PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on what autosomal component was originally linked with R1b (M269 and down)



alan
06-14-2013, 10:46 AM
I personally think the north-south division with European R1b is at least largely demonstrating that the austosomal DNA was not dictated by the R1b-R1a divide which is more east-west. I personally think that R1b anyway probably had a minor impact autosomally. Kromsdorf confirmed a long standing hypothesis that the beaker people were exogenous in terms of marriage. They surely had to form strong alliances with local people to build up trust and marriage would have been one of the primary tools of doing this. They have had to be a small minority in the beaker period because there was simply not enough time since the first P312 man c. 2500BC for a group to spread across much of Europe within a century or so to be anything other than a thinly spread tiny minority. In fact a lineage that seemed very able to thinly penetrate vast areas of Europe in a very short space of time (possible just a couple of centuries from Mr P312 to covering most of Europe) simply had to work that way.

So the way I look at it P312 would have had a period where it was intermarrying locals in any given locality for a while before P312 people perhaps started to intermarry with each other. So I would guess P312 in any locality experienced a period of significant autosomal DNA dilution initially before P312 lineages grew to the sort of size in a given locality that they may have started to intermarry among themselves (and therefore slowed down the autosomal dilution by recombining autosomal genes with each other). I think to actually have realistic marriage options with daughters of other P312 men and avoid inbreeding they would have had to do that for at least 2 or 3 generations for numbers to built up (and possibly avoid near cousin taboos) which is enough to reduce the autosomal component of P312 groups to at least an eighth of that which they had on arrival. They may have after a while started to network with other non-local beaker people to form long distance alliances. So a lid may have been put on the dilution at about the 'one eight' level. Even if P312 experienced continous growth and largely married into other beaker people locally and at distance (alliance marriages), the dilution of all beaker groups in the first few generations would not be undone. So I would tend to guess at an impact of around 10% maximum.

The best educated guess at the moment is that P312 had roots in copper age groups who migrated to the Alps from the circumpontic zone c. 3500BC and spread through the Alps to France and Iberia c. 3000BC with the marriage of beaker pot and P312 coming somewhere between west central of western Europe. I do think there is likely a link with CMP metallurgists in the cirumpontic zone and the most likely correlate with such a movement is the spilling of groups from the western steppes into Eastern Europe c. 3500BC or earlier (the process had begun by 4200BC). There seem to be few alternatives because there is no out of Anatolia movement in this period. I suspect this connection between R1b and CMP metalurgy has roots in lineages involved in some way with Maykop or Maykop influenced peoples in the north Black Sea area. If that was the case it is important to consider that a long period where early Maykop was in the north Caucasus in an area where steppe, Mesopotamian farmer and Iranian metallugists possibly mixed. That is probably where the baseline autosomal mix of Maykop was former. It then probably hoovered up further autosomal DNA by intermarrying with steppe peoples in the Crimea, Lower Danube as it quickly passed into those areas etc before it reached the river route to the Alps. However, that phase of spread out of the Maykop core through the north Black Sea southern steppe fringe would appear to me to have been rapid so the additional autosomal DNA picked up may have not been too dramatic.

Anyway does anyone have any ideas about what, if any autosomal component (I would guess around the 10% mark) may have been associated with this group. I am thinking of the component that was originally called north Caucasus is the most likely signature. Dienekes for some weird reason decided to call it SW Asian but he has been heavily criticised for this because it is seem as an attempt by him to pull it away from the steppes or steppe fringe and into SW Asia to suit his IE theories which are anti-steppic. Others have said that the original terms is closer to the truth as it is centred on the north Caucasus (which touch the steppe) and is more compatible with the steppe IE theory. I am not very up on this but I have heard names like north Caucasus, Dagestan etc used for this component.

rms2
06-14-2013, 11:14 AM
Two things come to mind: lactase persistence and the percentage of Beaker Folk who were brachycephalic.

Personally, I think autosomal dna is just too tricky and treacherous: dominant and recessive traits, contributed willy-nilly by both males and females, combine and recombine in a complex dance to form the ultimate human Gordian Knot.

But I guess you're looking for one of Dienekes' named autosomal components. I'm not sufficiently up to speed on those to venture even a guess.

alan
06-14-2013, 11:25 AM
This is apparently a map of north Caucasus component on Eupedia

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/West-Asian-admixture.gif

I would bare in mind that the drop in the circumpontic distribution in south Ukraine may well be an illusion caused by incredible population replacement there in the last few centuries. It does bare something of a resemblance to L23XL51 in the circumpontic zone. It is apparently a component that only entered Europe in the copper age. It is absent among Basques and Finns I believe so it has been seen as one of the possible spreaders of IE. I think it cannot be emphasised enough that there is a lack of any evidence of a movement out of Anatolia in the period being discussed but a lot of evidence of spread from the north Black Sea area. For an Anatolian angle we need to go back in time to the advanced pastoralism that arose in NW Anatolia in 6000s and had spread into Bulgaria by 5200BC. At the moment that seems too early for M269. The alternative is its linked to the CMP network and the latter may have spread into Europe from Maykop in the north Caucasus via southern Urkaine Maykop derived cultures. This better fits its date. However, it is important to bare in mind that even Maykop groups and their derivatives are a result of a complex mix of pre-Maykop steppe peoples, pre-Maykop farmers from the south, Iranian and possibly late Uruk peoples that then would have got further steppe mixing and also mixing with the Old European groups that were disperesed c. 4000BC or so from the west Ukraine and north Balkans/Lower Danube. Some of them clearly settled the Balkans (and Antatolia) and others could have headed west as an offshoot up the Danube towards the Alps (L51?) they had a very complex mix of inputs. As described above they also would have experienced a complex of further local inputs as they spread into central, western and northern Europe. The question is whether a minority core of autosomal DNA remained with R1b groups as they spread through Europe. The best of the bunch I have read about is the component on the map I produced and it is in the sort of perecentages I would expect (except the southern Ukraine). Clearly though (given the Caucasus didnt experience farming settlements until 6000BC in the south and later in the north) the component is a composite and elements that went into making it up must have a history before it got to the Caucasus.

alan
06-14-2013, 11:37 AM
Two things come to mind: lactase persistence and the percentage of Beaker Folk who were brachycephalic.

Personally, I think autosomal dna is just too tricky and treacherous: dominant and recessive traits, contributed willy-nilly by both males and females, combine and recombine in a complex dance to form the ultimate human Gordian Knot.

But I guess you're looking for one of Dienekes' named autosomal components. I'm not sufficiently up to speed on those to venture even a guess.

The skull aspect is complicated though. It was apparently rare in Europe, Anatolia and SW Asia before 4000BC. It seems to first appear in the Balkans and North Italy in the copper age in terms of Europe. It was not even in the beaker culture in its first few centuries. It seems like a trait picked by beaker from other groups in central Europe. There is a general spread of this cranial trait in this period that is hard to link to a culture. It just seems to appear from nowhere. The same thing happened in the Medieval period in Europe for no apparent reason to do with population movement. Some say it may relate to climate. The one thing I can think off is the fact that metallurgical groups were concentrated in serious mountain areas because that is where most of the ore was (Caucasus, mountains of Iran, Carpathians, Alps etc). They may have grown up experiencing high altitude cold weather. I knoww in some of the old books the round skull tends to be associated with those who like up mountains. So ther could be a link to this and metals and mountains or the connection. After all one of the terms for a round skull is 'Alpine'. Whether this was an adaption that acted locally on all mountain groups or it was spread by one mountain group is another questions. It does seem that skull shape quickly changes in the offspring of those who change enviroment (American study).

rms2
06-14-2013, 11:45 AM
The large-frame-and-round-head does seem to be a mark of the Beaker Folk in the Isles, especially when contrasted with the dolichocephaly and smaller stature of the Neolithic long barrow people.

alan
06-14-2013, 12:05 PM
The large-frame-and-round-head does seem to be a mark of the Beaker Folk in the Isles, especially when contrasted with the dolichocephaly and smaller stature of the Neolithic long barrow people.

True but the early beaker folk in Iberia, southern France and even those newly arrived into the western Alps do not seem to have been of this type. That type was only picked up by the beaker culture at a later stage.

I should probably have added that broad headedness as well as being upland associated also has a tendency to pick up to a lesser degree in extreme Atlantic areas like north Spain, Brittany, Kerry. It might be an adoption to harsh cold conditions in the typical upland or rocky exposed areas where metals are often won. That said I am not saying this was always an in-situ adaptation. It could have spread with movements of people too.

I wonder if there are other aspects that could encourage broad headeness in the lifestype of beaker people. As well as living in rocky areas when seeking metal they had the actuall processes involved in mining and processing. They also seem to have been major travellors and its clear they spend a fair bit of time in boats (rowing?) and probably horses/wagons. They may have had a very elements-exposed lifestyle and one that may have tended to make them need to be strong and healthy robust sorts! Rounder heads are meant to be the best shape for conserving heat I understand. I even read somewhere that in modern times the plano-occupital head shape was seen as a sign of a tough life and tends to change when the environment is more comfortable.

Babies skull shape is also to a large degree dictated by how they sleep, positions they sleep in and what they sleep on. I even read that the anti-cot death recommendations of recent decades that babies lies on their backs is moving the populations to a more mesocephaic shape compared to the alternating side sleeping that was the norm until the last couple of decades and procuded longer head shapes. A mobile group is far more likely to have the child lying or strapped in some way on its back IMO. So, there could be a whole raft of lifestyle changes associated with when metallurgical focussed groups live a mobile lifestyle in colder harsher area. I tend to think it is telling us something more about the environment, society and lifestyle of these groups than an actual genetic trait.

alan
06-14-2013, 12:23 PM
The large-frame-and-round-head does seem to be a mark of the Beaker Folk in the Isles, especially when contrasted with the dolichocephaly and smaller stature of the Neolithic long barrow people.

In Ireland the lack of beaker burials make this hard to show BUT in the later beaker period (when in Ireland people were using beaker pottery domestically but burying with food vessels in death) the broad headed tall type seems to have been the norm. There is an old article in the Ulster Journal of Archaeology where someone did a multivariate scatter diagram using the skull dimensions of Neolithic and Bronze burials and the group completely split alomng the classic lines with no overlap. A group of late Iron Age and Early Christian period skulls looked like a mesocephalic hybrid. I know Coon reckoned that although broad headed they were a slighly different type to the British on the whole and similar to a German beaker related group (Adleberg or something like that). I am not sure if that would still stand up to modern scrutiny though. Regardless they were very different from the norm of western European farming and were probably a hybrid created by =a century or more of mixing between beaker elements and locals.

In fact when those food vessels burials are combined with some of the bog bodies of the Iron Age (there is little in the way of burials otherwise c. 1800BC-0AD that was not cremated) the number of people over 6ft is really amazing. I have read that the Irish early bronze age unburnt food vessel type burials are the tallest in Europe. Also, there are only a handful of well preserved Iron Age bog bodies and of them one from Galway was something like 6ft 3 and the Old Croghan man more recently found was said to be something like 6ft 5!! (although Clontycavan man with the mowhawk was a real shorty). There was clearly an element in Ireland in the Bronze and Iron age that was extremely tall for the period. Interestingly army records show that the Irish were the tallest in Europe in the 18th century AD and only lost this in the famine.

As well as the beaker intrusion, the beaker people did arrive at a time of particularly good climate in north Atlantic Europe (after a bad downturn) and there was a major upturn in agriculture as well as a more wide spectrum diet (including hunting) that probably suited the climate more than the early Neolithic farming strategy. That in itself probably contributed towards the taller more robust types.

newtoboard
06-14-2013, 12:51 PM
Mediterranean imo. There is a correlation between Mediterranean and R1b in Asia and Europe to some degree.

J Man
06-14-2013, 02:00 PM
The strongest genetic division in Europe when it comes to autosomal genetics is a north-south one. There is also an easy-west one but it is not as pronounced as the north-south one. Anyways I think that R1b tends to correlate fairly well at least in Europe with the Mediterranean component that both Davidski and Dienekes have found in their various ADMIXTURE analysis.

Mikewww
06-19-2013, 04:32 PM
The strongest genetic division in Europe when it comes to autosomal genetics is a north-south one. There is also an easy-west one but it is not as pronounced as the north-south one. Anyways I think that R1b tends to correlate fairly well at least in Europe with the Mediterranean component that both Davidski and Dienekes have found in their various ADMIXTURE analysis.

J Man, can you point me to where Dienekes is associating R1b with the Mediterranean component?

J Man
06-19-2013, 05:37 PM
J Man, can you point me to where Dienekes is associating R1b with the Mediterranean component?

Dienekes never said it himself I just think the two may be correlated to a degree based on the fact that R1b probably spread around Europe originally with the Bell Beaker culture which originated in Portugal.

Mikewww
06-19-2013, 07:25 PM
I'm trying to read through all of the Dienekes postings and come up to speed on autosomal DNA.

The key thing I can see is that he believes the "West Asian" component of autosomal DNA is directly linked with the spread of IE languages. In general, he appears to think there is a large intersection of where R1b and West Asian go together. However, there are a few instances where West Asian is non-IE and there are some, notably the Basques, where R1b is found in people without much West Asian.

Dienekes, in July 2012, said,

"But there is another component present in modern Europe, the West_Asian which is conspicuous in its absence in all the ancient samples so far. This component reaches its highest occurrence in the highlands of West Asia, from Anatolia and the Caucasus all the way to the Indian subcontinent. It is well represented in modern Europeans, reaching its minima in the Iberian peninsula
...
There are several observations we can make:
- The West_Asian component has a pan-European distribution: it must have been involved in a pan-European process rather than a more localized historical phenomenon.
- Its absence from prehistoric individuals down to ~5ky ago suggests that it may have been added to the European population at a later date, although it may already have been present in currently unsampled areas (e.g., the Balkans) prior to 5kya.
- It reaches its lowest occurrence in areas where non-Indo-European languages have been spoken (Basques and Iberia in general, Sardinia, and Finland)
The post-5kya timeframe is also conventionally accepted by linguists for either the dispersal of Indo-European languages, or at least of a significant subset thereof.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/bronze-age-indo-european-invasion-of.html

Dienekes, in May 2013, said,

"My observation is that there's a ~10% of "West Asian" component in Europe today that seems to be lacking in the pre-5kya published samples. That doesn't requires "hordes" invading Europe, but would be consistent with a modest contribution of a post-5kya element. "
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/05/stanislav-grigorievs-ancient-indo.html

Dienekes, in May 2013, said,

If my hypothesis is correct, both Bell Beaker and Corded Ware will be found to have a "West Asian" element lacking in previous Europeans, marking the final major episode of dispersal from the Neolithic "womb of nations".
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/05/uruk-migrants-in-caucasus.html

I guess, by default, Dienekes links R1b with Bell Beaker and West Asian with Bell Beaker but this may be an integration of the two in Bell Beaker, not necessarily something that preceded Bell Beaker.

I don't see anywhere that Dienekes is linking a "Southern European" autosomal DNA link with R1b, although obviously there must be some overlapping areas.

Mikewww
06-19-2013, 07:36 PM
Alan, you'll love this. This brings us full circle to potential links all the way to the Iranian Plateau so there could be some correlation with the Ivanov concept of Maykop connecting with Northern Iran.

