovered (Formozov 1965;Korenevskii 2004). Evidence of cereal cultivation near the Ardych-Burunsite was recently published from the Chalcolithic fortified Svobodnoe site. Macro remains of grain and chaff of Triticum monococcum Triticumdicoccum, and Hordeum vulgare were recovered from the flotation samples (Lebedeva 2011). Furthermore,39% of all tools discovered were attributed to cereal cultivation and processing activities (Nekhaev 1992).

Agriculture in these northern Caucasian sites probably arrived from the southern Caucasus region where large agricultural villages are known to have existed beginning in the early 6th millennium CAL B.C. (Hovsepyan and Willcox 2008; Hovsepyan 2004). It is not clear when the early cultivars started spreading north from present day Georgia and Armenia, reaching the northern portions of the Caucasus. However, the discovery of stratified Late Mesolithic–Early Neolithic–Bronze Age sites, such as Tsmi (7th to the 3rd millennia CAL B.C )in the northern Caucasus at 1700 masl shows ‘‘the importance of the traverse across the nearby passes in the longue dure´of the Caucasian communication net-work’’ (Rostunov et al.2009: 73) and the possibility that the Neolithic populations of northern Caucasus had contact with the agricultural societies in the south.

During the Chalcolithic period, large areas of the northern Caucasus and parts of the Kerch peninsula in Ukraine were occupied by the Maykop culture ca. 3500–2500 CAL B.C.(Mallory and Adams1997), or perhaps a few hundred years earlier according to the radiocarbon dates collated by Rassamakin (1999). Korenevskii (2004: 104) emphasizes the semi-nomadic nature of the Maykop populations who specialized in cattle, sheep, horse, pig breeding, wild animal hunting, and cereal cultivation. The extensive hoe agriculture of the Maykop population exhausted the soil and stimulated migration in search of land suitable for agriculture along the Kuban River (Rassamakin1999). The farmer and cattle breeder populations from the Kuban region could have settled at the Ardych-Burun site by following the coast from the Kerch peninsula.

To conclude, we can only speculate about the geographical origins of Crimean agriculture. So far the nearest site with earlier evidence of cereal cultivation is Svobodnoe, situated in the northern Caucasus region; the crop assemblage found in the northern Caucasus consists of hulled wheat species as at the Ardych-Burun site. We hope that future genetic work on ancient and modern cereal DNA will provide some grounds for further refinement of the picture. The discovery of wheat grains at a pastoralist shell midden site on the southeastern coast of the Crimea reveals new perspectives, which will lead to further discussions on the subsistence of the coastal Crimean populations during the Chalcolithic period.

So...Maykop was preceeded in the north Caucasus by the Zakubanye culture. I had head of this slighly pre-Maykop occupation of the area but didnt know a cultural name for it. The paper links it to the south Caucasus (hmm.. what about Iran??). There has to have been some origin to the share non-R1b Caucasian lineages and perhaps that could be it. Unfortunately nothing comes up when this culture is googled.but I suspect some of the papers about new enclosures and terraces being found in the area might be connected.

TigerMW
06-12-2013, 10:11 PM
They found triticum dicoccum in the Catacomb culture find. That's emmer wheat, the kind grown first in the Southern Levant.

alan
06-12-2013, 10:45 PM
This page contains a list of lectures on the Caucasus
http://venus.unive.it/erovaweb/convegno/abstracts.html


I have just picked out a few of the summaries that most relate to the north Caucasus. The first is very interesting:

The Latest Eneolithic – Early Bronze Age of the Black Sea Steppe in the Context of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaia Culture Development (the Second Half of the 4th Millennium BC) (session 2)Rassamakin, Yuri Y. (National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine – Ukraine)
The paper focuses on specific burial sites in the mounds of the steppe zone from the Lower Don River to the Lower Danube and Prut Rivers. These sites were identified in the 70s of the 20th century. They are known as the burials of Zhivotilovska or Zhivotilovka-Volchansk type. Funeral ceremony (flexed position on the side, flexed hands in the front of face) and accompanied artifacts (ceramics, ornaments) indicate the connections with the Maikop-Novosvobodnaia culture (late period) in the North Caucasus, on the one hand, and with Tripolye culture (period C/2), on the other hand. The burials of the Zhivotilova-Volchansk type are untypical for the Black Sea steppe funeral traditions. They reflect a movement/migration of new populations in the steppe region between two different regions of the existence of the Late Maikop-Novosvobodnaia culture and the Latest local groups of the Tripolye culture (Usatovo, Gordineşti). There are several problems in the study of these monuments: 1. what are the reasons that led to the movement/migration of the population?; 2. what is the role of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaia culture and what is the role of the Latest Tripolye culture during the collapse of both?; 3. whether these processes are related to the situation in the Caucasus and in Eastern Anatolia (Arslantepe VIA) during the Late Uruk period


Burials of the military élite of the Maikop culture and the symbolic meaning of gold and precious stones (session 2)
Korenevskiy, Sergej N.(Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow – Russia)
Weaponry is often found in burials – more than 80 cases – of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community (culture) (MNC, 4th millennium BC). It includes various types of copper/bronze daggers, axes and spearheads and stone arrowheads. Some cultic and prestige artifacts also accompanied weaponry in graves. Among them are: gold, silver and copper/bronze vessels, copper/bronze forks and hooks, and stone beakers and hammers. Weapons for shock action and stone blade weapons for close combat rarely occur. Burials with stone maces and axes are extremely rare. We have little information concerning sling or bone beakers. Copper/bronze daggers of different types mainly occur in burial complexes. Warriors of the MNC were able to use complicate speed shot bow of East European steppe type. The battle arrows were carried in a quiver. We may assume that close combat of infantry was the prevailing kind of war actions for the tribes of MNC, and that the copper/bronze dagger became the most popular implement both for war and for hunting. Statistical analysis of MNC burials shows that gold and semiprecious stones are basically connected with graves which contain copper/bronze weaponry (more than 40 cases). Burials with gold items and without weaponry are very rare. Few of them belong to women. It is also necessary to underline that burials of MNC with weaponry often include also carpentry’s tools, such as flat wide bladed chisels and narrow bladed chisels. The Maikop kurgan occupies a special position in statistic analysis. This complex includes different artifacts for war, agriculture, carpentry, feast, cultic ceremonies, and personal ornaments with symbols of worship of a goodness of Life, Love and War, similar to the Mesopotamian Inanna - Ishtar. These data allow us to come to the conclusion that funerary complexes with weaponry and gold in cultic burials of different groups of MNC should mainly represent the graves of the military élite of Maikop’s tribes, like chiefs and war ‘big-men’; however, the prestige of labor must have been very important as well for this stratum of the society. There also exists a unique grave of a top cult leader of an androgynous character (Oshad). Burials with only tools of carpentry or, in alternative, gold items are absent. Burial goods with semiprecious stones are connected with graves of war - religious élites and with burials of high ranking women - and are accompanied by gold artifacts. On the basis of the kind of attested semi-precious stones it is possible to ascertain the existence of distant contacts of the Maikop military and religious élites, in particular with the ‘lapislazuli’ route, which expands from the Badakhshan deposit over Afghanistan and the South Caucasus to the Northern Caucasus. It is dated to the beginning of the 4th millennium BC. On the basis of statistical data, it is possible to note that gold in burials is especially associated with big daggers of ‘Kishpek type’ in the Terek region, daggers-razors, unique sword, copper/bronze axes, arrowheads and simple leaf-shaped daggers. The special prestige of burials with weaponry is underlined by the presence of copper/bronze bowls for feasts and cultic ceremonies, and forks. This represents the beginning of the tradition, which later spread over the world, to organize feasts by chiefs for their warriors (either in the real or in the ‘other’ world). The analysis of funerary goods with weaponry of MNC allows us to assume that tribes of MNC stayed at the threshold of the passage between the Early and Late Pre-state periods. They represented one of the most powerful and warlike cultural communities of western Asia in the Uruk period. However, the transformation of the MNC into a Late Pre-state society did not come into being. In spite of the high level of warfare, at the end of 4th and the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC the MNC disappeared. A new stage of warfare came in the Caucasus with mobile transport under new natural conditions.


Networks of craft and materials in the Chalcolithic: a comparison of metallurgical evidence from Iran and the southern Caucasus (session 2)
Helwing, Barbara (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut – Germany)
The development of metallurgy since the later 6th millennium BC and throughout the Chalcolithic period took place in different places at different times and pace, depending on various factors such as the availability of raw materials and the command of this specific craft and knowledge. Networks of raw material circulation and schools of craftsmen's skills developed that allowed the travelling of materials, skills and knowledge. An analysis of metal artefacts and metal processing residues can make these networks visible as patterned distributions of raw material and alloys, artefact types and craft traditions. The southern Caucasus as a major raw material source for metals such as copper, gold, and antimony is one player in these metallurgical networks. Beyond the raw material availability, a highly skilled and original metallurgy flourished there since the onset of the Kura-Araxes period. It is the aim of the presentation to compare the pre-Kura-Araxes steps of metallurgical processing in the southern Caucasus with parallel developments in the neighbouring regions, especially with the highlands of Iran where recent research has greatly enhanced our understanding of these early periods of metal working. It will become visible that the Southern Caucasus and highland Iran shared some aspects of metal working, while other fields of material culture and lifestyle remained on separate tracks.

Prehistoric ring enclosures in the North Caucasus and their European parallels (session 7)
Belinskij, Andrej B. (GUP Nasledie – Russia) – Faßbinder, Jörg (Department für Geo- und Umweltwissenschaften Geophysik, Universität München – Germany) – Reinhold, Sabine (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut – Germany)
The implementation of remote sensing technologies to detect archaeological objects, which traditional field walking methods fail to identify in the North Caucasus, has led to the discovery of a completely new spectrum of sites. Among them are huge ring enclosures, which share an identical construction with internal ditches and surrounding walls. The diameter of these ring enclosures varies between 60 to 200 meters. At the moment more than 20 sites have been identified, which even though the objects are mostly still visible on the ground were not recognised as prehistoric sites. Since 2010 preliminary investigation of these rings was started in an international program by GUP ‘Nasledie’, Stavropol’ region (Russia), Eurasia Department DAI and LMU Munich (Germany). Meanwhile eight enclosures are measured using a Cesium SM4G magnetometer with total configuration. Beside the walls and ditches, no further structures have been discovered inside the enclosures. Thus they are certainly no settlement sites. Microtopographic plans prepared with differential GPS Leica 900/1200 allow modelling the magnetometry plans in 3D, giving an impression on the topography. A first test trench in a ditch revealed mixed filing, which included Majkop, Koban and Sarmatian ceramic fragments. By shape, size, layout, and missing of settlements features inside, however, the Caucasian rings closely resemble European ‘rondels’ from the Late Neolithic. Such are mainly known in Germany, Austria, Hungary and Slovakia. Yet, the enclosures likewise resemble structures such as Avebury in Great Britain. Further investigations must proof the chronological position of these structures, which are perhaps the most Eastern aspects of a pan-European phenomenon.

alan
06-12-2013, 10:53 PM
This one needs extra attention IMO:

The Latest Eneolithic – Early Bronze Age of the Black Sea Steppe in the Context of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaia Culture Development (the Second Half of the 4th Millennium BC) (session 2)Rassamakin, Yuri Y. (National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine – Ukraine)


The paper focuses on specific burial sites in the mounds of the steppe zone from the Lower Don River to the Lower Danube and Prut Rivers. These sites were identified in the 70s of the 20th century. They are known as the burials of Zhivotilovska or Zhivotilovka-Volchansk type. Funeral ceremony (flexed position on the side, flexed hands in the front of face) and accompanied artifacts (ceramics, ornaments) indicate the connections with the Maikop-Novosvobodnaia culture (late period) in the North Caucasus, on the one hand, and with Tripolye culture (period C/2), on the other hand. The burials of the Zhivotilova-Volchansk type are untypical for the Black Sea steppe funeral traditions. They reflect a movement/migration of new populations in the steppe region between two different regions of the existence of the Late Maikop-Novosvobodnaia culture and the Latest local groups of the Tripolye culture (Usatovo, Gordineşti). There are several problems in the study of these monuments: 1. what are the reasons that led to the movement/migration of the population?; 2. what is the role of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaia culture and what is the role of the Latest Tripolye culture during the collapse of both?; 3. whether these processes are related to the situation in the Caucasus and in Eastern Anatolia (Arslantepe VIA) during the Late Uruk period

alan
06-12-2013, 11:59 PM
A conference in Glasgow at Xmas 2012 included this presentation

Prof. Yuri Rassamakin
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Black Sea Steppe in the Copper Age: Between Balkans and Caucasus


"Different cultures in the Pontic steppe during the Copper Age (4750? ‐ 3000/2900 BC) existed in the context of development and under the influence of an agricultural world. In this paper the author focuses on the early and late periods of the Copper Age in the steppe zone. In the early period of the Copper Age (4750? ‐ 4200/4100 BC) the steppe world took part in prestigious exchange, on the one hand, with the pre‐Maikop culture (Svobodnoe‐Meshoko type of settlements) in the Northern Caucasus and, on the other hand, with the Cucuteni‐Tripolye and the Karanovo‐Gumelnitsa‐Varna cultures in the Balkan‐Carpathian region (ceramics, copper and gold objects). The early burials and artifacts of the period show that the mobile groups of the steppe population (the socalled "early kurgan people" or “groups of the steppe elites”) played a basic role in communications between the different farming regions. The middle period of the Copper Age shows the mainly active influences of the Cucuteni‐Tripolye Culture on cultural development in the Pontic steppe region. The late period of the Copper Age (3500/3400 ‐ 3000/2900 BC) shows the active influences of the Maikop‐Novosvobodnaya Culture on the Pontic steppe region. We can not only see imported ceramics in the burials, but can also assume the movement of some population groups through the distribution of so‐called burial of the Zhivotilovka‐Volchansk type. The materials from these burials show us the close connection of the Maikop‐Novosvobodnaya and Late Tripolye traditions. An active role in this process was evidently played by Northern Caucasian impulses.
Antonia Santangelo"

alan
06-13-2013, 12:35 AM
looks like the Grand fromage of late Neolithic-copper Age north Caucasus and adjacent areas of the western steppes is Prof. Yuri Rassamakin of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. He is the author of three of the most interesting of the papers I have just posted on the subject.

This is another chapter by him discussed in a book review

http://www.csen.org/Articles_Reivews/Levine_Review.html

TigerMW
06-13-2013, 12:55 AM
Thanks, Alan.


A conference in Glasgow at Xmas 2012 included this presentation
Prof. Yuri Rassamakin
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Black Sea Steppe in the Copper Age: Between Balkans and Caucasus


".... In the early period of the Copper Age (4750? ‐ 4200/4100 BC) the steppe world took part in prestigious exchange, on the one hand, with the pre‐Maikop culture (Svobodnoe‐Meshoko type of settlements) in the Northern Caucasus and, on the other hand, with the Cucuteni‐Tripolye and the Karanovo‐Gumelnitsa‐Varna cultures in the Balkan‐Carpathian region (ceramics, copper and gold objects).
....
The late period of the Copper Age (3500/3400 ‐ 3000/2900 BC) shows the active influences of the Maikop‐Novosvobodnaya Culture on the Pontic steppe region. We can not only see imported ceramics in the burials, but can also assume the movement of some population groups through the distribution of so‐called burial of the Zhivotilovka‐Volchansk type
...

Umm... two things as you've highlighted.

The Steppes people become the transportaion/trade function so if their language became the Lingu Franca, that's what you'd expect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca
Perhaps they weren't that function directly, but paying them for safe passage/protection may have been part of that. I suppose inter-marriage alliances could be part of the deal.

The second is Rassamakin's proposed population movement into the Steppes from the Maykops. Since, kurgans apparently were invented by the Maykops, that is just further evidence. Ironically, there are other viewpoints that take great pains to emphasize the Caucasus was an impenetrable barrier and there could only be migration from the Steppes into Caucasus because (and I'll quote) the "plains people were more powerful." Oh, well. I'm not sure it matters anyway. :)

alan
06-13-2013, 01:00 AM
Kohl's recent book on The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia seems to have a superb section on the Caucasus (see from p61 in this sample)L

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pA1-3KfkpuwC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=svobodnoe+Neolithic&source=bl&ots=hSAYh-JIc-&sig=E-Ze8miQlwFNz-ljOKECD0moYVo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=axe5UZDSGoWR0AXA1oCwCw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=svobodnoe%20Neolithic&f=false

alan
06-14-2013, 08:48 PM
Tell you what, Prof. Yuri Rassamakin is a very interesting scholar. He seems to believe that the entire Yamnaya concept is wrong. I may start a thread on this later once I get my head around it more.

Anyway here is his latest video on Maykop!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUFBLLAgQU8

alan
06-14-2013, 09:34 PM
This book review mentions a chapter by him that questions the Yamnaya interpretation

http://www.csen.org/Articles_Reivews/Levine_Review.html

alan
06-15-2013, 02:38 PM
The more data that is emerging the more that Maykop and its offshoot related cultures in the steppes is looking far more important than any other culture. It essentially is responsible for so much of what later was emulated on the steppes including Kurgans, steep hierarchy, local working of metals and control of trade, possible the wheel, wool. I suspect much of that is behind groups turning mobile. Indeed recent papers suggest that the mobility we see probably relates to trade and the actual evidence for mobile pastoralism is almost absent. In a sense Maykop is the primary influence on creating what we think of as early IE society as opposed to simple steppes hunter-farmers. Rassamikin even states that the evidence for horse riding is very poor indeed and its much easier to substantiat waggons pulled by cattle than horse riding. After a lot of reading into this subject and looking for the most recent papers etc on it I had actually come to the same conclusion myself about mobility even before I read an expert lik Rassamikin state this. What appears as mobility of pastoralism may simply have been a method to trade over wide areas using new. The technology to do this probably passed into the steppes by Maykop elements who extended trade and the CMP into the ara and would certainly have required the wheel to explain parts of its journeys.

Of course once these ideas etc were available some non-Maykop peoples in the steppes would have copied them and it is natural to assume that they may have wanted a slice of the cake. I think the best thing I can say is take everything you have read before the last 10 years about the evolution of the steppes in the Neolithic and copper age with a pinch of salt. The old Yamnaya focussed model is crumbling. The new evidence could place Maykop at the centre of the genesis of PIE society. That doesnt make it a non-steppe model as a significant part of the Maykop area is steppe.

Clearly this causes some pause for thought about PIE. Now before anyone thinks I am ditching the steppe model completely, that is not what I am suggesting. Maykop is situated in the north Caucasus, including steppe land. The backstory of Maykop seems to be that the Maykop area featured a very late Neolithic intrusion in the 5000s. However there is strong evidence that there was also a steppic element in the area that was hunter-pastoralist. The Maykop phenomenon is probably some complex result of these mixed steppe hunter-herders, farmers from elsewhere, Iranian elements involved in trade and possibly other elements brought in in small numbers through the wider CMP network. The bottom line is that in pre-Maykop times the northern Caucasus was largely a pastoralist group. Even in Maykop times their settlements have no resemblance to SW Asian farming ones. The settlements were short lived in the better lands and extremely short lived in the steppe part of the north Caucasus.

Maykop seems to have been an opportunity to exploit a rare natural route from Caspain Iran through the north Caucasus by the steppe there, the Kuban river to Azov and into a network of rivers through the western steppe. I think that this phenomenon was the result of an opportunity to supply the western steppes and the Balkans when the Carpatho-Balkan metal network and its supporting cultures collapsed around 4000BC or so. It may have began in its its early phase as simply a supply (presumably on wheels given the lack of navigable rivers from Iran to Maykop) for the north Caucasus area population from Iran but there was very soon after presented an opportunity to take a big slice of the metal trade in the steppe and SE Europe and other areas.

The question that cannot be answered with total confidence is the yDNA mix. However, I think enough is known about the north Caucasus now to say that it was probably an ecclectic mix (it may or may not be relevant but the non-ancestral groups absorbed by the much later Tatars who held the Ukraine steppes is extremely ecclectic). The earliest element was probably hunter-fishers-herders. I would imagine they would have been focussed at the NW end of the Maykop area near the larger bodies of water and rivers there. The second element is likely to have been farmers who seem to be thought most likely to have arrived from the south Caucasus. They would likely have settled in the northern piedmont of the north Caucasus and perhaps the Kuban river. The third element may have been Caspian north Iranian traders and specialists. They most likely crossed the steppe fringe of the north Caucasus until the Kuban area was reached. A fourth element may have been elements coming along the early (more southern focussed) CMP or proto-CMP trade lines including NE Anatolia/Uruk extension.

The problem is that all of these population strata seem to be first attested in the same sort of period 5000-4000BC so its hard to infer much from the age of the various clades and haplogroups. It does seem overwhelmingly likely that R1b was one of the strata involved in Maykop. The takeoff age and even geography of early P297 clades M269, L23XL51 and M73 fit an expansion under and with Maykop and its derivatives very well. The fact R1b wasnt doing much before that and seems to lack a pre M269/M73 backstory in terms of modern populations anywhere does hint that we should rule out the Uruk and the late Neolithic farmers from the Caucasus. That leaves the choice between the local natives of the north Caucasus-steppe interface and Iranian specialists/traders.

The Iran option is problemenatic in the sense that the devil is in the detail. Some parts of Iran were very early involved in farming and would not make a good correlate for R1b as the latter took off about 4000 years later. However, some of the important areas in early Iranian metallurgy on the bleak Iran plateau appear to have not recieved farming until 6000BC or later, a much better fit for the subsequent takeoff of M269 and M73. I wouldnt rule out the alternative of R1b simply being within the native hunter-fisher-herders of the north Caucasus though.

There is an apparent lack of the P297* early Neolithic period ancestor of those lineages anywhere. Given the perhaps 4 or 5 thousand year gap between that ancestral SNP and the two surviving branches just mentioned, I think its fair to say that until 5000-4000BC the lineages was living a marginal existance outside the main early farming areas. That could fit either a a home among the late hunter-fisher-herder steppe type groups in the north Caucasus or some group from an area of the Iran plateau that was very marginal until the riches of metals in the area became a factor.

One thing that might favour the Iran hypothesis is that the very rare root R-M343* in a recent study of Iran (which actually could include P25* as they didnt test for it) has a better representation than normal in Iran. It rises to 4.3% among the ethnic Pesians of Yazd a little north of centre and and 3.2 among Azeri of Azerbaijan in the north-west. It also shows among the Gilaks of Gilan in the extreme north, the Persians of Khorasan in the north-east and the Kurds of Kurdestan in the north-west in lower numbers. That is very much a northern distribution within iran. A thesis I quoted on the Maykop thead stated:

The period ca. 6000-5000 BC witnessed an efflorescence of settlement, with as well as the aforementioned regions, settlements also appearing for the first time in the Ushnu-Solduz Valley of northwestern Iran, a pattern which continued into the period 5000-4000 BC

This is the area mentioned in the quote

http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/47-2/Returning.pdf

So NW Iran (where M269 -prob L23XL51) peaks in Iran is indeed a very late take up zone for farming. The dates closesly fit the estimated ages of M73 and M269.

ser
06-30-2013, 06:47 PM
The more data that is emerging the more that Maykop and its offshoot related cultures in the steppes is looking far more important than any other culture. It essentially is responsible for so much of what later was emulated on the steppes including Kurgans, steep hierarchy, local working of metals and control of trade, possible the wheel, wool. I suspect much of that is behind groups turning mobile. Indeed recent papers suggest that the mobility we see probably relates to trade and the actual evidence for mobile pastoralism is almost absent.

Seems quite possible, especially since testing in the lba seems to show the settling process in the Volga Urals was not because of agricultural changes as originally supposed.

If it was so mixed, where do the non R1b Maikop fit in, in later migrations that would bring R1b westward? What would their contribution/legacy be?

alan
07-01-2013, 09:39 PM
@ser
I am not sure. I did think about that but it's tremendously difficult to look at relationships between groups.

Maykop seems to me to have involved steppe, farmer and possibly traders linked to Iran. There could have easily been G, R1b and R1b and others. However we cannot forget that 5 or 6 thousand years have passed and the area has had a complicated history.

I am not a believer in mono lineage populations although a clan can be dominated by one lineage so it all depends on whether we are dealing with a population or just a clan or whether the clan is the same thing as the whole population or just an elite . The structure of R1b is suggestive of rapid expansion of clan like lineages from 4000bc and especially after 3000BC.

I have long had a suspicion of DNA testing royal or high status graves, kurgans etc because they are most likely to be an extended royal family or elite clan and would all share the same DNA. That could be very misleading.

DMXX
07-04-2013, 02:49 AM
Firstly, it's an excellent find alan. I have something of a fondness for longheld beliefs being shattered by data. I admit I have been a proponent of the idea of R1b-L23's corelands being to the south of the Caucasus.

Haven't had a chance to read through the entire thread, but I note from the supplementary table that there are no downstream SNP's beyond R1b-M269 listed. I also observed that they used 52 Y-SNP's. I counted approx. 50 on their chart alone.

Unless the remaining few SNP's are dedicated to downstream M269 subclades, or there's some accompanying STR evidence showing unprecedented variance north of the Caucasus, it may very well be a case of genetic drift taking place. We've seen several strong examples of this in the Caucasus already (subtype of G2a strongly associated with Iranic-speaking Ossetians).

alan
07-06-2013, 01:55 AM
The pattern I refer to and observations are based on the division along the great Caucasus. That is a much stronger barrier than there is a the north-west or Caspian Sea end of the north Caucasus area. It was a prevailing cultural barrier between the north and South Caucasus. Essentially this is very strongly reflected in archaeology. The north Caucasus naturally connected to NW Iran and. The south steppe but are naturally separated from the South Caucasus. So it is wrong to think of the caucasus as a unit in this period. Maykop is now argued to be due to the NW Iran link with the north Caucasus. This was culturally and archaeologically a completely different world from the Kura araxes world which by the way is much later than maykop and far too late to have anything to do with R1b in Europe.

DMXX
07-06-2013, 06:19 PM
The pattern I refer to and observations are based on the division along the great Caucasus. That is a much stronger barrier than there is a the north-west or Caspian Sea end of the north Caucasus area. It was a prevailing cultural barrier between the north and South Caucasus. Essentially this is very strongly reflected in archaeology. The north Caucasus naturally connected to NW Iran and. The south steppe but are naturally separated from the South Caucasus. So it is wrong to think of the caucasus as a unit in this period. Maykop is now argued to be due to the NW Iran link with the north Caucasus. This was culturally and archaeologically a completely different world from the Kura araxes world which by the way is much later than maykop and far too late to have anything to do with R1b in Europe.

This doesn't relate to my post as it concerns archaeology and geography. My post concerns the genetic data presented in this thread.

There is, like you said, a smattering of R1b-M269 in the northern Caucasus. However, I could not see any evidence these R1b-M269 samples did not belong to a lineage subject to genetic drift.

The case for genetic drift in the Caucasus can be readily made based on numerous other examples. Do you have any observations based on genetics (not archaeological or geographical reasoning) that these R1b north Caucasians are not simply another example of genetic drift over there?

newtoboard
07-06-2013, 09:46 PM
This doesn't relate to my post as it concerns archaeology and geography. My post concerns the genetic data presented in this thread.

There is, like you said, a smattering of R1b-M269 in the northern Caucasus. However, I could not see any evidence these R1b-M269 samples did not belong to a lineage subject to genetic drift.

The case for genetic drift in the Caucasus can be readily made based on numerous other examples. Do you have any observations based on genetics (not archaeological or geographical reasoning) that these R1b north Caucasians are not simply another example of genetic drift over there?

This is what I have been trying to say. That and there is no evidence that this R1b in the North Caucasus isn't recent admixture from the South Caucasians settling in the North Caucasus and Iranian empires. People made the same big deal with the Bashkir R1b. Used it for evidence of R1b Tocharians and Proto Indo-Europeans when it was later discovered that Bashkir R1b is a recent introduction from the West that has undergone significant genetic drift in some Bashkir groups (and some Bashkir groups lack R1b altogether).

alan
07-07-2013, 09:52 AM
I do not get the idea that R1b is more likely to be recent movement from the South Caucasus. That is counterintuitive given the results of the paper. Why would someone conclude the opposite of the findings and cite drift etc? That just sounds like the old allergy to R1b being anywhere near the steppes.

As for the comment about providing an observation that doesn't use distribution, frequency, geogaphy or archaeology, that doesn't leave much to work with lol

DMXX
07-07-2013, 01:28 PM
I do not get the idea that R1b is more likely to be recent movement from the South Caucasus. That is counterintuitive given the results of the paper.


That is precisely the point; the paper made no explicit finding concerning R1b in the north Caucasus. You have observed "R1b1b2-M269" being frequent there and that's that. Yours is an assertion based on external factors (geography, archaeology) instead of additional genetic information.



Why would someone conclude the opposite of the findings and cite drift etc? That just sounds like the old allergy to R1b being anywhere near the steppes.


The idea of drift being involved is a counter assertion based on the prevailing trends in the more mountainous areas of the Caucasus.



As for the comment about providing an observation that doesn't use distribution, frequency, geogaphy or archaeology, that doesn't leave much to work with lol

Sure it does;
- STR data
- Downstream SNP definition
- Variance calculations in the main study
- At least a mentioning of R1b-M269 by the authors

I asked if there was any such data. I remember this study now, as I'd requested the raw Y-STR's from the authors but was not provided with every haplogroup owing to their commitment to new studies based on those numbers (only received J and G if I remember correctly). We therefore cannot manually calculate variance or MRCA's.

Furthermore, looking at the supplementary material, it does not appear they tested any SNP's downstream to M269. We therefore cannot tell either way if these Caucasians belong to European-specific downstream subclades (Russian admixture?), are another Caucasian example of drift or they really do represent a prehistoric pocket of R1b-M269.

Next, there is no mention of R1b-M269 in the main study, nor is there any information about variance or the like. They did calculate the coalescence of some Y-DNA J subclades, but not R.

Based on this, there is absolutely no convincing solid genetic data to support your claim of Y-DNA R1b-M269 not being in the north Caucasus due to Russian/European admixture of recent drift. Granted, there's nothing based on this study alone to support the other assertions anyway (other than drift being shown to occur in the region).

Jean M
07-07-2013, 01:48 PM
The previous study, Balanovsky et al 2011, did calculate a coalescence date for R1b1b2-M269 in the Ossets-Digor (800±300 at germline rate) and in Lezghins (2000±700 at germline rate).

DMXX
07-07-2013, 01:53 PM
The previous study, Balanovsky et al 2011, did calculate a coalescence date for R1b1b2-M269 in the Ossets-Digor (800±300 at germline rate) and in Lezghins (2000±700 at germline rate).

Then we have some hard evidence showing at least some of the R1b-M269 in the north Caucasus is very recent. Thank you Jean.

R.Rocca
07-07-2013, 03:40 PM
Based on Myres, we do know that almost 100% of M269 in the northern and southern Caucasus are L23(xL51), and therefore lacking in the European L51+. All commercially tested L23(xL51) have been Z2103/Z2105+ (incl. kits from both sides of the Caucasus). Since L51 and Z2103/Z2105 form separate branches below L23, neither can be derived from the other. Therefore, based on genetic phylogeny, the tested modern day L23+ people of the Caucasus are not the ancestors of the tested modern day L23+ populations of Western and Central Europe. This is an indisputable fact.

At this point in time, it is just as likely that we will find the very first L23(xL51,xZ2103/Z2105) sample somewhere in the Alps or Balkans than in Anatolia or the Caucasus.

alan
07-07-2013, 08:01 PM
Then we have some hard evidence showing at least some of the R1b-M269 in the north Caucasus is very recent. Thank you Jean.
Coalescence or intraclade is generally pretty useless info and even worse so in terms of mountain peoples. It is very likely based on previous studies that its nearly all L23xL51. Yes nothing is conclusive but it is likely that this paper reverses the general stereotyping of likely L23 distribution in the Caucasus. It's an interesting finding. I just think the suggestion has produced the sort of reaction because people have bought into a particular stereotyping of r1b. Several studies now
Show that L23xl51 rings the Black Sea except the area resettled by Slavs 2 or 300 years ago.

alan
07-07-2013, 08:34 PM
Based on Myres, we do know that almost 100% of M269 in the northern and southern Caucasus are L23(xL51), and therefore lacking in the European L51+. All commercially tested L23(xL51) have been Z2103/Z2105+ (incl. kits from both sides of the Caucasus). Since L51 and Z2103/Z2105 form separate branches below L23, neither can be derived from the other. Therefore, based on genetic phylogeny, the tested modern day L23+ people of the Caucasus are not the ancestors of the tested modern day L23+ populations of Western and Central Europe. This is an indisputable fact.

At this point in time, it is just as likely that we will find the very first L23(xL51,xZ2103/Z2105) sample somewhere in the Alps or Balkans than in Anatolia or the Caucasus.

I would certainly think the central point between the significant showing areas of all the more upstream forms just below L23 points to the broadly circumpontic zone including the Balkans. I do think though that we have then to look at the date for the earlier clades like M269*, L23xL51 and even L51* and then use the art of the possible by considering what happened in that era c. 4000BC to 3000BC that might explain the distributions. What we do not have is any major out of Anatolian movements. What we do have is movements involving maykop groups from the north Caucasus into the steppe, movements from the steppes of steppe peoples into the Balkans and movements involving farmers on the western edge of the steppes. We have new cultures made out of combinations of these elements. The dates of these vry well fits ages estimated for L23'eThese are the major movements of the period. We do not need to make up imaginery ones from Anatolia or the Middle East.

Why would anyone do that? It smacks of r1a-ism wjich jealously tries to deflect anything to do with PIE from R1b and finds alliance with those who prefer to see r1b from a more southerly location because they want it placed in their ethnic homeland as far back as possible even when mainstream historians place their origins elsewhere. I cannot be bothered with nationalism in this hobby.
If anything we have evidence for some movements into anatolia from the balkans and the South Caucasus in the period 3000 to 2000BC. Wrong direction and also too late to be relevant to the European R1b story. More a separate parallel branch of the R1b story. The only way a more southerly origin for R1b would be possible is if the date for L23 was pushed back to one or two thousand years into the 6000 to 5000BC timeline but for. Now L23 is normally being date to around 3500BC or so and I am working on that's basis until told otherwise

newtoboard
07-07-2013, 08:47 PM
The only nationalism here is yours in which you somehow think Western Europeans represent the gene pool of proto speakers of a language that developed in the South Urals better than Eastern Europeans. That motivates your Maykop is PIE views and trying to get Satem laanguages off the steepe and into Corded Ware.

alan
07-07-2013, 09:08 PM
The only nationalism here is yours in which you somehow think Western Europeans represent the gene pool of proto speakers of a language that developed in the South Urals better than Eastern Europeans. That is the only jealousy on here and motivates your Maykop is PIE speaking stories. A view which is only supported by posters on Eupedia.