Dienekes, in July 2012, said,

"The West_Asian component is not "a "Caucasian" in reality", because its maximum extent stretches from the Caucasus to Balochistan. The Caucasus is one of its two peaks, the other being Balochistan, with very high occurrence in all regions in-between."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/indo-european-genetic-signatures-in.html

Dienekes, in May 2013, said,

"The early Neolithic of Europe received gene flows from presumably Central Anatolia and the Levant. So, perhaps those regions were less "West Asian" genetically than they are today. So, I'd place the PIE homeland to the east of them, in some part of "highland West Asia"."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/05/stanislav-grigorievs-ancient-indo.html

We are all speculating, but one of your thoughts might line up with Dienekes here. He thinks the "West Asian" missed the Neolithic wave out of the Fertile Crescent. In other words the "West Asian" DNA must have been sitting on the periphery, just like you think R1b must have been sitting on the periphery of the Neolithic launch.

Dienekes seems bent on placing the PIE homeland with the West Asian DNA so his view of the PIE homeland is different than Mallory/Anthony or Renfrew/Gray&Atkinson. I'm not sure if he should go stand-alone on that line of thinking but he is testing out his hypothesis of West Asian auto DNA = IE. I personally don't care what IE is equal to but there are too many correlations in some of the puzzle pieces to not think R1b wasn't involved with IE movements at some fairly early stage.

Mikewww
06-19-2013, 07:50 PM
... We are all speculating, but one of your thoughts might line up with Dienekes here. He thinks the "West Asian" missed the Neolithic wave out of the Fertile Crescent. In other words the "West Asian" DNA must have been sitting on the periphery, just like you think R1b must have been sitting on the periphery of the Neolithic launch...

I guess I should remind myself that sitting on the periphery of the initial Neolithic advances may not have been so hard for R1b 6000-8000 years ago. Given the MRCA concept of "Mr. L11", "Mr. L51", "Mr. L23" being each a single man they may have not existed way back then. Perhaps it was just a M269xL23 straggler or two barely hanging on.

newtoboard
06-19-2013, 08:02 PM
Dienekes also thinks the Proto Indo-Europeans carried J2a. I don't recall him advocating any sort of R1b in the PIE story. In fact I think I remember him saying it is unlikely the Proto Indo-Europeans carried R1b. PIE speakers might have been West Asian but they quickly abosorbed Mesolithic European females to their gene pool hence the high amounts of mtdna U2e/U4/U5 among all the IE cultures tested so far.

That the West Asian component peaks in those areas doesn't indicate any sort of links between those areas just that harsh deserts and high mountains are effective barriers against gene flow. The Mediterranian component never made past North iran in ancient times and Balochistan is sparsely populated so the inhabitants were able to keep high West Asian scores by avoid South Asian and East Asian admixture that their neighbors did not.

Mikewww
06-19-2013, 08:11 PM
Okay, one more thing or two from Dienekes on R1b and I'll leave him alone.

Dienekes, in December 2011, said

"Also, the fact that West Asia is ultimately involved in the Indo-European phenomenon is strongly suggested by an examination of the two non-Indo-European populations of Europe, Basques and Finns, that differ from their neighbors in terms of the Caucasus component:

French 8.4%
French_Basque 0.1%
Spaniards 9.6%
IBS 8.9%
FIN25 1.6%
Finnish_D 1.5%
Lithuanians 6.7%
Lithuanian_D 6.6%
Russian 8.2%
Russian_D 9.6%

Note that Swedish_D and Norwegian_D have similar low % of the Caucasus component as Finns, but 6.1/6.4% of the related Gedrosia component which is 0.3-0.6% in Finns.

These contrasts are indicative that non-Indo-European populations in Europe have been less affected by the whatever Caucasus-Gedrosia represents than Indo-European ones.
....
We are not assuming anything, we are observing that the Basques do not possess some components found in their Indo-European neighbors.

There is no reason to assume that R1b has anything to do with the Proto-Indo-Europeans (its near absence in peninsular India, and paucity in Pakistan precludes that), although some of it may have been carried by secondary movements of Indo-Europeanized groups."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/womb-of-nations-how-west-eurasians-came.html

Dienekes is a bit bi-polar on R1b, but I think he is just saying it is an open question.

Dienekes, in May 2011, said,

"In search of the Tocharians

We may discover the origin of the Tocharians by a careful sorting of Y-chromosome lineages in the present-day Uyghur population of Xinjiang that is assumed to have absorbed the pre-Turkic inhabitants of the region:

Remove all east Eurasian lineages that are likely to be associated with the Xiongnu, Mongols, or Uyghur
Remove all west Eurasian lineages that can be explained from a non-Tocharian source (such as Iranians, or various Silk Road outliers)
See if anything is left

A recent paper by Zhong et al. provides rich data on Uyghurs that can be used to carry out this program.

The phylogeographic analysis of these lineages does leave some candidates:

Haplogroup D can be excluded as Mongolian/Tibetan
Haplogroup E can be excluded as Mediterranean/African
Haplogroup C can be excluded as Altaic/South Asian (C5)
Haplogroup G2a* (West Asian) does not seem to have an important presence (3 samples)
Haplogroup H can be excluded as South Asian
Haplogroup I can be excluded as a European outlier (1 sample)
Haplogroup J*(xJ2) can be excluded as NE Caucasian/Semitic with small presence (2 samples)
Haplogroup NO; haplogroup N has been founded in a Xiongnu context, so it is likely intrusive; O is East Eurasian
Haplogroup Q is also associated with Xiongnu nomads from Pengyang

This analysis leaves four candidates: J2-M172, R1a1a-M17, R1b-M343, and L-M20.

We can exclude L-M20 because its overall low frequency in most populations makes it difficult, at present, to make a definitive pronouncement on its origin, except perhaps for its Indian L1 clade which is absent here.

J2, present in both its J2a and J2b subclades here at substantial frequencies has an origin in West Asia, as well as a substantial presence among Indo-Iranian speakers. While it is possible (indeed likely, in my opinion) to have been present among the Tocharians, we cannot exclude the possibility that it represents either a specifically Iranian influence, or even something earlier than both.

R1a1a is present in both the steppe, as well as South Asia and West Asia. Its high frequency among some Indo-Iranian populations also makes it difficult to ascribe a specifically Tocharian origin to it.

This leaves only R1b-M343 as a candidate. Have we found a genuine Tocharian genetic signature?

The West Asian roots of R-M343 (?)

R-M343 and its main R-M269 clade are in a sense exasperating: the combination of their widespread distribution from Africa, the Atlantic, to the depths of Inner Asia, combined with their apparent Y-STR-estimated youth make it nearly impossible to associate them with a specific archaeological or historical phenomenon.

Where could R-M269 have come from? It was not present, as far as we can tell, in early Bronze Age Xinjiang, and neither has it been detected in south Siberians. The steppe/"northern" route seems out.

A southern route, from the Indian subcontinent also seems out, as despite its ubiquity elsewhere in Eurasia, it seems to have (mostly) skipped both India and (to an extent) Pakistan.

An indigenous origin seems highly unparsimonious, as it would require that it trek all the way to the Atlantic, but make hardly an impact in either East Asia or South Asia.

As far as I can tell, the only explanation for the presence of R-M343 in Xinjiang is West Asia, or at least Central Asia west of the Tarim. There it can be found at a high frequency in Armenians, Turks, north Iranians, and Lezgins among others. And, unlike both J2 and R1a1a, R-M343 does not seem to be Indo-Iranian (due to its absence in India)."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-tocharian-origins.html

The Tarim basin ancient DNA is R1a, at least the ones I know of, so I don't think he is saying R1a wasn't along too, just that R1b brought the Tocharin itself along. Well, I don't want to defend him, but I do think his expertise in autosomal DNA is very instructive.

It appears Dienekes thinks R1b (M343) is "West Asia" although we can see from the Basques that may not necessarily mean the "West Asia" autosomal DNA components in all circumstances.

alan
06-19-2013, 11:20 PM
First Dienekes has been (rightly IMO) beed criticised for changing the much more informative name of north Caucasian (and if I recall correctly 'Dagestan') compenent into 'West Asian' a much more vague term just so it suits his unusual take on IE origins. It kind of blurs the fact that the component actually matches the Maykop zone which is essentially a borderline steppes model which doesnt suit his ideas. I must say I lost a little bit of respect for Dienekes for that slight of hand when the data didnt suit his model. Everyone needs to avoid the 'sin of pride' (either personal or national) and move with the data IMO. The actual finding of a component that was new in the copper age in Europe is mighty interesting. There were no recorded movement from Anatolia into Europe in that sort of period so it overwhelmingly likely this was a component swept along with the steppe expansions, perhaps more Maykop in origin than true steppes but Maykop had well inflitrated the western steppes before the Yamnaya movements.

Mikewww
06-19-2013, 11:33 PM
First Dienekes has been (rightly IMO) beed criticised for changing the much more informative name of north Caucasian (and if I recall correctly 'Dagestan') compenent into 'West Asian' a much more vague term just so it suits his unusual take on IE origins. It kind of blurs the fact that the component actually matches the Maykop zone which is essentially a borderline steppes model which doesnt suit his ideas. I must say I lost a little bit of respect for Dienekes for that slight of hand when the data didnt suit his model. Everyone needs to avoid the 'sin of pride' (either personal or national) and move with the data IMO. The actual finding of a component that was new in the copper age in Europe is mighty interesting. There were no recorded movement from Anatolia into Europe in that sort of period so it overwhelmingly likely this was a component swept along with the steppe expansions, perhaps more Maykop in origin than true steppes but Maykop had well inflitrated the western steppes before the Yamnaya movements.

Here is his quote related to this. I guess we should dig up the actual numbers but he lists Balochistan has being one of the two peaks, along with the Caucasus. Can we tell from his data how granular the West Asian component is by region in the Caucasus?

Dienekes, in July 2012, said,

"The West_Asian component is not "a "Caucasian" in reality", because its maximum extent stretches from the Caucasus to Balochistan. The Caucasus is one of its two peaks, the other being Balochistan, with very high occurrence in all regions in-between."

alan
06-19-2013, 11:46 PM
Okay, one more thing or two from Dienekes on R1b and I'll leave him alone.

Dienekes, in December 2011, said

"Also, the fact that West Asia is ultimately involved in the Indo-European phenomenon is strongly suggested by an examination of the two non-Indo-European populations of Europe, Basques and Finns, that differ from their neighbors in terms of the Caucasus component:

French 8.4%
French_Basque 0.1%
Spaniards 9.6%
IBS 8.9%
FIN25 1.6%
Finnish_D 1.5%
Lithuanians 6.7%
Lithuanian_D 6.6%
Russian 8.2%
Russian_D 9.6%

Note that Swedish_D and Norwegian_D have similar low % of the Caucasus component as Finns, but 6.1/6.4% of the related Gedrosia component which is 0.3-0.6% in Finns.

These contrasts are indicative that non-Indo-European populations in Europe have been less affected by the whatever Caucasus-Gedrosia represents than Indo-European ones.
....
We are not assuming anything, we are observing that the Basques do not possess some components found in their Indo-European neighbors.

There is no reason to assume that R1b has anything to do with the Proto-Indo-Europeans (its near absence in peninsular India, and paucity in Pakistan precludes that), although some of it may have been carried by secondary movements of Indo-Europeanized groups."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/womb-of-nations-how-west-eurasians-came.html

Dienekes is a bit bi-polar on R1b, but I think he is just saying it is an open question.

Dienekes, in May 2011, said,

"In search of the Tocharians

We may discover the origin of the Tocharians by a careful sorting of Y-chromosome lineages in the present-day Uyghur population of Xinjiang that is assumed to have absorbed the pre-Turkic inhabitants of the region:

Remove all east Eurasian lineages that are likely to be associated with the Xiongnu, Mongols, or Uyghur
Remove all west Eurasian lineages that can be explained from a non-Tocharian source (such as Iranians, or various Silk Road outliers)
See if anything is left

A recent paper by Zhong et al. provides rich data on Uyghurs that can be used to carry out this program.

The phylogeographic analysis of these lineages does leave some candidates:

Haplogroup D can be excluded as Mongolian/Tibetan
Haplogroup E can be excluded as Mediterranean/African
Haplogroup C can be excluded as Altaic/South Asian (C5)
Haplogroup G2a* (West Asian) does not seem to have an important presence (3 samples)
Haplogroup H can be excluded as South Asian
Haplogroup I can be excluded as a European outlier (1 sample)
Haplogroup J*(xJ2) can be excluded as NE Caucasian/Semitic with small presence (2 samples)
Haplogroup NO; haplogroup N has been founded in a Xiongnu context, so it is likely intrusive; O is East Eurasian
Haplogroup Q is also associated with Xiongnu nomads from Pengyang

This analysis leaves four candidates: J2-M172, R1a1a-M17, R1b-M343, and L-M20.

We can exclude L-M20 because its overall low frequency in most populations makes it difficult, at present, to make a definitive pronouncement on its origin, except perhaps for its Indian L1 clade which is absent here.

J2, present in both its J2a and J2b subclades here at substantial frequencies has an origin in West Asia, as well as a substantial presence among Indo-Iranian speakers. While it is possible (indeed likely, in my opinion) to have been present among the Tocharians, we cannot exclude the possibility that it represents either a specifically Iranian influence, or even something earlier than both.

R1a1a is present in both the steppe, as well as South Asia and West Asia. Its high frequency among some Indo-Iranian populations also makes it difficult to ascribe a specifically Tocharian origin to it.

This leaves only R1b-M343 as a candidate. Have we found a genuine Tocharian genetic signature?

The West Asian roots of R-M343 (?)

R-M343 and its main R-M269 clade are in a sense exasperating: the combination of their widespread distribution from Africa, the Atlantic, to the depths of Inner Asia, combined with their apparent Y-STR-estimated youth make it nearly impossible to associate them with a specific archaeological or historical phenomenon.

Where could R-M269 have come from? It was not present, as far as we can tell, in early Bronze Age Xinjiang, and neither has it been detected in south Siberians. The steppe/"northern" route seems out.

A southern route, from the Indian subcontinent also seems out, as despite its ubiquity elsewhere in Eurasia, it seems to have (mostly) skipped both India and (to an extent) Pakistan.

An indigenous origin seems highly unparsimonious, as it would require that it trek all the way to the Atlantic, but make hardly an impact in either East Asia or South Asia.

As far as I can tell, the only explanation for the presence of R-M343 in Xinjiang is West Asia, or at least Central Asia west of the Tarim. There it can be found at a high frequency in Armenians, Turks, north Iranians, and Lezgins among others. And, unlike both J2 and R1a1a, R-M343 does not seem to be Indo-Iranian (due to its absence in India)."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-tocharian-origins.html

The Tarim basin ancient DNA is R1a, at least the ones I know of, so I don't think he is saying R1a wasn't along too, just that R1b brought the Tocharin itself along. Well, I don't want to defend him, but I do think his expertise in autosomal DNA is very instructive.

It appears Dienekes thinks R1b (M343) is "West Asia" although we can see from the Basques that may not necessarily mean the "West Asia" autosomal DNA components in all circumstances.

Dienekes change of terminology to west Asian from north Caucasus/Dagestan has confused people to think he is talking about Neolithic Med. He isnt of course saying that at all but other people miss this. He has essentially identified a component that fits a steppe-edge model. The idea that Maykop entered the western steppe before many of the steppe movements is not a theory but a proven fact. So this component probably was absorbed into the western steppe mix and moved west and in other directions too.

alan
06-20-2013, 12:33 AM
Okay, one more thing or two from Dienekes on R1b and I'll leave him alone.

Dienekes, in December 2011, said

"Also, the fact that West Asia is ultimately involved in the Indo-European phenomenon is strongly suggested by an examination of the two non-Indo-European populations of Europe, Basques and Finns, that differ from their neighbors in terms of the Caucasus component:

French 8.4%
French_Basque 0.1%
Spaniards 9.6%
IBS 8.9%
FIN25 1.6%
Finnish_D 1.5%
Lithuanians 6.7%
Lithuanian_D 6.6%
Russian 8.2%
Russian_D 9.6%

Note that Swedish_D and Norwegian_D have similar low % of the Caucasus component as Finns, but 6.1/6.4% of the related Gedrosia component which is 0.3-0.6% in Finns.

These contrasts are indicative that non-Indo-European populations in Europe have been less affected by the whatever Caucasus-Gedrosia represents than Indo-European ones.
....
We are not assuming anything, we are observing that the Basques do not possess some components found in their Indo-European neighbors.

There is no reason to assume that R1b has anything to do with the Proto-Indo-Europeans (its near absence in peninsular India, and paucity in Pakistan precludes that), although some of it may have been carried by secondary movements of Indo-Europeanized groups."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/womb-of-nations-how-west-eurasians-came.html

Dienekes is a bit bi-polar on R1b, but I think he is just saying it is an open question.

Dienekes, in May 2011, said,

"In search of the Tocharians

We may discover the origin of the Tocharians by a careful sorting of Y-chromosome lineages in the present-day Uyghur population of Xinjiang that is assumed to have absorbed the pre-Turkic inhabitants of the region:

Remove all east Eurasian lineages that are likely to be associated with the Xiongnu, Mongols, or Uyghur
Remove all west Eurasian lineages that can be explained from a non-Tocharian source (such as Iranians, or various Silk Road outliers)
See if anything is left

A recent paper by Zhong et al. provides rich data on Uyghurs that can be used to carry out this program.

The phylogeographic analysis of these lineages does leave some candidates:

Haplogroup D can be excluded as Mongolian/Tibetan
Haplogroup E can be excluded as Mediterranean/African
Haplogroup C can be excluded as Altaic/South Asian (C5)
Haplogroup G2a* (West Asian) does not seem to have an important presence (3 samples)
Haplogroup H can be excluded as South Asian
Haplogroup I can be excluded as a European outlier (1 sample)
Haplogroup J*(xJ2) can be excluded as NE Caucasian/Semitic with small presence (2 samples)
Haplogroup NO; haplogroup N has been founded in a Xiongnu context, so it is likely intrusive; O is East Eurasian
Haplogroup Q is also associated with Xiongnu nomads from Pengyang

This analysis leaves four candidates: J2-M172, R1a1a-M17, R1b-M343, and L-M20.

We can exclude L-M20 because its overall low frequency in most populations makes it difficult, at present, to make a definitive pronouncement on its origin, except perhaps for its Indian L1 clade which is absent here.

J2, present in both its J2a and J2b subclades here at substantial frequencies has an origin in West Asia, as well as a substantial presence among Indo-Iranian speakers. While it is possible (indeed likely, in my opinion) to have been present among the Tocharians, we cannot exclude the possibility that it represents either a specifically Iranian influence, or even something earlier than both.

R1a1a is present in both the steppe, as well as South Asia and West Asia. Its high frequency among some Indo-Iranian populations also makes it difficult to ascribe a specifically Tocharian origin to it.

This leaves only R1b-M343 as a candidate. Have we found a genuine Tocharian genetic signature?

The West Asian roots of R-M343 (?)

R-M343 and its main R-M269 clade are in a sense exasperating: the combination of their widespread distribution from Africa, the Atlantic, to the depths of Inner Asia, combined with their apparent Y-STR-estimated youth make it nearly impossible to associate them with a specific archaeological or historical phenomenon.

Where could R-M269 have come from? It was not present, as far as we can tell, in early Bronze Age Xinjiang, and neither has it been detected in south Siberians. The steppe/"northern" route seems out.

A southern route, from the Indian subcontinent also seems out, as despite its ubiquity elsewhere in Eurasia, it seems to have (mostly) skipped both India and (to an extent) Pakistan.

An indigenous origin seems highly unparsimonious, as it would require that it trek all the way to the Atlantic, but make hardly an impact in either East Asia or South Asia.

As far as I can tell, the only explanation for the presence of R-M343 in Xinjiang is West Asia, or at least Central Asia west of the Tarim. There it can be found at a high frequency in Armenians, Turks, north Iranians, and Lezgins among others. And, unlike both J2 and R1a1a, R-M343 does not seem to be Indo-Iranian (due to its absence in India)."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-tocharian-origins.html

The Tarim basin ancient DNA is R1a, at least the ones I know of, so I don't think he is saying R1a wasn't along too, just that R1b brought the Tocharin itself along. Well, I don't want to defend him, but I do think his expertise in autosomal DNA is very instructive.

It appears Dienekes thinks R1b (M343) is "West Asia" although we can see from the Basques that may not necessarily mean the "West Asia" autosomal DNA components in all circumstances.

Mike- I think in the north Caucasus component (which he calls west Asian) Dienekes has probably identified ONE of the components that went into what was a real melting pot in the western steppes c. 4000-3000BC and yes I think that R1b is the outstanding candidate as the yDNA representative of this. However it seems incredibly unlikely that the IE migration was just down to this. It may simply be that it is the easiest to tease out and to track of the compenents that spread west from the steppe in this era. It may be that there was a large north European component as well as some sort of Med. one but they are harder to pick out as when a steppe population spread west they entered an area that was already composed of north European Mesolithic and Med. Neolithic farmer elements, thus rendering them invisible and problematic to track. It could be that the north Caucasus (=west Asian) component is simply the one that is trackable because it wasnt previously known in Europe. Again that has parallels with R1b.

alan
06-20-2013, 12:43 AM
Here is his quote related to this. I guess we should dig up the actual numbers but he lists Balochistan has being one of the two peaks, along with the Caucasus. Can we tell from his data how granular the West Asian component is by region in the Caucasus?

Dienekes, in July 2012, said,

"The West_Asian component is not "a "Caucasian" in reality", because its maximum extent stretches from the Caucasus to Balochistan. The Caucasus is one of its two peaks, the other being Balochistan, with very high occurrence in all regions in-between."

There is also a term Dagestan used for this or a similar component. I would think some sort of term like Caspian Highlands or something like that would be useful rather than west Asian because this component looks to be a notch east or north of the real west Asian groups in Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Levant from where the Neolithic early farmers in Europe seem to derive. Dienekes knows this is an important distinction but he has chosen a confusing name that blurs the actual message he is making.

alan
06-20-2013, 02:01 PM
There is also a term Dagestan used for this or a similar component. I would think some sort of term like Caspian Highlands or something like that would be useful rather than west Asian because this component looks to be a notch east or north of the real west Asian groups in Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Levant from where the Neolithic early farmers in Europe seem to derive. Dienekes knows this is an important distinction but he has chosen a confusing name that blurs the actual message he is making.

I think Maykop and its spread into the steppes is important for this component. The idea it might be linked to R1b (not exclusively of course) fits well with the date of its apparent arrival into farming Europe in post-Neolithic times. There are no movements INTO Europe from the southerly area of this component in the 4000-3000BC period and its far more likely it spread initially with the large amount of movements that were spreading into south-east Europe and beyond from the north of the Black Sea area in this period. The case for a Maykop then steppe origin of this component is very strong IMO. It was clearly just one component but is perhaps the easiest one to spot as it introduced something new. A lot of the other autosomal DNA sweeping west was probably a mix of north European and some sort of Med. farmer DNA, the latter especially from the cultures bordering the steppes. However, unlike the Caucasus component which was novel to Europe and north European and Med. farmer components spread with the Caucasus component entered an area where these comonents were already the basis of the population and therefore would be hard to distinguise from the locals. So, I think Dienekes observation makes sense as long as it is realised that the Caucasus component was probably very much a minority one and is primarily useful because it was new to Europe and stands out and former a visible trail. The Caucasus component may well have even been a minority in Maykop as we know their were steppe peoples and late Neolithic farmers in the areas too.

newtoboard
08-04-2013, 10:04 PM
Mike- I think in the north Caucasus component (which he calls west Asian) Dienekes has probably identified ONE of the components that went into what was a real melting pot in the western steppes c. 4000-3000BC and yes I think that R1b is the outstanding candidate as the yDNA representative of this. However it seems incredibly unlikely that the IE migration was just down to this. It may simply be that it is the easiest to tease out and to track of the compenents that spread west from the steppe in this era. It may be that there was a large north European component as well as some sort of Med. one but they are harder to pick out as when a steppe population spread west they entered an area that was already composed of north European Mesolithic and Med. Neolithic farmer elements, thus rendering them invisible and problematic to track. It could be that the north Caucasus (=west Asian) component is simply the one that is trackable because it wasnt previously known in Europe. Again that has parallels with R1b.

Why would you call it North Caucasian? Very few things originate in the North Caucasus. It has peaks in the South Caucasus and Balochistan as well. And its presence in Baluchistan and regions east has absolutely nothing to do with the North Caucasus and R1b.

Its old name was the Dagestan component and its noticeable presence in South Asia makes the idea of a parallel with R1b a silly idea.

newtoboard
08-04-2013, 10:07 PM
There is also a term Dagestan used for this or a similar component. I would think some sort of term like Caspian Highlands or something like that would be useful rather than west Asian because this component looks to be a notch east or north of the real west Asian groups in Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Levant from where the Neolithic early farmers in Europe seem to derive. Dienekes knows this is an important distinction but he has chosen a confusing name that blurs the actual message he is making.

Those groups are SW Asian shifted today and were likely Mediterranean shifted in ancient times.

There is a very nice correlation with R1b and Mediterranean. For example it would be what explains why both of these drop in frequency east of West Iran. Or why Poles are more Mediterranean shifted than Russians.

Mikewww
08-05-2013, 03:48 AM
Why would you call it North Caucasian? Very few things originate in the North Caucasus. It has peaks in the South Caucasus and Balochistan as well. And its presence in Baluchistan and regions east has absolutely nothing to do with the North Caucasus and R1b.

Its old name was the Dagestan component and its noticeable presence in South Asia makes the idea of a parallel with R1b a silly idea.
This is a bit confusing. Dagestan is on the north side of the Caucasus, right? Why would you say this has nothing to do with the North Caucasus?

What are the real numbers for this component by geography? I remember Dienekes calling this Dagestan and then switching when citing additional "peaks". What's the real data behind the "peaks"? "West Asia" is a vague label for an area so rich with diversity.

You also make a statement about very few things "originate in the North Caucasus". That seems a bit out of the blue. What is the data behind making that assertion?

Palisto
08-05-2013, 06:13 AM
This is a bit confusing. Dagestan is on the north side of the Caucasus, right? Why would you say this has nothing to do with the North Caucasus?

What are the real numbers for this component by geography? I remember Dienekes calling this Dagestan and then switching when citing additional "peaks". What's the real data behind the "peaks"? "West Asia" is a vague label for an area so rich with diversity.

You also make a statement about very few things "originate in the North Caucasus". That seems a bit out of the blue. What is the data behind making that assertion?

The West Asian Component:

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=212724382842737328910.0004b0917c6a20fe1c2e 0&msa=0&ll=43.452919,39.375&spn=58.378373,120.585938

Mikewww
08-05-2013, 12:51 PM
The West Asian Component:

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=212724382842737328910.0004b0917c6a20fe1c2e 0&msa=0&ll=43.452919,39.375&spn=58.378373,120.585938

What's the main point of the map? Who's data is this? What does it represent? It doesn't look like any representative sampling technique was referred to and used.

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/01/k12b-and-k7b-calculators.html
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadHZ6SHpiLTNTa3lsUmZJY2pQblVRR 2c#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedEY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEY lE&pli=1#gid=0

I don't understand them. What's pertinent or am I looking at the wrong stuff?
[Please note: The [K7b/K12b] admixture calculator is courtesy of Dienekes Pontikos and was developed as part of the Dodecad Ancestry Project]

Palisto
08-05-2013, 02:51 PM
What's the main point of the map? Who's data is this? What does it represent? It doesn't look like any representative sampling technique was referred to and used.

I called the map "West Asian Component: Dodecad Eurasia7" because it is based on the West Asian component of the Dodecad Eurasia 7 run.
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/10/eurasia7-calculator.html

J Man
08-05-2013, 03:11 PM
I wonder what type of ancestry the Atlantic_Baltic component truly represents? Mixed Mesolithic and Neolithic European alleles?

Mikewww
08-05-2013, 03:29 PM
I called the map "West Asian Component: Dodecad Eurasia7" because it is based on the West Asian component of the Dodecad Eurasia 7 run.
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/10/eurasia7-calculator.html

Thank you. I see the alignment and appreciate the graphic map.

I'm lost a bit on the usage of these different calculators. I see this is called Eurasia7. Is the K7b and K7a version too. Dienekes is tweaking these. It looks like K7b has more data but are there any concerns with the methods? Is the lower level of detail in K7 versus K12 a bad thing?

Dienekes wrote,
"At the same time I am also releasing 'K7b' which is an update of the existing 'eurasia7' calculator and which has been built on exactly the same dataset as 'K12b' but at a lower (K=7) level of detail." http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/01/k12b-and-k7b-calculators.html

Do we need to be careful about lumping some of these together? I see the K12 versions have Gedrosia, Caucasus and Southwest_Asian broken out separately.

DMXX
08-05-2013, 03:42 PM
I created some autosomal heat maps based on Dodecad k10a results (http://vaedhya.blogspot.com/2012/06/worldwide-distribution-of-dodecad-k10a.html) over a year ago.

From that run, the Mediterranean component shows a much better fit with the frequency of Y-DNA R1b in Europe than West Asian, with the latter (per Dienekes' observation) does seem to correlate with the Indo-European languages there. The inverse (Atlantic_Baltic in West Asia) is true to a lesser extent (comparing IE with aboriginal non-IE speakers such as Assyrians), whereas both West Asian and Atlantic_Baltic are both as prominent as another in Central Asia.

alan
08-05-2013, 04:05 PM
I am not up on this subject (and think it is the most problematic to interpret) but is correlating R1b with the Med component not a problem when the Med componenet is the main one in the Neolithic remains that have been tested and are all non-R1b? Does that not mean the Med component had already spread across Europe long before R1b was any sort of factor?

We are all still pretty uncertain about the origin of R1b apart from the fact it seems older in eastern Europe and SW Asia. There still is not a lot of data or variance interpretations pointing to a spread of R1b across much of Europe until much before 4000BC. Its hard to think of how populations on the R1b trajectory from some point far to the east to the north-west of Europe would be anything more than a real mixup of everything on their path. That path took them to very different areas and I just cannot see how they would have had much of an autosomal impact short of a folk movement which is not currently being suggested. I read recently that by the 6th generation stage (maybe 200 years) from a founder of a line your autosomal DNA chances of even a tiny chance of having ANY autosomal DNA of a distant ancestor on any line drop off to very low indeed unless you are inbreeding.