Why would I care. I am a NW European and most of my ancestry probably has little to do with anyone in copper age
Eastern Europe or SW Asia. It's probably mostly Mesolithic and Neolithic. I never said maykop is ThE PIE story. I just said it was one scene along with steppe groups and nearby farmers too. There was a massive convolution on that period and it included both steppe people leaving the steppes and also farmers going deeper I to Ukraine. Maykop elements were also
Mixing with both. All elements were interacting around the time c 3500BC when Anatolia phase passed into PIE. So I think r1a, r1b and probable various non R farming clades from the Ukraine and just west were all blending at the time. I am simply challenging he sort of of r1a purist model that is seen on some sites that appear to have a childish r1a bs r1b angle to them.

alan
07-07-2013, 11:31 PM
@RR

Yes I think there are two strands to R1b in old Europe. The most clear is the one that appears to have ringed the Black Sea or at least much of its hinterland including the Balkans. The other seems to be hard to detect before L51 but if mjost is correct this may be because it is possibly as old as the other clades just downstream of L23. That would have implications IMO if true. It would tend to point towards the split between them happening somewhere at the junction of the immediate downstream L23 clades.'its not going to be a sharp boundary today but it would be fair to say that the junction would likely have lain somewhere in the area between Tyrol where L51 has a good showing and the NW or western shore of the Black Sea and Balkans. There seems to be some evidence for several high l23xL51 people's once were located in the more easterly Balkans - Greeks, Albanians, Armenians and Hittites. Those appear to be the mainstream ideas on their origin and most challenging of this smacks of nationalistic primordialism.

It is likely that the ethnogrnesis of these people's took place in a similar area where a number of steppe and farming strands collided. It is important to note too that such a mixing extended deep into Ukraine too and well east of just cuc tryp settlements. There was a broad zone of mixing of these elements in a more complex way than Anthony described 4 or 5 years ago and this mixing extended from the Balkans to the caspian albeit proportions of steppe, Caucasian and farming elements would have varied. I suspect that the distinct character of the various IE people's actually commenced soon after PIE and was due to a broad zone of PiE genesis rather than a Big Bang type version coming fromYamnaya expansion c 3000BC.

R.Rocca
07-08-2013, 12:42 AM
@RR

Yes I think there are two strands to R1b in old Europe. The most clear is the one that appears to have ringed the Black Sea or at least much of its hinterland including the Balkans. The other seems to be hard to detect before L51 but if mjost is correct this may be because it is possibly as old as the other clades just downstream of L23. That would have implications IMO if true. It would tend to point towards the split between them happening somewhere at the junction of the immediate downstream L23 clades.'its not going to be a sharp boundary today but it would be fair to say that the junction would likely have lain somewhere in the area between Tyrol where L51 has a good showing and the NW or western shore of the Black Sea and Balkans. There seems to be some evidence for several high l23xL51 people's once were located in the more easterly Balkans - Greeks, Albanians, Armenians and Hittites. Those appear to be the mainstream ideas on their origin and most challenging of this smacks of nationalistic primordialism.

It is likely that the ethnogrnesis of these people's took place in a similar area where a number of steppe and farming strands collided. It is important to note too that such a mixing extended deep into Ukraine too and well east of just cuc tryp settlements. There was a broad zone of mixing of these elements in a more complex way than Anthony described 4 or 5 years ago and this mixing extended from the Balkans to the caspian albeit proportions of steppe, Caucasian and farming elements would have varied. I suspect that the distinct character of the various IE people's actually commenced soon after PIE and was due to a broad zone of PiE genesis rather than a Big Bang type version coming fromYamnaya expansion c 3000BC.

Perhaps this will some day be of relevance as it is close to where the split may have occurred...

Stadler et al. (2001) Absolute chronology for early civilizations in Austria and Central Europe using 14C dating with accelerator mass spectrometry with special results for the absolute chronology of the Baden Culture


Conclusion:
So far, about 27% of the samples originally planned within this project (1000), 17% of the samples collected (1555) are analysed. As we demonstrated in this report, already interesting results evolved. It seems clear that the original goal of obtaining better absolute chronology is demonstrated by this subset of available data.

For the Baden Culture two groups can be differentiated, Baden-Boleráz and Baden-Classical, which can be confirmed very well by radiocarbon dates. Baden-Boleráz begins much earlier than expected, about 3640-3370 BC, Baden-Classical lasts from 3360 to 2930 BC. The site from Arbon Bleiche 3, which contains among material from late Pfyn and early Horgen such of late Boleráz, fits very well in between the two Baden phases. The ideas of an Eastern genesis of the Baden Culture must be cross-checked by dating new samples of the Eastern parallels, because the current dates would not allow such influences. On the contrary - at the moment - it seems possible that the Baden Culture (Boleráz) developed somewhere in Lower Austria, Burgenland, Moravia, Slovakia and Western Hungary and then spread to the East.

alan
07-08-2013, 01:10 PM
Perhaps this will some day be of relevance as it is close to where the split may have occurred...

Stadler et al. (2001) Absolute chronology for early civilizations in Austria and Central Europe using 14C dating with accelerator mass spectrometry with special results for the absolute chronology of the Baden Culture



If we were forced to find an R1b location that doesnt involve either Maykop or steppe cultures c. 3500BC, a position around the eastern Balkans/NW Black Sea etc is massively more likely than one in the south Caucasus and adjacent east Anatolia. At least we know there were relatively late farming expansions into that area so perhaps the late expansion of R1b can be squared with that. We also know that some of the east Balkans cultures had had two way links with NW Anatolia as well as the dairying linke c. 5000BC. We also know that there were massive expansions, crashes and remouldings of farming groups in the NW of the Black Sea shore and Balkans. I also read recently that some new steppe cultures were created c. 3500BC by farmers heading east through the Ukraine and mixing with Maykop and steppe elements just north of the Caucasus, something that may surprise people who have only read about farmers legging it or becoming clients of steppe peoples. Collectively it is possible that that could explain much of L23's distribution by the upheavals of farmers near the steppe edge and the remoulding of these into new cultures as well as a presence in the western steppes at the time PIE arose. We also have at least some evidence from historians, archaeology and/or linguists that several later L23XL51-rich IE peoples may have had a prior existence in the east Balkans and perhaps had their ethnogensis there in the farmer-steppe cultural soup c. 4000-3000BC. So it cannot be ruled out that L23 originated among Old Europeans on the steppe's and Black Sea's shared NW fringe. It probaby does slighty strain the dates or push them back a little though.

I dont think there is much of a case for L23* being linked with eastern Anatolia or Mesopotamia or the south Caucasus originally (which may annoy primordalists among the Armenians and Assyrians especially). Now I have read into this and thought about it a bit it just does not seem to work and it is easier to accept the evidence for most IE branches in Anatolia as being ex-Balkans. R1b has far too late a take off anywhere to have been in the extremely early farming zone in eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Zagross etc. That would be almost absurd given R1b (and its really P297 that matters) did zilch until 4 or 5000BC. In the big picture there is no archaeological evidence for south Caucasians or peoples from adjacent east Anatolia spreading north through the great Caucasus or west of the Black Sea into the present L23XL51 rich zones in the 4000-3000BC timeframe that matters. Ultimately there seems to have been a late north to south influence through the great Caucasus c. 2400BC that breached nearly 2000 years of separation. That could also be linked to R1b as well as other elements in the south Caucasus and adhacent although this is too late to be relevant to European R1b - already known at Kromsdorf in 2600BC. It is also worth noting that at this point any IE settlers passing though the Caucasus from north to south at that time had known the wheel for 1000 years and so would be very odd to link this to the Anatolian branch peoples. It is a virtual certainty under any model that a north to south route through the Caucasus did not bring the Anatolian IEs to Anatolia.

In short I dont think there is any mileage in placing M269 or its ancestral P297 or its close brother clade M73 in the early farming zone of east Anatolia, Mesopotamia or indeed the southern Caucasus. Its the wrong zone to match R1b's late springing into action and there is no evidence of movement from that zone until far too late (better evidence for movement INTO Anatolia in the Bronze Age). I got a bit angred when attempts were made to explain north Caucasus R1b by an intrusion by far more R1b-poor South Caucasians followed by a founder effect. That would mean very rare south Caucasian R1b entered several separate north Caucasian tribes and just so happened each time to have a founder effect. Why would someone even suggest such a counterintuitive explanation for my finding that non-Armenian R1b is far more common in the north Caucasus than the south. I think that showed some people have 'favoured outcome' rather than a scientific approach.

newtoboard
07-08-2013, 06:12 PM
So clrearly these R1b IE groups had no Mesolithic European ancestri since people think that these Assyrian and Armenian R1b carriers trace their lineage to Europe while carrying none to minor (<5%) Mesolithic European ancestry. Good stuff. Takes quite an imagination to come up with this.

TigerMW
07-08-2013, 08:35 PM
So clrearly these R1b IE groups had no Mesolithic European ancestri since people think that these Assyrian and Armenian R1b carriers trace their lineage to Europe while carrying none to minor (<5%) Mesolithic European ancestry. Good stuff. Takes quite an imagination to come up with this.

I don't see where you've fully expressed the logic of your position. I'm not sure what affirmative position you are taking here, but just apparently arguing against some speculations that you may disagree with. What you are saying happened?

[[[Mikewww/Moderator on 07/08/2013: From a moderator perspective, please try to avoid sarcastic criticism that is personal. You are implying that someone has to have a wild and crazy imagination to have these opinions that you disagree with. You may be right on your points, but please criticize the points only and stay away from criticizing someone else's thought processes or imagination. That distracts from the topic. ]]]

R.Rocca
07-08-2013, 08:50 PM
So clrearly these R1b IE groups had no Mesolithic European ancestri since people think that these Assyrian and Armenian R1b carriers trace their lineage to Europe while carrying none to minor (<5%) Mesolithic European ancestry. Good stuff. Takes quite an imagination to come up with this.

Pathans of Pakistan carry small amounts of European autosomal DNA and yet they are 50%+ R1a. Not sure why it would be hard to believe for R1b and Armenians.

TigerMW
07-08-2013, 09:28 PM
.... Why would anyone do that? It smacks of r1a-ism wjich jealously tries to deflect anything to do with PIE from R1b and finds alliance with those who prefer to see r1b from a more southerly location because they want it placed in their ethnic homeland as far back as possible even when mainstream historians place their origins elsewhere. I cannot be bothered with nationalism in this hobby....

[[[ Mikewww/Moderator on 07/08/2013: I'm just catching up on all of this. I'm not sure how it got started but let's not attempt to ascribe motives to folks. I suppose I'm guilty of that from time to time but I don't think we need to ascertain why people think what they do, so much as if they have any case for their position. Let's argue the case, is all I'm saying.]]]

DMXX
07-08-2013, 09:38 PM
Pathans of Pakistan carry small amounts of European autosomal DNA and yet they are 50%+ R1a. Not sure why it would be hard to believe for R1b and Armenians.

Using the open-source projects as a reference, Pakistani Pathans carry a significant (12-18% depending on the run) amount of the North European component and have quite a bit of Y-DNA R1a1a (approaches 50% as you stated).

On the other hand, Armenians have less than 3% of the same North European component (once European-admixed individuals are removed from datasets) and have less than 5% Y-DNA R1a1a.

alan
07-08-2013, 10:01 PM
So clrearly these R1b IE groups had no Mesolithic European ancestri since people think that these Assyrian and Armenian R1b carriers trace their lineage to Europe while carrying none to minor (<5%) Mesolithic European ancestry. Good stuff. Takes quite an imagination to come up with this.

In the west it is generally thought that most of the autosomal DNA pre-dates the period R1b arrived and many of these areas in the Atlantic zone are extremely high in R1b. Noone I am aware of has claimed that R1b men were anything other than a very minor input into the autosomal DNA of western Europe and the same reasoning can equally apply when it travelled into Armenia and Mesopotamia. Male lines lose most of their original autosomal DNA within just a handful of generations of marrying locals on their travels. Kromsdorf already indicates that the beaker people of 2600BC in Germany were marrying ecclectically.

alan
07-08-2013, 10:08 PM
Pathans of Pakistan carry small amounts of European autosomal DNA and yet they are 50%+ R1a. Not sure why it would be hard to believe for R1b and Armenians.

Indeed and also to the man on the street autosomal DNA collections probably translate into phenotype differences and its clear that one area high in R1b and another can clearly be very different. Same is true of R1a and any yline. Clearly the marriage networks that ylines join as they travel has a huge effect on the overall genetics. I think in general autosomal DNA also tends to form self-fulfilling clusters based on geography/marriage networks and clusters often end up mimiking actual maps and are of little use in projecting back into the past.

Northern Line
07-08-2013, 10:21 PM
In the west it is generally thought that most of the autosomal DNA pre-dates the period R1b arrived and many of these areas in the Atlantic zone are extremely high in R1b. Noone I am aware of has claimed that R1b men were anything other than a very minor input into the autosomal DNA of western Europe and the same reasoning can equally apply when it travelled into Armenia and Mesopotamia. Male lines lose most of their original autosomal DNA within just a handful of generations of marrying locals on their travels. Kromsdorf already indicates that the beaker people of 2600BC in Germany were marrying ecclectically.

This is quite interesting. Is it possible that we may lose the trail of European R1b the further east we go because the relevant R1b in the east may have already been replaced by recent incomers? I've misunderstood Y-DNA I think. I was under the assumption that R1b at 90% in Ireland for example meant that Irish people are 90% made up of Bell Beaker people in all their genetic ancestry. Whereas the truth is that the base genetics will not have changed hugely?

alan
07-08-2013, 10:29 PM
So clrearly these R1b IE groups had no Mesolithic European ancestri since people think that these Assyrian and Armenian R1b carriers trace their lineage to Europe while carrying none to minor (<5%) Mesolithic European ancestry. Good stuff. Takes quite an imagination to come up with this.

Besides do we actually know the the degree of Mesolithic component in all the groups from the Urals to the Danube who were within the plausible zone of PIE genesis? There was a wide mixture of farming and steppic and also Caucasus elements in that zone around 3500BC and it is possible that they were extremely variable in how much of each component they had. There could have been more westerly groups with a larger Old European element who were nevertheless within the Ukraine for instance.

I repeat my point about the Anatolian branch. They (within a steppe model) simply had to have been as far away as possible from the Caucasus-steppe interface area before 3500BC or they would have picked up wheel vocab from that area where the wheel was especially early. It is simply impossible for Anatolian branch IEs to have come north to south through the Caucasus (and archaeology strongly confirms this lack in the relevant period) and they pretty well had to have come from the Balkans if any sort of steppe model is used. So, it was a well established route. We also know from the depictions of Hittites etc that they early were of a middle eastern appearance, something that at the moment has to act as a proxy for autosomal DNA. They also probably were a widespread and perhaps thin elite given the massive Hittite empire that covered a huge area and its unlikely much of their autosomal DNA would have survived a rapid expansion like that. So there is a strong prescedent for Bronze Age movements of IEs from the Balkans to Anatolia and for rapid alteration of their overall DNA (all of course assuming the steppe model is correct). It is no big deal to see this later repeated by Armenians. The latter too have had millenia in Armenia now so there has been a lot of time to alter their autosomal DNA.

TigerMW
07-08-2013, 10:45 PM
Perhaps this will some day be of relevance as it is close to where the split may have occurred...
Stadler et al. (2001) Absolute chronology for early civilizations in Austria and Central Europe using 14C dating with accelerator mass spectrometry with special results for the absolute chronology of the Baden Culture
Stadler, 2001, wrote
The ideas of an Eastern genesis of the Baden Culture must be cross-checked by dating new samples of the Eastern parallels, because the current dates would not allow such influences. On the contrary - at the moment - it seems possible that the Baden Culture (Boleráz) developed somewhere in Lower Austria, Burgenland, Moravia, Slovakia and Western Hungary and then spread to the East.

I think the Balkan Peninsula or the Middle Danube area are possible places for R1b-L23 to split, with L51 (and the future L11) going west while L23xL51 ebbs back to the east.

My difficulty in accepting this as most probable falls back to where did a) M269xL23 come from then? and then b) R1b-P297xM296 and then c) R1b-P25/L278 or L389 less P297? As we go back in branching, we keep ending up back in Asia, but apparently out of the way of the Neolithic advances west.

It's easy for me to geographically see a route through or from Anatolia and across the Bosphorus, but other than maybe dairy farming, I haven't heard much of a movement to have gotten R1b over into Baden Culture.

It seems like everything comes back to Black Sea for a launchpad, either over, below or through. Whether R1b was found earlier south of the Caucasus mountains and in Western Anatolia or rather north of the mountains and along the Caspian Sea to Iran is a huge determinant. I think the earlier branches of R1b are more towards Iran, which is why I lean towards that alternative, assuming there is that NW Iran/Caspian/North Caucasus connection.

Oh, yes, even in this thread it's been cited. Don't forget about the lapis lazuli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapis_lazuli) ! :)

R.Rocca
07-09-2013, 02:28 AM
Stadler, 2001, wrote
The ideas of an Eastern genesis of the Baden Culture must be cross-checked by dating new samples of the Eastern parallels, because the current dates would not allow such influences. On the contrary - at the moment - it seems possible that the Baden Culture (Boleráz) developed somewhere in Lower Austria, Burgenland, Moravia, Slovakia and Western Hungary and then spread to the East.

I think the Balkan Peninsula or the Middle Danube area are possible places for R1b-L23 to split, with L51 (and the future L11) going west while L23xL51 ebbs back to the east.

My difficulty in accepting this as most probable falls back to where did a) M269xL23 come from then? and then b) R1b-P297xM296 and then c) R1b-P25/L278 or L389 less P297? As we go back in branching, we keep ending up back in Asia, but apparently out of the way of the Neolithic advances west.

It's easy for me to geographically see a route through or from Anatolia and across the Bosphorus, but other than maybe dairy farming, I haven't heard much of a movement to have gotten R1b over into Baden Culture.

It seems like everything comes back to Black Sea for a launchpad, either over, below or through. Whether R1b was found earlier south of the Caucasus mountains and in Western Anatolia or rather north of the mountains and along the Caspian Sea to Iran is a huge determinant. I think the earlier branches of R1b are more towards Iran, which is why I lean towards that alternative, assuming there is that NW Iran/Caspian/North Caucasus connection.

Oh, yes, even in this thread it's been cited. Don't forget about the lapis lazuli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapis_lazuli) ! :)

Anything is possible, but if M269(xL23) left a genetic impact a few times greater in the central Balkans than elsewhere, I'm not sure why anyone would have difficulty with accepting the Danube as an origin and splitting point for L23. In fact, I think the probability of L51 arising anywhere east of the Alps is highly unlikely and haven't seen any evidence or even a good argument to the contrary. Now when we start going back to P297, we could be talking about a difference of thousands of years, so again, anything is possible. I just know from history that migrations are almost never unidirectional, and to think that the path of R1b was a one way ticket from Central Asia to Ireland is just not realistic. If we look at a place like the Balkans, we know from the historical period alone that empires came and went in all directions. I think the same thing happened with R1b.

newtoboard
07-09-2013, 02:15 PM
I meant Assyrians have significant R1b but have close to 0% Northern European in most runs. And Armenians are not much different despite carrying so much R1b (in addition to R1a). And how would this explain Assyrian R1b in the first place? I hope you're not suggesting Armenian R1b made its way into the Assyrian R1b gene pool especially since history suggests Armenians were dominated by Assyrians and not the other way around.

Pashtun R1a is likely founder effect at work. You often notice the groups with the highest amount of R1a are mountain groups, extrmely small ethnic groups, nomadic groups or endogamous groups with a few founders. This applies to Pashtuns, Brahmins, the Kyrgyz and certain Tajik groups. So that was a bad example imo to use.

ADW_1981
07-09-2013, 02:49 PM
this recent study of the caucasus http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/359.full.pdf+html

had a table 3 http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2011/09/02/msr221.DC1/msr221supp_tables_corr.pdf

that showed elevated M269 and derived clades (undefined) among the Bagvalals (Dagestan, Russia- NE Caucasian speakers), Kumyks (north Dagestan, Russia -Turkic speakers),Tabasarans (Dagestan, Russia- NE Lezgic Caucasian speakers), Kuban Nogays (Black Sea Russia-Turkic speakers), Lezgins (Dagestan-Azerbaijan border - NE Caucasian speakers) and Armenians (IE speakers). Sample shows that R1b is low among Georgians and other than the Armenians is nearly all on the north side of the very high main NW-SE ridge of the Caucasus - on the Russian side. South of this only the Armenians have much M269 clades

M73 only looks significant among Kara (Dagestan, Russia) Nogays, the Balkars of the Russia (Russia-Georgian border area just NW of Osseta) and to a lesser degree Karachays (also of the Russia near the Black Sea end of the border with Georgia). All are Turkic speakers. I notice the Turkic Nogays/Nogais are odd in that the Kuban ones have lots of M269 and no M73 while the Kara ones are the reverse of that.

The main geographical pattern I can see is that M269 derived clades (with the exception of Armenia) are FAR stronger represented in the northern part of the Caucasus within the Russian border between the north Caspian and NE Black Sea and is weakest in Georgia. This is very important and seems to have been overlooked due to the lack of maps in this report and the very awkward to use table. There is a mythology based on Armenia that R1b (overwhelmingly L23*) is southern in the Caucasus and not a great match for Maykop. This is a myth that I believe until very recently. Both M269 clades and M73 are resoundingly highest on the north side of the Russian border albeit among north Caucasian language speakers and some Turks.

The distibution of these R1b-richer peoples of the Caucasus is a near carbon copy of the map of the Maykop culture. Its uncanny and I hadnt realise that before because I was fooled into thinking R1b was a south Caucasus thing because of Armenia.

Today it seems the oldest extant local languages in the former Maykop zone are part of the North Caucasian group that sit on the very border of the IE world. However, the Maykop area was on over the great NW-SE ridge of the Caucasus and in the northern Piedmont basically running down to the steppe and I think Bilingualism must have existed here since the copper age.

A couple new FTDNA projects - search Georgia and Ossetia, which have popped up with moderate frequencies of R1b among Ossetians and in the eastern region of Georgia (historical Iberia)

ADW_1981
07-09-2013, 02:55 PM
I do not get the idea that R1b is more likely to be recent movement from the South Caucasus. That is counterintuitive given the results of the paper. Why would someone conclude the opposite of the findings and cite drift etc? That just sounds like the old allergy to R1b being anywhere near the steppes.

As for the comment about providing an observation that doesn't use distribution, frequency, geogaphy or archaeology, that doesn't leave much to work with lol

I think the evidence presents a clear connection of the Trans-Caucasus with Mesopotamia and at bare minimum haplogroups G2a- subclades and J2a-subclades, probably J1 as well. These guys moved north into the mountains and brought farming. I suspect only recently did the southern Russian folks get any "West Asian" input, for lack of a better word.

Prior to that I believe the indigenous groups to western Russian were R1a and R1b. It may be that R1b (in its earliest forms) had already pushed into Europe in the Mesolithic.

TigerMW
07-09-2013, 03:20 PM
...I hope you're not suggesting Armenian R1b made its way into the Assyrian R1b gene pool especially since history suggests Armenians were dominated by Assyrians and not the other way around.

Newtoboard, I'm not following your logic. Are you saying that all Armenians were dominated by all Assyrians for all time since their inception and meeting? That seems a bit hard to accept. It also seems hard to accept that there was no integration at the edges as they met. If you are speaking of "domination" in terms of political or wealth classes, I think it quite possible for lower class folks to inter-marry or at least mate with upper class folks.

Are you asserting there was a very strong apartheid system in place? We have studies that suggest a strong apartheid system in old Anglo-Saxon England but we still see plenty of R1b-L21+ Englishmen walking around.

I'm just trying to figure out how the Assyrian R1b got there. Are you taking the position that it was always there, before the Armenians or their predecessors appeared?

Do any Assyrians and Armenians cluster?

Alan, Proto-Armenian was spoken until about the 5th century BC. What is the history on the Pre-Armenian peoples? When do we think they came along the Black Sea western coast and across the Bosphorus into Anatolia?

newtoboard
07-09-2013, 05:14 PM
I'm not suggesting there was a strong apartheid system but I believe R1b is the most common (or second most common) lineage among Assyrians so that is a lot of admixture. Iranian speaking peoples eventually dominated Assyrians and we barely see R1a in the Assyrian gene pool (frequency below 2%) so I find it difficult to argue that the people who were dominated managed to alter the Assyrian gene pool to this degree, hard to believe. Especially given the fact that Assyrian lived in more densely populated areas and the Proto-Armenians were no different than the Medes (a small but powerful elite). One interesting thing to note is that Armenians do show lineages typical of the Balkans at small but noticeable frequencies while these are pretty rare in Assyrians (E-V13, I2, and J2b come to mind-there was an article on Dienekes' blog about it)? That makes me doubt it was a Proto-Armenian contribution to their gene pool. As for how it got there maybe some was already there and some was a back migration from the Balkans. Clustering wise Assyrians are shifted to the south I believe due to excess amounts of SW Asian compared to Anatolian Turks, Armenians, and Iranians. I believe Armenian was firmly established in formerly Uratian speaking areas by the six century BC. So a few centuries before that would be the time to trace their movements.

Found a few entries relevant to this discussion:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/armenians-as-phrygian-colonists-or.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/11/armenian-y-chromosomes-revisited.html

DMXX
07-09-2013, 05:18 PM
Indeed, it is also worth mentioning that R1b-M269 was also the third-most common subclade in Iraq among Iraqi Arabs (Al Zahery et al.). How can that factor in with the theory linking R1b-L23 to movements from the north of the Caucasus?

newtoboard
07-09-2013, 05:29 PM
I also don't see what M73 has to do with the discussion. How do you know it is ancient and not from Central Asia?

alan
07-09-2013, 06:52 PM
Anything is possible, but if M269(xL23) left a genetic impact a few times greater in the central Balkans than elsewhere, I'm not sure why anyone would have difficulty with accepting the Danube as an origin and splitting point for L23. In fact, I think the probability of L51 arising anywhere east of the Alps is highly unlikely and haven't seen any evidence or even a good argument to the contrary. Now when we start going back to P297, we could be talking about a difference of thousands of years, so again, anything is possible. I just know from history that migrations are almost never unidirectional, and to think that the path of R1b was a one way ticket from Central Asia to Ireland is just not realistic. If we look at a place like the Balkans, we know from the historical period alone that empires came and went in all directions. I think the same thing happened with R1b.

Coincidentally I was think about the concept of a centre point and whether we should be worried about an origin point being at one end of the distribution. I dont know but when I read a bit into the whole Caucasus, Iran area, it looks very possible to have a very asymetric movement from that zone. There is an unusually hostile environment east of the Caspian in particular which must have been a massive disincentive to move east from its southern end and actually far easier to move east from the north side of the Caspian. That I think could explain R1b's apparent terminus in the south Capian sort of latitude. That doesnt mean it started at that latitude of course. I would also say that we need to rule out the zone south, east, immediately west and south-west of northern Iran due to the late age of R1b expansion relative to the early farming expansions.

M73 is an interesting tangential way of looking at it. It looks to me that it entered (if it was not native to that area) the north side of the Black and Caspian Seas from somewhere and headed far enough east to be swept up and moved back west through encorporation by later groups heading west, including many Turkic groups the full length of the steppe. It seems to almost always only be present around the steppes and this is even true in the Caucusus where it is very northern. It almost dies off at the Ukraine's western boundary and at the Great Caucasus line but is present way to the east deep into central Asia. It has to be recalled that M73 is by far the closest brother to M269 and they share an ancestor around what was the end of the Mesolithic and start of the Mesolithic in Eurasian terms. So their stories are much closer to each other than either shares with V88. M73 itself perhaps dates to around 5000BC. Its lineages clearly were or became steppe adapted or motivated in some way to head far to the east and is almost lacking anywhere away from steppe territory. There is little or no evidence of it in the farming world where if it had been present it would probably have a left its strongest imprint. It seems to have got absorbed into a lot of Turkic and even Uralic groups well to the east and the clear impression to me is it was at the gates of China before the Turkic expansion and probably massively before that. Anatole Klyosov makes a lot of errors and bizzare cultural interpretations but he makes an interesting point that while these groups often have recent intraclades (typical of these kind of groups) there is a huge diversity and time between common ancestor between M73 clusters of different Turkic and other groups. Collectively it is very old. Not as old as Anatole thought but still very old. The best sense I can make of this is that P297 around 5000BC was located somewhere that was peripheral to farming and close to the steppe if not on it.

I think collectively that does box in any potential hideout for R1b that was to the east of the Black Sea and south of the steppes into a pretty narrow zone around the north Caucasus and north Iran. There are just not many other areas in that sort of zone that seem possible.

However, that sort of zone is just one possibility. The eastern edge of Old Europe at the steppe-farming interface along the west and NW shores of the Black Sea is another major possibility. Finally, just because of a lack of R1b among some ancient steppe groups and languages like Iranian and Slavic, the sheer vastness and complexity of the western steppes in the Neolithic to copper age cannot be overlooked. It is a massive zone of late takeup of developed farming and in at least that regard it should not be ruled out. There is a lot of paradox in modern yDNA distribution and frequency relative to likely origin point. I certainly wouldnt rule out a position in the most westerly steppes groups. Some Russian archaeologists have expressed regret in the use of huge horizon names in the steppes that have stuck in English language publications as they hide the huge variety and variety of influences, inputs and cultures over the period 8000-3000BC. So to even get a couple of handfuls from separate burial sites (surely the minimum of of ancient YDNA from each culture needed over that sort of period to even pick up the biggest players) will take hundreds of samples. Otherwise we could miss an awful lot. So, I wouldnt hold my breath for this all becoming clear in the next few years. I think it is important that the sampling covers more than just the Yamnaya, Andronovo etc groups because they are just particular phases and are barely scraping the surface of the population history of the western steppes.

I cannot guess whether that would be around the Caucasus or the farming-steppe interface in the west or even on the steppe in between because its impossible to be sure as there was an unusually complex late prehistory, Medieval history and a brutally thorough cleansing of the Ukraine steppes in the last 200 years or so. That creates a major problem. It also must be remembered that there was a much more complex Neolithic and copper age history c. 8000-3000BC in the western steppes area than a light read on the subject suggests and a myriad of cultures. Russian archaeologists do not seem so keen on the more primordalist angle. Several Russian archaeologists also have expressed regret that the use of massive horizon terms in the early days has to a large extent stuck and hides a multitude of variation.

.

newtoboard
07-09-2013, 07:06 PM
The Western steepes are irrelevant because the PIE homeland lies near the South Urals. So determining what a bunch of Tripoyle farmers carried has nothing to do with PIE. And what you will likely find looking there is a variety of haplogroups not just R1b.

alan
07-09-2013, 07:11 PM
I also don't see what M73 has to do with the discussion. How do you know it is ancient and not from Central Asia?

Its by far the closest relative to M269. They share an SNP at the start of the Neolithic and they only develop into clearly separate clades as distinct from P297* from 4-5000BC. Their near simultanious expansion suggests similar environments and their distributions above noise level meet at both the north Caucasus and the western border of the Ukraine which I think is (admittedly a very broad one) an indicator of the likely origin of P297* c. 5000BC. Before that virtually nothing was happening in terms of R1b expansion and so a location in the early farming zone in Mesopotamia, east Anatolia, east and south Iran etc seems very unlikely. Studies of central Asia, the Caucasus, Moldova, Bulgaria, Romania, central Asia etc does seem to show M73 virtually dies off once the old farming-steppe interface is reached and some way or another it became very much steppic. The most likely location for P297* (which barely exists) is in the cirumpontic zone somewhere between the west Ukraine, the north Caucasus and NW Iran and including the southern shore of the western steppe in between.

newtoboard
07-09-2013, 07:12 PM
Indeed, it is also worth mentioning that R1b-M269 was also the third-most common subclade in Iraq among Iraqi Arabs (Al Zahery et al.). How can that factor in with the theory linking R1b-L23 to movements from the north of the Caucasus?

Yup. Makes it even harder to explain especially when none of their other Y-DNAs point to any admixture from north of the Caucasus. And why isn't there any linguistic impact from these Balkan or Anatolian IE carriers in Semitic languages or Iranian languages?

newtoboard
07-09-2013, 07:13 PM
Its by far the closest relative to M269. They share an SNP at the start of the Neolithic and they only develop into clearly separate clades as distinct from P297* from 4-5000BC. Their near simultanious expansion suggests similar environments and their distributions above noise level meet at both the north Caucasus and the western border of the Ukraine which I think is (admittedly a very broad one) an indicator of the likely origin of P297* c. 5000BC. Before that virtually nothing was happening in terms of R1b expansion and so a location in the early farming zone in Mesopotamia, east Anatolia, east and south Iran etc seems very unlikely. Studies of central Asia, the Caucasus, Moldova, Bulgaria, Romania, central Asia etc does seem to show M73 virtually dies off once the old farming-steppe interface is reached and some way or another it became very much steppic. The most likely location for P297* (which barely exists) is in the cirumpontic zone somewhere between the west Ukraine, the north Caucasus and NW Iran and including the southern shore of the western steppe in between.

I meant it is irrelevant because the North Caucasus has seen numerous Turkic movements. This R1b-M73 is likely very recent and has nothing to do with ancient distribution of Y-DNA or Maykop much less PIE.

alan
07-09-2013, 07:27 PM
Anything is possible, but if M269(xL23) left a genetic impact a few times greater in the central Balkans than elsewhere, I'm not sure why anyone would have difficulty with accepting the Danube as an origin and splitting point for L23. In fact, I think the probability of L51 arising anywhere east of the Alps is highly unlikely and haven't seen any evidence or even a good argument to the contrary. Now when we start going back to P297, we could be talking about a difference of thousands of years, so again, anything is possible. I just know from history that migrations are almost never unidirectional, and to think that the path of R1b was a one way ticket from Central Asia to Ireland is just not realistic. If we look at a place like the Balkans, we know from the historical period alone that empires came and went in all directions. I think the same thing happened with R1b.