DMXX
08-05-2013, 04:37 PM
I am not up on this subject (and think it is the most problematic to interpret) but is correlating R1b with the Med component not a problem when the Med componenet is the main one in the Neolithic remains that have been tested and are all non-R1b? Does that not mean the Med component had already spread across Europe long before R1b was any sort of factor?


An absolute correlation is definitely a problem for the reason you've stated. As is, in my opinion, an absolute correlation with North Europe-specific autosomal components and Y-DNA R1a1a.

However, the Mediterranean component does seem to mirror the R1a-R1b split in Europe quite well (observe how it is more frequent in Iberia, West Continental Europe, the Italian Peninsula, the Balkans and even the SW chunk of Scandinavia vs. the Eastern European plains and the Baltic).

To me, it suggests some of the Mediterranean component was picked up along the way westwards. It can be considered a secondary signal rather than a primary one.

R.Rocca
08-05-2013, 04:50 PM
I am not up on this subject (and think it is the most problematic to interpret) but is correlating R1b with the Med component not a problem when the Med componenet is the main one in the Neolithic remains that have been tested and are all non-R1b? Does that not mean the Med component had already spread across Europe long before R1b was any sort of factor?

We are all still pretty uncertain about the origin of R1b apart from the fact it seems older in eastern Europe and SW Asia. There still is not a lot of data or variance interpretations pointing to a spread of R1b across much of Europe until much before 4000BC. Its hard to think of how populations on the R1b trajectory from some point far to the east to the north-west of Europe would be anything more than a real mixup of everything on their path. That path took them to very different areas and I just cannot see how they would have had much of an autosomal impact short of a folk movement which is not currently being suggested. I read recently that by the 6th generation stage (maybe 200 years) from a founder of a line your autosomal DNA chances of even a tiny chance of having ANY autosomal DNA of a distant ancestor on any line drop off to very low indeed unless you are inbreeding.

Considering that the Mediterranean component seems to spike in Sardinia where 80%+ of the male population is NOT R1b, I can't see it as the most valid correlation.

newtoboard
08-05-2013, 05:21 PM
This is a bit confusing. Dagestan is on the north side of the Caucasus, right? Why would you say this has nothing to do with the North Caucasus?

What are the real numbers for this component by geography? I remember Dienekes calling this Dagestan and then switching when citing additional "peaks". What's the real data behind the "peaks"? "West Asia" is a vague label for an area so rich with diversity.

You also make a statement about very few things "originate in the North Caucasus". That seems a bit out of the blue. What is the data behind making that assertion?

Why would you all it the Dagestan component? It has peaks elsewhere and is not connected to movements from Dagestan. Why would anybody have an issue with the more neutral name "West Asian"? No one does except for Alan who wants to connect it to R1b (which is not the most common lineage in Dagestan anyways, variants of J seem to be which likely originated in Zagros-Taurus mountains-so this component likely originated there as well). The Caucasus is a population sink not a source , especially the North Caucasus.


Considering that the Mediterranean component seems to spike in Sardinia where 80%+ of the male population is NOT R1b, I can't see it as the most valid correlation.

Only if you make the assumption that each component can be tied to one Y-DNA. I wonder how is it then SW Asian can correlate to E1b, J1 and T. Or Northern European can correlate to R1a and I1. Or how about West Asian correlating to J2, certain sublclades of G and possibly L. Mediterranian also likely correlates to certain subclades of G and I2.


I am not up on this subject (and think it is the most problematic to interpret) but is correlating R1b with the Med component not a problem when the Med componenet is the main one in the Neolithic remains that have been tested and are all non-R1b? Does that not mean the Med component had already spread across Europe long before R1b was any sort of factor?

We are all still pretty uncertain about the origin of R1b apart from the fact it seems older in eastern Europe and SW Asia. There still is not a lot of data or variance interpretations pointing to a spread of R1b across much of Europe until much before 4000BC. Its hard to think of how populations on the R1b trajectory from some point far to the east to the north-west of Europe would be anything more than a real mixup of everything on their path. That path took them to very different areas and I just cannot see how they would have had much of an autosomal impact short of a folk movement which is not currently being suggested. I read recently that by the 6th generation stage (maybe 200 years) from a founder of a line your autosomal DNA chances of even a tiny chance of having ANY autosomal DNA of a distant ancestor on any line drop off to very low indeed unless you are inbreeding.

Once again each component can correlate to more than one Y-DNA. There are only 4 major West Eurasian autosomal components (Mediterranean, Northern European, SW Asian and West Asian) and more than 4 West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups.

DMXX
08-05-2013, 05:29 PM
Why would you all it the Dagestan component? It has peaks elsewhere and is not connected to movements from Dagestan. Nobody has an issue with the more neutral name "West Asian" except for Alan who wants to connect it to R1b (which is not the most common lineage in Dagestan, variants of J seem to be which likely originated in Zagros-Taurus mountains-so this component likely originated there as well). The Caucasus is a population sink not a source , especially the North Caucasus.

What evidence do we have that the Caucasus is completely a sink rather than a source of anything?

The "Daghestani" component was first identified by Dienekes in multidimensional analyses of West Eurasians in 2010 (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2010/11/multidimensional-scaling-in-italy.html). He extended this analysis and found it also had peaks in South Asia. Extended once more to Europe, a broadly similar component was found to peak in Orcadians at 12.6%. (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2010/12/fine-scale-admixture-in-europe.html)

Coincidentally, at around the same time, Davidski of Eurogenes noticed a similar component which had two peaks in West Europe and Central Asia appearing in several of his runs.

Therefore, the Daghestani component was first coined as such by Dienekes to describe an autosomal phenomena observed in at least four different runs between two open-source projects. Dienekes found it to peak among natives of Daghestan in the North Caucasus.

newtoboard
08-05-2013, 05:34 PM
What evidence do we have that the Caucasus is completely a sink rather than a source of anything?

The "Daghestani" component was first identified by Dienekes in multidimensional analyses of West Eurasians in 2010 (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2010/11/multidimensional-scaling-in-italy.html). He extended this analysis and found it also had peaks in South Asia. Extended once more to Europe, a broadly similar component was found to peak in Orcadians at 12.6%. (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2010/12/fine-scale-admixture-in-europe.html)

Coincidentally, at around the same time, Davidski of Eurogenes noticed a similar component which had two peaks in West Europe and Central Asia appearing in several of his runs.

Therefore, the Daghestani component was first coined as such by Dienekes to describe an autosomal phenomena observed in at least four different runs between two open-source projects. Dienekes found it to peak among natives of Daghestan in the North Caucasus.

The North Caucasus is for the most part. The most common lineages seem to be G2, J1*, J2a, R1a and R1b. The first three are more diverse south of the North Caucasus. G2a seem to be the most diverse among Armenians and Iranian Azeris according to the study Dienekes blogged about. R1a (especially since you can find lineages downstream of Z283 in the North Caucasus including M458) is likely from the North. All you have is the possibility of R1b although a Caspian or Balkan origin for that is more likely as well. It makes no sense to distinguish the South Caucasus from Anatolia, Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau but the North Caucasus looks like a population sink.

Davidski seems to be relating the connection between Western Europe and Central Asia it to the Sintashta Chariot complex.

That this component has peaks in a R1b heavy area such as Western Europe, an R1a/J2/L heavy area such as NW South Asia and an area more heavy in J and G such as the Caucasus doesn't make me think it is an actual component. Could it be like a Kalash type component? A set of alleles which for some reason became concentrated in the Caucasus, South Asia and Western Europe. I thought it might have been possible that the original R1b carriers could have been carried a lot of this Dagestan component but the proposed East Balkan and Ukrainian refuge theories for R1b-M269 on this site make it unlikely. Plus the peak seems to be in NW Europe so what explains its lower amounts in the rest of Western Europe and other R1b heavy regions of Europe?

newtoboard
08-05-2013, 05:47 PM
Here is one example of the North Caucasus being a sink.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/05/major-new-paper-on-y-chromosome.html

Mikewww
08-05-2013, 06:29 PM
Why would you all it the Dagestan component?
DMXX has already pointed this out, but the association of Dagestan to an autosomal element is not my term. I don't even advocate it is a good label. It's just the one Dienekes was using at one time. Dienekes wrote,
"The Urkarah, Lezgin, and Stalskoe samples show the highest presence of the "blue" component, which I label, once again, Dagestan." http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2010/12/fine-scale-admixture-in-europe.html

------------


The Caucasus is a population sink not a source , especially the North Caucasus.

Here is one example of the North Caucasus being a sink.
You show one example of a migration into the Caucasus but that means little logically to your assertion. Currently, the thinking is that mankind originated in Africa and therefore had to migrate into the whole rest of the world. Does that mean that zero populations migrated out the Levant, out of India, out the Steppes, British Isles, or whatever?

Apparently you are making some sort of argument that since little originates in the North Caucasus anything that we think might have migrated out of the Caucasus should be discounted as not so. Unless, I'm totally misunderstanding you, that seems like assumptive thinking.

DMXX
08-05-2013, 06:43 PM
The North Caucasus is for the most part. The most common lineages seem to be G2, J1*, J2a, R1a and R1b. The first three are more diverse south of the North Caucasus. G2a seem to be the most diverse among Armenians and Iranian Azeris according to the study Dienekes blogged about. R1a (especially since you can find lineages downstream of Z283 in the North Caucasus including M458) is likely from the North. All you have is the possibility of R1b although a Caspian or Balkan origin for that is more likely as well. It makes no sense to distinguish the South Caucasus from Anatolia, Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau but the North Caucasus looks like a population sink.


The problem with using North Caucasian Y-DNA for inferences on autosomal patterns is that genetic drift has extensively occurred across those mountain villages. It's no different to the Pamirs. You'll find one population peaking in Y-DNA G2a subclades (Ossetians) or L1c/R2a (Chechens) for example. So, the "base" formative processes to which those village populations came about is distorted to a degree. It's actually with respect to this (North Caucasian Y-DNA) that I agree with a Kalash comparison.



Davidski seems to be relating the connection between Western Europe and Central Asia it to the Sintashta Chariot complex.


Sintashta is located in Kazakhstan and is one of the later cultural phenomena on the Eurasian steppes. I've never read of anything relating to it spreading all the way into Europe, let alone the Isles/Iberia/W Continental Europe. It is considered by many scholars to be ancestral to the Andronovo horizon. I'm curious as to his reasoning on this.



That this component has peaks in a R1b heavy area such as Western Europe, an R1a/J2/L heavy area such as NW South Asia and an area more heavy in J and G such as the Caucasus doesn't make me think it is an actual component. Could it be like a Kalash type component? A set of alleles which for some reason became concentrated in the Caucasus, South Asia and Western Europe. I thought it might have been possible that the original R1b carriers could have been carried a lot of this Dagestan component but the proposed East Balkan and Ukrainian refuge theories for R1b-M269 on this site make it unlikely. Plus the peak seems to be in NW Europe so what explains its lower amounts in the rest of Western Europe and other R1b heavy regions of Europe?

A Kalash-type effect explains it peaking in relatively isolated West Eurasian populations (South India, Daghestan, Orcadians), but doesn't help determine the origin for the region you've outlined (considerable Y-DNA diversity between them). Two points to consider;

1) mtDNA is being excluded from this discussion without any logical reason. Perhaps it serves as a better indication of this mysterious component's origin than Y-DNA.
2) Modern Y-DNA frequencies should not be considered as definitive anchors for projecting genetic dispersals back in the past.

The generic throwaway conclusion would be that the Daghestani component has its' origins during the Neolithic and ties these different populations together through it. Not sure we have the means to determine what Neolithic-originating movement resulted in its' peak on the opposite ends of West Eurasia.

Mikewww
08-05-2013, 07:27 PM
... It looks like K7b has more data but are there any concerns with the methods? Is the lower level of detail in K7 versus K12 a bad thing?

Dienekes wrote,
"At the same time I am also releasing 'K7b' which is an update of the existing 'eurasia7' calculator and which has been built on exactly the same dataset as 'K12b' but at a lower (K=7) level of detail." http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/01/k12b-and-k7b-calculators.html

Do we need to be careful about lumping some of these together? I see the K12 versions have Gedrosia, Caucasus and Southwest_Asian broken out separately.

I'm always leery of lumping things together as the simplification can result in misleading results. I'm not saying Dienekes has presented anything misleading, but I just wanted to look at the detail another layer deeper so I looked at the K12b spreadsheet which has more granularity in autosomal DNA. I've downloaded it and added some sorting and tabulating.

Let me preface this is that I'm not asserting that R1b is only or is purely or even well correlated with any of these autosomal elements. I think any correlations are partial at best and not one for one at least. There may be other Y haplogroups that do have nice correlations. I'm just reviewing this in context of the thread, that I'm looking for things that might correlate with R1b, if only partially. I'm just looking for clues that might help us on understanding R1b.

Something that stuck out like a sore thumb is what Dienekes is calling the Gedrosia component. I can't say this is the best label but for consistency I'll go with Dieneke's terminology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedrosia

Here are the top populations with the Gedrosia component... the ones over 50% are:

Brahui ___________________________ 69.5 ___ (N=23) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_people
Balochi __________________________ 64.5 ___ (N=21) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baloch_people
Makrani __________________________ 61.2 ___ (N=22) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makrani
Sindhi ___________________________ 50.9 ___ (N=22) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindhi_people

This is what caught my eye. The top European locations/populations for Gedrosia... the ones above 10% are:

Argyll_1KG _______________________ 13.1 ___ (N=4)
Orcadian _________________________ 12.0 ___ (N=13)
Irish_D __________________________ 11.9 ___ (N=14)
Orkney_1KG _______________________ 11.8 ___ (N=21)
Cornwall_1KG _____________________ 11.4 ___ (N=28)
British_D ________________________ 11.3 ___ (N=11)
Mixed_Germanic_D _________________ 10.7 ___ (N=7)
English_D ________________________ 10.6 ___ (N=10)
Kent_1KG _________________________ 10.5 ___ (N=36)

European-wise, here is the next layer down, less than 10% down to 5%:

Dutch_D __________________________ 09.9 ___ (N=8)
French_Basque ____________________ 09.8 ___ (N=21)
British_Isles_D __________________ 09.5 ___ (N=8)
Pais_Vasco_1KG ___________________ 09.1 ___ (N=7)
Norwegian_D ______________________ 08.2 ___ (N=10)
French_D _________________________ 08.1 ___ (N=13)
French ___________________________ 07.9 ___ (N=27)
Swedish_D ________________________ 07.7 ___ (N=11)
German_D _________________________ 07.3 ___ (N=18)
Cataluna_1KG _____________________ 07.3 ___ (N=8)
Andalucia_1KG ____________________ 07.2 ___ (N=4)
Extremadura_1KG __________________ 06.9 ___ (N=8)
Valencia_1KG _____________________ 06.8 ___ (N=10)
Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG ___________ 06.8 ___ (N=6)
Spaniards ________________________ 06.5 ___ (N=10)
Aragon_1KG _______________________ 06.3 ___ (N=6)
O_Italian_D ______________________ 06.2 ___ (N=5)
Spanish_D ________________________ 06.2 ___ (N=20)
Portuguese_D _____________________ 06.0 ___ (N=9)
Cypriots _________________________ 05.8 ___ (N=11)
Sephardic_Jews ___________________ 05.7 ___ (N=19)
N_Italian_D ______________________ 05.7 ___ (N=5)
Cantabria_1KG ____________________ 05.7 ___ (N=6)
S_Italian_Sicilian_D _____________ 05.5 ___ (N=10)
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG ______________ 05.4 ___ (N=12)
Galicia_1KG ______________________ 05.1 ___ (N=8)
Canarias_1KG _____________________ 05.0 ___ (N=2)

As a comparison among other European groups, Gedrosia is very low/non-existent in these populations - less that 3%:

Ashkenazy_Jews ___________________ 02.8 ___ (N=17)
Ashkenazi_D ______________________ 02.1 ___ (N=19)
Russian __________________________ 02.0 ___ (N=20)
Russian_D ________________________ 01.8 ___ (N=17)
Bulgarians_Y _____________________ 01.5 ___ (N=10)
Mixed_Slav_D _____________________ 00.9 ___ (N=12)
FIN30 ____________________________ 00.9 ___ (N=24)
Polish_D _________________________ 00.5 ___ (N=18)
Ukranians_Y ______________________ 00.3 ___ (N=18)
Finnish_D ________________________ 00.3 ___ (N=14)
Russian_B ________________________ 00.2 ___ (N=2)
Sardinian ________________________ 00.0 ___ (N=24)
Belorussian ______________________ 00.0 ___ (N=8)
Lithuanian_D _____________________ 00.0 ___ (N=9)
Lithuanians ______________________ 00.0 ___ (N=9)

BTW, this is all rough cut, first run through so I may have made errors. Let me know if you see anything glaring that I either omitted or misunderstood.

Since R1b is spread all over Europe, this may all look like a bit of craziness but what stuck out like a sore thumb to me is that R1b is most frequent in the Isles and that is where the highest Gedrosia percentage (for R1b!) is found. Iberia has slightly lower frequencies of R1b and likewise has slightly lower frequencies of Gedrosia, or whatever we want to call it that seems to be most common in the Pakistan/Iran vicinity.

Another way to look at it is that it seems to show in populations with R1b-L11 people.

alan
08-05-2013, 07:30 PM
An absolute correlation is definitely a problem for the reason you've stated. As is, in my opinion, an absolute correlation with North Europe-specific autosomal components and Y-DNA R1a1a.

However, the Mediterranean component does seem to mirror the R1a-R1b split in Europe quite well (observe how it is more frequent in Iberia, West Continental Europe, the Italian Peninsula, the Balkans and even the SW chunk of Scandinavia vs. the Eastern European plains and the Baltic).

To me, it suggests some of the Mediterranean component was picked up along the way westwards. It can be considered a secondary signal rather than a primary one.

That pattern sound likely to have been established in the Neolithic to me. The place you mention with less Med. seem to simply be those areas where the impact of farming was late and weak compared to other areas. I am not saying its a perfect fit, not could we expect it to be but I think its likely. To me the balance between northern and med is largely down to the Neolithic history and level of Mesolithic input. Balances would have shifted a bit through later movements but look at Ireland. It has a bigger northern European component than England despite having nothing like the size of Germanic input England had. So, that component has to be Mesolithic IMO.

Silesian
08-05-2013, 07:36 PM
I'm always leery of lumping things together as the simplification can result in misleading results. I'm not saying Dienekes has presented anything misleading, but I just wanted to look at the detail another layer deeper so I looked at the K12b spreadsheet which has more granularity in autosomal DNA. I've downloaded it and added some sorting and tabulating.

Let me preface this is that I'm not asserting that R1b is only or is purely or even well correlated with any of these autosomal elements. I think any correlations are partial at best and not one for one at least. There may be other Y haplogroups that do have nice correlations. I'm just reviewing this in context of the thread, that I'm looking for things that might correlate with R1b, if only partially. I'm just looking for clues that might help us on understanding R1b.

Something that stuck out like a sore thumb is what Dienekes is calling the Gedrosia component. I can't say this is the best label but for consistency I'll go with Dieneke's terminology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedrosia

Here are the top populations with the Gedrosia component... the ones over 50% are:
[FONT=Courier New]
Brahui ___________________________ 69.5 ___ (N=23) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_people

Thats K12b run if my memory is correct Brahui are 39%+/- R1a [Z93?] and only 0.8% Northern European in the same run Lithuanians top Northern European 77.1%

alan
08-05-2013, 07:58 PM
Your putting words into my mouth again. I dont WANT to connect anything with R1b. I said I didnt know much about the subject of autosomal DNA and just kicked the thread off citing others. I was hoping to learn from others rather than push an opinion. I dont know if any autosomal DNA is connected with R1b. Probably a little but if it is post-Neolithic I wouldnt expect it to be much.

I only ran through the whole Caucasus-Maykop-Iran etc stuff to discuss it as a possbility and it was a lot of work reading up on the archaeology, climate, maritime changes, population genetic studies etc for the Palaelithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic and copper ages of several areas that I wasnt very familiar with. However, I havent any fixed idea the Caucasus or Iran must be linked with R1b. I myself have major doubts but at the same time I think it stood up after examination and remains ONE possible option. That is just how I operate and was taught at Uni to do so. Raise an idea, look at all the info, set it up to be knocked down. If its still standing when everything is thrown at it then it becomes a maybe. Maybe not the most likely though.

The only possibilities that look very weak at the moment are that it was linked to western Palaeolithic or with the first waves of farming west across Europe. That seems close to ruled out. That still leaves several options. However, they have to be real options attested in the record rather than imaginary ones like copper age movements out of Anatolia or Mesopotamia that spread across the whole of Europe. That doesnt exist in the archaeological record. If it did, it would stand out like a sore thumb. I think the main remaining options are a western steppe copper age one, some link to Maykop metallurgy, some sort of secondary Neolithic Anatolia-Balkans origin linked to dairying or finally a copper age Balkans origin from hybrid cultures that formed there after 4000BC. That is a lot of options but I dont think there are any others. I dont have fixed views or preferences and IMO it would be foolish to do so with the current level of uncertainty about yDNA dating. I raise possibilities to test them through debate.

Anyway I think I will stay out of this thread as I dont know much about autosomal DNA and what little I know of it doesnt give me confidence that a link with R1b looks apparent.


Why would you all it the Dagestan component? It has peaks elsewhere and is not connected to movements from Dagestan. Why would anybody have an issue with the more neutral name "West Asian"? No one does except for Alan who wants to connect it to R1b (which is not the most common lineage in Dagestan anyways, variants of J seem to be which likely originated in Zagros-Taurus mountains-so this component likely originated there as well). The Caucasus is a population sink not a source , especially the North Caucasus.



Only if you make the assumption that each component can be tied to one Y-DNA. I wonder how is it then SW Asian can correlate to E1b, J1 and T. Or Northern European can correlate to R1a and I1. Or how about West Asian correlating to J2, certain sublclades of G and possibly L. Mediterranian also likely correlates to certain subclades of G and I2.



Once again each component can correlate to more than one Y-DNA. There are only 4 major West Eurasian autosomal components (Mediterranean, Northern European, SW Asian and West Asian) and more than 4 West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups.

Mikewww
08-05-2013, 09:12 PM
... Something that stuck out like a sore thumb is what Dienekes is calling the Gedrosia component. I can't say this is the best label but for consistency I'll go with Dieneke's terminology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedrosia


For comparison purposes, these are the populations (best efforts first cut) from the east and south sides of the Black Sea in sequence of high to lower Gedrosia.

Kurd_D ___________________________ 28.7 ___ (N=9)
Kurds_Y __________________________ 28.2 ___ (N=6)
Lezgins __________________________ 27.8 ___ (N=16)
Chechens_Y _______________________ 21.8 ___ (N=14)
Kumyks_Y _________________________ 20.0 ___ (N=13)
Armenians_15_Y ___________________ 18.0 ___ (N=13)
Abhkasians_Y _____________________ 17.2 ___ (N=14)
Adygei ___________________________ 17.2 ___ (N=16)
Georgians ________________________ 16.9 ___ (N=16)
Georgia_Jews _____________________ 16.9 ___ (N=4)
Armenian_D _______________________ 16.8 ___ (N=32)
North_Ossetians_Y ________________ 16.5 ___ (N=12)
Armenians ________________________ 15.8 ___ (N=18)
Balkars_Y ________________________ 15.8 ___ (N=17)
Turks ____________________________ 15.5 ___ (N=19) (<- assuming this means from Turkey and not Turkmenistan)
Turkish_D ________________________ 13.4 ___ (N=27)
Nogais_Y _________________________ 12.9 ___ (N=14)

Mikewww
08-05-2013, 10:01 PM
What Dienekes refers to as the Atlantic Mediterranean Europe component seems to perform as expected. The same for the Northern Europe component.

Here is the Atlantic Med Europe component, the top populations - over 50%:

French_Basque ____________________ 73.1 ___ (N=21)
Sardinian ________________________ 70.5 ___ (N=24)
Pais_Vasco_1KG ___________________ 67.3 ___ (N=7)
Aragon_1KG _______________________ 56.1 ___ (N=6)
Valencia_1KG _____________________ 55.4 ___ (N=10)
Cantabria_1KG ____________________ 54.8 ___ (N=6)
Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG ___________ 54.3 ___ (N=6)
Spaniards ________________________ 53.0 ___ (N=10)
Andalucia_1KG ____________________ 52.6 ___ (N=4)
Spanish_D ________________________ 52.5 ___ (N=20)
Cataluna_1KG _____________________ 52.1 ___ (N=8)
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG ______________ 51.2 ___ (N=12)

Here is the Atlantic Med Europe component by lowest European populations at 20% and less:

Cypriots _________________________ 20.5 ___ (N=11)
Mixed_Slav_D _____________________ 16.6 ___ (N=12)
Ukranians_Y ______________________ 16.3 ___ (N=18)
Belorussian ______________________ 16.1 ___ (N=8)
Russian_D ________________________ 14.1 ___ (N=17)
FIN30 ____________________________ 14.1 ___ (N=24)
Lithuanian_D _____________________ 13.9 ___ (N=9)
Lithuanians ______________________ 13.7 ___ (N=9)
Finnish_D ________________________ 13.4 ___ (N=14)
Russian_B ________________________ 13.1 ___ (N=2)
Russian __________________________ 12.1 ___ (N=20)


Likewise, what Dienekes refers to as the Northern Europe component seems to perform as expected.

Here are North Europe's top populations with at least 50%:

Lithuanians ______________________ 77.1 ___ (N=9)
Finnish_D ________________________ 75.5 ___ (N=14)
Lithuanian_D _____________________ 73.7 ___ (N=9)
FIN30 ____________________________ 73.5 ___ (N=24)
Belorussian ______________________ 67.8 ___ (N=8)
Russian_B ________________________ 66.5 ___ (N=2)
Russian_D ________________________ 66.4 ___ (N=17)
Russian __________________________ 65.4 ___ (N=20)
Mixed_Slav_D _____________________ 64.4 ___ (N=12)
Mordovians_Y _____________________ 63.8 ___ (N=13)
Polish_D _________________________ 63.3 ___ (N=18)
Ukranians_Y ______________________ 62.1 ___ (N=18)
Swedish_D ________________________ 56.8 ___ (N=11)
Norwegian_D ______________________ 54.7 ___ (N=10)
Chuvashs _________________________ 52.7 ___ (N=15)

Here are North Europe's lowest populations in Europe with 20% and less:

Greek_D __________________________ 20.2 ___ (N=15)
Murcia_1KG _______________________ 19.6 ___ (N=8)
Tuscan ___________________________ 18.7 ___ (N=7)
Andalucia_1KG ____________________ 18.1 ___ (N=4)
Canarias_1KG _____________________ 17.6 ___ (N=2)
C_Italian_D ______________________ 17.1 ___ (N=13)
French_Basque ____________________ 17.1 ___ (N=21)
Ashkenazy_Jews ___________________ 13.2 ___ (N=17)
Ashkenazi_D ______________________ 13.0 ___ (N=19)
Sicilian_D _______________________ 11.9 ___ (N=15)
S_Italian_Sicilian_D _____________ 11.8 ___ (N=10)
Sephardic_Jews ___________________ 06.1 ___ (N=19)
Cypriots _________________________ 04.5 ___ (N=11)
Sardinian ________________________ 00.0 ___ (N=24)

This is where R1b doesn't correlate very well as it spans both the northwestern and southwestern populations. The particular offender is L11 descendant R1b-P312.


I think Klyosov of some folks like that once attributed R1b in Western Europe to a North African route. Bovine DNA I think was part of the reasoning. Anyway, I thought I'd check out Dieneke's Northwest African component across European populations. Here are the top ones, with at least 5% or more:

Canarias_1KG _____________________ 11.8 ___ (N=2)
Portuguese_D _____________________ 07.7 ___ (N=9)
Sephardic_Jews ___________________ 06.2 ___ (N=19)
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG ______________ 06.1 ___ (N=12)
Murcia_1KG _______________________ 06.0 ___ (N=8)
Extremadura_1KG __________________ 06.0 ___ (N=8)
Andalucia_1KG ____________________ 05.1 ___ (N=4)
Spanish_D ________________________ 05.1 ___ (N=20)
Galicia_1KG ______________________ 05.0 ___ (N=8)
Ashkenazi_D ______________________ 04.7 ___ (N=19)

There is some influence in Iberia, but that's about it (well a little in Italy). As you go north into France you get about a half percent and then zero for most places north, northwest and northeast.

[EDIT 08/06/2013: I had a component labeled "Med Europe" but Dienekes' term is actually "Atlantic Med" so I corrected my post.]

Mikewww
08-05-2013, 10:16 PM
Something that stuck out like a sore thumb is what Dienekes is calling the Gedrosia component. I can't say this is the best label but for consistency I'll go with Dieneke's terminology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedrosia

Back to Gedrosia...

Here are the top populations with the Gedrosia component... the ones over 50% are:

Brahui ___________________________ 69.5 ___ (N=23) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_people
Balochi __________________________ 64.5 ___ (N=21) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baloch_people
Makrani __________________________ 61.2 ___ (N=22) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makrani
Sindhi ___________________________ 50.9 ___ (N=22) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindhi_people

Here is the next layer down of high Gedrosia populations other than the Indian (It's quite high in India too).

Pathan ___________________________ 44.5 ___ (N=22)
Burusho __________________________ 43.2 ___ (N=22)
GIH30 ____________________________ 39.3 ___ (N=25)
INS30 ____________________________ 36.9 ___ (N=22)
Tajiks_Y _________________________ 33.9 ___ (N=15)
Iranians _________________________ 30.9 ___ (N=19)
Iranian_D ________________________ 28.8 ___ (N=8)
Kurd_D ___________________________ 28.7 ___ (N=9)
Kurds_Y __________________________ 28.2 ___ (N=6)
Turkmens_Y _______________________ 28.0 ___ (N=11)

There is more as it finds its way up Central Asia in to Russia/Siberia/Mongolia. It drops off as you go north though and to the northeast into China. Going west, we see it screened off from the Near East but it finds its way into Anatolia and Caucasia.