Another thing is that many of the peoples of the south and west Balkans seem to have arrived there relatively late in prehistory including the Albabian-Kosovar area. If I recall correctly the latter is the M269 peak. Origins of Albanians, Greeks etc is of course much debated but a prior position closer to the Black Sea seems to crop up a lot.

DMXX
07-09-2013, 07:42 PM
Its by far the closest relative to M269. They share an SNP at the start of the Neolithic and they only develop into clearly separate clades as distinct from P297* from 4-5000BC. ...

I'm aware of P297 being a new SNP being ancestral to M269 and M73, but a ~6-7kybp date? Where did this figure come from? I was under the impression the separation time between R1b-M73 and M269 was further back than this. Some sources for this figure would be much appreciated.

alan
07-09-2013, 08:47 PM
The Western steepes are irrelevant because the PIE homeland lies near the South Urals. So determining what a bunch of Tripoyle farmers carried has nothing to do with PIE. And what you will likely find looking there is a variety of haplogroups not just R1b.

Its not that simple. The western steppes around the time of PIE rising was a complex mix of various steppe groups, Maykop elements and even farmers moving east and forming new cultures. I wouldnt be so sure that PIE emerged in a compact area around the south Urals. I know its popular but almost all the new data is making the picture much more complex and much of what we associate with Kurgan culture and formerly thought to have spread in the steppes first with Yamnaya can now be shown to have been present a couple of centuries earlier and in a more southerly location, primarily in Maykop. Lets put it this way, Anatolian has been linked to steppe groups moving into the Balkans nearly 800 years before Yamnaya. So, assuming Anthony is right on that, a language well on its way to becoming PIE was located further west and much earlier than Yamnaya. There was a complex network of exchange going on between the adjacent farmers and the steppe peoples around the Dnieper who were likely ancestral to those early steppes groups before their migrations west too to consider. I certainly think a more elaborated model will emerge as the evidence becomes available (I sort of get the impression the Russians are drip feeding us!). It is interesting how tied in the Skelya groups just east of the farmers were with the latter before the first movements west. This is a snipit of a recent paper:

Connections with other steppe groups, such as the Skelya culture to the southeast, have been argued to reflect a broader inter-regional prestige-goods economy – one that linked the north Pontic steppe with the Balkan-Danubian region and Chernykh's Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province of trade and interaction (Chernykh 1992; Rassamakin 1999: 111). Interestingly, the lack of Tripol'ye mortuary evidence for differentiation stands in stark contrast to what has been identified among other Chalcolithic societies in these regions. For example, the contemporaneous Varna cemetery (Bulgaria), with its large accumulation of gold and copper artifacts, appears to represent the pinnacle of individual wealth or prestige for this period as represented through the deposit of valuable grave goods (Renfrew 1978). Skelya culture burials, located just at the periphery of the Tripol'ye region, also have yielded elite burials with flint javelin tips, stone axe-adzes and some of the only copper and gold objects known in the north Pontic steppe zone at this time (Rassamakin 1999: 79). Scholars have conceptualized the relationship between Skelya and Tripol'ye communities as a fairly symmetrical exchange wherein Skelya groups traded for worked flint, fine painted pottery and metal objects produced at Tripol'ye settlements. Typological and spectral analyses have indicated that metalworking was a feature of the Tripol'ye culture and that raw copper for this was likely coming from the Balkans region (Chernykh 1992: 39). The Skelya culture played a key role in this broader exchange system by facilitating the movement of raw materials and acting as consumers of prestige items produced in the Balkans and by local Tripol'ye communities. In fact, stone, metal and ceramic prestige goods can be found distributed across the steppe zone in burials from the Don River to the Volga and the Kuban – pre-Caucasus region, reflecting the scale of inter-regional exchange that developed at this time.

newtoboard
07-09-2013, 09:00 PM
So what? Just because PIE speakers borrowed from Maykop doesn't mean they descended from them.

alan
07-09-2013, 09:06 PM
I meant it is irrelevant because the North Caucasus has seen numerous Turkic movements. This R1b-M73 is likely very recent and has nothing to do with ancient distribution of Y-DNA or Maykop much less PIE.

Well apparently while the within small groups intraclades are recent (which is very common in general) the between groups age of M73 across similar steppe groups is very old and almost all M73 is on the steppes. M73 and M269 only emerged from P297* around 4-5000BC so the fact that one branch (the slightly older of the pair) is strongly tied to the steppes rather than the farming world is significant. The fact it is absorbed by Turks all the way across the steppes makes it even more interesting rather than less. I am not trying to tie it with Maykop anyway in this case. However, it would seem unlikely to me that at an early stage (say 4-5000BC) M73 and M269 and their common ancestoral P297 lineages were already widely separated at opposite ends of the steppes and beyond. Its more likely that the (apparently very weak) P297 lineages immediately ancestral to both lineages and prior to the sudden take off of the two lines was somewhere around the steppe perhaps on its western or Caucasus edges or NW Iran. Something clearly suddenly drove the sleeping P297 lineages to suddenly start producing branches c. 4-5000BC that was not present before. I have an open mind as to where that would be but i think the main options are the western steppes, the steppe-adjacent groups of the east Balkans/west Ukraine and the north Caucasus-NW Iran areas. I just cannot see any similar sort of fit from the earlier farming zones in SW Asia.

DMXX
07-09-2013, 09:13 PM
Well apparently while the within small groups intraclades are recent (which is very common in general) the between groups age of M73 across similar steppe groups is very old and almost all M73 is on the steppes. M73 and M269 only emerged from P297* around 4-5000BC ...

I must once again interject; you have repeated this exact line twice in the past 7 posts. Where is the evidence that P297 dates back to 4-5k BC?

This is a crucial point of your assertion as the Neolithic timeframe to which much of your thoughts are structured cannot be sustained if P297 is, in fact, older than the date you're using here.

newtoboard
07-09-2013, 09:17 PM
Also please tell me what accounts for the Arabian R1b? Tracing everything back to Armenians is pretty ridiculous. Like Dienekes said Armenians exhibit other Balkan lineages at small frequencies. Neither Assyrians or Arabs exhibit these. What explains this? And stick to genetics and things that can be verified not movements or admixture events that might have or might not have occurred.

alan
07-09-2013, 09:40 PM
So what? Just because PIE speakers borrowed from Maykop doesn't mean they descended from them.

PIE has never and probably can never to proven to belong to one single culture on the steppes. In fact we know that the Anatolian branch are likely to have headed west nearly 1000 years before Yamanaya and originated from a point significantly to the west of the Volga-Urals. All I am saying is an advanced stage in the linguistic the evolution towards PIE took place a long time before Yamnaya. Even in 4200BC or thereabouts it had reached the Anatolian stage according to Anthony and obviiously that is a just an advanced stage in a story of other dialects probably close to the Anatolian stage going many centuries back before it. The western steppes was a melting pot of peoples for millenia before PIE and now the Yamnaya bifg bang idea seems to be foundering with each bit of new evidence and the dates pushed back we can imagine many cultures involved in the various stages that led to Anatolian pre-PIE and PIE not to mention the pre-Anatolian phases. The language slowly evolved from something like pre-proto-Anatolian back in the Neolithic to PIE which by definition most likely dated to 3500BC. There were millenia of mixed groups. In addition these were first linked across the farmer-steppe divide by the Carpatho-Balkans network (which reached to the Urals and the pre-Caucasus) and later similarly linked across the divide by the circumpontic network and that must have had an effect (given that that is the sort of model we use for beaker and languages at a later date). I honestly think if everyone read a bit more into new work on the steppes from the earliest Neolithic to Yamnaya with an open mind they would see the melting pot it was from surprisingly early in the Neolithic to 3500BC (all prior to PIE and probably contributors) and would not be able to sustain any sort of pure steppes primordialist bloodline sort of view of this. If I thought this hobby would lead to some sort of new version of a single bloodline-Indo-European model and I would quit immediately as its a very dangerous path.

alan
07-09-2013, 09:48 PM
I must once again interject; you have repeated this exact line twice in the past 7 posts. Where is the evidence that P297 dates back to 4-5k BC?

This is a crucial point of your assertion as the Neolithic timeframe to which much of your thoughts are structured cannot be sustained if P297 is, in fact, older than the date you're using here.

I have already posted that P297 began in the early Neolithic period about 10000 years ago. What I mean is that there was nothing on the P297 line other than P297* until the rise of M73 and M269 about 4-5000BC. We dont know what point the two separated off the P297* line from each other into separare branches before those two clades SNPs were established but it clearly lay within the Neolithic period. You could argue that their respective P297* lines were separated for a few millenia but it is important to bear in mind that these lines virtually went extict before expanding as those two clades and its early history is unlikely to be one of glorious expanding. They dont appear to have known farming before that period. I would suspect they were holded up somewhere hunting and gathering in that period. That was not the Palaeolithic with wide ranging long distance hunting of big game. It was the late Mesolithic where movements were probably restricted to an annual cycle up and down river valleys or similar. So, I think its fairly likely P297* lineages didnt massively scatter around and certainly seem to have not been involved in the demic waves of farmers etc.

DMXX
07-09-2013, 09:57 PM
I have already posted that P297 began in the early Neolithic period about 10000 years ago. What I mean is that there was nothing on the P297 line other than P297* until the rise of M73 and M269 about 4-5000BC. We dont know what point the two separated off the P297* line from each other into separare branches before those two clades SNPs were established but it clearly lay within the Neolithic period. You could argue that their respective P297* lines were separated for a few millenia but it is important to bear in mind that these lines virtually went extict before expanding as those two clades and its early history is unlikely to be one of glorious expanding. They dont appear to have known farming before that period. I would suspect they were holded up somewhere hunting and gathering in that period. That was not the Palaeolithic with wide ranging long distance hunting of big game. It was the late Mesolithic where movements were probably restricted to an annual cycle up and down river valleys or similar. So, I think its fairly likely P297* lineages didnt massively scatter around and certainly seem to have not been involved in the demic waves of farmers etc.

That is all very reasonable and forms an interesting narrative of what may have happened in the region, but where are these dates coming from? Is your posting about P297 beginning around 10kybp based on any numbers?

Also, how can one even base the age of R1b-M73 as being in the same ballpark as R1b-M269 based on the lack of transition in P297 alone, without citing any calculations involving extant R1b-M73 lines?

Going back to L23 launching, the Balkans is definitely a key area of consideration. I just lean more towards the parts abutting with the Black Sea and Anatolia. Since there is a lot of L23* in the Caucasus too I prefer to just call it the Black Sea area.

newtoboard
07-09-2013, 09:59 PM
PIE has never and probably can never to proven to belong to one single culture on the steppes. In fact we know that the Anatolian branch are likely to have headed west nearly 1000 years before Yamanaya and originated from a point significantly to the west of the Volga-Urals. All I am saying is an advanced stage in the linguistic the evolution towards PIE took place a long time before Yamnaya. Even in 4200BC or thereabouts it had reached the Anatolian stage according to Anthony and obviiously that is a just an advanced stage in a story of other dialects probably close to the Anatolian stage going many centuries back before it. The western steppes was a melting pot of peoples for millenia before PIE and now the Yamnaya bifg bang idea seems to be foundering with each bit of new evidence and the dates pushed back we can imagine many cultures involved in the various stages that led to Anatolian pre-PIE and PIE not to mention the pre-Anatolian phases. The language slowly evolved from something like pre-proto-Anatolian back in the Neolithic to PIE which by definition most likely dated to 3500BC. There were millenia of mixed groups. In addition these were first linked across the farmer-steppe divide by the Carpatho-Balkans network (which reached to the Urals and the pre-Caucasus) and later similarly linked across the divide by the circumpontic network and that must have had an effect (given that that is the sort of model we use for beaker and languages at a later date). I honestly think if everyone read a bit more into new work on the steppes from the earliest Neolithic to Yamnaya with an open mind they would see the melting pot it was from surprisingly early in the Neolithic to 3500BC (all prior to PIE and probably contributors) and would not be able to sustain any sort of pure steppes primordialist bloodline sort of view of this. If I thought this hobby would lead to some sort of new version of a bloodline-Indo-European model and lead us back to new spins on Nazi ideas I would quit immediately as its a very dangerous path.

Who sees it like this besides you? Because the experts certainly haven't changed their view. Mallory certainly hasn't as far as I know. Yamnaya and the Western steepes is likely a secondary homeland from where expansion starts from but PIE's origins lay near the South Urals. Those ideas can co-exist and they have co-existed for a while. What Nazi ideas? That's a pretty big accusation to make especially when the only one expressed here is the idea that PIE ancestry is concentrated in N-NW Europe which is what is being stated if not in a indirect manner with a lot of speculation on archeology, Y-DNA and linguistics thrown in (without a shred of proof). Nobody has argued otherwise. Yamnaya was a melting pot sure. But it doesn't mean purity didn't exist on a regional level. Kind of how the Ukranian steepe was Scythian speaking and the forest steepe Slavic speaking at one point.

alan
07-09-2013, 10:06 PM
Also please tell me what accounts for the Arabian R1b? Tracing everything back to Armenians is pretty ridiculous. Like Dienekes said Armenians exhibit other Balkan lineages at small frequencies. Neither Assyrians or Arabs exhibit these. What explains this? And stick to genetics and things that can be verified not movements or admixture events that might have or might not have occurred.

Noone is tracing everything back to Armenias. The majority opinion places all the Anatolian IE branch and later IE groups in Anatolia back to the Balkans. All I said is that archaeological advances has really removed most of the evidence for the flow through the Caucasus in the Bronze Age and there is a linguistic problem too in bringing pre-PIE Anatolian branch IEs through the very area where the wheel was known earliest. So that pretty well only leaves a Balkan route possible for the Anatolian IEs in Anatolia and most ancient historians see the Armenians etc as taking the same route. If the languages took those routes then so could male genes (although probably not much autosomal). I am not trying to say anything new here. The majority view of historians and archaeologists places the IE and IE-Anatolian branch groups of Asia Minor in the Balkans prior to their arrival. The same is even said of the Greeks. The dissenting voices tend to be local nationalistic historians who want to see their groups on the spot since the year dot (which clearly is impossible for them all to be correct). This hobby is rife with people trying to make their local roots as deep as possible. As for Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Balkans peoples and basically everyone who is L23XL51 etc clearly despite peoples wishes to see their yDNA as local forever most of them must be wrong and intrusion has happened into most of these cultures. I have just stated what I think is most likely based on DNA, archaeology etc. I am not forcing anyone to agree with it but I have at least laid out my ideas in detail and given a ton of links. I have already explained that autosomal DNA is pretty useless in dealing with male-driven copper or bronze age elites moving about. Its interesting but pretty useless for that period IMO and relates more to the pre and early farming eras in many areas or at least the areas I am familiar with in Europe.

alan
07-09-2013, 10:12 PM
That is all very reasonable and forms an interesting narrative of what may have happened in the region, but where are these dates coming from? Is your posting about P297 beginning around 10kybp based on any numbers?

Also, how can one even base the age of R1b-M73 as being in the same ballpark as R1b-M269 based on the lack of transition in P297 alone, without citing any calculations involving extant R1b-M73 lines?

I dont do number crunching. I am an archaeologist not a statistician. There are a handful of people well known in this hobby who have given fairly consistent variance calculations for M269, M73 and P297 and placed them at roughly (with only modest variation) to c. 4000BC, 5000BC and I think an intercalde between them of about 8-10,000BC. They are out there on the web and even available on this site in some threads if you want to go looking at them. Importantly there was discussion about Anatole Klyosov's extraordinarily early datre for M73 and links to threads which shows issues he didnt spot with multi-copy markers and correcting the date to about 5000BC. Its all been discussed to death and certainly on this forum these sort of dates seem generally accepted and pass without comment as its all been debated before.

newtoboard
07-09-2013, 10:14 PM
No one is trying to make their DNA local but in trying to derive their DNA out of the Balkans you are arguing that a significant portion of Semitic speakers trace their Y-DNA to IE speakers from the Balkans without a shred of linguistic evidence and no ability to account for why this movement didn't bring other lineages (since you seem so fond of melting pots -why didn't R1b travel with anything else?) and had ZERO change on autosomal DNA. Autosomal DNA is useless because it destroys your theories on speculating on things that can't be verified. But it certainly is not useless and definitely more useful than archeology since cultural diffusion/population movements don't always lead to admixture.

The constant accusations of nationalism and repeatedly bringing Nazis into the discussion to discredit others is getting old. I'm not going to waste my discussing anything about this topic with you anymore since that's the response I am getting for posing serious questions.

alan
07-09-2013, 11:14 PM
Who sees it like this besides you? Because the experts certainly haven't changed their view. Mallory certainly hasn't as far as I know. Yamnaya and the Western steepes is likely a secondary homeland from where expansion starts from but PIE's origins lay near the South Urals. Those ideas can co-exist and they have co-existed for a while. What Nazi ideas? That's a pretty big accusation to make especially when the only one expressed here is the idea that PIE ancestry is concentrated in N-NW Europe which is what is being stated if not in a indirect manner with a lot of speculation on archeology, Y-DNA and linguistics thrown in (without a shred of proof). Nobody has argued otherwise. Yamnaya was a melting pot sure. But it doesn't mean purity didn't exist on a regional level. Kind of how the Ukranian steepe was Scythian speaking and the forest steepe Slavic speaking at one point.

I am not accusing anyone here of anything. I am just saying I do not believe in a mono-clade, mono-cultural big bang type Yamnaya model for PIE as it is so far off from the archaeological evidence. I see this taken to an extreme on some other sites although this one is a well moderated one. Yes there may be periods when lineage based clan type societies did mean dominance of single male lines in regions but that is not the picture one gets from the archaeology of the the Neolithic and copper age of the steppes. That sort of thing seems to be more of a feature of later periods and on the steppes may have only come about when true armed massed cavalry etc came about. However, I doubt it was ever true on the steppes because when you look at the yDNA of the Tatars and Turkic groups who swept aloing the steppes to the west they are a real mix. We have to be careful to distinguise royal lineages from the general populations. All we may be seing in the large Kurgans is an extended royal family or warrior cast. That could prove very misleading. I do agree that in lightly populated areas where life is precarious that extremes of founder effects may distort things and favour the better off.

BTW when I said NW European I meant georaphically. Not a lot came as far as the Celtic fringes of Europe so most people are some sort of Meso-Neo blend with only a little later stuff in that area. Its not a racial terms or anything like that. I certainly dont mean it as an autosomal cluster if there is such a thing as NW Euro. I dont really believe in them anyway as some simply have to be composites of different periods.

I think you are misunderstanding me in general though. I am just saying it was probably very complex back in the Neolithic and copper age and early Bronze Age in the western steppes and that this complexity ran right up to the period when PIE was developing. I believe PIE developed over a broad area of the steppes and its fringes and featured a number of peoples of different origin. Just read up recent papers by Rasamikin (think that is how its spelled) on the western steppes in the immediate pre-Yamnaya period when PIE probably took its final form and you will see what I mean. There were all sorts of elements and hybrids going on between various steppe groups, Maykop elements and Old European

have posted a mountain of archaeological links showing how complex the general western steppe zone is and how it gets oversimplified on these sites and in popular books. Most are on this site. Noone is denying Yamnaya had a major role after 3200BC or therabouts. All I am saying is there is enough even in Anthony's work to see that the development of IE was over a wider area of the steppes and had already reached the Anatolian stage by 4200BC or the like and possible well before. The area where this happened seems to have been quite wide and I think a lot of people of several haplogroups were probably caught up in the networks that the language developed along. If Anatolian was already spoken say around the Dniester or Azov in 4300BC or earlier then its also likely that the Anaotlian steppe groups who recieved the wheel and had words for them were also somewhat south of Yamnaya. Dont get me wrong about Maykop. I think its a phenomenon more than a culture. Basically a mix of farmers and hunter-fishers on the steppe interface who linked up with NW Iran as a chain in the metal supply that replaced the collapsed Carpatho-Balkan supply. They may not have been much different from any other group composed of a mixture of farmers and steppe hunter-fisher-herders, perhaps with some exotic element from Iran. I am in no way saying they were all R1b and could have been a mix of R1b, R1b, G and several others given their position. I am just discussing R1b because I am focussed on R1b and tracking its earliest position that can be constructed. I am not saying it was in a pure group or even was dominant.

AJL
07-09-2013, 11:28 PM
I'm aware of P297 being a new SNP being ancestral to M269 and M73, but a ~6-7kybp date? Where did this figure come from? I was under the impression the separation time between R1b-M73 and M269 was further back than this. Some sources for this figure would be much appreciated.

I was also my impression that the predicted age was at least a few thousand years before that.

alan
07-09-2013, 11:40 PM
No one is trying to make their DNA local but in trying to derive their DNA out of the Balkans you are arguing that a significant portion of Semitic speakers trace their Y-DNA to IE speakers from the Balkans without a shred of linguistic evidence and no ability to account for why this movement didn't bring other lineages (since you seem so fond of melting pots -why didn't R1b travel with anything else?) and had ZERO change on autosomal DNA. Autosomal DNA is useless because it destroys your theories on speculating on things that can't be verified. But it certainly is not useless and definitely more useful than archeology since cultural diffusion/population movements don't always lead to admixture.

The constant accusations of nationalism and repeatedly bringing Nazis into the discussion to discredit others is getting old. I'm not going to waste my discussing anything about this topic with you anymore since that's the response I am getting for posing serious questions.

Well I didnt aim that at you. As far as I am aware you are not a nationalist of any of the groups I am talking about.

My approach has been to try and find a location and cultural model that fits most things most of the time. There is obviously no single phase explanation that explains all of the distribution of R1b. It has to be multiple phase. I think though the examples given of near eastern groups of completely different origins and language families and cultural histories despite sharing a clade does demonstrate that these near eastern R1b (or L23XL51 and a little M269* to be more precise) do not form a coherent cultural-linguistic block and there has to have been y lineages crossing cultural-linguistic barriers. They dont seem geographically coherent either. This contrasts with the European block which is geographically continuous and has a stronger coherance in terms of linguistics (Basque exception aside). I also would point out the very tortutous diaspora and/or urban centred nature of groups like the Assyrians and Armenians in SW Asia. They have a long history of upheaval and being local minorities. I would not want to base too much of any theory on them.

In general there is no question that the earliest attested languages of most high R1b areas in the world are IE and even the biggest R1b ethnic group in SW Asia is IE. We will probably never be able to fully recover the process but we do know the result by the start of history. I think the ball is more in the court of those who want to show that this was not originally the case than the other way around.

alan
07-09-2013, 11:45 PM
I was also my impression that the predicted age was at least a few thousand years before that.

I didnt say that. M73 and M269 clades have been dated by the most reliable experts to 4 and 5000BC. The interclade between them (P297*) is around 8-10 thousand BC. Please note though that no actual P297* people and basically it was barely surviving for the 4 or 5000 years between P297 and the take off of its two subclades. That is revealing in itself as it places it somewhere away from the Neolithic farming expansions that had swept the middle east around the time of P297*.

alan
07-10-2013, 12:27 AM
Anyway folks I think this thread is going downhill and I certainly think its going round in circles. I wont post anything more on this thread unless some new data/paper comes to light.

TigerMW
07-10-2013, 05:45 PM
... I just know from history that migrations are almost never unidirectional, and to think that the path of R1b was a one way ticket from Central Asia to Ireland is just not realistic. If we look at a place like the Balkans, we know from the historical period alone that empires came and went in all directions. I think the same thing happened with R1b.

I agree that migrations can go in multiple directions including stars, zig-zags, criss-crosses and what have you, but I try to look at R1b's distribution in terms of alignment with migrations that have known evidence. Without going into all of the details, I think most will agree there are a number of known migrations from areas east of the Central/Western Balkans through to Western Europe.

What are the significant known migrations from the Central/Western Balkans to Asia from the Neolithic and into the metal ages? I'm not saying there aren't any. I'm just not familiar with them.

What do you think would have carried M269* over into Asia or why is R1b-xM296 found there? When I look at some of these projects and the substructure of types of R1b found over there versus in Central Europe or the Balkans I just think we have to account for Asia.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?vgroup=ht35new&section=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b1asterisk/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b1b1/default.aspx?section=yresults

The diversity of R1b is such I don't think it is a star burst pattern emanating from the Central or Western Balkans. I try to separate the terminology a bit on the Balkans geography because it is a very large area and the part that abuts the Black Sea is of particular importance from my perspective as a possible launch point. I'm more focused on that while I think you are a little bit more westward.

ADW_1981
07-10-2013, 06:10 PM
I agree that migrations can go in multiple directions including stars, zig-zags, criss-crosses and what have you, but I try to look at R1b's distribution in terms of alignment with migrations that have known evidence. Without going into all of the details, I think most will agree there are a number of known migrations from areas east of the Central/Western Balkans through to Western Europe.

What are the significant known migrations from the Central/Western Balkans to Asia from the Neolithic and into the metal ages? I'm not saying there aren't any. I'm just not familiar with them.

What do you think would have carried M269* over into Asia or why is R1b-xM296 found there? When I look at some of these projects and the substructure of types of R1b found over there versus in Central Europe or the Balkans I just think we have to account for Asia.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?vgroup=ht35new§ion=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b1asterisk/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b1b1/default.aspx?section=yresults

The diversity of R1b is such I don't think it is a star burst pattern emanating from the Central or Western Balkans. I try to separate the terminology a bit on the Balkans geography because it is a very large area and the part that abuts the Black Sea is of particular importance from my perspective as a possible launch point. I'm more focused on that while I think you are a little bit more westward.

I think the challenge is that all the points of neolithic migration between eastern Anatolia to LBK in Europe let's say, point to G2a3b1(a?) and N1a on the mtDNA side. No R1b evidence has presented itself yet which makes the situation more perplexing. I'm not certain there is clear cut archaeological evidence which points to demographic changes as a result of long distance migration after the neolithic period in Europe but someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

TigerMW
07-10-2013, 06:28 PM
I have already posted that P297 began in the early Neolithic period about 10000 years ago. What I mean is that there was nothing on the P297 line other than P297* until the rise of M73 and M269 about 4-5000BC. We dont know what point the two separated off the P297* line from each other into separare branches before those two clades SNPs were established but it clearly lay within the Neolithic period. You could argue that their respective P297* lines were separated for a few millenia but it is important to bear in mind that these lines virtually went extict before expanding as those two clades and its early history is unlikely to be one of glorious expanding. They dont appear to have known farming before that period. I would suspect they were holded up somewhere hunting and gathering in that period. That was not the Palaeolithic with wide ranging long distance hunting of big game. It was the late Mesolithic where movements were probably restricted to an annual cycle up and down river valleys or similar. So, I think its fairly likely P297* lineages didnt massively scatter around and certainly seem to have not been involved in the demic waves of farmers etc.

DMXX was asking about calculations. Here is what I found.

Marko Heinila has R1b-M73's intraclade age is about 5200 BC while M269's 3700 BC.
Anatole Kylosov has M73 at 6000 BC and M269 at 5000 BC.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?881-More-thoughts-of-Anatole-s-work-on-very-deep-time-R1b-branching&p=6156&viewfull=1#post6156

Henila has the interclade of M73 and M269 as 9000 BC. That means P297 has to be at least that old (give or take the margin of error). Looks like extant P297 barely made it through this bottleneck. P297- V88+ fared only slightly better with slightly older coalescence ages.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b_TMRCAs_by_Heinila_2010.jpg

TigerMW
07-10-2013, 06:42 PM
I think the challenge is that all the points of neolithic migration between eastern Anatolia to LBK in Europe let's say, point to G2a3b1(a?) and N1a on the mtDNA side. No R1b evidence has presented itself yet which makes the situation more perplexing. I'm not certain there is clear cut archaeological evidence which points to demographic changes as a result of long distance migration after the neolithic period in Europe but someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

The Bell Beaker folks of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age brought in changes. I don't know if we consider them significant as far as the peopling goes. We also don't know where the new people component of them came from.

alan
07-10-2013, 06:50 PM
DMXX was asking about calculations. Here is what I found.

Marko Heinila has R1b-M73's intraclade age is about 5200 BC while M269's 3700 BC.
Anatole Kylosov has M73 at 6000 BC and M269 at 5000 BC.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?881-More-thoughts-of-Anatole-s-work-on-very-deep-time-R1b-branching&p=6156&viewfull=1#post6156

Henila has the interclade of M73 and M269 as 9000 BC. That means P297 has to be at least that old (give or take the margin of error).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b_TMRCAs_by_Heinila_2010.jpg

My memory isnt as bad as I thought :-)

Good point though that P297 could be older than the interclade but then again has a single P297* personal ever been found. Seems like R1b was very much on the margins before 5000BC and it was only modestly expanding after than compared to the period from L11 down. Its like there is a sequence of barely surviving from 9000BC up to 4-5000BC followed by a period of modest growth from 4 or 5000BC until 3000BC or so. Then a massive explosion a few centuries later. Ancient DNA in Europe seems to agree with this picture. Clearly that is telling us something about its environment and economy over time. It also seems to me to not be hugely different from the R1a story. I think if it wasnt for final distribution differences we would probably think they lived in a similar environment for much of their prehistory. Maybe they were. Final distribution and frequency can be very misleading and has badly fooled us in the past. Does anyone else not find the similar take expansion/branching dating of R1a and R1b striking?

alan
07-10-2013, 07:03 PM
I think the challenge is that all the points of neolithic migration between eastern Anatolia to LBK in Europe let's say, point to G2a3b1(a?) and N1a on the mtDNA side. No R1b evidence has presented itself yet which makes the situation more perplexing. I'm not certain there is clear cut archaeological evidence which points to demographic changes as a result of long distance migration after the neolithic period in Europe but someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

Traditionally definately not. However, there is no denying they were mobile and the weirdness of the way yDNA works when it is looked at means that what sees improbably is possible. I would still think that they had minimal impact in terms of autosomal DNA though.

TigerMW
07-10-2013, 07:58 PM
My difficulty in accepting this as most probable falls back to where did a) M269xL23 come from then? and then b) R1b-P297xM296 and then c) R1b-P25/L278 or L389 less P297? As we go back in branching, we keep ending up back in Asia, but apparently out of the way of the Neolithic advances west.
...
It seems like everything comes back to Black Sea for a launchpad, either over, below or through

Anything is possible, but if M269(xL23) left a genetic impact a few times greater in the central Balkans than elsewhere, I'm not sure why anyone would have difficulty with accepting the Danube as an origin and splitting point for L23.

You use the words "a few times greater in the central Balkans" so I assume you are talking about the frequency of the total population. I do not use higher frequency as an indicator of older age, period. I think the distribution of frequency and overlaying it with known and suspected archaeologically/historically recorded migrations can be helpful, but higher frequency does not mean older age. The whole issue of frequency as a red herring deserves another thread, but this has been an area of study.
"Allele age and a test for selection on rare alleles" by Slatkin, 2000, wrote

"In the 1990s, human geneticists became interested in estimating the ages of alleles associated with human genetic diseases. The extent of intra-allelic variability, rather than allele frequency, was used to estimate allele age, and the relationship between allele age and allele frequency was largely ignored."

I recognize you understand how TMRCA estimates are done based on variance but I think this applies to understanding migration trails too. We are talking about where some group was earlier (older) and then which directions they moved.

Frequency is particularly bad where there is a lot of population growth recently that ends up biasing/swamping the results. If we throw out high frequency as an indicator of origins/launch points, we are left with STR diversity, subclade diversity and subclade branching/substructure. Here are a couple of portrayals of R1b-M269 from studies.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-M269_Variance_Map_by_Balaresque_2010.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-M269_Variance_Map_by_Vizachero_from_Myres_2010.jpg

I don't necessarily agree with Maju's terminology but here is a picture of the M269 haplogroup mix. The red/orange are early branches that are L51-. I partricularly like this perspective because it is independent of the vagaries of STRs.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-M269_Substructure_Map_by_Maju_from_Myres_2010.jpg

Something to keep in mind is the above is only M269. When you add M73 and V88, which branched before M269, the weight towards Asia gets a little heavier. .. and of course, we've also got R1 and R2 eventually back there where we must coalesce at some point.

alan
07-10-2013, 09:34 PM
There are so many ways to look at this. Both frequency and pooled M269 variance maps have issues due to some areas having single and others multiple inputs. Even local variance of a single clade has issues given that lightly population groups will tend to end up with a more recent common ancestor than their most distant local common ancestor while areas that allow big expansion will potentially preserve a more distant common ancestor. Its not easy to resolve. All we can do in make a balanced call between them all. I tend to see a mix of phylogenic position, overall age of a clade and relative geographies of clades as the most important combo. I also take into account age branching, archaeology and interface zone between clades too. Overall based on a combinatin of all those factors I still feel we are stuck at a situation where R1b looks older in a zone stretching from NW Anatolia through the east Balkans to the north Black Sea and Caucasus/NW Iran. However, I cannot honestly feel much confidence in narrowing it further than that. I am confident that that is the zone into which R1b existed before 3500BC but I dont think it can be further narrowed with any real confidence without some ancient DNA data points pre-dating 3000BC.

TigerMW
07-10-2013, 09:58 PM
Something to keep in mind is the above is only M269. When you add M73 and V88, which branched before M269, the weight towards Asia gets a little heavier. .. and of course, we've also got R1 and R2 eventually back there where we must coalesce at some point.

Here is the R1b h35 original project administrator's perspective on the early branching to get to M269. I'm sure he would say this are just just general directions and not very specific.... still we've got Asia is hard to miss.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R_to_R1b_Branching_Map_by_Vizacher_2011.jpg


Our own DMXX has looked at Y DNA in Asia quite a bit. DMXX, do you have any updates on this or how this was developed? Do we know what subclades these are? My notes are this is an R1b frequency heat map from 2009.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b_Frequency_in_West%20Asia_by_DMXX.png

Doggone it! I was hoping one of those red spots would overlay Badakhshan exactly so we could tie back to Kylosov's lapis luzi, but at least the red spots flank it. :)

alan
07-10-2013, 10:01 PM
You use the words "a few times greater in the central Balkans" so I assume you are talking about the frequency of the total population. I do not use higher frequency as an indicator of older age, period. I think the distribution of frequency and overlaying it with known and suspected archaeologically/historically recorded migrations can be helpful, but higher frequency does not mean older age. The whole issue of frequency as a red herring deserves another thread, but this has been an area of study.
"Allele age and a test for selection on rare alleles" by Slatkin, 2000, wrote

"In the 1990s, human geneticists became interested in estimating the ages of alleles associated with human genetic diseases. The extent of intra-allelic variability, rather than allele frequency, was used to estimate allele age, and the relationship between allele age and allele frequency was largely ignored."

I recognize you understand how TMRCA estimates are done based on variance but I think this applies to understanding migration trails too. We are talking about where some group was earlier (older) and then which directions they moved.

Frequency is particularly bad where there is a lot of population growth recently that ends up biasing/swamping the results. If we throw out high frequency as an indicator of origins/launch points, we are left with STR diversity, subclade diversity and subclade branching/substructure. Here are a couple of portrayals of R1b-M269 from studies.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-M269_Variance_Map_by_Balaresque_2010.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-M269_Variance_Map_by_Vizachero_from_Myres_2010.jpg

I don't necessarily agree with Maju's terminology but here is a picture of the M269 haplogroup mix. The red/orange are early branches that are L51-. I partricularly like this perspective because it is independent of the vagaries of STRs.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-M269_Substructure_Map_by_Maju_from_Myres_2010.jpg

Something to keep in mind is the above is only M269. When you add M73 and V88, which branched before M269, the weight towards Asia gets a little heavier. .. and of course, we've also got R1 and R2 eventually back there where we must coalesce at some point.

I think V88 is of less importance because its common ancestor with the other two major divisions is much earlier and way into pre-farming times. Its ancestral pre-V88 lineage could have been displaced south by the Dryas phases etc. On the other hand it does behave like the other clades in terms of its date of expansion. However I take the relative closeness of the ancestor of M73 and M269/L23 more seriously and I think its only logical that any consideration of the pre-5000BC position of their P297 ancestor has to give the distribution of these clades equal weight. M269* is rare but vaguely circumpontic. L23* is common and similarly distribution while M73 has a presence from the western border of Ukraine to China. I have recently posted about the incredibly unlikeliness that M73 crossed the Urals (or came from east of the Urals) before 3500BC based on archaeology. So it seems to me that P297 was somewhere in or close to the crossover between their distributions which would runs from the north Caucasus to the Ukraine-Moldova border. So that would tend to point to Maykop, Ukraine steppe or the farmers at the NE corner of the Balkans sort of area. I would be astonished if P297 was not holed up somewhere in that zone albeit its a wide zone.

DMXX
07-10-2013, 10:24 PM
Our own DMXX has looked at Y DNA in Asia quite a bit. DMXX, do you have any updates on this or how this was developed? Do we know what subclades these are? My notes are this is an R1b frequency heat map from 2009.

Doggone it! I was hoping one of those red spots would overlay Badakhshan exactly so we could tie back to Kylosov's lapis luzi, but at least the red spots flank it. :)

Ah, the old heat maps from 2009... Forgotten about those. :)

Most of the data concerning Central Asia in my maps at that time were derived from Wells et al. and Sengupta et al., which didn't offer very much Y-DNA SNP resolution. I worked with what I could.

The peaks you're seeing there are...
- Hazaras of Pakistan
- Turkmen of Turkmenistan
- Tatars (IIRC) from Russia
- Various populations in West China
- Armenia

We now know from Vineviz's correspondence with Sengupta et al. that the Hazara samples from Pakistan belonged to R1b-M73 instead of their reported R1b-M269. It was presumed based on this and linguistic affiliations that the significant amount (>15% from memory) of R1b among the Turkmen was also likely M73 in Wells et al.; however, my upcoming review on some related data says otherwise.

The Uyghurs are an interesting case. I recall seeing Chinese studies certainly showing M269, but there was some M73 as well.

alan
07-11-2013, 12:51 AM
Ah, the old heat maps from 2009... Forgotten about those. :)

Most of the data concerning Central Asia in my maps at that time were derived from Wells et al. and Sengupta et al., which didn't offer very much Y-DNA SNP resolution. I worked with what I could.

The peaks you're seeing there are...
- Hazaras of Pakistan
- Turkmen of Turkmenistan
- Tatars (IIRC) from Russia
- Various populations in West China
- Armenia

We now know from Vineviz's correspondence with Sengupta et al. that the Hazara samples from Pakistan belonged to R1b-M73 instead of their reported R1b-M269. It was presumed based on this and linguistic affiliations that the significant amount (>15% from memory) of R1b among the Turkmen was also likely M73 in Wells et al.; however, my upcoming review on some related data says otherwise.

The Uyghurs are an interesting case. I recall seeing Chinese studies certainly showing M269, but there was some M73 as well.

I really look forward to seeing the results. I noticed in Klosov's world than there was quite a number of other non-Slavic groups showing significant R1b in much the same zone. There are even several Uralic groups. From memory there is a significant showing of L23* among the Komi Uralics at the icy north end of the Urals. R1b seems to be absorbed typically into non ethnic Russians in the Russian sphere whether it be Turks, north Caucasians, Uralics etc. BTW I found that M73* in the Caucasus is only found in the north and even then it is among Turkic speaking groups. It just seems they were absorbed into those groups before the Russians expanded east. There is no doubt that at one time a significant amount of M73* and L23* lay in the path of the Turks expanding west and was absorbed. I have long had a theory that it spread along with R1a peoples with Afanasievo from the Urals towards new metal sources around Altai.

TigerMW
07-11-2013, 12:01 PM
I meant it is irrelevant because the North Caucasus has seen numerous Turkic movements. This R1b-M73 is likely very recent and has nothing to do with ancient distribution of Y-DNA or Maykop much less PIE.

I'm not sure how you know that. You seem very assertive in your positions. You say things are irrelevant and have "nothing to do", etc. with little room for consideration of possibilities.

How do you know that M73 is very recent in the North Caucasus?

What are you implying about Turkic movements? Are you saying that all M73 is Turkic and therefore can be explained by Turkic movements? If so what is your evidence?

You may be correct, it's just that your language is confusing because it implies certainty but I haven't see the evidence that you have that supports your levels of certainty.

TigerMW
07-16-2013, 02:26 PM
This is quite interesting. Is it possible that we may lose the trail of European R1b the further east we go because the relevant R1b in the east may have already been replaced by recent incomers? I've misunderstood Y-DNA I think. I was under the assumption that R1b at 90% in Ireland for example meant that Irish people are 90% made up of Bell Beaker people in all their genetic ancestry. Whereas the truth is that the base genetics will not have changed hugely?

Paul D quotes a book and cites a South Africa study over in the L21 subcategory that discusses the clan system and how it may have proliferated chiefly lines on the Y DNA side. He calls it amplification. That's probably not a bad term for describing the process.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1104-Which-L21-Subclades-may-have-originated-in-The-Isles&p=9899&viewfull=1#post9899

Of course, this means that 90% of the Bell Beaker people did not have to be of a particular lineage for that particular lineage to be amplified to very high frequencies over time.

Dubhthach
07-16-2013, 03:21 PM
http://www.lilliputpress.ie/uploads/cover_image-1310554496-91687.jpeg

The Kindle version is just $9 well worth it if you ask me:
http://www.amazon.com/Gaelic-and-Gaelicised-Ireland-ebook/dp/B007ZQY61G/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_kin?ie=UTF8&qid=1373987970&sr=8-1&keywords=gaelic+and+gaelicized+ireland+in+the+midd le+ages

alan
07-16-2013, 05:26 PM
I'm not sure how you know that. You seem very assertive in your positions. You say things are irrelevant and have "nothing to do", etc. with little room for consideration of possibilities.

How do you know that M73 is very recent in the North Caucasus?

What are you implying about Turkic movements? Are you saying that all M73 is Turkic and therefore can be explained by Turkic movements? If so what is your evidence?

You may be correct, it's just that your language is confusing because it implies certainty but I haven't see the evidence that you have that supports your levels of certainty.

The idea that R1b is mainly at the west end of central Asia does not agree with information I have seen before. R1b (mainly M73) is common enough among Turkics very far east

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

I take from the fact it is even known in eastern Uyghurs (of NW China) that it had made it that far east long before the Turkic sweep back west. My impression is M73 was a clade that mainly turned east from a point in the north Caucasus or eastern part of the western steppes. It was apparently then spread to some degree back west by Turks in Medieval times. I think that Turkic movement extended M73 thinly further west than it had been before. I say that because M73 is virtually absent in the Balkans which is evidence that it was too far east on the steppes c. 4000-3000BC to be brought to the Balkans by the steppe tribes who swept west then. It seems to have missed that boat.

If for instance M73 was located in the north Caucasus until 3500BC (as is the case with Maykop) then it would naturally have missed the boat of the flood west of western steppe tribes of the Skelya-Sucorovo type. So would any position on the steppes east of Azov. It may have been a matter of timing among a small group. Not everyone did exactly the same thing. We do know that someone brought CMP type knowledge to the Urals (metallurgy, mining etc c. 3400BC give or take. Metallrgical experts have repeatedly stated that the CMP techniques were too specific to be emulation. A human factor was involved.The earliest source of CMP is the Maykop and part-Maykop cultures like Konstantinvka in the steppes. IMO M73 most likely moved from the area in or adjacent to the north Caucasus or the steppe just to the north and east and moved in the opposite direction from that followed by many steppe tribes moved in in the previous 500 years or so. Its main interest may have been the ore in the Urals. That places CMP elements in the Urals close enough to the Afansievo groups likely origin point at roughly the right time.

All in all I see no reason why M73 was not involved in Afanasievo. It also had a common ancestor with M269 around 9000BC so we need to bear that in mind. The contrasting distribution is almost by definition a post-4000BC phenomenon. Both expanded in a broadly similar period after a 4-5000 year silence shown by the total lack of modern P297* anywhere. So we most likely should see them as remaining in the same general impoverished zone until c. 4000BC and it seems logical to place the common ancestor who lived before that at a location where M269 and M73 roughly overlap. There is no archaeological evidence for a pre-Afanasievo breaking of the Urals cultural barrier and that is strong evidence that the contasting distribution of M73 and M269 dates to no earlier than 3500BC. I think there was something akin to a bifurkation around the 4000-3500BC era which took M73 east and M269 west. That seems to me to be most likely to be a north Caucasus or western steppe position.

alan
07-16-2013, 05:57 PM
I would also add that if M73 was an element in Afansievo and Tocharian speaking, which I think very likely, that would explain its lack among Indo-Iranian and Slavic groups. It may have simply moved east early and remained exclusively associated with elements among the Tocharians. If their language is anything to go by they did put some distance between themselves and the other eastern IE language groups. I am not arguing with the probability that the Tocharians also had (perhaps mainly had) R1a. However, the Tarim mummies come from after the Afansievo period by which time other IE groups were in the same area so its not certain by any means that they represent unmixed Afanasievo people.

TigerMW
07-29-2013, 02:44 PM
I suppose the big question is whether M269 and M73 (the P297 brothers) were in the Caucasus-steppe fringe prior to take of c. 4000BC or so or whether they were migrants from somewhere like Iran. Clearly if they were some sort of group on the steppe fringes they were massively influenced by groups to the south. The question is R1b's role in this. Was it native to the Caucasus-steppe interface but culturally heavily influenced or did it arrive with the southerly influences (Iran) c. 4000BC. Neither option massively changes the model because once Maykop was established it was networking with a wide area in all directions. However, it would still be interesting to know but its hard to know when a yDNA line joins a culture like that which networked far and wide. One thing against an origin in many parts of Iran is the early date of the Neolithic. That includes the Zagros. This does not fit well with R1b sleeping until 4 or 5000BC. However my previous reading indicated there were some areas in the Iran plateau that the Neolithic didnt arrive until fairly late c. 6000BC (thats very late by the standards of some parts of Iran). However I am not sure these areas include NW Iran.

The Caucasus seems also to have a late Neolithic take off and certainly the older papers on the Neolithic seems to see this as slow and indigenous with a lot of Mesolithic toolkit being used. I think I have dug up all I can find on the web in terms of Neolithic and copper age Iran but I have not done this for the Caucasus to the same extent as there seems to be a lot less on the web that is free, up to date and in English (as opposed to Russian). I have found a few papers but they tend to not give an overview except one I found from the 90s.

Anyway, I think the anticlockwise circumpontic theory is a good one for explaining the lack of a common language for groups with L23* (and M269* in lesser amounts). It would explain north Caucasian and IE phases and also could explain the genetic flow into Assyrians (and Eurphratic adstrate in Sumerian if you believe in it) through the strong Maykop-Uruk contacts. ...

It appears that Eupedia/Maciamo Hay is proposing a similar direction as the anti-clockwise movement for M269 and L23 around the Black Sea.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#migration_map

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-migration-map.jpg

alan
07-29-2013, 03:11 PM
Its a problematic type of evidence but this craniology study of the copper and bronze age groups all around eastern europe and adjacent areas of Asia indicates a lot of complexity, not the usual idea of a uniform steppe group

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=craniological%20steppe&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccsenet.org%2Fjournal%2Findex .php%2Fach%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F18453%2F12230&ei=xYP2UbjJHceW0QWkloHAAw&usg=AFQjCNFzCft51roaZbzl6eDGlYngXPpwug

alan
07-29-2013, 04:06 PM
It appears that Eupedia/Maciamo Hay is proposing a similar direction as the anti-clockwise movement for M269 and L23 around the Black Sea.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#migration_map

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-migration-map.jpg

Thanks for posting that. I hadnt see that before. It is indeed close to how I would see it up to L51. I have posted a long thread about how the initial patterning among P25 leading to P297 further north than he places it could have been due to changes in the Caspian but that is just a possibility and the overall picture is similar. I would usually see L23 most likely occurring also near the north Caucasus and adjacent steppe rather than only occurring in the Balkans if that is what he is implying. L23 has a presence in the north Caucasus, Urals, Iran etc which I would find hard to explain if L23 hadnt also occurred in the same sort of area as M269 is marked on his map. However Anthony does describe reflux movements back into the steppe so its not impossible L23 occurred among M269 that had entered old Europe shortly before.

I suspect M269 was involved in slightly different waves from L23. The pattern shows ,areas with only L23xl51 and others which include some M269. M269XL23 has an odd pattern, appearing among both Armenians and the Balkans. It as also posted that its high among Zoroastrian Iranians, a group who were dispersed from northern Iran in the past due to religious conflict. The overall picture makes where he marks M269 likely to me. M269 is dated by many to c. 4000BC which is precisely when the north Caucasus experienced its first links with Iran which led to Maykop. The period 3500BC seems also to have seen Maykop kurgans in NW Iran which is probably a counterflow. So, M269 could have moved either way in theory. However, I suspect its P297 ancestors had already been in the north Caucasus for a long time before the copper age Iranian connection though. M73 is the oldest clade of P297 and is almost unknown in Iran and the southern Caucasus so I would think that P297 was in the north Caucasus and adjacent steppe since very early times, perhaps seperated from its distanct P25 cousins to the south for a many millenia.

TigerMW
07-29-2013, 05:10 PM
... I would see L23 most likely occurring also near the north Caucasus and adjacent steppe rather than only occurring in the Balkans if that is what he is implying. L23 has a presence in the north Caucasus, Urals, Iran etc which I would find hard to explain if L23 hadnt also occurred in the same sort of area as M269 is marked on his map...
It would be very helpful if we found L23+ Z2103- Z2105- L51- (which would be true L23*) people somewhere. There seems to be an assumption that all L23xL51 will be Z2103+ Z2105+. It may be true, but if not, they would be important people to find. If they were relegated to a particular area, i.e. the Balkans or instead the North Caucasus or Iran, I think that would be telling.

alan
07-30-2013, 01:03 AM
It would be very helpful if we found L23+ Z2103- Z2105- L51- (which would be true L23*) people somewhere. There seems to be an assumption that all L23xL51 will be Z2103+ Z2105+. It may be true, but if not, they would be important people to find. If they were relegated to a particular area, i.e. the Balkans or instead the North Caucasus or Iran, I think that would be telling.

Yes finding even a little of that would definately transform things. I may be too taken with the idea but Mjost's suggestion that L51 may be older than we thought and may have spent most of its existence parallel to Z2103+ Z2105+ really interests me and could explain a lack of true L23*. Otherwise the lack would be odd IMO.

One possibility I have never thought of before but struck me recently is a notion that Anthony mentions. He states a belief that the Suvorovo groups that went into the Balkans from the Dneiper area partly returned there after. IF this had an R1b aspect this creates a possible scenario wherebye M269xL23 groups could have left for the Balkans in that form (which would fit the proposed date of that clade well) with L23 only occurring in the Balkans in subsequent generations and returning in the reflux back to the Dneiper/Azov. That might sound far fetched but Anthony believes this sort of movement happened. Certainly it could create peculiar patterns. It also would have the implication that L23* was first located in a position closer to the L51.

newtoboard
07-30-2013, 01:45 PM
I would also add that if M73 was an element in Afansievo and Tocharian speaking, which I think very likely, that would explain its lack among Indo-Iranian and Slavic groups. It may have simply moved east early and remained exclusively associated with elements among the Tocharians. If their language is anything to go by they did put some distance between themselves and the other eastern IE language groups. I am not arguing with the probability that the Tocharians also had (perhaps mainly had) R1a. However, the Tarim mummies come from after the Afansievo period by which time other IE groups were in the same area so its not certain by any means that they represent unmixed Afanasievo people.

They weren't as isolated as you think.


Yuezhi

The Historical Records by the Western Han historian Sima Qian describe a people called the Yuezhi who lived between the Qilian Mountains and Dunhuang, until they were driven out by the Xiongnu in the 2nd century BC. The majority (the Greater Yuezhi) are said to have moved west and conquered Bactria (Chinese: 大夏 Dŕxiŕ), while a smaller group (the Lesser Yuezhi) took refuge in the "Southern Mountains".[10]

The Greater Yuezhi are often identified with the Tókharoi mentioned by the Greek historians,[3] and believed to be the predecessors of the Kushans, who in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD built an empire in northern India and Central Asia which under Kanishka stretched from Turfan in the Tarim Basin to Pataliputra on the Gangetic Plain. A minority of scholars also connect them to the Tocharians.[11] Based on comparison of names used by ancient authors, Christopher Beckwith has argued that these people were originally Tocharian-speakers who switched to the local Iranian language on entering the region. He claims that the first character of their name, 月, usually read as Old Chinese *ŋʷjat > Mod. yuč,[12] could have been pronounced in an archaic northwestern dialect as *tokwar or *togwar, a form that resembles the Bactrian name Toχοαρ (Toχwar ~ Tuχwar) and the medieval form Toχar ~ Toχâr.[4][13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharians#Yuezhi


Nor did I understand your point about language being a clue to their isolation. There were Indo-Aryan languages in contact with Tocharian. Perhaps you are unaware of there being a third dialect of Tocharian called Tocharian C.

alan
07-30-2013, 04:00 PM
They weren't as isolated as you think.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharians#Yuezhi



Nor did I understand your point about language being a clue to their isolation. There were Indo-Aryan languages in contact with Tocharian. Perhaps you are unaware of there being a third dialect of Tocharian called Tocharian C.

Well the quote does say a minority of scholars so its pretty uncertain. I am aware of three Tocharian dialects but I am not sure of your point. The division into branches is a later period than the one I am primarily interested in. My main point is its a different wave in its early period from indo-Iranian and remained a distinct language for a long time. So a different genetic mix of the people is entirely possible.

The reason I have wondered about M73 being within Afanasievo is based on a lack of other options. It is a P297 branch, the earliest branch possibly by 1000 years and is virtually absent in places like Iran, the south Caucasus, old Europe etc. By the sort of period 3500BC it had had 1500 years to grow and could have been a substantial player somewhere. very few of the other R1b or R1a clades had had any sort of time to grew by 3500BC if the suggested variance dates are correct. How long had the relevant R1a clades been in existence around the time the Tocharians headed east? That is a serious question which I have already been asking in a new thread in terms of R1b. According to the dated R1a tree posted on another thread, the Z94 group did not exist at the point of the Afansievo culture and thee Z93 group would have just been one man in 3500BC. So, you could argue M73 is the only R1b or a clade on the steppes today old enough to have been involved in Afanasievo. I will discuss this further there.

alan
07-31-2013, 12:17 AM
It appears that Eupedia/Maciamo Hay is proposing a similar direction as the anti-clockwise movement for M269 and L23 around the Black Sea.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#migration_map

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-migration-map.jpg

Its probably a better map than others I have seen although I would have a few quibbles. Maciamo does good work but other than him the debate and understanding of the data on his forum is nowhere near as good as here so I only glance at it the odd time.

Silesian
08-17-2013, 06:37 AM
A couple new FTDNA projects - search Georgia and Ossetia, which have popped up with moderate frequencies of R1b among Ossetians and in the eastern region of Georgia (historical Iberia)
Sometimes it also helps to get a different perspective. Ossetians IE (Iranian, NE) 47N 42.6[25] Looks like Rosser 2000 was right there is R1b among the Digor speaking population now if we can get some more information from the recent genetic drift Steppe people and Hungarians.

BTW 47N is a little light in sample size, actually less than half what another poster has shown with R1b in Iraq 10/139N 8%.

Different study sample size 2741N Levant + Iraq Levant R1b1b1 1.72% table S6
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056775

side note: Levant samples R compared to others


Druze of Carmel (35 samples):L 27%,R 27%,J 18%,E 15%,G 12%.
Druze of Galilee (183 samples):J 31%, R 20%, E 18%, G 14%, k 11%, Q 4%, L 2%.
Druze of Golan (37 samples): J 54%,E 29%,I 8%,G 4%,C 4%.
Druze of Lebanon (29 samples):J 58%,k 17%,L 8%,Q 8%,R 8%.
Druze of Syria (27 samples):J 39%,E 29%,R 14%,G 14%,k 4%.

Grugni study in contrast to Algerian study
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056775

Caucasus R1b 5.92% sample size 3581N/with a spike in Iranian[15-25%] and Armenian region 30-40% Azeri-Northwest Iran Gilaki and Talysh[Mede]& Lurs and Ossets in North and possible Greek colony in Georgia perhaps tied in with Chios?

T101
08-17-2013, 07:29 PM
very few of the other R1b or R1a clades had had any sort of time to grew by 3500BC if the suggested variance dates are correct. How long had the relevant R1a clades been in existence around the time the Tocharians headed east? That is a serious question which I have already been asking in a new thread in terms of R1b. According to the dated R1a tree posted on another thread, the Z94 group did not exist at the point of the Afansievo culture and thee Z93 group would have just been one man in 3500BC. So, you could argue M73 is the only R1b or a clade on the steppes today old enough to have been involved in Afanasievo.

That's a highly inflated date for the Afansievo culture. You do know the earliest radiocarbon dates for Afansievo have been thrown out. The earliest reliable date maybe 3300 BCE (Anthony) but a even later date is still more plausible.

What thread? What site? What tree? Nonsense, R1a Z645 could fit easily into Afansievo as could Z93, (whose age could potentially be far older than 3500 BCE). Even Z94 is a possibility with an estimated age ranging above 3000BCE (Rozhanskii)

[[[ Mikewww/Moderator on 08/19/2013: I moved a responses to this, since it was pure R1a related over to this thread which looks like a better fit.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?497-Andronovo-Abashevo-Scythian-Tocharian-R1a ]]]

Humanist
10-05-2013, 10:30 PM
I dont think there is much of a case for L23* being linked with eastern Anatolia or Mesopotamia or the south Caucasus originally (which may annoy primordalists among the Armenians and Assyrians especially).

Who are these "primordialists among the Armenians and Assyrians especially?"



Any theories about how and when Assyrians gained their high L23 count. My own pet theory is that it came south along the trade lines between Maykop, north Iran and the Uruk expansion group around 3500BC not long after the clade came into existence. From there is became part of the Mesopotamian population


My opinion is that it may be more recent, perhaps no older than ~3500 years ago (~1500 BCE), and may be associated with the emergence of Mitanni-Hurrians and the Middle Assyrians. Despite their claims of continuity, the Middle Assyrians were not necessarily the descendants of the "Old Assyrians." However, there is reason to believe that the Neo Assyrians were the descendants of the Middle Assyrians. Well, at least as far as their royals are concerned.

alan
10-05-2013, 11:22 PM
lol This is almost like a cold case coming up.

I just meant that a lot of people seek to place there own yDNA lines as locally to them as far back as possible. They were just 2 examples - I could have mentioned many others suffering from that in Europe as well. I know you dont think that as I had a conversation with you before and you actually placed the arrival of L23 among Assyrians later than I did. So, it was certainly not aimed at you or Assyrians specifically. Actually I have got to be honest and say I didnt really understand the Assyrian modern identity until getting into this hobby but now know a lot more about your history and have a great deal of respect for your culture and its interesting and difficult history. Same with Armenians although I knew a little more about them. I sort of think of them both as our distant cousins now I know about our DNA link as well as of course the Christian heritage too.

I have visited some of the Christian communities on travels in Egypt and I was very angry at what has been done to Christians in Egypt and also very recently in Syria by some of the rebels there. I feel the wider Christian world should take more interest in middle eastern Christian groups. By all of that I dont mean that I am biased towards any particular group or religion but there is a link that and I think its just sheer ignorance in the west that means people do not take a greater interest.


Who are these "primordialists among the Armenians and Assyrians especially?"

AJL
10-05-2013, 11:38 PM
I just meant that a lot of people seek to place there own yDNA lines as locally to them as far back as possible.

In the case of L23 this makes some sense. Just beyond it we have Z2103/Z2105, brother of L11. Look at the map of Z2103/Z2105's subclades, L584 and L277:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?112-L277-and-L584&p=10466&viewfull=1#post10466

The fact that L11 is scattered across Europe but is also found in Armenia is also rather interesting.

Humanist
10-05-2013, 11:41 PM
Actually I have got to be honest and say I didnt really understand the Assyrian modern identity until getting into this hobby but now know a lot more about your history...

That makes two of us! I know there are some people in my community who did not appreciate my suggestion that we may be, in principal part, a mix from 500 BCE to 500 CE. But, in defense of some in my community, there are some suggestions that (at least) our language was in contact with the Neo-Assyrian variety of Akkadian (see Geoffrey Khan). But, anyway, I do agree with you that claims to extreme antiquity are a bit silly, given what genetics and the collective record appear to suggest. Also, I believe more recent contacts (< 2000 years) between Europe and the ancient Judeo-Christian Middle East may have contributed to some of the similarities we see today. Not necessarily R1b, however.

alan
10-06-2013, 12:24 AM
Middle eastern heritage people are certainly no worse than Europeans for wanting the R1b homeland in their own patch or back to the first settlers in their country. I wont name countries as examples, I have learned my lesson not to on this thread, but I can think of at least 6 or 7 European nation where people frequently wish R to be primordial to their location or the very first settlers. People just want to make their roots as deep as possible on their own turf for personal, identity, nationalistic, political or any number of reasons.

As for R1b I think its origins in earliest times are very likely in northern Iran or adjacent areas. At the moment I tend to think of M269 and M73 as having derived from P297 lineages - perhaps heading from the south Caspian to the steppes along the west and east sides of the Caspian shores respectively or even across it in boats. I cannot narrow the timeframe to anything except between 9000 and 4 or 5000BC based on phylogeny, distribution and clade variance dating. However I am reasonably confident that the geography and timeframe is close to correct.

In terms of the spread of M269, I cannot be sure the culture it came into existence in c. 4000BC. However, I suspect it either was involved in the Sredny Stog or perhaps the Maykop group or even both. The evidence is scanty but M269xL23 and L23 both appear in Albanians and evidence of their language suggests that their original homeland was landlocked mountanous land with the best option being western Romania. So, I would conclude on this admittedly slender evidence that M269xL23 was originally located there in terms of its Balkans history although thinly spread around in east-central Europe.

I then ask myself how could a subset of an originally Caspian lineage end up in Romania and also is noted among Armenians around Ararat. My own opinion is that M269 arrived with the mainly L23 Armenians in the Armenia from the Balkans albeit after the Satem shift had reached them by influence of Yamnaya neighbours, something that seems supported by IE language groupings. I then wonder if M269 had reached or even originated around Romania c. 4000BC how did that happen. Well there is no trace of its immediate ancestral P297 lineage in the Balkans or anywhere. This to me suggests it was not among the early farming groups in the Balkans and probably resided among people on the margins of farming before this. The only serious candidates for a geographically proximate area of that description c. 4000BC is the steppes and perhaps the north Caucasus. The relevant cultures c. 4000BC are Sredny Stog and the earliest phase of Maykop. While I find Maykop interesting with its links to the early CMP complex, I am less convinced its influence is early enough in the right area to explain M269 in the Balkans although it is not totally impossible if it was very low visibility. This makes me think that the most likely hidding place for P297 clades morphing into M269 and M73 around 4-5000 years ago was the Sredny Stog group. They did indeed sent out early Suvorovo ochre gravee offshoots into the Balkans a little before 4000BC and a subset of them did indeed settle in Romania. The timing of this corresponds very well with the suggested 4000BC dated when M269 suddenly appeared after 5000 years of leaving no descendants in its P297XM269xM73 phase. Other groups who might have been related to this wave according to Anthony are Anatolian IE speakers. M73 can also be explained by a Sredny Stog link and later displacement.

V88 to me is a more distant cousin from another P25 line that remained maybe in the SW Caspian or south Caucasus spread more southerly. I feel that it was likely encorporated into the Kura-Araxes spread into Anatolia and down the Levant to the doorstep of Africa.


In the case of L23 this makes some sense. Just beyond it we have Z2103/Z2105, brother of L11. Look at the map of Z2103/Z2105's subclades, L584 and L277:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?112-L277-and-L584&p=10466&viewfull=1#post10466

The fact that L11 is scattered across Europe but is also found in Armenia is also rather interesting.

alan
10-06-2013, 12:35 AM
True. Certainly V88 doesnt share a common ancestor with M269 and M73 until we are back in the Palaeolithic P25* phase, a time when it probably all lay in the Iran or adjacent areas - possible as long ago as 15000BC. So it would have been very different from M269 and M73 which are closer related by sharing the P297 SNP. Even that pair might only have shared an ancestor about 9000BC. So, with these divides of time and apparently of geography they couldnt possibly have been speaking one language. At a push M269 and M73 might have but V88 was only extremely distantly related to them.

IMO V88 probably occurred on the Caucasus-Anatolia fringe and was spread by the Kura-Araxes culture south mainly. M73 was almost certainly at the Ural-Caspian area. M269 and L23 are harder to pin down, especially the latter as it seems to have gotten everywhere in eastern Europe and SW Asia. I think it had a location on the fringe of the steppes where some of it may have gotten linked in with the Maykop culture. The latter linked the north Caucasus to NW Iran and from the latter there was some links to the Uruk mesopotamian groups - I think that is how Assyrians got their L23.


I think more needs to be done in discerning between different kinds of non-European R1b. I highly doubt they all belong to the same group.

Humanist
10-06-2013, 12:48 AM
I think more needs to be done in discerning between different kinds of non-European R1b. I highly doubt they all belong to the same group.

In a few years, a good deal will be sorted out. Full Y Chromosome Sequencing (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?742-Full-Y-Chromosome-Sequencing-Phase-III-Pilot&p=15217&viewfull=1#post15217).

AJL
10-06-2013, 01:05 AM
M269xL23 and L23 both appear in Albanians and evidence of their language suggests that their original homeland was landlocked mountanous land with the best option being western Romania. So, I would conclude on this admittedly slender evidence that M269xL23 was originally located there in terms of its Balkans history although thinly spread around in east-central Europe.

It is possible but highly inelegant as a theory because you find M73* and M269* and Z2105* in the -Stans and in Armenians, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, Ossetians, Georgians, and both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, with smaller amount in Ukraine and Poland and less in the Balkans.

Kosovars are notably high in E-V13 and are low in I2a. This suggests rather more strongly that Albanians (and potentially Bulgarians, who are also fairly high in early R1b) are closer to the Neolithic Near Eastern farmer expansion than other Balkanites, rather than that the Balkans was a source of all kinds of R1b subclades all of which are now rarer there than they are in the South Caucasus, don't you think?

alan
10-06-2013, 01:08 AM
Even with L23xL51, it may date back to 3500BC or even earlier so that puts it back in a time before the different IE language branches even emerged, with the possible exception of Anatolian. So its entirely possible it was early associated with a number of IE languages in Europe and Asia not to mention neighbouring Caucasus and Mesopotamian languages.


I think more needs to be done in discerning between different kinds of non-European R1b. I highly doubt they all belong to the same group.

alan
10-06-2013, 01:29 AM
The non-survival of any R1b lines pre-dating 4000BC and largely 3500BC in SE Europe makes it very unlikely that M269 was involved wwith early farmers there. If it had been it would have branch 3000 years earlier and had far more variance. If it had been in SW Asia in early farming times then the discrepancy become even worse and it should have branched 4 or 5000 years earlier. Basically R1b does zilch between P25, perhaps 15000BC until M73, M269 and its distant cousin V88 appear in the copper age after 5000BC. That is not the pattern expected from a clade involved in the early farming groups in Asia or SE Europe. I would maybe stretch the dates, allowing for uncertainties, to allow it to have been absorbed in secondary farming groups in the Balkans but SW Asia seem out of the question. Not to mention it is conspicuous by its absence in ancient Neolithic DNA of the LBK, Cardial and other cultures so far but yet it was found in the one and only beaker site tested to date. It looks very much to me that R1b was a copper age expansion and did not enter developed farming cultures until at least 5000BC.

The best explantion I can see for the patterns is that P25 occurred in somewhere like north Iran or adjacent. Some of this ancestral form remained in this area and perhaps the south Caucasus and eventually gave birth to V88 in the copper age. IMO the prime candidate for the spread of this through Anatolia and down through the Levant is the Kura-Araxes culture. P297 appears to have headed more northwards judging by the fact its earliest subclade M73 c. 5000BC seems to have most likely been located close to the Urals. M269 likely arose in a location that farming arrived late in too. The main candidates are the steppe, the north Caucasus and Caspian Iran, all of which didnt receive farming until 5000BC. The Maykop culture linked the steppe fringe, the north Caucasus and NW Iran and even the Uruk north Mesopotamians at precisely the time M269 arose and is definately a good candidate for this lineage.


It is possible but highly inelegant as a theory because you find M73* and M269* and Z2105* in the -Stans and in Armenians, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, Ossetians, Georgians, and both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, with smaller amount in Ukraine and Poland and less in the Balkans.