Strangely the Gedrosia component disappears in East Europe only to pick up again in Western Europe with a Northwestern bias.

ADW_1981
08-05-2013, 11:41 PM
R1b - Mediterranean and Gedrosia. The latter seems associated with dairy farming at minimum.

Alternatively, my position that R1b were the original Mediterraneans may be wishful thinking.

R1b could also be

North European + Gedrosia.

This may also explain its presence among the West Asian populations like Assyrians and Armenians who also have sizeable levels of this component. The North European could be a relic from the Mesolithic past in Northern Europe. Although, the fact R1b and LP were not found in ancient remains, it could be that R1b were Johnny come lately's, and are solely associated with Gedrosia, perhaps originating around the steppes and moving into Europe about 6,000 years ago. Early wave of PIE speakers with dairy farming?

alan
08-05-2013, 11:45 PM
Strikes me that they should be renamed the north-east European and south-west European components judging by their peaks. While the peak in north-east Europe for north European makes sense as some sort of retention of a Mesolithic component in areas that were marginal to farming, the south-west peak doesnt make a lot of sense as an echo of farming as its at the wrong end of the Med. The peaks actually superficially have a strong resemblance of the two ice age refugia. Is there any possibility that it is linked to those two expansions and that there is an intermediate zone in between where the hunters were a mixture of the two?


What Dienekes refers to as the Atlantic Mediterranean Europe component seems to perform as expected. The same for the Northern Europe component.

Here is the Atlantic Med Europe component, the top populations - over 50%:

French_Basque ____________________ 73.1 ___ (N=21)
Sardinian ________________________ 70.5 ___ (N=24)
Pais_Vasco_1KG ___________________ 67.3 ___ (N=7)
Aragon_1KG _______________________ 56.1 ___ (N=6)
Valencia_1KG _____________________ 55.4 ___ (N=10)
Cantabria_1KG ____________________ 54.8 ___ (N=6)
Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG ___________ 54.3 ___ (N=6)
Spaniards ________________________ 53.0 ___ (N=10)
Andalucia_1KG ____________________ 52.6 ___ (N=4)
Spanish_D ________________________ 52.5 ___ (N=20)
Cataluna_1KG _____________________ 52.1 ___ (N=8)
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG ______________ 51.2 ___ (N=12)

Here is the Atlantic Med Europe component by lowest European populations at 20% and less:

Cypriots _________________________ 20.5 ___ (N=11)
Mixed_Slav_D _____________________ 16.6 ___ (N=12)
Ukranians_Y ______________________ 16.3 ___ (N=18)
Belorussian ______________________ 16.1 ___ (N=8)
Russian_D ________________________ 14.1 ___ (N=17)
FIN30 ____________________________ 14.1 ___ (N=24)
Lithuanian_D _____________________ 13.9 ___ (N=9)
Lithuanians ______________________ 13.7 ___ (N=9)
Finnish_D ________________________ 13.4 ___ (N=14)
Russian_B ________________________ 13.1 ___ (N=2)
Russian __________________________ 12.1 ___ (N=20)


Likewise, what Dienekes refers to as the Northern Europe component seems to perform as expected.

Here are North Europe's top populations with at least 50%:

Lithuanians ______________________ 77.1 ___ (N=9)
Finnish_D ________________________ 75.5 ___ (N=14)
Lithuanian_D _____________________ 73.7 ___ (N=9)
FIN30 ____________________________ 73.5 ___ (N=24)
Belorussian ______________________ 67.8 ___ (N=8)
Russian_B ________________________ 66.5 ___ (N=2)
Russian_D ________________________ 66.4 ___ (N=17)
Russian __________________________ 65.4 ___ (N=20)
Mixed_Slav_D _____________________ 64.4 ___ (N=12)
Mordovians_Y _____________________ 63.8 ___ (N=13)
Polish_D _________________________ 63.3 ___ (N=18)
Ukranians_Y ______________________ 62.1 ___ (N=18)
Swedish_D ________________________ 56.8 ___ (N=11)
Norwegian_D ______________________ 54.7 ___ (N=10)
Chuvashs _________________________ 52.7 ___ (N=15)

Here are North Europe's lowest populations in Europe with 20% and less:

Greek_D __________________________ 20.2 ___ (N=15)
Murcia_1KG _______________________ 19.6 ___ (N=8)
Tuscan ___________________________ 18.7 ___ (N=7)
Andalucia_1KG ____________________ 18.1 ___ (N=4)
Canarias_1KG _____________________ 17.6 ___ (N=2)
C_Italian_D ______________________ 17.1 ___ (N=13)
French_Basque ____________________ 17.1 ___ (N=21)
Ashkenazy_Jews ___________________ 13.2 ___ (N=17)
Ashkenazi_D ______________________ 13.0 ___ (N=19)
Sicilian_D _______________________ 11.9 ___ (N=15)
S_Italian_Sicilian_D _____________ 11.8 ___ (N=10)
Sephardic_Jews ___________________ 06.1 ___ (N=19)
Cypriots _________________________ 04.5 ___ (N=11)
Sardinian ________________________ 00.0 ___ (N=24)

This is where R1b doesn't correlate very well as it spans both the northwestern and southwestern populations. The particular offender is L11 descendant R1b-P312.


I think Klyosov of some folks like that once attributed R1b in Western Europe to a North African route. Bovine DNA I think was part of the reasoning. Anyway, I thought I'd check out Dieneke's Northwest African component across European populations. Here are the top ones, with at least 5% or more:

Canarias_1KG _____________________ 11.8 ___ (N=2)
Portuguese_D _____________________ 07.7 ___ (N=9)
Sephardic_Jews ___________________ 06.2 ___ (N=19)
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG ______________ 06.1 ___ (N=12)
Murcia_1KG _______________________ 06.0 ___ (N=8)
Extremadura_1KG __________________ 06.0 ___ (N=8)
Andalucia_1KG ____________________ 05.1 ___ (N=4)
Spanish_D ________________________ 05.1 ___ (N=20)
Galicia_1KG ______________________ 05.0 ___ (N=8)
Ashkenazi_D ______________________ 04.7 ___ (N=19)

There is some influence in Iberia, but that's about it (well a little in Italy). As you go north into France you get about a half percent and then zero for most places north, northwest and northeast.

alan
08-06-2013, 12:14 AM
The link with dairy would make little sense. The strongly dairy economy entered Europe from NW Turkey and appeared first in areas like Bulgaria. The peaks are in the completely wrong area.

Med. has one of its highest peaks in Sardinians who have very little R1b. R1b isnt present in Neolithic remains which have a high Med. component. The ice man was G and clustered with Sardinians. If we look at the sort of likely origin zone of R1b somewhere around the any of shores of the Black and Caspian Seas its far from being the peak area for Med. R1b would then have had to cross the entire length of Europe picking up whatever lay in its path.


Personally, if date for most European R1b currently thought most likely c. 4000-2500BC is correct, then there doesnt seem to be any sort of folk movement type migration in that date range that would lead to a noticeable impact on autosomal DNA.


R1b - Mediterranean and Gedrosia. The latter seems associated with dairy farming at minimum.

alan
08-06-2013, 01:02 AM
One very obvious division in Europe is between areas favoured for early farming to various degrees and those that were marginal lands. Most of the peak northern European component areas corresponds with the marginal lands, much of which would still be considered rather marginal by west European standards. It is likely that this sort of basic division within Europe was well established before 4000BC and before we see the great burst of branching of R1a and R1b after millenia doing little. So, although R1b and R1a do have a partial superficial correlation with this basic division in European lands, it is an illusion or perhaps history repeating itself.

The bottom line seems to be that R1b lineages seemed to be able to get their hands on the more desirable lands in the more developed farming half of Europe while the farming-marginal zones seeem to have been where R1a retained some sort of hold. R1b seems to in a sense have done well and R1a got the short straw in terms of the sort of agriculture of the period. Now, how that came about is the mystery. It is not just a matter of one liking one type of land and another liking another sort. If we take the central European expression of the two groups in the copper age to be beaker and corded ware (as many do, abeit based on a tiny sample) then both groups did settle the same land and overlapped from the Alps and Rhine to the Elbe and clearly would have been in competition with each other. Today relatively little R1a that likely dates to that period survives in that area.

Michał
08-06-2013, 10:09 AM
Assuming that the Gedrosia component represents a very specific element of shared autosomal ancestry (which is not that obvious at all), the best explanation I see at the moment is that it corresponds to a very ancient (definitely Pre-Neolithic) population of the South-East Caspian (or Circum-Caspian?) region that was most likely represented by several different Y-DNA haplogroups (including R2 and R1b). I would hypothesize that “Gedrosia” constituted a major component of the Early Neolithic R1b population that migrated from the East Caspian region to the North-Pontic steppe (Sredny Stog) where they initially assimilated a part of the local R1a population (M417-), thus probably enriching their own autosomal pool in the “North European” component. After moving south-east to the Balkans they further diluted their original Gedrosian component, although it still remained strongly associated with the R1b haplogroup in Europe. When the Proto-ICG (Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic) grouping, likely represented mostly by clade R1b-L51, moved west to the Middle Danubian and Alpine regions, their autosomal composition was significantly enriched in the Mediterranean component, while their further migrations west and north-west would have resulted in some additional enrichment in the North European component. As a final result of those migrations, the North-Western European R1b-rich populations of the Bronze Age would have shown the predominant contribution of the North-European and Mediterranean autosomal components, while their R1b-associated Gedrosia component would have been reduced to a relatively small proportion of their overall autosomal pool.

As for the autosomal components of the R1a-rich population residing in Eastern Europe, they most likely retained the very high proportion of the Paleolithic (Mesolithic?)-derived North-European component (that became associated with the intrusive R1a element at some much earlier date), while the composition of the remaining part of their autosomal heritage would depend mostly on the intensity of some local post-Mesolithic contacts with the European Neolithic, Finno-Ugric and different North-Pontic steppe populations.

In the case of people representing the R1a-Z93/Z94 branch, their autosomal composition could have been dramatically altered due to the assimilation of some local Central Asian and South-West Asian populations. Nevertheless, they were probably able to retain a small portion of their “original” North European component. Most of those descendant Indo-Iranian populations were probably significantly enriched in the South-East Caspian-derived Gedrosia component that most likely constituted a significant proportion of the autosomal composition of people representing the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological complex (probably represented mostly by the intrusive Post-Neolithic J2 and local R2 Y-DNA haplogroups).

newtoboard
08-06-2013, 11:51 AM
DMXX has already pointed this out, but the association of Dagestan to an autosomal element is not my term. I don't even advocate it is a good label. It's just the one Dienekes was using at one time. Dienekes wrote,
"The Urkarah, Lezgin, and Stalskoe samples show the highest presence of the "blue" component, which I label, once again, Dagestan." http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2010/12/fine-scale-admixture-in-europe.html

------------



You show one example of a migration into the Caucasus but that means little logically to your assertion. Currently, the thinking is that mankind originate in Africa and therefore had to migrate into the whole rest of the world. Does that mean that zero populations migrated out the Levant, out of India, out the Steppes, British Isles, or whatever?

Apparently you are making some sort of argument that since little originates in the North Caucasus anything that we think might have migrated out of the Caucasus should be discounted as not so. Unless, I'm totally misunderstanding you, that seems like assumptive thinking.

The North Caucasus seems dominated by G2a, J1*, J2a, R1a, R1b. The paper above makes it look unlikley G2a originated in the North Caucasus. J1 and J2 are definitley more diverse in Anatolia and neighboring areas. R1a is clearly from the North. Very unlikely either Z645+, Z283+ (and its downstream clades) or Z93+ originated there. So all you have is maybe M269+ originating in the North Caucasus even though that seems unlikely too. So what originates in the North Caucasus?



The problem with using North Caucasian Y-DNA for inferences on autosomal patterns is that genetic drift has extensively occurred across those mountain villages. It's no different to the Pamirs. You'll find one population peaking in Y-DNA G2a subclades (Ossetians) or L1c/R2a (Chechens) for example. So, the "base" formative processes to which those village populations came about is distorted to a degree. It's actually with respect to this (North Caucasian Y-DNA) that I agree with a Kalash comparison.



Sintashta is located in Kazakhstan and is one of the later cultural phenomena on the Eurasian steppes. I've never read of anything relating to it spreading all the way into Europe, let alone the Isles/Iberia/W Continental Europe. It is considered by many scholars to be ancestral to the Andronovo horizon. I'm curious as to his reasoning on this.



A Kalash-type effect explains it peaking in relatively isolated West Eurasian populations (South India, Daghestan, Orcadians), but doesn't help determine the origin for the region you've outlined (considerable Y-DNA diversity between them). Two points to consider;

1) mtDNA is being excluded from this discussion without any logical reason. Perhaps it serves as a better indication of this mysterious component's origin than Y-DNA.
2) Modern Y-DNA frequencies should not be considered as definitive anchors for projecting genetic dispersals back in the past.

The generic throwaway conclusion would be that the Daghestani component has its' origins during the Neolithic and ties these different populations together through it. Not sure we have the means to determine what Neolithic-originating movement resulted in its' peak on the opposite ends of West Eurasia.

Here is the link from his blog.

http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/06/bronze-age-expansion-of-sintashta.html


The link with dairy would make little sense. The strongly dairy economy entered Europe from NW Turkey and appeared first in areas like Bulgaria. The peaks are in the completely wrong area.

Med. has one of its highest peaks in Sardinians who have very little R1b. R1b isnt present in Neolithic remains which have a high Med. component. The ice man was G and clustered with Sardinians. If we look at the sort of likely origin zone of R1b somewhere around the any of shores of the Black and Caspian Seas its far from being the peak area for Med. R1b would then have had to cross the entire length of Europe picking up whatever lay in its path.


Personally, if date for most European R1b currently thought most likely c. 4000-2500BC is correct, then there doesnt seem to be any sort of folk movement type migration in that date range that would lead to a noticeable impact on autosomal DNA.

Like I said one component can correlate with more than one Y-DNA. I2 and certain G2a subclades seem to correlate with Med as well.



Assuming that the Gedrosia component represents a very specific element of shared autosomal ancestry (which is not that obvious at all), the best explanation I see at the moment is that it corresponds to a very ancient (definitely Pre-Neolithic) population of the South-East Caspian (or Circum-Caspian?) region that was most likely represented by several different Y-DNA haplogroups (including R2 and R1b). I would hypothesize that “Gedrosia” constituted a major component of the Early Neolithic R1b population that migrated from the East Caspian region to the North-Pontic steppe (Sredny Stog) where they initially assimilated a part of the local R1a population (M417-), thus probably enriching their own autosomal pool in the “North European” component. After moving south-east to the Balkans they further diluted their original Gedrosian component, although it still remained strongly associated with the R1b haplogroup in Europe. When the Proto-ICG (Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic) grouping, likely represented mostly by clade R1b-L51, moved west to the Middle Danubian and Alpine regions, their autosomal composition was significantly enriched in the Mediterranean component, while their further migrations west and north-west would have resulted in some additional enrichment in the North European component. As a final result of those migrations, the North-Western European R1b-rich populations of the Bronze Age would have shown the predominant contribution of the North-European and Mediterranean autosomal components, while their R1b-associated Gedrosia component would have been reduced to a relatively small proportion of their overall autosomal pool.