Kosovars are notably high in E-V13 and are low in I2a. This suggests rather more strongly that Albanians (and potentially Bulgarians, who are also fairly high in early R1b) are closer to the Neolithic Near Eastern farmer expansion than other Balkanites, rather than that the Balkans was a source of all kinds of R1b subclades all of which are now rarer there than they are in the South Caucasus, don't you think?

alan
10-06-2013, 01:50 AM
I should add that M73 is practically unknown in Europe west of the Black Sea and south of the Caspian-Black Sea area. Where it is known it is almost always in Turkic groups who probably absorbed it in Medieval times somewhere on the steppe. A recent study show that other than the possibly Balkans derived Armenians, L23 is far more common on the north than the south side of the Caucasus. M73 was unknown in the south caucasus and only appeared in one Turkic group in the north Caucasus. A recent paper found either none or just one M73 guy in a study of 100s of Iranians from many regions. Only Turkic peoples seem to have absorbed some of it.

There is no single R1b story. The branches leading to M269 and V88 only share a common ancestor SNP back c. 14 or 15000BC in the times when R1b had not long existed. So, they are incredibly distant relatives. Almost as distant as being different haplogroups. V88 had to come from a late P25* individual who had remained in a more southerly area - Iran, south Caucasus etc. We know that V88 spread south through the Levant at a point after its coming into existence. Probably the only candidate is Kura Araxes. This is probably the origin of P25 and V88 found among Jews and other groups in the area.

However, P297 must have a different story as its oldest subclade M73 is clearly northern and almost unknown in Iran, the Caucasus and the middle east bar a few Turks. The common thread seems to be a location around the south Caspian with a partial dispersal northwards c. 9000-5000BC at some point. Some elements, the P25 ones, were more stay-home and remained around the Caspian Iran and south Caucasus area where farming also arrive much later than Anatolia or SW Asia. Farming arrived around 5000BC in those areas and the major expansion south was Kura-Araxes c. 3500BC down through the Levant and onto the doorstep of Africa where the clade seems to have spread down the Nile. The African V88 is largely similar to the late local V69 clade in terms of STRs suggesting it only entered Africa shortly before V69 SNP occurred - only 4 or 5 thousand years ago.

I cannot emphasis enough that the evidence for even the southerly strands of R1b is that they were peripheral to farming and

TigerMW
10-06-2013, 05:00 AM
Alan, I was referring to L23. I don't think all L23 is alike.

As far as we we know, all of the R1b-L23xL51 remaining appear to be Z2105+ (see tree below.)
However there are SNP defined subgroups under Z2105 and STR diversity is high. Using long haplotypes, I consistently find that L23xL51 (probably Z2105) has significantly higher variance than R1b-L23>L51>L11 which is where almost all the western and central European R1b sits. Z2105 also shows higher variance than L51xL11 in my calculations, but this is questionable as I don't have that many L51xL11 long haplotypes and the difference is not great.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b_Descendency_Tree.jpg

Joe B
10-06-2013, 05:51 AM
I was referring to L23. I don't think all L23 is alike.
I've noticed two schools of thought regarding the "all L23 is not alike" statement. One school is finding the different subclades such as L584+ and seeing if some geographical or ethnic correlations can be found.
The other school usually has an agenda and cherry picks or manipulates the data for that agenda. For example, a number of individuals in Ireland and Scotland are L23+ and do not test for other snps. For some reason being labeled L23+, even if they really look L21+ and probably would be if they tested for that snp, makes them feel better.
Seriously, if anybody has some ideas on different subclades of L23/L150/Z2103, let's hear them. As AJL reminded me on another thread, Z2103 in Western Europe is an enigma or something to that effect. So true.
So far, I have not seen any patterns in strs or snps that cannot be found circum Anatolia. From the copper age to the Greeks and Romans, all the way to the 20th century diaspora of Assyrians and Armenians, Anatolia seems to have been sending a little Z2103 to Europe for a long time. In my humble opinion.

Just noted that Mike posted the phylogenetic tree and that Z2103 and Z2105 are both used to identify this subclade.

alan
10-06-2013, 10:09 AM
I suppose we cannot be sure. The only thing I think it indicates fairly well with some certainty is that the route, possibly in both directions, between the north Caucasus and NW Iran was once important than the one straight through the Caucasus. That is also borne out by archaeology which tends to divide the north and south a lot of the time. There was a very sharp contrast between the two in the copper age with Maykop having a lot of rich burials but pretty flimsy settlement while Kura Araxes have few burials and complex large settlements of a more SW Asian sort of tradition. Maykop had one foot in a steppe sort of economy and one foot in a more developed farming one. Maykop to me is a classic multi-input culture that could have had Caucasian farmer, steppe hunter-farmer and Iranian elements in it in uncertain proportions. I just suspect from a wider consideration of L23 that the latter may have been the metallurgical element with links to NW Iran but it is also possible that L23 in NW Iran is from the north Caucasus because Maykop kurgans are found there too c. 3500BC.


These ideas make some since. Iran has had numerous links with the East Caucasus both in ancient times and modern times up until the Qajars and Russians. How can we be sure modern empires didn't spread this R1b though?

alan
10-06-2013, 10:20 AM
Me neither. Its age alone makes it older than an IE dialect and there may have been Caucasus and other languages within its reach. If it was linked to the Maykop culture then it had links to Iran and through them to Mesopotamia. So, even back in 3500BC there could have been a variety of languages spoken by L23 people. I agree too its probably split into many branches that we dont even know the detail of yet.


Alan, I was referring to L23. I don't think all L23 is alike.

AJL
10-06-2013, 02:55 PM
alan I am not clear on what you're saying here -- are you saying first that early R1b1 was in or near Iran -- which I'll buy -- but then it went to the Balkans, and all subclades of L23 back-migrated from the Balkans to around Iran/Anatolia, where they are now more numerous and diverse than in the Balkans? That doesn't pass Occam's test, does it?

Sorry to say but it appears to me you are leaping to conclusions because you are fond of an out-of-Balkans origin story for Armenians. Don't forget that Hungarians and Turks have traces of Central Asian yDNA in comparison to their neighbours (e.g. Slovaks and Greeks respectively), but still not nearly much as their origin stories would suggest.

alan
10-06-2013, 11:09 PM
Mike you stated 'Z2105 also shows higher variance than L51xL11 in my calculations, but this is questionable as I don't have that many L51xL11 long haplotypes and the difference is not great'. I recall this being said before - that L51 is not a lot younger than Z2105. If that was true it would be very interesting as it would imply that the period between L23 and the L51 and Z2015 SNPs. So it might be futile to look for the L23* ancestor of L51*.

I think that would be an interesting scenario if they are very close in time to each other yet they have significantly different concentrations today while L51* looking rare to unknown east of the Alps and being mainly Balkans and east-central European. That would imply a lightning speed move unless the trail has been erased since. Or perhaps that L23 actually arose close to the intersection of the two main distributions somewhere like Hungary, west Romania or the north Balkans and that the downstream clades each moved out from that sort of location.

The date of 3500BC suggested for L23 falls into the middle of an interesting millenium and a half in the Balkans between the early steppe waves c. 4500-4000BC and the arrival of the Yamnaya groups c. 2900BC. Even allowing for the variance date being out by 600 years either way this still remains the context in the Balkans. I think the Balkans focus on this is justified as it is biggest single block of L23xL51 today. I think further points in this can be teased out albeit tentatively.

I have already posted that M269* may have been located in the Albanians suggested pre-Albania homeland in western Romania. Now it is thought by several to date to around 4000BC. That would place it as occurring around the sort of time the early steppe groups were coming into the Balkans. This date is bang on the collapse of Old Europe too. It is hard to think of any other possibility why a lineage with no surviving traces of any of its P297* ancestor lineage of the previous 5000 years in the Balkans or indeed anywhere suddenly appears at the death of Old Europe just as the first steppe groups intrude. The date is an almost uncanny match. The logical deduction to me is that steppe groups brought it to the Balkans. It seems illogical to think that it was derived from the pre-existing farmers given its lack of any ancestor. The lack of an ancestry trail makes much more sense in a place like the steppes and indeed echoes the lack of ancestral lines prior to 4-5000BC of any off steppe R groups. It seems that this may just be a feature of life on the steppes prior to that period with lineages barely reproducing themselves. I understand that M269* does not have great variance now but there are all sorts of potential reasons for that. It is however at least a close brother lineage to L23* The only place in Europe where significant amounts of both M269* and L23XL51 survive together is the Balkans, especially the Albanians. This could suggest a model that M269 occurred as a steppe group arrived around 4000BC, perhaps with the arrival in Old Europe being the cause of the survival of this line. L23 may have occurred in-situ in the Balkans among their descendants. The age of L23 makes it pre-Yamnaya, especially in Balkans terms where it is dated about 600 years before the Yamnaya intrusions there c. 2900BC.

If L23 occurred in-situ in the Balkans, perhaps somewhere like Romania or east Hungary then the subsequent spread of its clades has a nice centre of gravity. It is not so far from there for L23 to have spread in both in the form of Z2015 clades around the Balkans and into Anatolia and later Armenia and for another line to have hopped from Hungary to Tyrol to found L51. L23Xl51 and the small quantity of M269xL23 in Anatolia and Armenia can then simply be explained by the suggested origins of Hittites etc and later Armenians being in the Balkans.

To me, a lot of this stacks up well. Even if M269 and L23 turned out to both be say 500 years older, the basic model I have outlined above would still basically stand.

alan
10-06-2013, 11:32 PM
alan I am not clear on what you're saying here -- are you saying first that early R1b1 was in or near Iran -- which I'll buy -- but then it went to the Balkans, and all subclades of L23 back-migrated from the Balkans to around Iran/Anatolia, where they are now more numerous and diverse than in the Balkans? That doesn't pass Occam's test, does it?

Sorry to say but it appears to me you are leaping to conclusions because you are fond of an out-of-Balkans origin story for Armenians. Don't forget that Hungarians and Turks have traces of Central Asian yDNA in comparison to their neighbours (e.g. Slovaks and Greeks respectively), but still not nearly much as their origin stories would suggest.

My reading is that R1b in its p25 phase in the Palaeolithic was based in southern Iran. Some of it stayed behind in the south as P25 lines (one of which ultimately giving birth to V88) but P297 lines headed north giving birth to its oldest subclade M73 towards the Urals area. Another P297 line may have also headed north but more to the west around the north Caucasus-steppe interface area and given birth to M269 there. That put M269 in the zone where it could become part of steppe groups, Maykop and through the later expanded back to NW Iran. M269xL23 soon arrived in the Balkans from the steppe where it is more common than anywhere else. The default Occams razor stance has to be that M269 first significantly got a permanent foothold where it is now most common - the Balkans and east central Europe. It is by far the highest among Albanians who may have originally been positioned in Romania. That suggests the first foothold other than nomadic life on the steppes may have been around Romania. L23 as a descendant of M269xL23 may have occurred in the vicinity too - I have read that L23 in Romania is as old as Anatolia in terms of variance. So, that to me still highlights the area. A fairly early offshoot to Anatolia within a short time of L23 coming into existence and associated with the Hittites etc may explain the L23 variance in Anatolia. Also, a number of separate migrations with L23 likely included piled up in Anatolia from Hittites, Luwians etc to Phyrgians to Armenians and Greeks which suggest the variance may well be a particularly complex composite of a number of different Balkans derived groups arriving across a couple of millenia. That would inflate the variance as it would include L23 from a whole range of peoples.

Its not really my own opinion that the IE peoples of Anatolia and Armenia came from the Balkans, its the conclusion of the largest body of linguists, archaeologists and historians and is very main stream, the leading model really.

The basic problem with reversing this and proposing an Anatolian origin is the age currently suggested for m269 and L23 in the copper age. There is no major movement out of Anatolia in the period 4000-3500BC into eastern Europe and beyond. While in contrast the big story of that period was the collapse of old Europe and the influx of steppe tribes. There is simply nothing in an out of Anatolia model in that period. The only way I would consider an out of Anatolia model possible is if the variance dates are wrong and M269 is pushed back a couple of millenia in date. Then it would be game on for a link with Anatolians - perhaps dairy pastoralists from Marmara.

alan
10-06-2013, 11:50 PM
Or to strip it right down using an Occams Razor approach

1. Where is the largest concentration of very early R1b clades - northern Iran - shown by a recent population study

2. Where is the majority of the oldest clade of the P297 line - Urals, steppes and central Asia M73

3. Where is the other other oldest clade of the P297 lines, M269, known in the biggest numbers in its most ancestral state - M269* in the Balkans - especially Albanians.

4. Where do both M269* and L23xL51 occur together in significant numbers -same as last answer.

5. Where is the largest continuous block of L23xL51-the Balkans/east central Europe.

6. Where does mainstream thinking put the origins of Armenians and their language - the Balkans

7. Where does mainstream thinking usually place the origins of the Anatolian group IEs like Hittites - the Balkans

8. What is the main headline story of migration in the period 4000-3500BC - the fall of old Europe and the appearance of the early Suvorovo/ochre grave type steppe groups in the Balkans.

9. Where does Anthony place the origins of the Anatolian IE language group like Hittites-the Balkans associated with the Suvorovo groups who he suggests arrived around 4000BC and moved to Anatolia by 3000BC.


So, it is not without due cause that I see the Balkans as an important and early phase in the history of M269* and L23XL51.

AJL
10-07-2013, 12:23 AM
If you are basing your reasoning on this study (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html), the "M269" data comes mainly not from original research but is rather extracted from three papers published 5, 8, and 10 years ago, which tested M269 but not key SNPs further on:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html#bib1

As you can see from the L23 map in this paper, L23 is found in the Balkans but has a stronger concentration in and around the Caucasus and Anatolia, just as with Z2103/Z2105.

A quick look at the ht35 Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/) has three of the four Albanians tested and both Kosovars as actually being Z2103/Z2105, not M269*. All Bulgarians tested are L23.

This is the problem with patchwork SNP studies that cut and paste results from various levels of testing -- people get misled by the results. "M269" does not always mean "M269*."

alan
10-07-2013, 12:50 AM
I am aware of that distinction. I base my observations on a number of studies of Iran, the Caucasus, Bulgaria and many others but I dont have time to list them. They have all been discussed on this site in the last year. I dont tend to take the project stats as reliable at all and wouldnt use them as a basis for any observations. There was a paper specifically on L23 out earlier this year.

The thing I am more and more finding is that peoples rather than geography is important in yDNA and peoples tend to move from original locations. Anatolia has a large amount of likely L23-rich populations thought to have entered it. The Armenians for example are thought to linguistically relate close to the south Balkans linguistically. I think this fits the yDNA even if they largely took native wives after arriving. There was a time when Asia Minor had a large number of IE peoples thought to have been from the Balkans - probably at least 8 or 9 different groups being recorded - mostly thought to be from Europe. It has such a messy history that its really hard to draw any conclusions there.


If you are basing your reasoning on this study (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html), the "M269" data comes mainly not from original research but is rather extracted from three papers published 5, 8, and 10 years ago, which tested M269 but not key SNPs further on:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html#bib1

As you can see from the L23 map in this paper, L23 is found in the Balkans but has a stronger concentration in and around the Caucasus and Anatolia, just as with Z2103/Z2105.

A quick look at the ht35 Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/) has three of the four Albanians tested and both Kosovars as actually being Z2103/Z2105, not M269*. All Bulgarians tested are L23.

This is the problem with patchwork SNP studies that cut and paste results from various levels of testing -- people get misled by the results. "M269" does not always mean "M269*."

Humanist
10-07-2013, 02:46 AM
As far as we we know, all of the R1b-L23xL51 remaining appear to be Z2105+ (see tree below.)
However there are SNP defined subgroups under Z2105 and STR diversity is high. Using long haplotypes, I consistently find that L23xL51 (probably Z2105) has significantly higher variance than R1b-L23>L51>L11 which is where almost all the western and central European R1b sits. Z2105 also shows higher variance than L51xL11 in my calculations, but this is questionable as I don't have that many L51xL11 long haplotypes and the difference is not great.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b_Descendency_Tree.jpg

Hi Mike. Did you create the above graphic? If so, how about adding a spot for L943 below L584? I do not see much discussion on the forums about it. From the scant testing to date, two Assyrian R-L584 men are derived for L943, and one Assyrian R-L584 man is ancestral.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/l943_gd-1.jpg

AJL
10-07-2013, 03:00 AM
It looks like we agree that early R1b1 is close to Iran, so let's take it from there.


3. Where is the other other oldest clade of the P297 lines, M269, known in the biggest numbers in its most ancestral state - M269* in the Balkans - especially Albanians.


As I have said, you (or others whose work you are relying on) appear to have misread or misquoted or misunderstood these studies. M269 was tested in the absence of further markers, and the results collated in a rather confusing way.

Go actually look at the ht35 Project, and look at the Bulgarian Project. All Bulgarian R1b in the project appears to be tested either L11 or Z2103, and most or all Kosovar and Albanian in the ht35 Project is, too.

If there are studies on actual M269* of which I am unaware, please let me know. So far I have seen it in projects confirmed primarily in Assyrians, Jews, Syrian and Lebanese Arabs, and Armenians, with a couple of Greek and Italian cases. This does not speak unequivocally of a Balkan origin for M269, especially when we have V88 in the same neck of the woods.


4. Where do both M269* and L23xL51 occur together in significant numbers

Again, I believe you've misread the stats.


5. Where is the largest continuous block of L23xL51

I do not know what you mean by that. But L23 density is highest in West Asia according to the very study I linked to -- not ignoring the proviso that they did not test for Z2103 so those studies are questionable -- which is remarkable because of the presence of numerous other haplogroups there that appear to be of some antiquity.


6. Where does mainstream thinking put the origins of Armenians and their language

This is contentious as you know: there is no single "mainstream" answer. Some linguists claim ties to Greek and Albanian, others to Indo-Iranian.

In any event, if you want to think of Armenians as transplants, Dodecad finds they overlap autosomally with Turks and no other peoples, and form several clusters themselves. Armenians are quite discernable from Balkan people with no suggestion of any deviation westward as compared to their neighbours. You could also read this:

http://www.arslanmb.org/ArmenianDNAProject/Balkan%20poster_7b%20May.pdf

TigerMW
10-07-2013, 03:22 AM
Mike you stated 'Z2105 also shows higher variance than L51xL11 in my calculations, but this is questionable as I don't have that many L51xL11 long haplotypes and the difference is not great'. I recall this being said before - that L51 is not a lot younger than Z2105. If that was true it would be very interesting as it would imply that the period between L23 and the L51 and Z2015 SNPs. So it might be futile to look for the L23* ancestor of L51*....

Please don't read too much into this.

So far the L51xL11 that've I've seen all has 426=13 and appears to be its own subclade, possibly all being Z2113+. If I do long haplotype STR variances and compare them with big subclades of L11, like P312 and U106, along with L11 itself; I don't see much difference. Because of the large biases within something like P312 my inclination is that L51xL11 426=13 is about the same age as L11. However, it is higher.

On the other hand, L23xL51 (probably Z2105+ Z2103+) seems enough older to call significant. However, these things are gray. L51xL11 is an "in-betweener" and we have little data on it so I just don't feel good about saying it is closer to L11's age or closer to L23xL51's age.

Particularly given that L51xL11 has 426=13 (so far) I don't think we should look for the ancestor-like haplotype for L11 among L51xL11. So, yes, I think that would be a futile effort.

Likewise, M269xL23 in the Balkans is one we don't have much in the way of long haplotypes on, but of what we do have, it does not appear old, no older than L11, for example. It's not impossible because the Balkans are under tested, but it may be futile to look for an ancestor-like M269* for L23 there.

Since we are talking about modern DNA, all of these things are just remnant branches and no lineage is ancestral to another. We can only do so much extrapolation with that. I think of these paragroups as just distant cousins. That is important though as finding a lot of different cousins somewhere might indicate a trail. A higher diversity in the paragroup would be more "different" cousins located there.

TigerMW
10-07-2013, 03:35 AM
Hi Mike. Did you create the above graphic? If so, how about adding a spot for L943 below L584? I do not see much discussion on the forums about it. From the scant testing to date, two Assyrian R-L584 men are derived for L943, and one Assyrian R-L584 man is ancestral.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/l943_gd-1.jpg

Yes, I updated the graphic. There is a thread I opened just to invite feedback/corrections/updates for this chart. That thread is the "R1b Early Branching Phylogeny (SNP based family tree)" under the R1b-Early-Subclades category. Please don't forget to update us there when new information comes in.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?51-R1b-Early-Subclades

I use that graphic on the R1b-YDNA yahoo group which is the primary project news vehicle for the R1b Gateway FTDNA project. The whole idea is to get R1b predicted people into the project, get them to 67 STRs and then SNP tested.

alan
10-07-2013, 09:29 PM
i agree that there is no such thing as an ancestral clade. However, it is interesting where you get overlaps between close brother clades that branched apart early. All I want to read into M269* is that it is indicative of branching off of a line before L23. So, although not ancestral as such it is an early branching. It is tempting to kind of triangulat between brother branches to see where we land. Another case is L23 and M73 - sharing an SNP maybe 5000 years earlier. They barely overlaps now because M73, except among some Turkics who probably absorbed it in the steppes, is pretty well unknown in SW Asia. It also seems to basically stop at the Ukraine west boundary and is virtually unknown west of it in the Balkans. The overlap zone between the two is probably the western steppes even though neither is very common there. Problem is that is the very area where we can have virtually no hope of the present population representing the distant past.



Please don't read too much into this.

So far the L51xL11 that've I've seen all has 426=13 and appears to be its own subclade, possibly all being Z2113+. If I do long haplotype STR variances and compare them with big subclades of L11, like P312 and U106, along with L11 itself; I don't see much difference. Because of the large biases within something like P312 my inclination is that L51xL11 426=13 is about the same age as L11. However, it is higher.

On the other hand, L23xL51 (probably Z2105+ Z2103+) seems enough older to call significant. However, these things are gray. L51xL11 is an "in-betweener" and we have little data on it so I just don't feel good about saying it is closer to L11's age or closer to L23xL51's age.

Particularly given that L51xL11 has 426=13 (so far) I don't think we should look for the ancestor-like haplotype for L11 among L51xL11. So, yes, I think that would be a futile effort.

Likewise, M269xL23 in the Balkans is one we don't have much in the way of long haplotypes on, but of what we do have, it does not appear old, no older than L11, for example. It's not impossible because the Balkans are under tested, but it may be futile to look for an ancestor-like M269* for L23 there.

Since we are talking about modern DNA, all of these things are just remnant branches and no lineage is ancestral to another. We can only do so much extrapolation with that. I think of these paragroups as just distant cousins. That is important though as finding a lot of different cousins somewhere might indicate a trail. A higher diversity in the paragroup would be more "different" cousins located there.

newtoboard
10-08-2013, 01:35 PM
i agree that there is no such thing as an ancestral clade. However, it is interesting where you get overlaps between close brother clades that branched apart early. All I want to read into M269* is that it is indicative of branching off of a line before L23. So, although not ancestral as such it is an early branching. It is tempting to kind of triangulat between brother branches to see where we land. Another case is L23 and M73 - sharing an SNP maybe 5000 years earlier. They barely overlaps now because M73, except among some Turkics who probably absorbed it in the steppes, is pretty well unknown in SW Asia. It also seems to basically stop at the Ukraine west boundary and is virtually unknown west of it in the Balkans. The overlap zone between the two is probably the western steppes even though neither is very common there. Problem is that is the very area where we can have virtually no hope of the present population representing the distant past.

Unless you meant the Eastern steppes of Mongolia and China is where Turks picked up R1b-M73, they started expanding too late for them to have picked up R1b in the steppes (if it was ever there in the first place). The steppes were occupied by R1a tribes when Turks started expanding as was South Siberia. The area around the Urals was probably occupied by a mix of R1a tribes and N1c Uralic tribes.

newtoboard
10-08-2013, 01:46 PM
Its not really my own opinion that the IE peoples of Anatolia and Armenia came from the Balkans, its the conclusion of the largest body of linguists, archaeologists and historians and is very main stream, the leading model really.



No it is not the leading model. The leading model is the IE languages of Anatolia and Armenia came from the Balkans. The leading model is not that the IE speaking people of Anatolia and Armenia derive their lineages from the Balkans. That is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part given the lineage in question (R1b-L23) is found among groups in West Asia who don't have ancestry from Balkan and Anatolian IE speakers and these R1b-L23 carriers who are supposedly from the Balkans didn't affect Armenian autosomal DNA as another poster said. That alone makes it unlikely especially since we see numerous examples of groups affecting autosomal DNA. R1b carriers from West Asia impacted NW European autosomal DNA but IE speakers from the Balkans couldn't do it in Anatolia? That is wishful thinking.

TigerMW
10-08-2013, 02:01 PM
No it is not the leading model. The leading model is the IE languages of Anatolia and Armenia came from the Balkans. The leading model is not that the IE speaking people of Anatolia and Armenia derive their lineages from the Balkans. That is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part given the lineage in question (R1b-L23) is found among groups in West Asia who don't have ancestry from Balkan and Anatolian IE speakers and these R1b-L23 carriers who are supposedly from the Balkans didn't affect Armenian autosomal DNA as another poster said. That alone makes it unlikely especially since we see numerous examples of groups affecting autosomal DNA. R1b carriers from West Asia impacted NW European autosomal DNA but IE speakers from the Balkans couldn't do it in Anatolia? That is wishful thinking.

Why do you assign "wishful thinking" to Alan? I don't see anything to gain.

If the languages went a certain path, doesn't it make sense to investigate that the possibility that some Y DNA lineages might have followed that path too? I don't think investigation equals wishfulness.

Can you elaborate on your statement "That alone makes it unlikely especially since we see numerous examples of groups affecting autosomal DNA" ? In other threads we haven't found good correlations between R1b and autosomal DNA so I'm not sure how that shows anything.

newtoboard
10-08-2013, 02:28 PM
Why do you assign "wishful thinking" to Alan? I don't see anything to gain.

If the languages went a certain path, doesn't it make sense to investigate that the possibility that some Y DNA lineages might have followed that path too? I don't think investigation equals wishfulness.

Can you elaborate on your statement "That alone makes it unlikely especially since we see numerous examples of groups affecting autosomal DNA" ? In other threads we haven't found good correlations between R1b and autosomal DNA so I'm not sure how that shows anything.

The threads which have focused on R1b and autosomal DNA have focused on R1b's original autosomal signature (which might not exist because R1b could have originated in a mixed population). I'm just talking about Armenians not being Balkan shifted as we would expect if their most common lineage came from the Balkans. Some of their R1b probably did come from the Balkans along with some E-V13 and J2b.

TigerMW
10-08-2013, 02:42 PM
I'm just talking about Armenians not being Balkan shifted as we would expect if their most common lineage came from the Balkans. Some of their R1b probably did come from the Balkans along with some E-V13 and J2b.
What is the DNA comparison you are making that shows how it is that "Armenians not being Balkan shifted" so that their most common lineage must not have come from the Balkans?

newtoboard
10-08-2013, 04:37 PM
What is the DNA comparison you are making that shows how it is that "Armenians not being Balkan shifted" so that their most common lineage must not have come from the Balkans?

AJL covered it well in post 138.

alan
10-08-2013, 05:34 PM
Well I am hardly introducing de-noueau the idea of linking yDNA and languages.

Simply answer is a male elite moving well away from its compatriots and then marrying local women from a very dissimilar background for 3-5000 years. That is why autosomal DNA is problematic. Its basically dictated by the breeding network of the area. Some sort of remnant of an autosomal footprint is more likely if groups keep marrying woman from other similar neighbouring groups. If you move off a great distance many thousands of years ago and marry women who are from a completely different background rather than old neighbouring peoples then the autosomal impact would reduce to tiny.

As for wishful thinking, I though you had stopped using that pejorative language towards me. I am not an IE fetishist as you can see in a post a few days back when I described the great love of IEs in this hobby as weird because they appear to have had a more backwards and rather nasty exploitative society compared to what went before. If you asked me what culture I prefer the vibe of in prehistory then I would say that the first farmers, while not angels, had a nicer society.


No it is not the leading model. The leading model is the IE languages of Anatolia and Armenia came from the Balkans. The leading model is not that the IE speaking people of Anatolia and Armenia derive their lineages from the Balkans. That is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part given the lineage in question (R1b-L23) is found among groups in West Asia who don't have ancestry from Balkan and Anatolian IE speakers and these R1b-L23 carriers who are supposedly from the Balkans didn't affect Armenian autosomal DNA as another poster said. That alone makes it unlikely especially since we see numerous examples of groups affecting autosomal DNA. R1b carriers from West Asia impacted NW European autosomal DNA but IE speakers from the Balkans couldn't do it in Anatolia? That is wishful thinking.

alan
10-08-2013, 05:39 PM
I did mean the eastern steppes although perhaps as far west as the Urals.


Unless you meant the Eastern steppes of Mongolia and China is where Turks picked up R1b-M73, they started expanding too late for them to have picked up R1b in the steppes (if it was ever there in the first place). The steppes were occupied by R1a tribes when Turks started expanding as was South Siberia. The area around the Urals was probably occupied by a mix of R1a tribes and N1c Uralic tribes.

TigerMW
10-08-2013, 05:42 PM
AJL covered it well in post 138.
Your citations are a bit hard to follow as they don't directly align with your statements or they are not direct citations of research but just of another posters reply. (I don't mean that the other poster isn't credible, but it's like citing interpretations of the study interpretations rather than the study directly.)

Before you said this.

No it is not the leading model. The leading model is the IE languages of Anatolia and Armenia came from the Balkans. The leading model is not that the IE speaking people of Anatolia and Armenia derive their lineages from the Balkans. That is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part given the lineage in question (R1b-L23) is found among groups in West Asia who don't have ancestry from Balkan and Anatolian IE speakers and these R1b-L23 carriers who are supposedly from the Balkans didn't affect Armenian autosomal DNA as another poster said. That alone makes it unlikely especially since we see numerous examples of groups affecting autosomal DNA. R1b carriers from West Asia impacted NW European autosomal DNA but IE speakers from the Balkans couldn't do it in Anatolia? That is wishful thinking.

The actual research document cited in #138 which points to the paper "CHECKING THE HYPOTHESIS OF A BALKAN ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIANS". That paper does not even cover R1b, that I can see. With all due respect to the authors as they were working with the limited available, but they were only using 8 Y STRs to go with the evolutionary mutation rates in a study of E1-M78, I-M170 and R1a-M198. R1b was not included in their primary data table. There is a major assumption that they must make that the modern day distribution of these haplogroups in the Balkans was consistent across the whole region of any potential migrants going back to the hypothesized IE people movement. I think we should not overstate the conclusion. They just didn't find any evidence to support the hypothized IE people movement from the Balkans. They can't say, no one can, based on the limited data that it did not happen. I think that AJL was just using this to imply the whole idea is "up in the air". I agree with him in that sense disagree with Alan's implication that a "leading" model should necessarily be considered correct. He may want to clear up that I had wrong impression or something. Perhaps that is all newtoboard is saying too.

Your statements, quoted above emphasizing autosomal DNA anyway. The reference in #138 that AJL made that you must be citing was.

In any event, if you want to think of Armenians as transplants, Dodecad finds they overlap autosomally with Turks and no other peoples, and form several clusters themselves.

newtoboard, can you explain the details of why you expect to find a significant R1b-L23xL51 linkage to the autosomal DNA when we are having a hard time finding consistent 1 for 1 links elsewhere for R1b? L23 is several thousand years old so who they mixed with autosomally might be quite varied.

alan
10-08-2013, 05:49 PM
I have set out in detail my reasoning. If anyone can think of a pan-European out of Anatolia movement in the timeframe 4000-2500BC that would explain European R1b then let me know because I have not. The big population story of that time in Europe was the collapse of the farmers and the spread west of the influence of steppes peoples. That dating is the main reason why this seems impossible to look to SW Asia for the spread of R1b into Europe. If on the other hand R1b dates get shunted back a couple of thousand years then we can talk about the spread of early farming groups, dairy farmers etc from Anatolia. Until then there is no basis for a SW Asian pan European movement in the period.

newtoboard
10-08-2013, 05:52 PM
Your citations are a bit hard to follow as they don't directly align with your statements or they are not direct citations of research but just of another posters reply. (I don't mean that the other poster isn't credible, but it's like citing interpretations of the study interpretations rather than the study directly.)

Before you said this.


The actual research document cited in #138 which points to the paper "CHECKING THE HYPOTHESIS OF A BALKAN ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIANS". That paper does not even cover R1b, that I can see. With all due respect to the authors as they were working with the limited available, but they were only using 8 Y STRs to go with the evolutionary mutation rates in a study of E1-M78, I-M170 and R1a-M198. R1b was not included in their primary data table. There is a major assumption that they must make that the modern day distribution of these haplogroups in the Balkans was consistent across the whole region of any potential migrants going back to the hypothesized IE people movement. I think we should not overstate the conclusion. They just didn't find any evidence to support the hypothized IE people movement from the Balkans. They can't say, no one can, based on the limited data that it did not happen. I think that AJL was just using this to imply the whole idea is "up in the air". I agree with him in that sense disagree with Alan's implication that a "leading" model should necessarily be considered correct. He may want to clear up that I had wrong impression or something.

Your statements, quoted above emphasizing autosomal DNA anyway. The reference in #138 that AJL made that you must be citing was.

Well I Think E-V13 and I are older than R1b in the Balkans. They might not have looked at R1b but we would expect some other Balkan lineages to have moved with the Armenians. I actually agree that there was a movement from the Balkans to Armenia and Anatolia. I just disagree that all Armenian R1b-L23 has roots in this migration.



Can you explain the details of why you expect to find a significant R1b-L23xL51 linkage to the autosomal DNA when we are having a hard time finding consistent 1 for 1 links elsewhere for R1b? L23 is several thousand years old so who they mixed with autosomally might be quite varied.

Well most of that has been in regards to the autosomal signature of early R1b. We don't know what journey R1b took to get to NW Europe. But it should be easier to see a change in autosomal DNA for a movement from the East Balkans to Anatolia/Armenia imo.

newtoboard
10-08-2013, 05:59 PM
Well I am hardly introducing de-noueau the idea of linking yDNA and languages.

Simply answer is a male elite moving well away from its compatriots and then marrying local women from a very dissimilar background for 3-5000 years. That is why autosomal DNA is problematic. Its basically dictated by the breeding network of the area. Some sort of remnant of an autosomal footprint is more likely if groups keep marrying woman from other similar neighbouring groups. If you move off a great distance many thousands of years ago and marry women who are from a completely different background rather than old neighbouring peoples then the autosomal impact would reduce to tiny.


I don't think that is true. Anatolian Turks are clearly Central Asian shifted. Finns are Siberian shifted. NW South Asian groups still have the autosomal signature of Andronovo groups making up 10-20% of their autosomal DNA.

TigerMW
10-08-2013, 06:03 PM
Well I Think E-V13 and I are older than R1b in the Balkans. They might not have looked at R1b but we would expect some other Balkan lineages to have moved with the Armenians. I actually agree that there was a movement from the Balkans to Armenia and Anatolia. I just disagree that all Armenian R1b-L23 has roots in this migration.
I don't know, but you seemed firm in your convictions so I just want to be sure I understand your reasoning.

Since you added the word "all" I tend to agree with you that L23 found in Armenians could have gotten there a couple of ways. We have L23 on the other side of the Caucasus as well as across into the Balkan Peninsula and the west side of the Black Sea. I doubt if there was only single migration one-time only between those areas.

I wouldn't necessarily expect the E-V13 and I to move with R1b. We don't really see that much elsewhere but a few specific cases... I think I-L38 is the one potential example I'm familiar with.

I wouldn't necessarily expect that the Balkans held a static and well spread mix of these haplogroups or of a particular autosomal DNA element. This was a cross-roads area with lots of migration. Some groups could have easily been bypassed.
.

alan
10-08-2013, 06:30 PM
I did mean leading linguistic model. I was just applying the general popular concept that ydna can be linked to the spread of languages. I think we all accept that if this concept is valid then R1b is the only option at the right apparent date for the spread of many IE languages in Europe and probably Armenians too. I think if you compared all R1b groups you would find little in common autosomally. That would be even more a case for an outlying group that had separated from its closest linguistic cousins by a considerable distance.

I still do not understand Newtoboards thing about M73 not being in the steppe early enough. What if it was associated with particular steppe tribes near the Urals that have left some genes there but have no modern representative of their original language. Maybe part or most of them headed off with Afanasievo and ended up very far to the east ahead of other IE groups like Iranian. That would put them in a position to not be mixed with Iranians much but put them in the path of the Turks. Indeed that really does seem to be the best explanation for their current distribution. The Tarim mummies R1a only come from what were likely a few clan graveyards so excluding R1b from the Tocharian question is premature to say the least. More importantly, the Tocharians are not Afanasievo burials. They are later and in a different place and date to a period when Iranian elements had also arrived. So they are not safe evidence for the yDNA of the Afanasievo culture. My own feeling is that they were a mix of R1a and M73. I just feel that M73's distribution best fits an early offshoot well to the east ahead of the game, too early to be involved in the origins of Indo-Iranian. They clearly came from somewhere north of the Caspian and are indeed the oldest P297 clade, old enough to have headed east with Afanasievo ahead of the main Yamnaya waves. There is no reason to think that M73 couldnt have been IE speaking when its closest younger cousins M269 and L23 do have a strong case for associations with IE languages.

Its not as if I have not strongly considered the southern options. I did a lot of reading up on the Palaeolithic, Neolithic and Copper Ages in Iran, the Caucasus, Anatolia etc over the years and cannot make sense of a SW Asian origin of fpr M269 or M73 UNLESS it is older than currently thought - at least 6000BC or earlier. The fact that M73 is older and is close to unknown in SW Asia and the Balkans I think is about the nearest we can get through the evidence of a cousin as to where P297 was located before 5000BC. It almost has to have been located in the steppe-south Urals region to make sense of its distribtion, its cousin relationship with M269, its age and the archaeological evidence. Everything I can see points to it having made it well to the east to the borders of China before being absorbed by the Turks and swept back west.

Most of the first splitters from the IE tree appear to have R1b associations with clade forms that are a good match in dating for the likely spread of their languages. Early splitting could have passed both west and east from their core. I am in no way saying that R1a was not also involved but its most clearcut associations are with Baltic, Slavic and Indo-Iranian while R1b has associations with Italo-Celtic, some Balkans, possibly Anatolian and pretty clearly Armenian.

I still do not understand


Your citations are a bit hard to follow as they don't directly align with your statements or they are not direct citations of research but just of another posters reply. (I don't mean that the other poster isn't credible, but it's like citing interpretations of the study interpretations rather than the study directly.)

Before you said this.


The actual research document cited in #138 which points to the paper "CHECKING THE HYPOTHESIS OF A BALKAN ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIANS". That paper does not even cover R1b, that I can see. With all due respect to the authors as they were working with the limited available, but they were only using 8 Y STRs to go with the evolutionary mutation rates in a study of E1-M78, I-M170 and R1a-M198. R1b was not included in their primary data table. There is a major assumption that they must make that the modern day distribution of these haplogroups in the Balkans was consistent across the whole region of any potential migrants going back to the hypothesized IE people movement. I think we should not overstate the conclusion. They just didn't find any evidence to support the hypothized IE people movement from the Balkans. They can't say, no one can, based on the limited data that it did not happen. I think that AJL was just using this to imply the whole idea is "up in the air". I agree with him in that sense disagree with Alan's implication that a "leading" model should necessarily be considered correct. He may want to clear up that I had wrong impression or something. Perhaps that is all newtoboard is saying too.

Your statements, quoted above emphasizing autosomal DNA anyway. The reference in #138 that AJL made that you must be citing was.


newtoboard, can you explain the details of why you expect to find a significant R1b-L23xL51 linkage to the autosomal DNA when we are having a hard time finding consistent 1 for 1 links elsewhere for R1b? L23 is several thousand years old so who they mixed with autosomally might be quite varied.

alan
10-08-2013, 06:37 PM
I agree L23 could have gotten there from more than one place and at more than one time. I am not saying it is exclusively down to the suggested Bronze Age migration from the Balkans. However, I did consider the Caucasus route too but found that they were a very prevailing cultural barrier in the copper and bronze ages and it was not suggestive of much of a link from that direction. Also, linguists tend to link them as a late satemised language that form a grouping that includes Greeks and Albanians and normally their origin is sought slightly further north within the Balkans and the steppe before that. Regardless its not suggestive of a Caucasus route to me. I would actually consider the possibility of a link via NW Iran much more than one straight through the Caucasus.


I don't know, but you seemed firm in your convictions so I just want to be sure I understand your reasoning.

Since you added the word "all" I tend to agree with you that L23 found in Armenians could have gotten there a couple of ways. We have L23 on the other side of the Caucasus as well as across into the Balkan Peninsula and the west side of the Black Sea. I doubt if there was only single migration one-time only between those areas.

I wouldn't necessarily expect the E-V13 and I to move with R1b. We don't really see that much elsewhere but a few specific cases... I think I-L38 is the one potential example I'm familiar with.

I wouldn't necessarily expect that the Balkans held a static and well spread mix of these haplogroups or of a particular autosomal DNA element. This was a cross-roads area with lots of migration. Some groups could have easily been bypassed.
.

newtoboard
10-08-2013, 06:45 PM
I agree L23 could have gotten there from more than one place and at more than one time. I am not saying it is exclusively down to the suggested Bronze Age migration from the Balkans. However, I did consider the Caucasus route too but found that they were a very prevailing cultural barrier in the copper and bronze ages and it was not suggestive of much of a link from that direction. Also, linguists tend to link them as a late satemised language that form a grouping that includes Greeks and Albanians and normally their origin is sought slightly further north within the Balkans and the steppe before that. Regardless its not suggestive of a Caucasus route to me. I would actually consider the possibility of a link via NW Iran much more than one straight through the Caucasus.

And yet you still haven't considered the possibility that L23 originated there.

newtoboard
10-08-2013, 06:46 PM
I don't know, but you seemed firm in your convictions so I just want to be sure I understand your reasoning.

Since you added the word "all" I tend to agree with you that L23 found in Armenians could have gotten there a couple of ways. We have L23 on the other side of the Caucasus as well as across into the Balkan Peninsula and the west side of the Black Sea. I doubt if there was only single migration one-time only between those areas.

I wouldn't necessarily expect the E-V13 and I to move with R1b. We don't really see that much elsewhere but a few specific cases... I think I-L38 is the one potential example I'm familiar with.

I wouldn't necessarily expect that the Balkans held a static and well spread mix of these haplogroups or of a particular autosomal DNA element. This was a cross-roads area with lots of migration. Some groups could have easily been bypassed.
.

Those lineages seem common all over the Balkans. Why wouldn't we expect E-V13 to move with R1b? We don't see that elsewhere because R1b elsewhere likely bypassed the Balkans.

newtoboard
10-08-2013, 06:47 PM
Tocharian's R1b connections are just speculation. Nothing more at this point. Armenian might not have R1b connections either. There is enough R1a in Greece and Armenia to account for their IE language. L23 might have been a lineage Armenians picked up or something already present in Armenia. Nor is there any evidence the PIE speakers were R1b.

alan
10-08-2013, 06:53 PM
Yes I have. I have said before that it could be somehow connected to the links that the Maykop phenomenon had with NW Iran according to that recent German paper on the subject. I dont known which way L23 would have gone though because later Maykop kurgans appear in NW Iran. So, it was a two way process. I believe the Maykop chiefs on the Caucasus-steppe interface basically operated as a middleman between NW Iran and the steppes but its clear this cut both ways so its really hard to say which direction genes flowed in - probably both.

I have also discussed Iran extensively in terms of the likely origins of R1b up to and including P25xP297. I just have problems extending this to P297 because its earliest clade is absent there and in adjacent areas like the south Caucasus. However, I accept that while the P297 lineage leading to M73 looks like it headed north prior to 5000BC, it is not impossible that another P297 lineage that would lead to M269 and L23 could have stayed closer to home and could theoretically have moved north with the Maykop connection.


And yet you still haven't considered the possibility that L23 originated there.

alan
10-08-2013, 06:56 PM
There is no evidence at all for the PIE period c. 4000-3500BC. What we know is that cultures most often linked to IE languageS came to be associated with R1a in the east and R1b in the west by the 3rd millenium. We have ancient DNA to strongly suggest that. We have not a single bit of direct evidence for the PIE period. So yes its all speculation but what else is this site for?


Tocharian's R1b connections are just speculation. Nothing more at this point. Armenian might not have R1b connections either. There is enough R1a in Greece and Armenia to account for their IE language. L23 might have been a lineage Armenians picked up or something already present in Armenia. Nor is there any evidence the PIE speakers were R1b.

alan
10-08-2013, 07:01 PM
One small bit of indirect evidence that supports the idea of an R1b link with the Balkans-Armenian proposed language group os that both Balkans groups like Albanians and Armenians around Ararat have not only the L23 clade but also the M269XL23 clade. I would expect a light trial in between too. This is rare so although perhaps a small fellow-travellor with L23, it could be significant in linking the two areas.

alan
10-08-2013, 07:04 PM
Again an elite immigration. L23's date makes it a good candidate for an adstrate copper age elite in the Balkans. E-V13 may simply have been in the substrate and not part of the elite. There is a lot of evidence of both R groups ability to spread their own lines while excluding other older lines.


Those lineages seem common all over the Balkans. Why wouldn't we expect E-V13 to move with R1b? We don't see that elsewhere because R1b elsewhere likely bypassed the Balkans.

newtoboard
10-08-2013, 09:18 PM
One small bit of indirect evidence that supports the idea of an R1b link with the Balkans-Armenian proposed language group os that both Balkans groups like Albanians and Armenians around Ararat have not only the L23 clade but also the M269XL23 clade. I would expect a light trial in between too. This is rare so although perhaps a small fellow-travellor with L23, it could be significant in linking the two areas.

What do Albanians have to do with anything? Albanian is located in its own branch of IE languages.

parasar
10-08-2013, 09:26 PM
Tocharian's R1b connections are just speculation. ... Nor is there any evidence the PIE speakers were R1b.

True. There is no evidence that PIE were R1a either.
As ~95% R1b and R1a are IE speakers today, we could reasonably speculate that both were present in the core PIE group.

alan
10-08-2013, 11:05 PM
Albanian has been grouped several time by scholars with Greek, Armenian and Phyrgian bot using traditional and mathematical models. Armenian is seen as a late leaver from the area hence aerial satemisation. I have also read some pretty convincing arguements that vocab of Armenian and lack of Greek influence shows it was originally spoken in a mountainous land-locked area further north, probably Romania and may stem from a Dacian dialect.

Also to come back to your autosomal DNA arguement for a non-Balkans origin of Armenian I would point out too that Armenian itself may show a parallel for the lack of Balkans DNA. Armenian as a very odd language today with only a massively reduced amount of its native vocab left as opposed to borrowings. It displays all the traits of a language with the history it has had and there is no reason to suppose that the autosomal DNA doesnt also reflect this position as an isolated group cut off for millenia from the groups it is closest linguistically linked to and dominated and persecuted by outside powers. I have a lot of respect for the Armenians, their difficult history and their ancient culture and I do like the fact that one way or another they are distant cousins.



What do Albanians have to do with anything? Albanian is located in its own branch of IE languages.

alan
10-08-2013, 11:17 PM
That is an important point. First we do not have any DNA from what is thought to be the PIE homeland from an early enough period. Secondly, even if we did, we still cannot prove what they were speaking. There is still schools of thought that would say we have got it all wrong and the homeland is elsewhere. Actually after doing a lot of reading into the relationship of Sredny Stog peoples, the Balkans farmers etc I would favour the east Balkans as a possible alternative homeland for PIE. Now that the Uralic borrowings from PIE no longer appears remotely safe, it widens up a wider possible area. The wheel is of course known very early just west of the steppes. Graves such as Varna etc do not support the idea that hierarchy was a steppe thing. I am now aware of the big influences exerted on the western steppes by the farmers prior to the reversal of that and the evidence from Sredny Stog craniology that this involved people from the farmers areas exists too, apparently especially males. If the PIE homeland was there then the Anatolian homeland would of course likely be Anatolia.

For now I will however stick with the steppes theory and wait until someone puts together a modern version of a Balkans one. What actually annoys me in IE studies is the frequent pretense that it is a done deal when doubt remains and some so called major bits of solid evidence like Uralic suddenly becomes very dubious. I keep an open mind on this but for now I think its up to someone out there to knock down the steppes theory and to defend the alternative.


True. There is no evidence that PIE were R1a either.
As ~95% R1b and R1a are IE speakers today, we could reasonably speculate that both were present in the core PIE group.

TigerMW
10-09-2013, 03:56 AM
What do Albanians have to do with anything? Albanian is located in its own branch of IE languages.

Albanian does seem to be distinct but this cladistic language tree is supposed to be the one with the latest and greatest with the best statistical "fit". Albanian is put on some very early branching with pre-Germanic. Notice Armenian is on the branch with Greek. Linquists argue extensively on these kinds of things.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/IE-Language-Tree_Reconstruction_by_Warnow_2013.jpg

alan
10-09-2013, 08:59 AM
There are a number of models. I have seen recent ones that group Albanian and Phyrgian with Greek and Armenian in a Balkans group. It seems to be an up and coming model. I had read that the grouping with Germanic was discredited. However, the important thing for present purposes is that Armenian is close to Greek which does suggest a Balkans origin. It does seem to be a mainstream thing to bring the Armenians as a relatively later mover from the Balkans to Anatolia and beyond in the Bronze Age. So, I think it is credible to think there is a link through the L23 and the smaller amount of M269xL23 to similar in the Balkans. If it was an elite immigration only it may have not brought the other Balkans lineages or preserved much in the way of autosomal DNA.



Albanian does seem to be distinct but this cladistic language tree is supposed to be the one with the latest and greatest with the best statistical "fit". Albanian is put on some very early branching with pre-Germanic. Notice Armenian is on the branch with Greek. Linquists argue extensively on these kinds of things.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/IE-Language-Tree_Reconstruction_by_Warnow_2013.jpg

R.Rocca
10-09-2013, 12:56 PM
Mike, do you have a copy of the original image without your markups? The link you provided has several graphics, but I didn't see any with timelines.


Albanian does seem to be distinct but this cladistic language tree is supposed to be the one with the latest and greatest with the best statistical "fit". Albanian is put on some very early branching with pre-Germanic. Notice Armenian is on the branch with Greek. Linquists argue extensively on these kinds of things.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/IE-Language-Tree_Reconstruction_by_Warnow_2013.jpg

TigerMW
10-09-2013, 01:51 PM
Mike, do you have a copy of the original image without your markups? The link you provided has several graphics, but I didn't see any with timelines.

Yes, it's looks like they cleaned up their paper somewhat. This chart is on page 29 of the .pdf at http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tandy/Swadesh-Warnow.pdf
It's the chart below without my red markings and titling. The timeline is there and its theirs'.

The research is titled, "Phylogeny Reconstruction Methods in Linquistics", by Warnow, w/Barbancon, Evans, Nakhleh, Ringe, Taylor. Here are some observations made with my emphasis/bold added., Warnow wrote,

"Other than UPGMA, all methods reconstruct
- the ten major subgroups
- Anatolian + Tocharian (that under the assumption that Anatolian is the first daughter, then Tocharian is the second
daughter)
- Greco-Armenian (that Greek and Armenian are sisters)

UPGMA .. does the worst

The Satem Core (Indo-Iranian plus Balto-Slavic) is not always reconstructed.

Almost all analyses put Italic, Celtic, and Germanic together (The only exception is weighted maximum on datasets that include morphological charcters.)"

It appears like they feel Germanic really could be related to Italo-Celtic and that Anatolian & Tocharian and Greek & Armenian are truly pairs.

They don't make a big deal of it, but they keep showing Germanic and Albanian as pair on the same branch. Is this controversial or accepted?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/IE-Language-Tree_Reconstruction_by_Warnow_2013.jpg

They say their dates are approximate. The timeline has Italo-Celtic dialects existing from about 3100 BC to 2500 BC. My understanding is their dating is completely independent from archaeology. I guess I should read further on that. I think, similar to genetic TMRCA estimates, it gets deep into the statistical woods and probably has to have some "anchors" or "germ-line" rates somewhere.

Balto-Slavic dialects would have existed from about 2500 BC to 1000 BC.

Hellenic dialects, or Greco-Armenian, would have existed from about 3000 BC to 1900 BC.

Warnow has been working on computer simulation based cladistic analysis for several years with Ringe and Taylor. She runs multiple simulations on the various methods and uses statistics to assess the "best fit". In my opinion, I haven't seen effective rebuttals to their methods. There are people who don't agree with linguistic cladistics as a concept but that's almost like saying PIE was not real.

alan
10-09-2013, 04:11 PM
If Celtic, Italic and Germanic really are a group then that has implications archaeologically. It raises questions of how pre-Germanic can be traced to the Usatovo-Corded Ware contacts c. 3000BC while Celtic and Italic are traced to a very different model. Either Germanic also has roots in beaker type models or Celtic and Italic have to be dragged into the corded ware model. Simplest thing would be to say that distant pre-Germanic is due to beaker elements, perhaps L11* guys who were located at the extreme north-east fringes of the beaker world somewhere like Poland.

newtoboard
10-10-2013, 01:48 PM
That is an important point. First we do not have any DNA from what is thought to be the PIE homeland from an early enough period. Secondly, even if we did, we still cannot prove what they were speaking. There is still schools of thought that would say we have got it all wrong and the homeland is elsewhere. Actually after doing a lot of reading into the relationship of Sredny Stog peoples, the Balkans farmers etc I would favour the east Balkans as a possible alternative homeland for PIE. Now that the Uralic borrowings from PIE no longer appears remotely safe, it widens up a wider possible area. The wheel is of course known very early just west of the steppes. Graves such as Varna etc do not support the idea that hierarchy was a steppe thing. I am now aware of the big influences exerted on the western steppes by the farmers prior to the reversal of that and the evidence from Sredny Stog craniology that this involved people from the farmers areas exists too, apparently especially males. If the PIE homeland was there then the Anatolian homeland would of course likely be Anatolia.

For now I will however stick with the steppes theory and wait until someone puts together a modern version of a Balkans one. What actually annoys me in IE studies is the frequent pretense that it is a done deal when doubt remains and some so called major bits of solid evidence like Uralic suddenly becomes very dubious. I keep an open mind on this but for now I think its up to someone out there to knock down the steppes theory and to defend the alternative.

You keep on bringing up this Uralic not sharing with PIE as if it is conclusive. Where is the article on that? The youtube videos Jean posted recently show the experts in the field disagree with you.

Also where is the article on Armenian being satemized in Europe? It could have easily happened in Asia.

Jean M
10-10-2013, 02:04 PM
The research is titled, "Phylogeny Reconstruction Methods in Linquistics", by Warnow, w/Barbancon, Evans, Nakhleh, Ringe, Taylor.

This is a collection of lecture slides, presumably from a lecture by Tandy Warnow, drawing on his various papers.


It appears like they feel Germanic really could be related to Italo-Celtic

The tree you picked out (which is taken from fig. 12 Nakhleh, Ringe and Warnow 2005 and is their preferred solution) shows Germanic on a separate line from Italo-Celtic.

Looks like you are placing too much weight on the statement on one slide "Almost all analyses put Italic, Celtic, and Germanic together". Germanic has complicated links with other IE languages. The problem of Germanic is discussed in Ringe, Warnow and Taylor 2002 and Nakhleh, Ringe and Warnow 2005.

Jean M
10-10-2013, 02:09 PM
Now that the Uralic borrowings from PIE no longer appears remotely safe...

Where do you get that idea???

newtoboard
10-10-2013, 02:21 PM
Can someone post a map showing the frequency of R1b-M269(xL23) in West Asia? Are Armenians the only ones who have it?

TigerMW
10-10-2013, 02:35 PM
This is a collection of lecture slides, presumably from a lecture by Tandy Warnow, drawing on his various papers.

The tree you picked out (which is taken from fig. 12 Nakhleh, Ringe and Warnow 2005 and is their preferred solution) shows Germanic on a separate line from Italo-Celtic.

Looks like you are placing too much weight on the statement on one slide "Almost all analyses put Italic, Celtic, and Germanic together". Germanic has complicated links with other IE languages. The problem of Germanic is discussed in Ringe, Warnow and Taylor 2002 and Nakhleh, Ringe and Warnow 2005.

I don't know how I could have been more clear when I said "It appears like they feel Germanic really could be related to Italo-Celtic". The meaning of the word "could" is not "is". I do NOT assert Germanic is closely related.

Let me re-quote Warnow,
"Almost all analyses put Italic, Celtic, and Germanic together (The only exception is weighted maximum on datasets that include morphological charcters.)"

The reason I picked out the "weighted maximum" (WMC) simulation tree/time-line is because that is the one Warnow characterized as the best fit. I said that before also. I recognize the fact that "all analyses.. except" one versus that "best fit" one (the WMC) amounts to opposing perspectives.

I'm not placing too much weight on anything. I don't know and I'm open about the subject. I think a relationship that places Italo-Celtic and Germanic closer to each other than to other branches on the IE tree has to be considered, just considered, not accepted as fact.

There is a possible genetic correlation that might overlay this. U106 is found heavily within Germanic speaking areas and P312 in old Celtic/Italic speaking areas. The arose very close to each other on the phylogenetic tree as descendants of L11.

P.S. Tandy Warnow is a not a "he".- http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~tandy/

ADW_1981
10-10-2013, 03:01 PM
The YDNA distribution actually presents negative correlation between the core of sedentary farmers and the earliest R1b1* branches. Moreover, these guys are too rare to have been part of any major early civilization which would have spawned so many offspring. Is there room for Iranian pastoralism or even hunter-gatherers which could account for R1b1*, or R1a* we see today? G, J2, J1, and E (among the Levant farmers) correlate well with the distribution of farmers in the Trans-Caucasus and other regions. R1b seems to be found mainly in IE speakers in the Caucaus, namely Armenians and N.Ossetians. The data from FTDNA also presents them in mostly eastern Georgians. (not sure what this means if anything)

If R1b has anything to do with farming it's through acculturation.

Silesian
10-10-2013, 03:46 PM
The language schematic is a excellent breakdown in branching, and does not reconcile R1b or R1a-Z93 Z283 spread of Indo-European language.

J.P. Mallory 4 minutes into lecture concedes; "I have total distrust of modern DNA," but goes on to show R1a Z93? Z283 "males coming from the West"? as being part of his model.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HCs6PVnzI

If R1b was not involved in the spread of PIE and arose somewhere in Southwest Asia. The obvious question is which branch of R1a ie Z93 or Z283 was involved in the spread of Proto Indo-European languages, and more specific the Armenian language, to R1b Armenian males in the language schematic posted?

alan
10-10-2013, 04:05 PM
I have posted it already 2 or 3 times.

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf

Its not the first article that I have read recently that suggests proto-uralic is too young and IE borrowings do not date to the PIE period. All I am saying is its not safe to use it as an important piece of evidence any more. Whether that is significant or not is anyone's guess.

I have also read papers that suggest that not only is proto-Uralic late, no earlier than 3000bc, but as the sequence of branching is east to west from a point way to the east of the Urals then it was nowhere near IE and not in a position to experience contacts until groups like the Tocharians, Indo-Iranians etc may have crossed their paths in the 3rd millenium BC.

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf

This fits the lack of PIE period borrowing now being suggested by several scholars. I would be pretty shocked if their spread west was not part of the Seima Turbino phenomenon. I just think the old idea of Uralics sitting next to the IEs on the Urals c. 4000BC is not in line with the evidence any more. So, whatever one's theories about PIE, do not make Uralic borrowings a vital plank of it because it is not looking safe. I am pretty convinced from the papers on Uralic I have read that the Uralic-PIE contact theory will be in the wastepaper bin of academia soon.

Sounds A little like the spread west might be as later as the Seima-Turbino phenomenon which commenced in Altai foothills a century or two after 2000BC


You keep on bringing up this Uralic not sharing with PIE as if it is conclusive. Where is the article on that? The youtube videos Jean posted recently show the experts in the field disagree with you.

Also where is the article on Armenian being satemized in Europe? It could have easily happened in Asia.

ADW_1981
10-10-2013, 04:10 PM
The language schematic is a excellent breakdown in branching, and does not reconcile R1b or R1a-Z93 Z283 spread of Indo-European language.

J.P. Mallory 4 minutes into lecture concedes; "I have total distrust of modern DNA," but goes on to show R1a Z93? Z283 "males coming from the West"? as being part of his model.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HCs6PVnzI

If R1b was not involved in the spread of PIE and arose somewhere in Southwest Asia. The obvious question is which branch of R1a ie Z93 or Z283 was involved in the spread of Proto Indo-European languages, and more specific the Armenian language, to R1b Armenian males in the language schematic posted?

It's pretty obvious that R1a didn't migrate out from Europe to the east and beyond. I've yet to see any evidence to support this. R1* has no living descendents, but R1b1* and R1a* arose in the paleaolithic close together in Central Asia based on the evidence we have. R1b1 is slightly older and left very few offspring in the "east", but we can see R1b1 rarely among Tibetans, NE India, northern Iran, Georgians among others such as jews and the odd west European. I don't know if anything can be said about language, but I believe that R1a1/R1a1a are younger and expanded later from the east - to the south, but also the west. It's likely at this time that R1b1b1 and R1b1b2 formed two separate clusters in two different locations somewhere in western Asia. I would imagine the R1b1b2a* which led to the bulk of west Europeans including Spaniards, Germans, and Italians, among British, Irish, Scandinavians were further west of this point still.

TigerMW
10-10-2013, 04:18 PM
Can someone post a map showing the frequency of R1b-M269(xL23) in West Asia? Are Armenians the only ones who have it?

The following map is from "Ht35 Y-Chromosome in Europe" by Lucotte, et. al. (2013). I'm calling it a proxy for R1b-L23xL51 but it is really a map of Ht35 haplotypes. It's the most comprehensive view of this that I know. Please be sure to read their paper. It is found in the "International Journal of Anthropology Vol. 28" - n.8 (1-12) - 2013. One of the authors may be on this forum so hopefully they will comment.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-Ht35_L23xL51_Proxy_Frequency_Map_by_Lucotte_2013.j pg

Please note they are not attempting to include Central Asia.

alan
10-10-2013, 04:20 PM
R1a and b both probably arose in the Iran area but that was back in the Palaeolithic. There really is a major problem of bring European R1b directly from SW Asia when dates after 3500BC are being suggested for even the early European R1b in the Balkans and c. 2500BC in western Europe. There is simply no out of SW Asian movement in the archaeological record of that era. However, there is a big movement of peoples on the steppe-farmer interface around the steppe-farming interface about the Dneister etc. There is also a basic problem in putting one P297 R1b clade, M269, in SW Asia and one, M73, way to the north around the Urals all while P297* occupying the period 9000-5/4000BC left no traces at all despite the farming boom in SW Asia. That all makes absolutely no sense if it was the P297*ancestor of M269 was in SW Asia or Anatolia all that time during the Neolithic boom and it makes no sense to bring it out of Anatolia and across Europe in the period 4000-2500BC because there is not a hint of it. In fact the majority view of historians, archaeologist, linguists etc see Anatolia as a major destination point for peoples from the Balkans and elsewhere in that timeframe. I think that should never be forgotten about Anatolia- it is thought to have received wave after wave of peoples from Europe as well as Asia and is one of the more hopeless areas to easily untangle that.


The language schematic is a excellent breakdown in branching, and does not reconcile R1b or R1a-Z93 Z283 spread of Indo-European language.

J.P. Mallory 4 minutes into lecture concedes; "I have total distrust of modern DNA," but goes on to show R1a Z93? Z283 "males coming from the West"? as being part of his model.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HCs6PVnzI

If R1b was not involved in the spread of PIE and arose somewhere in Southwest Asia. The obvious question is which branch of R1a ie Z93 or Z283 was involved in the spread of Proto Indo-European languages, and more specific the Armenian language, to R1b Armenian males in the language schematic posted?

alan
10-10-2013, 04:40 PM
I agree with that. Not to mention R1b ancestral to M269 and M73 left not one person to represent the P279* phase c. 9000-5000/4000BC. They clearly were late to farming. The main areas where farming was late on the right sort of longitude are the steppes, the north Caucasus and Caspian Iran. In all those areas farming made no or only token progress until 5000BC or later. It is also worth pointing out that those areas were connected from c. 4000 or 3500BC by the Maykop phenomenon where barrow stretched from the near-Caucasus steppe to NW Iran. However, M73, the oldest P297 clade and very rare in SW Asia or the Balkans appears to be evidence that at least some P297 was north of the Caspian/in the Urals area before 5000BC. The question is whether all P297 was northerly, including the ancestral line of M269. I think all we can say is the ancestor of the latter was marginal to farming until 4000BC as there are no remnants of its P297* ancestor anywhere. The fact that its even later to form a branch that M73 is curious. I think that what little evidence there is of date and distribution suggests a position of appearance west of M73 but not as far south as the developed farming areas c. 4000BC. I tend to thin of NW Iran as its south-easterly edge of significant frequency. If I had to guess what area fits the date of M269 after its 5000 years of nothingness is probably the area between the steppe-north Caucasus and the NW extreme of Iran. If I had to further refine that then the north Caucasus-steppe interface seems most likely to me. It is a good location to explain how it could move bother south and also move west in the Balkans without having to see archaeologically unattested movements from Anatolia into central Europe in this period.


The YDNA distribution actually presents negative correlation between the core of sedentary farmers and the earliest R1b1* branches. Moreover, these guys are too rare to have been part of any major early civilization which would have spawned so many offspring. Is there room for Iranian pastoralism or even hunter-gatherers which could account for R1b1*, or R1a* we see today? G, J2, J1, and E (among the Levant farmers) correlate well with the distribution of farmers in the Trans-Caucasus and other regions. R1b seems to be found mainly in IE speakers in the Caucaus, namely Armenians and N.Ossetians. The data from FTDNA also presents them in mostly eastern Georgians. (not sure what this means if anything)

If R1b has anything to do with farming it's through acculturation.

alan
10-10-2013, 05:04 PM
No such map exists but the only raised amount I have ever read was a study of Armenians in Ararat and also some data on Albanians. It is rare. Its also known among Poles and others in east-central Europe at low frequencies.

Anatolia was once the scene of at least 8 distinct IE languages some of which certainly came from Europe and all of which probably did, most are extinct now. Its far too much of a messy history to work out once yDNA has become associated with its original language. Clearly this has happened in the middle east as L23xL51 is found high among both Armenians and Assyrians and given its age it clear that both cannot be speaking the ancestral language of L23xL51 c. 3500BC.

However, if you look at even L23xL51 as a whole its clear that the vast majority of it today speaks an IE language with the exception of the Assyrians and Turks but Turks are an impossibly composite people most of whom are not speaking their ancestral languages today.

Given the general distribution of L23xL51 in the Anatolia-Europe interface area among Balkans, Armenians, Turks etc and the mainstream opinion that the Armenian language as well all the 6 or 7 IE dialects of Anatolia (Lydian, Hittite, Luwain, Phyrgian, Armenian, Greek, etc) came from the Balkans area then I think the only common denominator between the Balkans and Anatolia/Armenia back in copper and bronze age is that all these people are said by many academics to have had a sojourn in the Balkans before reaching Anatolia and Armenia. So to me the Balkans is key to L23xL51. That doesnt mean L23 had to originate in the Balkans but it looks to me like it was at least an important stepping stone. The problem with Anatolian variance is that all these separate groups from the Balkans who seem likely to have carried L23xL51 could have created a composite variance, inflating it. I think countries where half the planted has passed through are very problematic for the use of variance and its best used in place where we do not suspect enormous population displacement or language change in the post-Roman era.


Can someone post a map showing the frequency of R1b-M269(xL23) in West Asia? Are Armenians the only ones who have it?

TigerMW
10-10-2013, 05:43 PM
Below in #182 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1008-R1b-in-the-Caucasus-(other-than-Armenia)-is-nearly-all-in-the-north-in-Russia&p=15788&viewfull=1#post15788) I posted what I consider to be the best perspective (Lucotte's) of probable L23xL51 in Europe (C. Asia excluded.)

The immediately following two maps use the Myres 2010 data and are based on SNP defined L23xL51, but I think the data is light and not as representative. The good thing is diversity was evaluated by Myres. I don't agree with the ages calculated but at least you get some idea of the STR diversity by geography.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L23xL51_Frequency_Map_by_Myres_2010.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L23xL51_Variance_Map_by_Vizachero_from_Myres_2010. jpg

Cline maps are not really that precise. Perhaps the actual data can be helpful. This is from the Myres supplementary data.