As for the autosomal components of the R1a-rich population residing in Eastern Europe, they most likely retained the very high proportion of the Paleolithic (Mesolithic?)-derived North-European component (that became associated with the intrusive R1a element at some much earlier date), while the composition of the remaining part of their autosomal heritage would depend mostly on the intensity of some local post-Mesolithic contacts with the European Neolithic, Finno-Ugric and different North-Pontic steppe populations.

In the case of people representing the R1a-Z93/Z94 branch, their autosomal composition could have been dramatically altered due to the assimilation of some local Central Asian and South-West Asian populations. Nevertheless, they were probably able to retain a small portion of their “original” North European component. Most of those descendant Indo-Iranian populations were probably significantly enriched in the South-East Caspian-derived Gedrosia component that most likely constituted a significant proportion of the autosomal composition of people representing the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological complex (probably represented mostly by the intrusive Post-Neolithic J2 and local R2 Y-DNA haplogroups).

SE Caspian? Not the SW Caspian? What made you conclude R1b (or R2) had its start near the SE Caspian? I would expect the SE Caspian farmers to have been identical to the Southwest/South Caspian farmers since the Jeitun culture seems to formed as a result of farmers from the South Caspian moving into Central Asia.

Mikewww
08-06-2013, 12:37 PM
The North Caucasus seems dominated by G2a, J1*, J2a, R1a, R1b. The paper above makes it look unlikley G2a originated in the North Caucasus. J1 and J2 are definitley more diverse in Anatolia and neighboring areas. R1a is clearly from the North. Very unlikely either Z645+, Z283+ (and its downstream clades) or Z93+ originated there. So all you have is maybe M269+ originating in the North Caucasus even though that seems unlikely too. So what originates in the North Caucasus? You are the one with the assertion that not much originates in the Caucasus so you should work harder at demonstrating your point. I don't have an assertion that M269 originated in the North Caucasus. You provide examples of what you think are migrations into the Caucasus but that doesn't mean there weren't migrations out of the Caucasus as well. I agree with you that there were migrations into the Caucasus, but I don't think we should eliminate or diminish discussion on the possibility of migrations moving out from the Caucasus.

Perhaps you are narrowing your point to Y haplogroups only now, but high frequency distributions are not good evidence of ancient population distribution anyway. In post #40,
2) Modern Y-DNA frequencies should not be considered as definitive anchors for projecting genetic dispersals back in the past.


Archaeologically, we have things like Kurgans that are older in the Caucasus than those found north of it.

Michał
08-06-2013, 12:54 PM
SE Caspian? Not the SW Caspian? What made you conclude R1b (or R2) had its start near the SE Caspian?
There are two major reasons for this assumption:

1) If R1b expanded from the SW Caspian region, it would be much more difficult for them to reach Europe, as the route through either the Anatolia or Caucasus seems to be much less likely due to some linguistic, archaeological and Y-DNA-related issues.

2) The SE Caspian region is closer to the hypothetical Central Asian place of origin for haplogroup R (and possibly the origin of R1b itself, as suggested by the recently identified R1b*/R1b1* case from India). Also, I don’t know any data that would suggest that R2 expanded from South Caucasus rather than from from Central (or South-Central ) Asia.

Of course, the hypothetical SE Caspian origin of R1b seems to be in much better agreement with the postulated association of this haplogroup with the Gedrosia component. :)




I would expect the SE Caspian farmers to have been identical to the Southwest/South Caspian farmers since the Jeitun culture seems to formed as a result of farmers from the South Caspian moving into Central Asia.
Agreed. However, it seems likely that at least some local East Caspian populations did not interbreed with those Neolithic newcomers (mostly J2?) while adopting agriculture/pastoralism. The agriculture has spread further to Central Asia, yet it doesn’t seem to have been accompanied by any total replacement of the native populations. Also, if considering a potential movement of an initially relatively small grouping of early farmers/pastoralists from the East Caspian region to the North Caspian region, this could have led to the bottleneck effect that left some potential J2 farmers representing the Jeitun culture behind.

newtoboard
08-06-2013, 01:04 PM
You are the one with the assertion that not much originates in the Caucasus so you should work harder at demonstrating your point. I don't have an assertion that M269 originated in the North Caucasus. You provide examples of what you think are migrations into the Caucasus but that doesn't mean there weren't migrations out of the Caucasus as well. I agree with you that there were migrations into the Caucasus, but I don't think we should eliminate or diminish discussion on the possibility of migrations moving out from the Caucasus.

Perhaps you are narrowing your point to Y haplogroups only now, but high frequency distributions are not good evidence of ancient population distribution anyway. In post #40,

Archaeologically, we have things like Kurgans that are older in the Caucasus than those found north of it.

I said very few Y-DNA lineages if any (except for extremely specific subclades) originate in the North Caucasus. You haven't posted even a bit of useful information that says otherwise. My point was that it made no sense to call this component the Dagestan component because it is extremely unlikely that a movement out of Dagestan spread this to areas such as Central Asia, South Asia and West Asia.

newtoboard
08-06-2013, 01:17 PM
There are two major reasons for this assumption:

1) If R1b expanded from the SW Caspian region, it would be much more difficult for them to reach Europe, as the route through either the Anatolia or Caucasus seems to be much less likely due to some linguistic, archaeological and Y-DNA-related issues.

2) The SE Caspian region is closer to the hypothetical Central Asian place of origin for haplogroup R (and possibly the origin of R1b itself, as suggested by the recently identified R1b*/R1b1* case from India). Also, I don’t know any data that would suggest that R2 expanded from South Caucasus rather than from from Central (or South-Central ) Asia.

Of course, the hypothetical SE Caspian origin of R1b seems to be in much better agreement with the postulated association of this haplogroup with the Gedrosia component. :)



Agreed. However, it seems likely that at least some local East Caspian populations did not interbreed with those Neolithic newcomers (mostly J2?) while adopting agriculture/pastoralism. The agriculture has spread further to Central Asia, yet it doesn’t seem to have been accompanied by any total replacement of the native populations. Also, if considering a potential movement of an initially relatively small grouping of early farmers/pastoralists from the East Caspian region to the North Caspian region, this could have led to the bottleneck effect that left some potential J2 farmers representing the Jeitun culture behind.

Shouldn't some early R1b have been left in Central Asia then? I don't know what the situation was like back then but the deserts around the Aral Sea seem to have been a barrier to gene flow. As farming haplogroups don't seem to have made their way north into the steppe. But then again it seems as if the Amu Darya and Syr Darya flowed into the Caspian at one point do maybe those deserts weren't there during this movement.

I think R2 expanded from a location more east than the SE Caspian region. I still think that Indian R1b* case has recent ancestry from outside the subcontinent.

Your point about the Jeitun farmers makes a lot of sense. It does seem as if Turkmenistan has other farming lineages in smaller amounts than Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (I'm talking about L1c, R2a and G2a here) but J2 seems to be well represented there.

Mikewww
08-06-2013, 01:23 PM
I'm not sure what to make of the Caucasus component, but since the Caucasus is always a hot topic here are some of the numbers for what Dinekes calls the Caucasus component.

Here are the top populations with the Caucasus component... the ones over 50% are:

Georgians ________________________ 73.9 ___ (N=16)
Abhkasians_Y _____________________ 70.0 ___ (N=14)
Armenians ________________________ 59.8 ___ (N=18)
North_Ossetians_Y ________________ 56.7 ___ (N=12)
Adygei ___________________________ 56.6 ___ (N=16)
Balkars_Y ________________________ 56.6 ___ (N=17)
Armenian_D _______________________ 55.8 ___ (N=32)
Armenians_15_Y ___________________ 55.7 ___ (N=13)
Assyrian_D _______________________ 52.2 ___ (N=13)
Azerbaijan_Jews __________________ 52.1 ___ (N=8)
Georgia_Jews _____________________ 52.1 ___ (N=4)
Chechens_Y _______________________ 51.3 ___ (N=14)

Among European populations, here are the top Caucasus content groups with 20% or greater:

Cypriots _________________________ 49.3 ___ (N=11)
Ashkenazy_Jews ___________________ 39.0 ___ (N=17)
Ashkenazi_D ______________________ 38.3 ___ (N=19)
Sephardic_Jews ___________________ 38.1 ___ (N=19)
Greek_D __________________________ 37.4 ___ (N=15)
S_Italian_Sicilian_D _____________ 36.5 ___ (N=10)
Sicilian_D _______________________ 36.5 ___ (N=15)
C_Italian_D ______________________ 32.1 ___ (N=13)
Bulgarians_Y _____________________ 30.7 ___ (N=10)
Tuscan ___________________________ 30.5 ___ (N=7)
Bulgarian_D ______________________ 30.1 ___ (N=7)
O_Italian_D ______________________ 28.5 ___ (N=5)
Romanians ________________________ 28.4 ___ (N=16)
North_Italian ____________________ 22.9 ___ (N=11)
N_Italian_D ______________________ 22.8 ___ (N=5)
Sardinian ________________________ 20.9 ___ (N=24)

Among European populations, here is the 2nd highest group, one layer down for Caucasus - from 16% down to 10%:

Ukranians_Y ______________________ 16.4 ___ (N=18)
Hungarians _______________________ 16.2 ___ (N=19)
Russian_B ________________________ 14.3 ___ (N=2)
Baleares_1KG _____________________ 14.2 ___ (N=6)
Mixed_Slav_D _____________________ 13.3 ___ (N=12)
Belorussian ______________________ 13.3 ___ (N=8)
Andalucia_1KG ____________________ 12.9 ___ (N=4)
Polish_D _________________________ 12.1 ___ (N=18)
Russian_D ________________________ 11.7 ___ (N=17)
Murcia_1KG _______________________ 11.2 ___ (N=8)
Canarias_1KG _____________________ 11.2 ___ (N=2)
Galicia_1KG ______________________ 11.1 ___ (N=8)
Spaniards ________________________ 10.8 ___ (N=10)
Extremadura_1KG __________________ 10.7 ___ (N=8)
Lithuanian_D _____________________ 10.1 ___ (N=9)
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG ______________ 10.0 ___ (N=12)

Here are the European populations with low or non-existent Caucasus content - 2% or less.

Cornwall_1KG _____________________ 02.0 ___ (N=28)
British_D ________________________ 01.3 ___ (N=11)
FIN30 ____________________________ 01.3 ___ (N=24)
Finnish_D ________________________ 01.3 ___ (N=14)
Swedish_D ________________________ 01.2 ___ (N=11)
Argyll_1KG _______________________ 00.5 ___ (N=4)
Irish_D __________________________ 00.2 ___ (N=14)
Norwegian_D ______________________ 00.1 ___ (N=10)
Orcadian _________________________ 00.0 ___ (N=13)
Orkney_1KG _______________________ 00.0 ___ (N=21)
French_Basque ____________________ 00.0 ___ (N=21)
Pais_Vasco_1KG ___________________ 00.0 ___ (N=7)

I see the Basques have low/non-existent Caucasus content while the Spanish generally have a decent amount of Caucasus content.

It does appear that the further you get away from the Caucasus, the less of it you have. It has a decent showing along Mediterranean Europe and in East Europe but Northwest Europe is pretty much nil. I guess this should not be unexpected although I don't know what's going on with the Basques.

I really don't see this Caucasus component pattern fitting with R1b-L11 at all. Perhaps it fits with R1b-L23xL51 a bit though. I guess that is worth a thought or two.

I'm becoming perplexed on why some of these things are lumped together in West Asian. Do I misunderstand something? Perhaps I only have a Euro-centric thinking hat on.... I've already looked at the Southwest Asia component but it doesn't fit well with R1b in my opinion... maybe just R1b-L23xL51.

I still think Gedrosia is the interesting one to overlay with R1b for investigation, particularly for its ability to go the distance in reaching high R1b-L11 lands. One note on that. Just because Dienekes calls it Gedrosia and/or it has a high frequency there doesn't mean that autosomal component originated there.

Michał
08-06-2013, 01:57 PM
Shouldn't some early R1b have been left in Central Asia then?
They should, but whether we would be able to detect it in some modern populations depends on how frequent R1b was at that time. I agree that the extremely rare R1b*/R1b1* case from India doesn’t provide any definite evidence, but we also have some R1b(xM269,M73), R1b-M269 and R1b-M73 cases from the Tarim basin, which together makes the East Caspian origin of R1b quite likely.




Your point about the Jeitun farmers makes a lot of sense. It does seem as if Turkmenistan has other farming lineages in smaller amounts than Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (I'm talking about L1c, R2a and G2a here) but J2 seems to be well represented there.
There is also an alternative variant of my East Caspian hypothesis that needs to be investigated yet. It assumes that the hypothetical migration of R1b through the North-Caspian and North-Pontic regions could have included some potential J2b farmers originating from Jeitun, so this could explain the very peculiar bipolar pattern of the J2b distribution in South Asia and SE Europe. However, I haven’t actually checked yet if this is fully consistent with the phylogeny of haplogroup J2b (though it seems to be consistent at least with the characteristic distribution of J2b-M205), so this is still very speculative. :)

DMXX
08-06-2013, 02:07 PM
Just because Dienekes calls it Gedrosia and/or it has a high frequency there doesn't mean that autosomal component originated there.

Dienekes has stated several times that the components are named exclusively after the regions they peak in. He made a blog entry some time ago concerning autosomal component interpretation and basically agreed with the "highest=origin point" fallacy, which I too agree with.


They should, but whether we would be able to detect it in some modern populations depends on how frequent R1b was at that time. I agree that the extremely rare R1b*/R1b1* case from India doesn’t provide any definite evidence, but we also have some R1b(xM269,M73), R1b-M269 and R1b-M73 cases from the Tarim basin, which together makes the East Caspian origin of R1b quite likely.


On that note, does anyone have any reasonable Y-STR data (15-19 loci) from the Uyghur? Needless to say I've been itching for their values, but I've been slammed in the face by accessibility issues.

alan
08-06-2013, 02:13 PM
That seems a sensible summary of the likely effects of their journeys. However, I am puzzled by your idea of an 'Early Neolithic R1b population that migrated from the East Caspian region to the North-Pontic steppe (Sredny Stog)'. I have never heard anyone suggest that before and have never seen any suggestion like that in archaeological literature.

The closest thing to that I have heard suggested is in the below paper but it was not derived from that far east according to this. www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-UARUOLB0/98491aa4.../PDF It suggests eastern Anatolia and this seems logical as the first two phases it discusses are too early to be derived from anywhere in the Balkans, Caucasus, north Iran and as far as I am aware the east Caspian area to the east of the sea also was also too late to farming to be the source. However, there is really no obvious reason in terms of date or location to think this would be linked to R1b. It could be but there is no trace of R1b clades old enough to be traces of very early east Anatolian R1b farmers either in Anatolia or in Russia/Ukraine.