R1b-L23xL51 Average Variance
Pakistan______ 0.410 (n=5)
Caucasus______ 0.292 (n=32)
Turkey________ 0.277 (n=58)
Romania_______ 0.264 (n=12)
Italy_________ 0.253 (n=14)
Hungary_______ 0.171 (n=7)
Switzerland___ 0.151 (n=10)
Greece________ 0.150 (n=15)
Slovakia______ 0.122 (n=10)
Poland________ 0.081 (n=7)
Bashkir_______ 0.046 (n=29)

That is genetic data from a research paper. I don't think it is conclusive, but I definitely don't think we can say that L23xL51 in the Caucasus is young. I'm not saying anybody is asserting that, but the data we do have does not lean that direction. Please note also that I'm not trying to discern the north from the south Caucasus.

newtoboard
10-10-2013, 05:48 PM
Below in #182 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1008-R1b-in-the-Caucasus-(other-than-Armenia)-is-nearly-all-in-the-north-in-Russia&p=15788&viewfull=1#post15788) I posted what I consider to be the best perspective (Lucotte's) of probable L23xL51 in Europe (C. Asia excluded.)

The immediately following two maps use the Myres 2010 data and are based on SNP defined L23xL51, but I think the data is light and not as representative. The good thing is diversity was evaluated by Myres. I don't agree with the ages calculated but at least you get some idea of the STR diversity by geography.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L23xL51_Frequency_Map_by_Myres_2010.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L23xL51_Variance_Map_by_Vizachero_from_Myres_2010. jpg

Cline maps are not really that precise. Perhaps the actual data can be helpful. This is from the Myres supplementary data.

R1b-L23xL51 Average Variance
Pakistan______ 0.410 (n=5)
Caucasus______ 0.292 (n=32)
Turkey________ 0.277 (n=58)
Romania_______ 0.264 (n=12)
Italy_________ 0.253 (n=14)
Hungary_______ 0.171 (n=7)
Switzerland___ 0.151 (n=10)
Greece________ 0.150 (n=15)
Slovakia______ 0.122 (n=10)
Poland________ 0.081 (n=7)
Bashkir_______ 0.046 (n=29)

That is genetic data from a research paper. I don't think it is conclusive, but I definitely don't think we can say that L23xL51 in the Caucasus is young. I'm not saying anybody is asserting that, but the data we do have does not lean that direction. Please note also that I'm not trying to discern the north from the south Caucasus.

L23XL51 seems to be present in too many West Asian groups to have originated in the Balkans and spread with IE languages from there. I don't see how those Balkan IE groups managed to contribute so heavily to Armenians, Assyrians, Iranians, Eastern Georgians, Ossetians and Iraqi Arabs.

Humanist
10-10-2013, 05:55 PM
However, if you look at even L23xL51 as a whole its clear that the vast majority of it today speaks an IE language with the exception of the Assyrians and Turks...

The Alawites may have a higher frequency of R1b than Assyrians. Certain sects of Druze also have non-negligible frequencies. However, both peoples may be, at least in part, descended from peoples who inhabited the border areas between Turkey and Syria. Various Anatolian Indo-European peoples inhabited those lands, off and on, in the distant past, as well as Mitanni.

ADW_1981
10-10-2013, 06:03 PM
L23XL51 seems to be present in too many West Asian groups to have originated in the Balkans and spread with IE languages from there. I don't see how those Balkan IE groups managed to contribute so heavily to Armenians, Assyrians, Iranians, Eastern Georgians, Ossetians and Iraqi Arabs.

R1b may have been among those who were originally hunter gatherers in western Anatolia, but I think there was a later spread west to east. They could have easily spread north of the Black sea from the southwest. I'm pretty certain that E-V13 represents a wave of farmers out of the Levant, and J2b2, G2a, J2a, and J1 represent farmers from Mesopotamia, who moved into the southern Caucasus and then north and most certainly west into Europe. Eastern waves of J2, H1, and G2 into south Asia as well.

The fact that R1b-V88 is not found outside the Levant and Africa leads me to believe the ancestor to that branch must have lived nearby. Anatolia is the logical choice, and would coincide with a very old paleolithic presence of R1b across northern Eurasia. I don't really see R1b crossing what I assume to be desert from Iran to Iraq (as per vineviz diagrams), the practical option is western Anatolia, south along the Mediterranean sea, and south and south east into Africa.

Jean M
10-10-2013, 06:45 PM
P.S. Tandy Warnow is a not a "he".- http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~tandy/

Oh my goodness! I thought as I was writing that "Tandy" was an odd name for a man, but my brain is clearly in a bit of a fog not to be able to grasp what this meant. :)

Jean M
10-10-2013, 07:05 PM
I have posted it already 2 or 3 times.
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf


Forgive me Alan, I simply have not had time to read most of your posts over the last couple of months, as they tend to be on the lengthy side. I did vaguely wonder if you meant Jaakko Häkkinen's paper. He advised me to ignore it for my book, and stick to the standard story, as that was accepted, whereas the new ideas had yet to go through the fiery furnace that is peer processing. Personally I like his work and hope to see more of it in print. I don't think it really whips the carpet out from under Jim Mallory.

In fact I think you would find that very hard to do. If you simply look for the area of Europe with both:

1. River names definitely from PIE.
2. No non-IE substrate.

You get guess where?


as the sequence of branching is east to west from a point way to the east of the Urals

This is another controversial idea, and one that I did feel I should deal with in the book, as it is not supported by the archaeological/aDNA evidence and can be dismissed, as I explained in a footnote.

TigerMW
10-10-2013, 07:07 PM
... This is from the Myres supplementary data.

R1b-L23xL51 Average Variance
Pakistan______ 0.410 (n=5)
Caucasus______ 0.292 (n=32)
Turkey________ 0.277 (n=58)
Romania_______ 0.264 (n=12)
Italy_________ 0.253 (n=14)
Hungary_______ 0.171 (n=7)
Switzerland___ 0.151 (n=10)
Greece________ 0.150 (n=15)
Slovakia______ 0.122 (n=10)
Poland________ 0.081 (n=7)
Bashkir_______ 0.046 (n=29)


Here is another view of R1b-L23xL51 diversity from 67 STR haplotypes in our projects. Keep in mind that STR variance by geography, in particular, has many vagaries and our DNA projects are not geographically representative. I will say that I like that the order of most to least diverse does not change whether looking at mixed speed markers or the slower long-term linear ones.

R1b-L23xL51 Relative Variance w/49 STRs
Armenia _________ 2.49 ____ (n=42) (Armenia as origin)
Armenian~ _______ 1.68 ____ (n=95) (Armenia as origin
................................... or in Armenian project)
SW Asia/CauxArm _ 1.22 ____ (n=36) (SW Asia incl. Turkey,
................................... Caucasus but not Armenian~)
Turkey __________ 1.08 ____ (n=55) (Turkey listed as origin,
................................... could be Armenian project)
European ________ 1.10 ____ (n=51) (All of Europe,
................................... no Armenian, no Caucasus)

R1b-L23xL51 Relative Variance w/36 linear STRs
Armenia _________ 2.56 ____ (n=42)
Armenian~ _______ 1.71 ____ (n=95)
SW Asia/CauxArm _ 1.12 ____ (n=36)
Turkey __________ 1.03 ____ (n=55)
European ________ 0.98 ____ (n=51)

Our projects don't have enough L23xL51 long haplotype from the Balkan Peninsula, the Caucasus or Iran, Pakistan, Arabian Peninsula, etc. to segment them off.

I don't really have an opinion on what the data means other than I would like to point that these relative variances for Armenian/Armenian~ are significantly older looking than that for R1b-L11. All of the L23xL51 maybe of the Z2105 haplogroup, but regardless, it is an early branch compared to L11.

newtoboard
10-10-2013, 07:50 PM
R1b may have been among those who were originally hunter gatherers in western Anatolia, but I think there was a later spread west to east. They could have easily spread north of the Black sea from the southwest. I'm pretty certain that E-V13 represents a wave of farmers out of the Levant, and J2b2, G2a, J2a, and J1 represent farmers from Mesopotamia, who moved into the southern Caucasus and then north and most certainly west into Europe. Eastern waves of J2, H1, and G2 into south Asia as well.

The fact that R1b-V88 is not found outside the Levant and Africa leads me to believe the ancestor to that branch must have lived nearby. Anatolia is the logical choice, and would coincide with a very old paleolithic presence of R1b across northern Eurasia. I don't really see R1b crossing what I assume to be desert from Iran to Iraq (as per vineviz diagrams), the practical option is western Anatolia, south along the Mediterranean sea, and south and south east into Africa.

H1 entered South Asia from Mesopotamia? More like it originated in South Asia. J2 likely entered South Asia from the Northwest. And G2a, J2 and J1 are more likely to have originated in the South Caucasus/Eastern Anatolia/NW Iran and made their way south than vice versa.

Also what desert is shown on vineviz's diagram?

alan
10-10-2013, 08:29 PM
I dont think the PIE-Uralic contact is a deal breaker anyway for the steppe hypothesis and I didnt mean to imply that but its not the only paper that has pushed proto-Uralic later or suggested that the loans do not date from PIE times and it doesnt seem safe any more to make it a central argument. Like I say though its not essential to the steppe hypothesis anyway. It may however open up new versions of the steppe model maybe focused less on the east end of the western steppes.



Forgive me Alan, I simply have not had time to read most of your posts over the last couple of months, as they tend to be on the lengthy side. I did vaguely wonder if you meant Jaakko Häkkinen's paper. He advised me to ignore it for my book, and stick to the standard story, as that was accepted, whereas the new ideas had yet to go through the fiery furnace that is peer processing. Personally I like his work and hope to see more of it in print. I don't think it really whips the carpet out from under Jim Mallory.

In fact I think you would find that very hard to do. If you simply look for the area of Europe with both:

1. River names definitely from PIE.
2. No non-IE substrate.

You get guess where?



This is another controversial idea, and one that I did feel I should deal with in the book, as it is not supported by the archaeological/aDNA evidence and can be dismissed, as I explained in a footnote.

alan
10-10-2013, 08:53 PM
I think though its a mistake to look at R1b as a whole to try and triangulate the origin point. V88 and M269 and M73 dont share an SNP other than P25 which means they may have not shared an ancestor since the Palaeolithic early in R1b's history. Its only one notch away from triangulating between R1a and b. Its just way too distant. If P25* was a stay-home remnant since the palaeolithic that remained in Iran and the south Caucasus and adjacent, it is possible that V88 was swept along with Kura-Araxes c. 3500BC, a culture that made it all the way down the Levant and within spitting distance of Africa and I think is a very good possibility to explain its distribution. I am not saying it was the main driver of the culture but it may have become part of it and swept along. To be honest it a part of the R1b story I am pretty convinced about.


R1b may have been among those who were originally hunter gatherers in western Anatolia, but I think there was a later spread west to east. They could have easily spread north of the Black sea from the southwest. I'm pretty certain that E-V13 represents a wave of farmers out of the Levant, and J2b2, G2a, J2a, and J1 represent farmers from Mesopotamia, who moved into the southern Caucasus and then north and most certainly west into Europe. Eastern waves of J2, H1, and G2 into south Asia as well.

The fact that R1b-V88 is not found outside the Levant and Africa leads me to believe the ancestor to that branch must have lived nearby. Anatolia is the logical choice, and would coincide with a very old paleolithic presence of R1b across northern Eurasia. I don't really see R1b crossing what I assume to be desert from Iran to Iraq (as per vineviz diagrams), the practical option is western Anatolia, south along the Mediterranean sea, and south and south east into Africa.

alan
10-10-2013, 09:21 PM
I dont necessarily think L23 originated in the Balkans but its pretty well represented there and its certainly an important stepping stone area in the overall L23 story. I think the fact that a recent paper showed that L23X51 is much more common in the northern Caucasus than the south Caucasus, other than Armenians, suggests it had a non-negligible presence to the north at one time. If so it could have passed both directions through the Balkans and Caucasus via NW Iran into SW Asia. I have little doubt that very early R1b originated around the south Capsian but I do have major doubts that P297 arose there. At a push it could have had a life in the south Caspian sort of area but its earliest clade clearly is northern and eastern. A position around the western side of the Caspian, makes most sense to me for M269.

The real problem in seeing m269 further south and west than the south Caspian area is the age and branching doesnt fit being in a heartland of farming sort of area. Also its date as currently suggested doesnt fit at all archaeological evidence. There simply is not a hint of a movement out of that area across Europe in the timeframe. Also ancient DNA seems to deny that. If it is older then the whole Sea of Marmara area and the rise of dairy pastoralism and spread into Europe could be possible. That would create an entry into the east Balkans from Anatolia c. 5200BC and from there it could have spread far and wide in all directions. I am not ruling that out but I am just working with the rather later dates that several hobbiests have come up with using different techniques. We also cannot forget that SE Europe, the steppes, Anatolia and SW Asia have seen such incredible upheavals over the last 8000 years that I doubt we can expect any easy pattern to remain. Clearly L23 has skipped across many language barriers in its history so its just a case of making the best guess.

All we know is today most of the worlds L23 and downstream is IE speaking and it was the last big new yDNA input in many of the IE speaking areas of Europe. If it was not a driver of IE, then a pre-IE language must have swept Europe really rather late and then even more recently been replaced by IE with virtually no yDNA change. I find that a very unlikely scenario.


L23XL51 seems to be present in too many West Asian groups to have originated in the Balkans and spread with IE languages from there. I don't see how those Balkan IE groups managed to contribute so heavily to Armenians, Assyrians, Iranians, Eastern Georgians, Ossetians and Iraqi Arabs.

newtoboard
10-10-2013, 09:26 PM
I dont necessarily think L23 originated in the Balkans but its pretty well represented there and its certainly an important stepping stone area in the overall L23 story. I think the fact that a recent paper showed that L23X51 is much more common in the northern Caucasus than the south Caucasus, other than Armenians, suggests it had a non-negligible presence to the north at one time. If so it could have passed both directions through the Balkans and Caucasus via NW Iran into SW Asia. I have little doubt that very early R1b originated around the south Capsian but I do have major doubts that P297 arose there. At a push it could have had a life in the south Caspian sort of area but its earliest clade clearly is northern and eastern. A position around the western side of the Caspian, makes most sense to me for M269.

The real problem in seeing m269 further south and west than the south Caspian area is the age and branching doesnt fit being in a heartland of farming sort of area. Also its date as currently suggested doesnt fit at all archaeological evidence. There simply is not a hint of a movement out of that area across Europe in the timeframe. Also ancient DNA seems to deny that. If it is older then the whole Sea of Marmara area and the rise of dairy pastoralism and spread into Europe could be possible. That would create an entry into the east Balkans from Anatolia c. 5200BC and from there it could have spread far and wide in all directions. I am not ruling that out but I am just working with the rather later dates that several hobbiests have come up with using different techniques. We also cannot forget that SE Europe, the steppes, Anatolia and SW Asia have seen such incredible upheavals over the last 8000 years that I doubt we can expect any easy pattern to remain. Clearly L23 has skipped across many language barriers in its history so its just a case of making the best guess.

All we know is today most of the worlds L23 and downstream is IE speaking and it was the last big new yDNA input in many of the IE speaking areas of Europe. If it was not a driver of IE, then a pre-IE language must have swept Europe really rather late and then even more recently been replaced by IE with virtually no yDNA change. I find that a very unlikely scenario.

The majority of West Asian L23 is not IE speaking which makes me doubt its Balkan origins.

alan
10-10-2013, 09:46 PM
However, some places like Turkey have had a lot of IEs within their bounds in the past, maybe up to 8 different IE groups, and the vast majority of them are not descendants of Turkic tribes. So their modern language tells us very little. There is no doubt that L23 jumped a lot of language barriers in the past. On thing I would say about the west Asian L23 is it is very inconsistent in terms of its present language family. Some of them like Armenians seem a solid territorial group of high L23 people with some M269 but others like Assyrians have a really complex history, stateless for a very long period, often urban locations etc so there seems to have been a huge amount of opportunity for y lines to enter them from outside. Overall in the middle east L23 is not a really big deal though. Very minor compared to its overall impact in Europe anyway.

I just really find it extremely hard to imagine a young clade sweeping Europe as the last yDNA big deal in west European history and not being connected to IE. Nothing much really came after that in much of western Europe so its very hard to see a non-IE language associated with R1b.

The date is crucial. If L23 really only dates from around 3500BC then its much more likely to have gone from Europe to SW Asia. If its a couple of thousand years older then the opposite is true.


The majority of West Asian L23 is not IE speaking which makes me doubt its Balkan origins.

AJL
10-10-2013, 09:58 PM
However, some places like Turkey have had a lot of IEs within their bounds in the past

Yes, but they were mainly speakers of a different IE family than is found in the Balkans, Anatolian/Luwian/Hittite. I still fail to see any trace of a persuasive argument that the Balkans was a source of R1b in the Caucasus. It is denser there than it is in more westerly and more northerly points within Europe, but that is hardly surprising.

Humanist
10-10-2013, 10:19 PM
Yes, but they were mainly speakers of a different IE family than is found in the Balkans, Anatolian/Luwian/Hittite. I still fail to see any trace of a persuasive argument that the Balkans was a source of R1b in the Caucasus. It is denser there than it is in more westerly and more northerly points within Europe, but that is hardly surprising.

Only one Caucasus population is included here (Tats), but this should provide some idea of R1b distribution among some "minority" populations of the region:

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/MMap_Middle_East_R1b_Tats.jpg

ADW_1981
10-10-2013, 10:19 PM
The majority of West Asian L23 is not IE speaking which makes me doubt its Balkan origins.

Quite the contrary. Where are you drawing these conclusions? Armenians, Albanians, Greeks, North Ossetians. Especially when you consider the surrounding populations don't have R1b, making an even stronger connection with R1b and PIE or some early IE branches.

ADW_1981
10-10-2013, 10:28 PM
I think though its a mistake to look at R1b as a whole to try and triangulate the origin point. V88 and M269 and M73 dont share an SNP other than P25 which means they may have not shared an ancestor since the Palaeolithic early in R1b's history. Its only one notch away from triangulating between R1a and b. Its just way too distant. If P25* was a stay-home remnant since the palaeolithic that remained in Iran and the south Caucasus and adjacent, it is possible that V88 was swept along with Kura-Araxes c. 3500BC, a culture that made it all the way down the Levant and within spitting distance of Africa and I think is a very good possibility to explain its distribution. I am not saying it was the main driver of the culture but it may have become part of it and swept along. To be honest it a part of the R1b story I am pretty convinced about.

I suppose it could have been swept along, but there is no way R1b was the main driver in any west Asian sedentary farming culture. It's not diverse enough when compared to G2 and J2 who likely settled in pockets of the mountains and diversified, and R1b is not even all that plentiful or well distributed among Caucasian groups. Again it's patchy, and only seems to appear among the IE speaking groups. Moreover there is a similarity between the R1b1b2 haplotypes of the southern Balkans, namely Greeks and Albanians, and those in western Turkey to those found in the Caucasus. Turkey has J2 more populous in the east, where as R1b is more populous in the west.

I get the fact that quantity doesn't necessarily equate to age, but by that same token, it should not be discarded altogether.

ADW_1981
10-10-2013, 10:31 PM
My (R1b) line is originally from the lower Volga, and Turkic speaking.

Sure that may be the case, but there are others like you with other haplogroups. ;) I'd love to see more Russian data as R1b does increase in quantity east of the traditional Slavic groups. As an aside, my barber is Azerbaijani Turk, and his hair is as red as a Scotsman and his skin as pinkish white as mine. I don't doubt an old relationship, but I have no clue what that relationship is.

AJL
10-10-2013, 11:17 PM
My Turkic great-aunt:

She looks to me as if she could be any of Ukrainian, or Tatar, or Russian. She reminds me a bit of my great-grandmother.

alan
10-11-2013, 12:39 AM
I agree everything so far indicates that R1b was not involved in earliest farmers in SW Asia or the groups from them that headed into Europe. Both R1a and b look like they only really started to grow from 4000BC. Farming was taking off nearly 4000 years before that in SW Asia. You could say all three of the big divisions of R1b - M269, M73 and V88 seem to have formed lasting branches around the same broad period despite sharing only relatively distant ancestries many millenia before. That take off, possible relativley modest seems dated to c. 5000-3500BC and it seems to have come after a period of extraordinary poor performance of R1b in terms of branching from the end of the Palaeolithic to the copper age which left just a scatter of P25* paragroup people and no P297*. It really looks to have barely been capable of reproducing itself so that it looks like a barely branched trunk from 16000bc all the way to 5000-3500BC. That is why, barring the variance estimates being way out, it seems preposterous to put it in the early farming zone of SW Asia, the Levant, much of Anatolia etc in the Neolithic phase. It doesnt seem possible. Also if it was in those areas why is it not found in Neolithic ancient DNA in Europe? The steppes, northern Iran beyond the Zagros and the Caucasus seem to be the only viable places where farming arrived late which would fit this pattern in approximately the right longitude.

I would add that R1a seems to have been subject to exactly the same restrictions as R1b albeit even more severe. I think modern distributions tend to cloud the close similarity in the behavour of the two R branches.


I suppose it could have been swept along, but there is no way R1b was the main driver in any west Asian sedentary farming culture. It's not diverse enough when compared to G2 and J2 who likely settled in pockets of the mountains and diversified, and R1b is not even all that plentiful or well distributed among Caucasian groups. Again it's patchy, and only seems to appear among the IE speaking groups. Moreover there is a similarity between the R1b1b2 haplotypes of the southern Balkans, namely Greeks and Albanians, and those in western Turkey to those found in the Caucasus. Turkey has J2 more populous in the east, where as R1b is more populous in the west.

I get the fact that quantity doesn't necessarily equate to age, but by that same token, it should not be discarded altogether.

ADW_1981
10-11-2013, 02:09 AM
Language groups are mostly just language groups.

Agreed, but red hair is rare as it is outside western Europe, to see it in someone from Azerbaijan was a big surprise.

ADW_1981
10-11-2013, 02:14 AM
Also if it was in those areas why is it not found in Neolithic ancient DNA in Europe?


If the YDNA of the farmers were originally as distinct from the local Europeans as the mtDNA seems to be - U5/U4 vs J1, N1a...etc, then the hunter-gatherers were likely something other than G2a3b1a, and I wouldn't expect to see R1b in Neolithic graves. Barring a few exceptions, almost all the YDNA has been G.

Humanist
10-11-2013, 03:45 AM
Language groups are mostly just language groups. They don't define race.

My Turkic great-aunt:

http://s7.postimg.org/ncsv4rb3v/IMG2.jpg

^^ Bold by me.

Nice pic. A bit OT (perhaps a lot OT), but that is OK. Since I will also partake. ;p

A "Shemite" on the viewer's right (my godmother). ;) On the left is the singer Googoosh. Taken in Tehran, several years before the Islamic Revolution. And AJ, what do you think of the second Assyrian woman? There is some overlap between the phenotypes of our peoples, in my opinion.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/googoosh_godmother.jpg


http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/web12-1.png

Silesian
10-11-2013, 05:49 AM
Quite the contrary. Where are you drawing these conclusions? Armenians, Albanians, Greeks, North Ossetians. Especially when you consider the surrounding populations don't have R1b, making an even stronger connection with R1b and PIE or some early IE branches.

Also, Talysh, Gilaki and Lurs.( V. Grugni et al )

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252

variance L23* in Bulgarian study also contributed by Sena Karachanak and V. Grugni

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252


The network of Hg R-L23* is characterized by multiple reticulations, which confirm that this haplogroup includes sub-clades yet to be discovered [37]. The frequency and variance distributions of R-L23 (data not shown), together with its age variation, locate the most ancient presence of this lineage in the Circum-Pontic region, where similar estimates, coinciding with the post-glacial period, are registered: 16.8±7 kya in Eastern Bulgaria, 14.3±1 kya in Romania, 14.0±3 kya in the Caucasus and 13.6±2 kya in Anatolia. We abstain from premature conclusions on the coalescent estimate in Eastern Bulgaria since a significant portion of this value derives from a very different singleton haplotype whose exclusion substantially decreases the age estimate to 9.3±4 kya.

alan
10-11-2013, 10:58 AM
These dates presumably need divided in three if they are using Zhiv fudge factor taking them to around 3500BC or so. Nonetheless it is interesting in terms of the similar high age in Bulgaria and Romania.

Silesian
10-11-2013, 12:55 PM
Even with the additional caveats of "undiscovered sub-clades," and as you point out fudge "Zhiv mutation rates," calculations done on the three regions using the same technique, show Balkans in the same ballpark as Anatolia and Caucasus; with the possibility of unkown subcades, the Balkans could be older. As I have posted before, it seems to make sense when compared to conclusions by A.E Mourant and his work on blood polymorphisms, linking Balkans and Caucasus.


These dates presumably need divided in three if they are using Zhiv fudge factor taking them to around 3500BC or so. Nonetheless it is interesting in terms of the similar high age in Bulgaria and Romania.

alan
10-11-2013, 03:16 PM
There are basically two ways of interpreting this IMO:

1. The links between Anatolia and the east Balkans in the middle Neolithic.

2. Steppe tribes that moved first into the Balkans and then into Anatolia, Armenia etc.

Two thing currently favour the latter interpretation

a. L23 seems to come almost from nowhere after its P297* ancestor lineage living in the period 9000-4000BC left no remains behind anywhere - not suggestive of an early farming location.

b. The variance date for L23 is centred around 3500BC. I wouldnt take that too literally but to have a link with even the middle Neolithic Anatolian farming groups would need an over 2000 year extension back in time.

I think people get put off the steppe model for M269 or L23 because there is not much in the Ukraine today but as I have posted before, the vast majority in the former steppe part of Ukraine today only arrived there in the last 300 years and not many places in Europe have had such a systematic removal of the population there before that. That is without even mentioning the huge numbers of waves that swept the Ukraine steppes -Scythians, Cimmerians, Turks, Mongols, Tatars and many more. The mobile nature of the groups who lived there for millenia before the last few centuries makes population replacement particularly possible and that is without the systematic clearance of the steppe nomads there under the Tsars and Stalin. I

So there is absolutely no reason to think that the western end of the steppes did not also feature M269, L23 etc as well as M73 further east. It was a big place and there are very few R clades there that seem to predate 4000BC so it really is just a matter of guessing. The timing of the take off of both R1a and b is very similar after their long period of oblivion. I see very little issue with seeing R1a and b as part of the same story albeit perhaps M269 originated at a point further west. The final positions of M269/L23 and M73, two brother clades, would to me suggest M73 was near the Urals. M269 or its immediate ancestor would appear to me most likely to have had a position somewhere like Azov where it could access both Old Europe and the Caucasus/NW Iran area and beyond. R1a seems to me likely to have had a position a little further north and remoter on the Volga, probably among the Khvalisk group. I dont see why R1b could not have been present somewhere like the Dnieper with Stredny Stog groups there and have expanded into the Balkans with the pre-Yamnaya waves. I dont agree with Anthony that this is necessarily all Anatolian although it could have been part of it. Anyway, usually L23 tends to be pointed to as a very likely IE clade in Anatolia. Prior to the rise of mobile pastoralism the steppe was a massive area with groups living in widely separated river valleys with dead zones in between. Its highly unlikely that they were all R1a and indeed surviving R1a clades dont appear to tell us anything about the pre-mobile pastoralism phase on the steppe.

This conclusion would however reverse if L23 is a couple of millenia older than currently thought.



Even with the additional caveats of "undiscovered sub-clades," and as you point out fudge "Zhiv mutation rates," calculations done on the three regions using the same technique, show Balkans in the same ballpark as Anatolia and Caucasus; with the possibility of unkown subcades, the Balkans could be older. As I have posted before, it seems to make sense when compared to conclusions by A.E Mourant and his work on blood polymorphisms, linking Balkans and Caucasus.

ADW_1981
10-11-2013, 03:20 PM
On the note of eastern R1b,

I noticed an interesting haplotype on Ysearch. It 'looks' like he's a Mizrahi jewish man, and I tried to reach out but he never responded. :/ I'm not certain if he's R1b1* or a branch below P312.

ZT2UK

newtoboard
10-11-2013, 04:17 PM
Quite the contrary. Where are you drawing these conclusions? Armenians, Albanians, Greeks, North Ossetians. Especially when you consider the surrounding populations don't have R1b, making an even stronger connection with R1b and PIE or some early IE branches.

xxx

-Greeks and Albanians are West Asians?
-The IE language North Ossetians speak is clearly connected to R1a.
-Surrounding populations don't have R1b? Guess you didn't see or ignored Humanist's maps. R1b is found in multiple Levant populations, multiple Semitic populations in Mesopotamia, multiple Iranian speaking populations in the Iranian plateau/Anatolia/South+North Caucasus as well as in Eastern Georgians and Turkish speaking populations in Iran and Azerbaijan. L23 is found in Central Asia as well.
-R1b and PIE? Is there any study showing Yamnaya was composed of R1b carriers? xxx

[[[ Mikewww/Moderator 11OCT2013: I placed "x"s on the inflammatory/devoid of content remarks, and only those remarks. I think he has legitimate points so please let us debate the points. ]]]

newtoboard
10-11-2013, 04:22 PM
There are basically two ways of interpreting this IMO:

1. The links between Anatolia and the east Balkans in the middle Neolithic.

2. Steppe tribes that moved first into the Balkans and then into Anatolia, Armenia etc.

Two thing currently favour the latter interpretation

a. L23 seems to come almost from nowhere after its P297* ancestor lineage living in the period 9000-4000BC left no remains behind anywhere - not suggestive of an early farming location.

b. The variance date for L23 is centred around 3500BC. I wouldnt take that too literally but to have a link with even the middle Neolithic Anatolian farming groups would need an over 2000 year extension back in time.

I think people get put off the steppe model for M269 or L23 because there is not much in the Ukraine today but as I have posted before, the vast majority in the former steppe part of Ukraine today only arrived there in the last 300 years and not many places in Europe have had such a systematic removal of the population there before that. That is without even mentioning the huge numbers of waves that swept the Ukraine steppes -Scythians, Cimmerians, Turks, Mongols, Tatars and many more. The mobile nature of the groups who lived there for millenia before the last few centuries makes population replacement particularly possible and that is without the systematic clearance of the steppe nomads there under the Tsars and Stalin. I

So there is absolutely no reason to think that the western end of the steppes did not also feature M269, L23 etc as well as M73 further east. It was a big place and there are very few R clades there that seem to predate 4000BC so it really is just a matter of guessing. The timing of the take off of both R1a and b is very similar after their long period of oblivion. I see very little issue with seeing R1a and b as part of the same story albeit perhaps M269 originated at a point further west. The final positions of M269/L23 and M73, two brother clades, would to me suggest M73 was near the Urals. M269 or its immediate ancestor would appear to me most likely to have had a position somewhere like Azov where it could access both Old Europe and the Caucasus/NW Iran area and beyond. R1a seems to me likely to have had a position a little further north and remoter on the Volga, probably among the Khvalisk group. I dont see why R1b could not have been present somewhere like the Dnieper with Stredny Stog groups there and have expanded into the Balkans with the pre-Yamnaya waves. I dont agree with Anthony that this is necessarily all Anatolian although it could have been part of it. Anyway, usually L23 tends to be pointed to as a very likely IE clade in Anatolia. Prior to the rise of mobile pastoralism the steppe was a massive area with groups living in widely separated river valleys with dead zones in between. Its highly unlikely that they were all R1a and indeed surviving R1a clades dont appear to tell us anything about the pre-mobile pastoralism phase on the steppe.

This conclusion would however reverse if L23 is a couple of millenia older than currently thought.

Its highly unlikely they were all R1b xxx . Keep on deriving Andronovo out of Corded Ware because it supports your picture perfect R1b world where it is the PIE lineage and R1a carriers were lucky to have been given an Indo-European language by them. The steppes have been R1a heavy since at least the Poltavka culture if not prior. Where is the evidence that an R1b was replaced by R1a between Yamnaya and Poltavka? There is no upstream R1a in Central Asia to support a forest steppe origin for R1a. At least not for Z93 clades. If Z93+ is found in the forest steppes it was/is intrusive. As was Abashevo.


[[[ Mikewww/Moderator 11OCT2013: I placed "x"s on the inflammatory/devoid of content remarks, and only those remarks. ]]]

TigerMW
10-11-2013, 05:21 PM
I agree L23 could have gotten there from more than one place and at more than one time. I am not saying it is exclusively down to the suggested Bronze Age migration from the Balkans. However, I did consider the Caucasus route too but found that they were a very prevailing cultural barrier in the copper and bronze ages and it was not suggestive of much of a link from that direction. Also, linguists tend to link them as a late satemised language that form a grouping that includes Greeks and Albanians and normally their origin is sought slightly further north within the Balkans and the steppe before that. Regardless its not suggestive of a Caucasus route to me. I would actually consider the possibility of a link via NW Iran much more than one straight through the Caucasus.

Forgetting the languages for a moment, I'm a little confused by what you are saying there was not "much of a link from that direction." I take it that you mean during the Copper/Early Bronze Ages there was not much movement from north of the Caucasus mountains to directly south of them and on down into Anatolia. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the Kura-Araxes folks. Is this of a different timeframe? Weren't there exchanges/routes with the Maykops? Or are you saying there would be no north to south flow of people?


"Their (Kura-Araxes) pottery was distinctive; in fact, the spread of their pottery along trade routes into surrounding cultures was much more impressive than any of their achievements domestically It was painted black and red, using geometric designs for ornamentation. Examples have been found as far south as Syria and Israel, and as far north as Dagestan and Chechnya. The spread of this pottery, along with archaeological evidence of invasions, suggests that the Kura-Araxes people may have spread outward from their original homes, and most certainly, had extensive trade contacts. Jaimoukha believes that its southern expanse is attributable primarily to Mitanni and the Hurrians."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture

Silesian
10-11-2013, 05:29 PM
The geographical location of L23, Italy/Balkans-Anatolia/Caucasus puts it in sweet spot for P.I.E dispersal, Hittite[and branches],Linear A /Linear B ancient Greek, ancient Italics/Latins, Albanian, Phrygian. Flanked by the ancient North western Iranian branches like Gilaki/Lurish adjacent Azerbijian.


There are basically two ways of interpreting this IMO:

1. The links between Anatolia and the east Balkans in the middle Neolithic.

2. Steppe tribes that moved first into the Balkans and then into Anatolia, Armenia etc.

Silesian
10-11-2013, 05:45 PM
On the note of eastern R1b,

I noticed an interesting haplotype on Ysearch. It 'looks' like he's a Mizrahi jewish man, and I tried to reach out but he never responded. :/ I'm not certain if he's R1b1* or a branch below P312.

ZT2UK

As the latest study mtdna signatures show roughly 80% introgression from Europeans; it would not be a surprising to many that the ydna side has also a fair amount of introgression. One clue is the Cohen Model J1c3 found in ancient colonies in Algeria where the presence of R1b and and certain branches[ L23x51] are nearly totally absent in Northern Africa; the same can be seen in Anatolia compared to the Saudi Arabian peninsula. There is a inverse relationship between ydna J1c3 and R1b L23x51.

ADW_1981
10-11-2013, 05:46 PM
I have never seen so much incorrect information in a post.

-Greeks and Albanians are West Asians?
-The IE language North Ossetians speak is clearly connected to R1a.
-Surrounding populations don't have R1b? Guess you didn't see or ignored Humanist's maps. R1b is found in multiple Levant populations, multiple Semitic populations in Mesopotamia, multiple Iranian speaking populations in the Iranian plateau/Anatolia/South+North Caucasus as well as in Eastern Georgians and Turkish speaking populations in Iran and Azerbaijan. L23 is found in Central Asia as well.
-R1b and PIE? Is there any study showing Yamnaya was composed of R1b carriers? Or did you just say that out of bias?

0 R1a's so far...
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Ossetian/default.aspx?section=ycolorized

Two Caucasus studies released last year found G2a, J2a both very diverse in the Caucasus among all the groups sampled. R1b was found only among Armenians in any substantial quantity - which boosted its frequency overall. Without that population, the sample rates would be very low.

The Levant is the extreme west of Asia, and was not the origin of the Anatolian farmers based on all evidence collected so far.

I'm aware that R1b is found in Turkic speaking populations. So what? My argument was going against a farmer origin of R1b, and these individuals have spoken non-IE languages. (ie: Sumerian, Minoan..etc)

ADW_1981
10-11-2013, 05:48 PM
Its highly unlikely they were all R1b either xxx. Keep on deriving Andronovo out of Corded Ware because it supports your picture perfect R1b world where it is the PIE lineage and R1a carriers were lucky to have been given an Indo-European language by them. The steppes have been R1a heavy since at least the Poltavka culture if not prior. Where is the evidence that an R1b was replaced by R1a between Yamnaya and Poltavka? There is no upstream R1a in Central Asia to support a forest steppe origin for R1a. At least not for Z93 clades. If Z93+ is found in the forest steppes it was/is intrusive. As was Abashevo.

Nobody is saying this. xxx

[[[ Mikewww/Moderator 11OCT2013: I placed "x"s on the inflammatory/devoid of content remarks, and only those remarks. ]]]

newtoboard
10-11-2013, 06:09 PM
0 R1a's so far...
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Ossetian/default.aspx?section=ycolorized

Two Caucasus studies released last year found G2a, J2a both very diverse in the Caucasus among all the groups sampled. R1b was found only among Armenians in any substantial quantity - which boosted its frequency overall. Without that population, the sample rates would be very low.

The Levant is the extreme west of Asia, and was not the origin of the Anatolian farmers based on all evidence collected so far.

I'm aware that R1b is found in Turkic speaking populations. So what? My argument was going against a farmer origin of R1b, and these individuals have spoken non-IE languages. (ie: Sumerian, Minoan..etc)

I never said Ossetians have R1a in any significant frequency. I said their language is connected to R1a. All Scythian and Tagar culture samples have shown up R1a. What Y-DNA's some bottlenecked Caucasus group carries is irrelevant to the discussion.

None of the other info you posted is relevant either. I was just responding to your post that IE speakers have R1b-L23+ while surrounding populations do not. That was completely wrong.

newtoboard
10-11-2013, 06:12 PM
As the latest study mtdna signatures show roughly 80% introgression from Europeans; it would not be a surprising to many that the ydna side has also a fair amount of introgression. One clue is the Cohen Model J1c3 found in ancient colonies in Algeria where the presence of R1b and and certain branches[ L23x51] are nearly totally absent in Northern Africa; the same can be seen in Anatolia compared to the Saudi Arabian peninsula. There is a inverse relationship between ydna J1c3 and R1b L23x51.

No it doesn't. GailT has already shown how that study really has no value in another thread.

TigerMW
10-11-2013, 06:51 PM
Nobody is saying this. That's your xxx or perhaps xxx?

Please, let us not respond in kind to inflammatory/personal insult types of posts. Do report them using the report function. This particular problem has been resolved as of a few minutes ago.

[[[ Mikewww/Moderator 12OCT2013: I placed "x"s on the inflammatory/devoid of content remarks, and only those remarks. ]]][/QUOTE]

alan
10-11-2013, 11:52 PM
I dont derive Andronovo from corded ware. I have no idea how that would work. Perhaps you are thinking of David Anthony. I may have quoted him but I dont have any real opinion on Andronovo. I never mentioned R1a replacing R1b. The steppes is a huge area and there elements of it entering the Balkans from 4300BC and Yamnaya didnt enter until 2900-2700BC. There is a huge span of land in the western steppes and around 1500 years of steppe intrusions up to 2700BC. Plenty of time and space for all sorts of complex things.


Its highly unlikely they were all R1b xxx . Keep on deriving Andronovo out of Corded Ware because it supports your picture perfect R1b world where it is the PIE lineage and R1a carriers were lucky to have been given an Indo-European language by them. The steppes have been R1a heavy since at least the Poltavka culture if not prior. Where is the evidence that an R1b was replaced by R1a between Yamnaya and Poltavka? There is no upstream R1a in Central Asia to support a forest steppe origin for R1a. At least not for Z93 clades. If Z93+ is found in the forest steppes it was/is intrusive. As was Abashevo.


[[[ Mikewww/Moderator 11OCT2013: I placed "x"s on the inflammatory/devoid of content remarks, and only those remarks. ]]]

AJL
10-12-2013, 12:12 AM
And AJ, what do you think of the second Assyrian woman? There is some overlap between the phenotypes of our peoples, in my opinion.

Yes: I probably would have guessed she was Palestinian, Lebanese, or Syrian.

AJL
10-12-2013, 12:17 AM
As the latest study mtdna signatures show roughly 80% introgression from Europeans

No. The study is recent, but is (1) of Ashkenazi Jews, not Mizrahi; and (2) based on HVR1 alone.

Jean M
10-12-2013, 07:52 AM
I don't derive Andronovo from corded ware. I have no idea how that would work. Perhaps you are thinking of David Anthony.

David Anthony does not derive Andronovo from Corded Ware. Corded Ware is one offshoot of Yamnaya, as far as he is concerned. What has caused confusion is that Corded Ware covered a huge spread of Northern Europe and was traditionally interpreted by archaeologists as largely native to that region, with only "kurgan influences" upon it. That opened up visions for those eager to see Poland or anywhere in that region as the fount of R1a1a and PIE. Instead of seeing CW pottery as derived from the corded impressed ware of Yamnaya, they saw it as derived from TRB pottery. So they could imagine golden-haired, blue-eyed Aryans pouring out of northern Europe and charging across the steppe, bringing R1a1a and IE to Iran and India and turning into the fighting Scythians. The opposite point of view has been pressed by a number of Indian geneticists and archaeologists, who declared R1a1a to be derived from India, and any Aryan "invasion" to be a fantasy.

The recent breakdown of R1a1a into subclades was fatal to both types of nationalism, but the death throes could go on for years.

alan
10-12-2013, 11:49 AM
Point of my post really was I was being attributed an opinion about Andronovo that I dont actual hold. I have never read much about Andronovo anyway as its later than the period I am most interested in. I also wasnt implying anything about the origins of corded ware. I have raised the differing opinions on it and problems of interpretion before but I have not pushed one of my own. If anything the yDNA evidence to date shows its a complex mix of old and new which TBH intuitively is always how it looked culturally. Anthony does talk about some sort of chain of cultures Middle Dnieper-Fatyanovo-Abashevo-Sintashata I do not recall the exact details but I have never really taken much of an interest in Andronovo so I was being attributed an opinion/motive from the imagination of newtoboard (not for the first time). What is more I wasnt even talking about any of these things when newtoboard posted.

As far as I recall Anthony has a model of nested clientship with and influence on the natives in terms of corded ware rather than a major Yamnaya/Usatovo input.

I totally agree nationalism along with general hollywood warrior hero fantasies are a real pain in the arse in this hobby. Really distorts people's thinking.


David Anthony does not derive Andronovo from Corded Ware. Corded Ware is one offshoot of Yamnaya, as far as he is concerned. What has caused confusion is that Corded Ware covered a huge spread of Northern Europe and was traditionally interpreted by archaeologists as largely native to that region, with only "kurgan influences" upon it. That opened up visions for those eager to see Poland or anywhere in that region as the fount of R1a1a and PIE. Instead of seeing CW pottery as derived from the corded impressed ware of Yamnaya, they saw it as derived from TRB pottery. So they could imagine golden-haired, blue-eyed Aryans pouring out of northern Europe and charging across the steppe, bringing R1a1a and IE to Iran and India and turning into the fighting Scythians. The opposite point of view has been pressed by a number of Indian geneticists and archaeologists, who declared R1a1a to be derived from India, and any Aryan "invasion" to be a fantasy.

The recent breakdown of R1a1a into subclades was fatal to both types of nationalism, but the death throes could go on for years.

Silesian
10-12-2013, 01:39 PM
No. The study is recent, but is (1) of Ashkenazi Jews, not Mizrahi; and (2) based on HVR1 alone.

The study does not negate the fact that introgression has taken place. It merely reinforces what is already known in written historical records.


Asenath-Egypt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asenath

Queen Helene and her family of Adbiene
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/helene-queen-of-adiabene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_of_Adiabene

Erbil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbil


Under the Median Empire, Cyaxares might have settled a number of people from the Ancient Iranian tribe"] of Sagarthians in Arbela and Kirkuk, probably as a reward for their help in the capture of Nineveh.[12]


Adiabene had a mixed population. According to Pliny, four tribes inhabited the region of Adiabene: Orontes, Alani

AJL
10-12-2013, 01:56 PM
Sorry, but if you bring up bible stories in support of genetics here, most people will just laugh. Isolated stories from possibly mythological texts and flimsy DNA HVR1-only studies do not combine to make good evidence.

Silesian
10-12-2013, 07:19 PM
Sorry, but if you bring up bible stories in support of genetics here, most people will just laugh. Isolated stories from possibly mythological texts and flimsy DNA HVR1-only studies do not combine to make good evidence.


No need to be sorry. I did not want to break the news to you but your signature sublcade project ironically is named after a mythical bible story character ;if it makes people laugh so much the better, to much serious doom and gloom . Anyway it does not detract from the fact that introgression has occurred.

R1a1a"] and Subclades Project
Ashkenazi-Levite Project"]

Humanist
10-12-2013, 07:42 PM
Queen Helene and her family of Adbiene
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/helene-queen-of-adiabene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_of_Adiabene

Erbil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbil



Under the Median Empire, Cyaxares might have settled a number of people from the Ancient Iranian tribe"] of Sagarthians in Arbela and Kirkuk, probably as a reward for their help in the capture of Nineveh.[12]


Adiabene had a mixed population. According to Pliny, four tribes inhabited the region of Adiabene: Orontes, Alani


Silesian. Come on, bud, please stop the selective quoting/omissions.

I will be the first to say (as I have done numerous times before) that there was, in all probability, a significant Iranian (not necessarily Indo-Iranian until the 2nd half of the 1st millennium BCE) element in Mesopotamia beginning with the many deportations destined for the Assyrian Heartland (Nineveh-Assur-Arbil) from the Zagros, Elam, and Babylonia during the Neo-Assyrian period, and followed later, one must presume, during the thousand years of Indo-Iranian dominance over Mesopotamia.


Wikipedia


Adiabene had a mixed population. According to Pliny, four tribes inhabited the region of Adiabene: Orontes, Alani, Azones and Silices.[10] The account of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews shows that there was a substantial Jewish population in the kingdom, which led to the establishment of a prominent rabbinic academy in Arbela.[citation needed] During the Sassanid era, Persians came to the fore politically.[citation needed] ]. The difficult mixing of cultures can be seen in the story of the martyrdom of Mahanuš, a prominent Iranian Zoroastrian who converted to Christianity.[11] In later times Adiabene became an archbishopric, with the seat of the metropolitan at Arbela.[12]

Based on names of the Adiabene rulers, Ernst Herzfeld suggested a Saka/Scythian origin for the royal house of the kingdom;[13][14] however, later progress in Iranian linguistic studies showed that these names were common west middle Iranian names.[15] It has been suggested that the royal house of Adiabene after fleeing Trajan's invasion, established the later Amatuni dynasty who ruled the area between lakes Urmia and Van.[16][17]

Adiabene was a district in Mesopotamia between upper and lower Zab and was a part of the Neo Assyrian Empire and inhabited by Assyrians even after the fall of Nineveh. It was an integral part of Achaemenid Assyria (Athura) and Sassanid Assyria (Assuristan).[18][19] The region was later made a part of the Roman province of Assyria [Assyria Provincia] after the invasion by Trajan in the year 116.[20]

According to Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, when the heartland of Assyria came back into focus in early Christianity (during the Parthian era and about six centuries after the fall of the Assyrian Empire), "it was with an Assyrian, not a Persian let alone Greek, self-identification: the temple of Ashur was restored, the city was rebuilt, and an Assyrian successor state returned in the shape of the client kingdom of Adiabene." Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus states that the inhabitants of Adiabene were Assyrians[21].

AJL
10-13-2013, 03:17 AM
your signature sublcade project ironically is named after a mythical bible story character ;if it makes people laugh so much the better, to much serious doom and gloom . Anyway it does not detract from the fact that introgression has occurred.

We know introgression has occurred into any ethnic group you can name. That's not the point.

The point is that you are dragging a discredited study of Ashkenazi mtDNA, and mythology, into a thread on yDNA R1b, completely off topic, when a Mizrahi R1b man was mentioned.

Kindly acquaint yourself with the forum rules, such as this one here:



3.10 Invectives devoid of substance (that is, threads or replies consisting solely of inflammatory content intended to flame or troll other members) will be considered junk postings and deleted. Anthrogenica encourages its members to engage in debate with each other, but discussions that degenerate into little more than flaming will be considered spam (see 3.8).

Silesian
10-13-2013, 01:00 PM
Silesian. Come on, bud, please stop the selective quoting/omissions.

I will be the first to say (as I have done numerous times before) that there was, in all probability, a significant Iranian (not necessarily Indo-Iranian until the 2nd half of the 1st millennium BCE) element in Mesopotamia beginning with the many deportations destined for the Assyrian Heartland (Nineveh-Assur-Arbil) from the Zagros, Elam, and Babylonia during the Neo-Assyrian period, and followed later, one must presume, during the thousand years of Indo-Iranian dominance over Mesopotamia.....Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus states that the inhabitants of Adiabene were Assyrians[21].

Quoting Josephus does not really help make your point; since he also referenced mythical texts and characters in his work; and viewed as a traitor by members of his own community.

The area/region in question has many groups as you point out, Armenians, Iranian tribes, Assyrians, and Mizrahi Jews;

The term Mizrahi is most commonly used in Israel to refer to Jews who trace their roots back to Muslim-majority countries. This includes descendants of Babylonian Jews from modern Iraq"], Syria, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Iran, Lebanon,

To sum up the area around Armenia, 500+/- mile radius is of interest since there are various groups, some higher in frequency than others with R1b L23X51 as Grugni et al showed . As noted, introgression is not that uncommon otherwise how do you explain multiple groups having the same clade? So to get fixated on applying a name or religious affiliation] to a specific individual with a specific clade does not really tell us much as to his origins. In a much broader sense to place specific str signature or specific snp in a geographical location is in my opinion, much more useful in attempting to determine a origin and or connection with brother clades, if that is possible. As you move away from the 500 mile radius in some directions the frequency and variance of R1b drop significantly.

Ral
10-13-2013, 01:19 PM
I never said Ossetians have R1a in any significant frequency. I said their language is connected to R1a. All Scythian and Tagar culture samples have shown up R1a. What Y-DNA's some bottlenecked Caucasus group carries is irrelevant to the discussion.

None of the other info you posted is relevant either. I was just responding to your post that IE speakers have R1b-L23+ while surrounding populations do not. That was completely wrong.
I promised to help you understand.
Ancient Georgian chronicles speak about resettlement Iranian settlers from the area of ​​Sogdiana and from Persia to the Caucasus by Iranian king in the middle of the first millennium. Now in the Caucasus two iran-speaker nations- Tats and Ossetians. Tats language close to Persian, the language of Ossetians to Pamir (Sogdian). Undoubtedly in the Georgian annals describe the ancestors of the Ossetians and Tats.
So Ossetians do not really have any relationship to the Scythians nor the Alans. Their initial haplogroup is not known.

Jean M
10-13-2013, 01:55 PM
the language of Ossetians to Pamir (Sogdian). Undoubtedly in the Georgian annals describe the ancestors of the Ossetians and Tats.
So Ossetians do not really have any relationship to the Scythians nor the Alans.

Sogdian is considered an East Iranian language. All languages in that group are presumed to descend from the language spoken by those Iranian-speakers who remained on the steppe, and who were described under various names by ancient Greeks and Persians, including Scythian and Saka. Although Ossetian belongs to that group, it is considered to descend from Scytho-Sarmatian, not Sogdian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetic_language This linguistic affiliation is based on comparison with Scythian toponyms, tribal names, and numerous personal names in the ancient Greek texts and in the Greek inscriptions found in the Greek colonies on the Northern Black Sea Coast.

The Georgian Chronicle (http://rbedrosian.com/gc1.htm) is not a reliable source for events centuries before it was composed. The archaeological evidence from Klin Yar (http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/research/Projects/arch-HH-Klin-Yar.aspx) shows first Sarmatians and later Alans (early 7th century AD) settling in the North Caucasus.

Humanist
10-13-2013, 02:08 PM
Quoting Josephus does not really help make your point; since he also referenced mythical texts and characters in his work; and viewed as a traitor by members of his own community.

The area/region in question has many groups as you point out, Armenians, Iranian tribes, Assyrians, and Mizrahi Jews;

You quoted the first few words from the Wikipedia article. That is selective quoting. That was my main point.

Ral
10-13-2013, 02:46 PM
Sogdian is considered an East Iranian language. All languages in that group are presumed to descend from the language spoken by those Iranian-speakers who remained on the steppe, and who were described under various names by ancient Greeks and Persians, including Scythian and Saka. Although Ossetian belongs to that group, it is considered to descend from Scytho-Sarmatian, not Sogdian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetic_language This linguistic affiliation is based on comparison with Scythian toponyms, tribal names, and numerous personal names in the ancient Greek texts and in the Greek inscriptions found in the Greek colonies on the Northern Black Sea Coast.

The Georgian Chronicle (http://rbedrosian.com/gc1.htm) is not a reliable source for events centuries before it was composed. The archaeological evidence from Klin Yar (http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/research/Projects/arch-HH-Klin-Yar.aspx) shows first Sarmatians and later Alans (early 7th century AD) settling in the North Caucasus.
According to your link ranking Iranian languages are not detailed.
The Ossetian language is to the north-eastern Iran.
The closest to it is the language of Yaghnobi.
In the Russian Wikipedia (about Yagnob language):

Refers to the north-east of the eastern sub-Iranian languages. The only other living member of this branch of the Iranian languages is the Ossetian language.
About Iranian(look at classification):
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_% D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaghnobi_language


It is considered to be a direct descendant of Sogdian and has often been called Neo-Sogdian in academic literature.

Ossetians is early medieval settlers from the area of Sogdiana

Silesian
10-13-2013, 03:15 PM
You quoted the first few words from the Wikipedia article. That is selective quoting. That was my main point.

Sorry, the purpose was brevity. Why would I specifically show Alani, in relation to Armenian and adjacent region R1b L23x51 you may ask? The Western Iranian tribes that you had shown are present in the same areas as Assyrians and Armenians peaked my interest in the in connection with the Eastern speaking Ossetians/Alani R1b L23X51 and accounts of Alani/Alan settlements in:


Jasic people (Jász, Yas, Ossetian, Alan) are an Iranian people living mainly in the Caucasus. The Mongol invasions of the 13th century and Tamerlane’s wars in the 14th century proved fatal to the Alan state and a group of Alans migrated with the Qipchaqs (Comani, Cumans) into Central Europe, settling in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary in the 13th century. The territory where they settled is to this day called Jászság - “the province of the Ossetians."]”[1]]

Is there a possibility that Ossetian/Jászság, and the account of Alani in the region all belong to the same clade R1b L23x51.

Jean M
10-13-2013, 03:15 PM
@ Ral

Yes Yaghnobi is considered a descendant of Sogdian. But Ossetian is deduced to be a descendant of Scytho-Sarmatian. Both of these languages fall into the Eastern Iranian group, which descends from those Proto-Iranian-speakers who did not enter Iran, but remained on the steppe, spreading right across the Asian steppe and then turning back to the European steppe. As they enter history, they were called Scythians by the Greeks and Saka by the Persians. Later on one group of them, settled in Sogdiana, were known as Sogdians. Another group, settled on the European steppe, became known as Sarmatians, and later Alans. Remnants of the latter group entered the North Caucasus.

You may have access to this paper, a recent summary: D. S. Korobov, Settlement of Alanic Tribes in Various Areas of the North Caucasus According to Archeological Data and Written Sources, Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, Volume 50, Number 1 (Summer 2011), pp. 51-73. http://mesharpe.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp

This paper is available online: Leila R. Dodykhudoeva, The socio-linguistic situation and state of research of the Ossetic language
http://www.academia.edu/2471710/The_socio-linguistic_situation_and_state_of_research_of_the_ Ossetic

Humanist
10-13-2013, 03:24 PM
Sorry, the purpose was brevity.

Fair enough.

Ral
10-13-2013, 03:55 PM
@ Ral

Yes Yaghnobi is considered a descendant of Sogdian. But Ossetian is deduced to be a descendant of Scytho-Sarmatian. Both of these languages fall into the Eastern Iranian group, which descends from those Proto-Iranian-speakers who did not enter Iran, but remained on the steppe, spreading right across the Asian steppe and then turning back to the European steppe. As they enter history, they were called Scythians by the Greeks and Saka by the Persians. Later on one group of them, settled in Sogdiana, were known as Sogdians. Another group, settled on the European steppe, became known as Sarmatians, and later Alans. Remnants of the latter group entered the North Caucasus.

You may have access to this paper, a recent summary: D. S. Korobov, Settlement of Alanic Tribes in Various Areas of the North Caucasus According to Archeological Data and Written Sources, Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, Volume 50, Number 1 (Summer 2011), pp. 51-73. http://mesharpe.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp

This paper is available online: Leila R. Dodykhudoeva, The socio-linguistic situation and state of research of the Ossetic language
http://www.academia.edu/2471710/The_socio-linguistic_situation_and_state_of_research_of_the_ Ossetic
I saw the texts on Yagnob and Ossetian. Perhaps the Ossetians and Yagnob even partially understand each other, despite the fact that the Ossetians are gone from Sogdiana 1,500 years ago, and maybe even then their languages ​​differed. Given settlers from Sogdiana of Georgian sources and the fact that we in fact do not know anything about the language of the Scythians I can not make a conclusion, except that the Ossetians is medieval settlers from Sogdiana.

At least Persian Caucasian Tats carry it to them.

Jean M
10-13-2013, 04:21 PM
twe in fact do not know anything about the language of the Scythians ...

As I said above, we do know something about the language of the Scythians. If we are talking about the Scythians, followed by Sarmatians, on the European steppe, we have masses of place-names and personal names recorded by the ancient Greeks. That is how linguists deduce that Ossetian is descended from Sarmatian via Alan. This linguistic evidence supports the archaeological evidence of Sarmatian and Alan ingress into the North Caucasus. I have given you links to academic studies on this topic. If you choose not to read them, I can do no more.

Ral
10-13-2013, 05:05 PM
As I said above, we do know something about the language of the Scythians. If we are talking about the Scythians, followed by Sarmatians, on the European steppe, we have masses of place-names and personal names recorded by the ancient Greeks. That is how linguists deduce that Ossetian is descended from Sarmatian via Alan. This linguistic evidence supports the archaeological evidence of Sarmatian and Alan ingress into the North Caucasus. I have given you links to academic studies on this topic. If you choose not to read them, I can do no more.
Do not get me wrong, JeanM. I am familiar with these works.
This is a separate big topic. Let me just say that you operate out of date data. Academic science is a big bureaucracy. It is better to look at the pioneering works.

Jean M
10-13-2013, 05:25 PM
What pioneering works? Are you sure that you don't mean fringe theories by amateurs who don't even know what the evidence is for the Scythian language and archaeology?

I just cited a review of 2011 and an online summary of archaeological findings at Klin Yar from 1994 to 1996 by the University of Reading, and published more recently. http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/research/Projects/arch-HH-Klin-Yar.aspx


The site of Klin Yar outside the town of Kislovodsk, in the district of Stavropol (Russia), is a key site for later prehistoric and early medieval archaeology in the North Caucasus. Previous excavations have uncovered some 350 graves of the Iron Age Koban Culture, and the Sarmatian and Alanic periods. The full extent can currently only be guessed at, but it may be between 1000 and 3000 graves. Cultural contacts shown in grave-goods are wide-ranging, from Central Asia to Mesopotamia and Byzantium. In the Alanic period, a branch of the Silk Road led past Klin Yar.... The final tally of the three seasons is: 17 Koban burials, nine Sarmatian tombs, two transitional Sarmatian/Alanic and 24 Alanic catacombs, two 'cenotaphs' and two unassociated 'horse skin' (head-and-hooves) depositions. The excavations also produced some settlement evidence of Koban date....

From the beginning of the project, the excavators had the luck to find a series of rich graves which had eluded previous excavators. Over the three years of fieldwork, this elite plot was excavated in a north-south strip 33 metres long and 10 metres wide. The plot included the richest Sarmatian and Alanic burials known from Klin Yar, among them one of the richest Alanic graves from the North Caucasus.

Four Alanic catacombs of the early 7th century were at the core of the plot: the rich, large chambers 360 and 363, and the immediately adjacent, but robbed chambers 364 and 368 (the latter with a 'horse skin' on top of the dromos). As well as showing splendid wealth, catacomb 363 supplied some of the most intriguing evidence for secondary deposition. On the floor of the chamber, long bones of two adult individuals were found, but only one skull which seems to have been split and the two halves carefully laid out in such a way as to suggest the presence of two skulls.

Jean M
10-13-2013, 05:34 PM
You might like to look at the abstracts from a conference on Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans: Iranian-Speaking Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes ... Autonomous University of Barcelona, 7-10 May 2007.

Cheung, Johnny (Leiden) On Ossetic as the Modern Descendant of Scytho-Sarmato-Alanic: a (Re)assessment


Ossetic is considered to be the last, living remnant of Iranian languages that were once spoken in the Eurasian steppes. Much is debated on the exact affiliation of Ossetic within the complex of languages or dialects which would encompass well attested Middle East Iranian languages, such as Khotanese, Sogdian and Choresmian, and the little known or even totally unknown languages of the North Iranian tribes (as mentioned in the classical sources), not only Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans (the theme of this conference) but also Cimmerians, Issedonians, Massagetae, and so on. Quite often the term “Scythian” is used as an umbrella term for all Eurasian tribes who may be vaguely Iranian, on account of the onomastics, customs, certain artifacts in burial sites or descriptions of their physical appearance. Also the term “Sarmatian” is used similarly. The only difference between “Scythian” and “Sarmatian” is a matter of chronology. More is known about the customs of the Sarmatians, no doubt due to their relations with the Roman empire. But again, frustratingly little is known about the language or languages spoken by the Sarmatians. Finally, towards the end of the Sarmatian period, the Aorsi and Alans came into prominence. The names of these two tribes suggest that they may have spoken a language that is more intimately related, perhaps even ancestral to Ossetic, as both names are not only attested in Ossetic, but, more importantly, also reflect sound developments specific to Ossetic, viz. *-aru- > *-aur- and *-ry- > -l(l)-.

In this paper I shall give a survey of features, from the phonology, morphology and lexicon, characteristic to Ossetic as a North Iranian “steppe” language, which in turn can be employed to identify linguistic affiliations within this complex of Iranian nomadic tribes
who used to roam the steppes of Eurasia.

Ral
10-13-2013, 06:30 PM
What pioneering works? Are you sure that you don't mean fringe theories by amateurs who don't even know what the evidence is for the Scythian language and archaeology?

Oh no . While this new literature and new archaeological discoveries that have not yet entered into a academic science. But on the basis of their already small critical notes appear in academic journals. This concerns including Scythian language.
Thus , much of the " Scythian " words , place names and names is not inherently reliable Scythian , and some of them were ... Greek .
Wait a moment. You better learn about them from academic work than from me.

Silesian
10-27-2013, 04:01 PM
Cline maps are not really that precise. Perhaps the actual data can be helpful. This is from the Myres supplementary data.

R1b-L23xL51 Average Variance
Pakistan______ 0.410 (n=5) Iranian Plateau
Caucasus______ 0.292 (n=32) Armenian Plateau
Turkey________ 0.277 (n=58) Anatolian plateau
Romania_______ 0.264 (n=12)
Italy_________ 0.253 (n=14)
Hungary_______ 0.171 (n=7)
Switzerland___ 0.151 (n=10)
Greece________ 0.150 (n=15)
Slovakia______ 0.122 (n=10)
Poland________ 0.081 (n=7)
Bashkir_______ 0.046 (n=29)

That is genetic data from a research paper. I don't think it is conclusive, but I definitely don't think we can say that L23xL51 in the Caucasus is young. I'm not saying anybody is asserting that, but the data we do have does not lean that direction. Please note also that I'm not trying to discern the north from the south Caucasus.


Pakistan project[India subcontinent DNA Project (incl. India, Pakistan,Bangladesh,Nepal,Bhutan] shows L23X51 R1b Z2103 near Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province [Iranian Plateau]

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/India/
844

Average variance North Eastern edge Iranian Plateau+Armenian Plateau+Anatolian Plateau.

Iranian Plateau+Armenian Plateau+Anatolian Plateau. (N=95) .3263

alan
10-27-2013, 04:18 PM
That new report on south central Asia Dienekes again showed that M73 seems to have been swept up by Turkic peoples and its overwhelmingly only in Turkic speakers in the south.

Silesian
10-27-2013, 04:57 PM
R1b L23X51 in Northern Pakistan is listed as Pashtun.
Predicted Haplogroup: R1b1a2

Subgroup: Y Haplogroup R1b
Name:-------
Most Distant Ancestor: Pashtun Tribe


The vast majority of Pashtuns are found in the traditional Pashtun homeland, located in an area south of the Oxus River in Afghanistan and west of the Indus River in Pakistan, which includes Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa

Ral
11-07-2013, 11:21 AM
You might like to look at the abstracts from a conference on Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans: Iranian-Speaking Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes ... Autonomous University of Barcelona, 7-10 May 2007.

Cheung, Johnny (Leiden) On Ossetic as the Modern Descendant of Scytho-Sarmato-Alanic: a (Re)assessment
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/ossetians.html


Overall, Ossetians are more distant from the other Indo-European-speaking populations from the Caucasus (Armenians; average Fst = 0.030) than from Caucasian-speaking populations (average Fst = 0.026), although these values are not significantly different (t = 1.430, p = 0.212). However, Ossetians are significantly closer to Iranian-speaking populations from Isfahan and Tehran (average Fst = 0.019) than to Caucasianspeaking populations (average Fst = 0.027; t = -2.564, p = 0.026). The same trend holds when we compare haplotype sharing between Ossetian and Iranian populations versus Ossetians and their closest geographic neighbors from the Caucasus. South Ossetians share just 4% of their mtDNA sequences with Georgians, whereas they share 12% and 19% of their mtDNA sequences with Iranian-speaking groups from Isfahan and Tehran respectively.

http://www.science.org.ge/2-1/Nasidze.pdf

Silesian
11-07-2013, 05:49 PM
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Ossetian/default.aspx?section=yresults
Lur ancient Western and Osset ancient Eastern, two ancient Iranian dialects spoken by R1b L23x51.

Northern Caucasus:

Ossetian is among the remnants of the Scytho-Sarmatian dialect group which was once spoken across Central Asia.................. The dialect spoken in Digor part of North Osetia is Digoron, the most archaic form of Ossetian language.

South, below Caucasus:

According to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the Lurs speak an form of Archaic Persian.[8] According to the linguist Don Still, Lori-Bakhtiari alongside Persian is derived directly from Old Persian.[9]........Considering their NRY variation, the Lurs are distinguished from other Iranian groups by their relatively elevated frequency of Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b (specifically, of subclade R1b1a2a-L23).[13]

Confirmation of R1b L23x51 among the Jászság/Osset in Hungary.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FqFMmVbfRfEC&pg=PA219&dq=%22Jassic%22+13th&hl=en&ei=hX8hTZ_0PNSChQfAm5i3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=jassic&f=false

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Jaszsag/default.aspx?section=yresults

Joe B
11-07-2013, 07:37 PM
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Ossetian/default.aspx?section=yresults
Lur ancient Western and Osset ancient Eastern, two ancient Iranian dialects spoken by R1b L23x51.
Confirmation of R1b L23x51 among the Jászság/Osset in Hungary.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FqFMmVbfRfEC&pg=PA219&dq=%22Jassic%22+13th&hl=en&ei=hX8hTZ_0PNSChQfAm5i3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=jassic&f=false

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Jaszsag/default.aspx?section=yresults
Is this based solely by the fact they are in the same subclade?
The North Ossetian R1b1a2a2 Z2105+ strs are very close to each other, like brothers. I'm not seeing a close relationship based on the Y-str values to the Hungarian Jászság R1b-Z2105+ kits.

Silesian
11-07-2013, 07:54 PM
Is this based solely by the fact they are in the same subclade?
The North Ossetian R1b1a2a2 Z2105+ strs are very close to each other, like brothers. I'm not seeing a close relationship based on the Y-str values to the Hungarian Jászság R1b-Z2105+ kits.

There are not to many places where R1b M343 M269- and R1b L23x51 are grouped together;Iran, being one place. Do you have any other regions where the two are found amongst Iranian speaking peoples or other?

276867 Nigkoev Nigkoev, North Ossetia R1b R-M343 M343+, M269-

Any idea about those Kromsdorf samples?