However, that all said, I think you may be barking up the right tree about ancient pre-farming circum-Caspian populations. I posted a lengthy thread about the possible importance of this area as one of the more attractive spots at its latitude in the upper Palaeolithic. I discussed the possible effects of the massive expansion of this c. 15000BC from a sea only about a 6th of it present size in the LGM to a sea three times its present size before shrinking back around 10000BC. This also involved periods of connection of the Black and Caspian Seas creating a massive barrier to north-south movement from the Balkans to the Aral Sea. What seemed to look likely to me is that R1 groups living around the shrunken Caspian around the LGM would have probably moved with the shores as they expanded in all directions to the maximum size of the sea. This effect would have pushed groups to positions deep into Russia and Ukraine and well into north Central Asia as well as more minor displacements where the land is higher around Iran and parts of the Caucasus and some uplands on the east side of the Caspian. That would have driven apart groups who previously could have mixed around the much smaller LGM Caspian and I think this sort of thing could be the explanation for the commencing of R1 and early R1a and R1b patterning.

I also concluded that much of this is beyond archaeological recovery now - the LGM shore is under the middle of the Caspian and the shores between its LGM minimum and its maximum will be buried under deep marine deposits on dryland. The only recoverable, short of going to exceptional levels of effort, part of this hypothetical (but pretty inevitable) journey of Caspian shore populations c. 16000-9000BC is the end of it as the maximum shores wont be buried by dryland marine deposits and of course the line of retreat back towards the shrinking Caspian, if they took it. This phenomenon explains that lack of upper Palaeolithic remains around the Caspian and much of the Caucasus prior to 10000BC. However, those groups that suddenly seem to appear around the Caspian area at that time may have always been around the Caspian and IMO these would bear some closer scrutiny.





Assuming that the Gedrosia component represents a very specific element of shared autosomal ancestry (which is not that obvious at all), the best explanation I see at the moment is that it corresponds to a very ancient (definitely Pre-Neolithic) population of the South-East Caspian (or Circum-Caspian?) region that was most likely represented by several different Y-DNA haplogroups (including R2 and R1b). I would hypothesize that “Gedrosia” constituted a major component of the Early Neolithic R1b population that migrated from the East Caspian region to the North-Pontic steppe (Sredny Stog) where they initially assimilated a part of the local R1a population (M417-), thus probably enriching their own autosomal pool in the “North European” component. After moving south-east to the Balkans they further diluted their original Gedrosian component, although it still remained strongly associated with the R1b haplogroup in Europe. When the Proto-ICG (Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic) grouping, likely represented mostly by clade R1b-L51, moved west to the Middle Danubian and Alpine regions, their autosomal composition was significantly enriched in the Mediterranean component, while their further migrations west and north-west would have resulted in some additional enrichment in the North European component. As a final result of those migrations, the North-Western European R1b-rich populations of the Bronze Age would have shown the predominant contribution of the North-European and Mediterranean autosomal components, while their R1b-associated Gedrosia component would have been reduced to a relatively small proportion of their overall autosomal pool.

As for the autosomal components of the R1a-rich population residing in Eastern Europe, they most likely retained the very high proportion of the Paleolithic (Mesolithic?)-derived North-European component (that became associated with the intrusive R1a element at some much earlier date), while the composition of the remaining part of their autosomal heritage would depend mostly on the intensity of some local post-Mesolithic contacts with the European Neolithic, Finno-Ugric and different North-Pontic steppe populations.

In the case of people representing the R1a-Z93/Z94 branch, their autosomal composition could have been dramatically altered due to the assimilation of some local Central Asian and South-West Asian populations. Nevertheless, they were probably able to retain a small portion of their “original” North European component. Most of those descendant Indo-Iranian populations were probably significantly enriched in the South-East Caspian-derived Gedrosia component that most likely constituted a significant proportion of the autosomal composition of people representing the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological complex (probably represented mostly by the intrusive Post-Neolithic J2 and local R2 Y-DNA haplogroups).

alan
08-06-2013, 02:30 PM
There are two major reasons for this assumption:

1) If R1b expanded from the SW Caspian region, it would be much more difficult for them to reach Europe, as the route through either the Anatolia or Caucasus seems to be much less likely due to some linguistic, archaeological and Y-DNA-related issues.

2) The SE Caspian region is closer to the hypothetical Central Asian place of origin for haplogroup R (and possibly the origin of R1b itself, as suggested by the recently identified R1b*/R1b1* case from India). Also, I don’t know any data that would suggest that R2 expanded from South Caucasus rather than from from Central (or South-Central ) Asia.

Of course, the hypothetical SE Caspian origin of R1b seems to be in much better agreement with the postulated association of this haplogroup with the Gedrosia component. :)



Agreed. However, it seems likely that at least some local East Caspian populations did not interbreed with those Neolithic newcomers (mostly J2?) while adopting agriculture/pastoralism. The agriculture has spread further to Central Asia, yet it doesn’t seem to have been accompanied by any total replacement of the native populations. Also, if considering a potential movement of an initially relatively small grouping of early farmers/pastoralists from the East Caspian region to the North Caspian region, this could have led to the bottleneck effect that left some potential J2 farmers representing the Jeitun culture behind.

I am not an expert in this but when I did a lot of reading around the Neolithic of these areas, it seemed to me that north central Asian Neolithic is actually earlier than any remains yet detected in north Iran and the plateau to the east of Zagros. So, its still a bit of a mystery. Either way these Neolithic cultures of northern Iran and Turmenistan etc are rather late, with no pre-6000BC evidence and probably substantially later is several areas. I have never read of any evidence of a Neolithic intrusion into the steppes from those areas, something that would have to post-date 6000BC given the late arrival of farming in those areas.

newtoboard
08-06-2013, 02:49 PM
They should, but whether we would be able to detect it in some modern populations depends on how frequent R1b was at that time. I agree that the extremely rare R1b*/R1b1* case from India doesn’t provide any definite evidence, but we also have some R1b(xM269,M73), R1b-M269 and R1b-M73 cases from the Tarim basin, which together makes the East Caspian origin of R1b quite likely.



There is also an alternative variant of my East Caspian hypothesis that needs to be investigated yet. It assumes that the hypothetical migration of R1b through the North-Caspian and North-Pontic regions could have included some potential J2b farmers originating from Jeitun, so this could explain the very peculiar bipolar pattern of the J2b distribution in South Asia and SE Europe. However, I haven’t actually checked yet if this is fully consistent with the phylogeny of haplogroup J2b (though it seems to be consistent at least with the characteristic distribution of J2b-M205), so this is still very speculative. :)

I find the SE Caspian theory hard to believe because all this R1b seems to be present only in Turks. This is where I agree with Alan that a migration from the North would make more sense. But then again this R1b distribution could be a result of geography and not language. But the Tarim R1b argues for it being a result of language. It would be interesting to determine if the Tajiks of Uzbekistan carry R1b and if they belong the same haplotype as Turkmens and Uzbeks.

Regarding J2b why would J2b and R1b move together north but only J2b would move east into South Asia? If I recall South Asian J2b has a peak in Nepal where the Newars do carry R1b at significant frequencies.

newtoboard
08-06-2013, 02:56 PM
I am not an expert in this but when I did a lot of reading around the Neolithic of these areas, it seemed to me that north central Asian Neolithic is actually earlier than any remains yet detected in north Iran and the plateau to the east of Zagros. So, its still a bit of a mystery. Either way these Neolithic cultures of northern Iran and Turmenistan etc are rather late, with no pre-6000BC evidence and probably substantially later is several areas. I have never read of any evidence of a Neolithic intrusion into the steppes from those areas, something that would have to post-date 6000BC given the late arrival of farming in those areas.

I really doubt those dates especially since Mehrgarh is often dated to 6500-7500 BC.

alan
08-06-2013, 03:33 PM
I really doubt those dates especially since Mehrgarh is often dated to 6500-7500 BC.

The Neolithic is more and more looking less like a wave and more like hops and jumps, often leaving less favoured areas behind unsettled. That is true in Europe where farming spread from SW Asia as far as Portugal/the English channel by 5000bc but the left the majority of the land unsettled. These areas were only infilled signidicantly later. I am sure that could apply to Asia as well.

Silesian
08-06-2013, 03:54 PM
I find the SE Caspian theory hard to believe because all this R1b seems to be present only in Turks. This is where I agree with Alan that a migration from the North would make more sense. But then again this R1b distribution could be a result of geography and not language. But the Tarim R1b argues for it being a result of language. It would be interesting to determine if the Tajiks of Uzbekistan carry R1b and if they belong the same haplotype as Turkmens and Uzbeks.

Regarding J2b why would J2b and R1b move together north but only J2b would move east into South Asia? If I recall South Asian J2b has a peak in Nepal where the Newars do carry R1b at significant frequencies.

J2b does not always move in tandem with R1b, for example in Anatolia
Sample sets are small 30 to 90 in all 205 for the region T1-T6-T7-T8, 1-J2b sample/205 R1b 12-21%
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/figure/F2/

As you approach the Anatolian group of languages and Phokia.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Anatolian_03.png

newtoboard
08-06-2013, 04:17 PM
J2b does not always move in tandem with R1b, for example in Anatolia
Sample sets are small 30 to 90 in all 205 for the region T1-T6-T7-T8, 1-J2b sample/205 R1b 12-21%
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/figure/F2/

As you approach the Anatolian group of languages and Phokia.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Anatolian_03.png

I never said it did. Michal was the one who said J2b might correlate with R1b or they might have moved together. I was questioning that theory based on the lack of R1b in South Asia. The lack of J2b in Anatolia just adds to my argument.

Mikewww
08-06-2013, 04:25 PM
The Neolithic is more and more looking less like a wave and more like hops and jumps, often leaving less favoured areas behind unsettled. That is true in Europe where farming spread from SW Asia as far as Portugal/the English channel by 5000bc but the left the majority of the land unsettled. These areas were only infilled signidicantly later. I am sure that could apply to Asia as well.
I remember distinctly that in "Europe Between the Oceans", Barry Cunliffe considered both the Impressed Wares and Linear Pottery (LBK) Neolithic advances has truly signficant, rapid population expansions/migrations. He specifically noted that Impressed Wares followed a pattern of hopping around establishing new colonies in a patchy fashion.

parasar
08-06-2013, 04:59 PM
I agree that the extremely rare R1b*/R1b1* case from India doesn’t provide any definite evidence, but we also have some R1b(xM269,M73), R1b-M269 and R1b-M73 cases from the Tarim basin, which together makes the East Caspian origin of R1b quite likely.
...


His STRs look very different - he may be P25+M343-

There were two P25+M269- and two M269 cases reported from Bali in a paper on Indonesia. Because it is Bali, it is also possible that the two P25+M269- are not M73+ or V88+ either.
pg 7 http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2010/02/28/msq063.DC1/mbe-09-0780-File007.pdf

alan
08-06-2013, 05:13 PM
I remember distinctly that in "Europe Between the Oceans", Barry Cunliffe considered both the Impressed Wares and Linear Pottery (LBK) Neolithic advances has truly signficant, rapid population expansions/migrations. He specifically noted that Impressed Wares followed a pattern of hopping around establishing new colonies in a patchy fashion.

That is true and its also true that the north European variety of the Neolithic also only picked very specific types of land like the central European band of loess soils and similar environments, which they spread through rapidly the length of central Europe ignoring most other land. It was only after a pause of quite a number of centuries it spread into other types of land in the post-LBK era. There was a sudden jump into northern Europe about 4200-4000BC after a long period of stasis. Other areas infilled even later. So although it has an east-west and south-east to north-west trajectory, it certainly isnt the sort of wave envisaged in models a decade or so ago.

I have to say though that I am surprised by the huge amount of G in both Cardial and LBK. I had once thought that they would have different YDNA. However, now that the Balkans type farming has been linked to the Levant, which is also where Cardial tends to be linked to, this makes more sense. NW Anatolia simply seems to have recieved farming a lot later than other parts of Anatolia, the Levant and the middle east and that is probably why it is not the earliest source for European farming despite its proximity to the Balkans. It seems to me that Anatolia's influence on Europe doesnt take off until 5500BC or so. However, that picture might change.

Mikewww
08-06-2013, 07:59 PM
Back to Gedrosia...

Here are the top populations with the Gedrosia component... the ones over 50% are:

Brahui ___________________________ 69.5 ___ (N=23) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_people
Balochi __________________________ 64.5 ___ (N=21) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baloch_people
Makrani __________________________ 61.2 ___ (N=22) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makrani
Sindhi ___________________________ 50.9 ___ (N=22) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindhi_people

Here is the next layer down of high Gedrosia populations other than the Indian (It's quite high in India too).

Pathan ___________________________ 44.5 ___ (N=22)
Burusho __________________________ 43.2 ___ (N=22)
GIH30 ____________________________ 39.3 ___ (N=25)
INS30 ____________________________ 36.9 ___ (N=22)
Tajiks_Y _________________________ 33.9 ___ (N=15)
Iranians _________________________ 30.9 ___ (N=19)
Iranian_D ________________________ 28.8 ___ (N=8)
Kurd_D ___________________________ 28.7 ___ (N=9)
Kurds_Y __________________________ 28.2 ___ (N=6)
Turkmens_Y _______________________ 28.0 ___ (N=11)

There is more as it finds its way up Central Asia in to Russia/Siberia/Mongolia. It drops off as you go north though and to the northeast into China. Going west, we see it screened off from the Near East but it finds its way into Anatolia and Caucasia.

Strangely the Gedrosia component disappears in East Europe only to pick up again in Western Europe with a Northwestern bias.

Here is some more about Gedrosia. I find it fascinating. It is very strong in India so I thought I'd look for the combination of high Gedrosia with lower (relative) South Asian to see if there were commonalities in these populations that might be helpful to understanding Gedrosia in general. I'm not saying we should expect to see R1b in these populations as we know that R1b is very low in India. I'm just looking for a common thread among people with high Gedrosia content to see if we can link that thread to happenings to the west and into Europe.

Below are the South Asia/India populations with strong Gedrosia but with lower South Asian (relative to India). The South Asia component is 50% or less (which is low) for Indian populations:

Jatt_D ___________________________ GED:45.6 CAU:05.0 SWA:00.8 AME:03.1 NE:14.4 ___ (N=5)
Meena_M __________________________ GED:43.4 CAU:01.2 SWA:00.6 AME:02.9 NE:06.9 ___ (N=1)
Iyer_D ___________________________ GED:39.3 CAU:00.6 SWA:01.3 AME:02.9 NE:04.5 ___ (N=6)
Indian_D _________________________ GED:39.3 CAU:03.0 SWA:00.7 AME:01.1 NE:04.8 ___ (N=25)
Brahmins_from_Tamil_Nadu_M _______ GED:38.5 CAU:03.4 SWA:00.9 AME:01.5 NE:04.6 ___ (N=2)
Kshatriya_M ______________________ GED:37.6 CAU:02.2 SWA:00.0 AME:01.4 NE:09.4 ___ (N=7)
Brahmins_from_Uttar_Pradesh_M ____ GED:36.1 CAU:03.0 SWA:00.0 AME:01.9 NE:13.4 ___ (N=8)
Cochin_Jews ______________________ GED:33.1 CAU:07.0 SWA:05.9 AME:03.7 NE:01.5 ___ (N=4)
Brahmins_from_Uttaranchal_M ______ GED:27.4 CAU:03.6 SWA:00.0 AME:00.0 NE:06.0 ___ (N=1)
Bnei_Menashe_Jews ________________ GED:26.3 CAU:20.0 SWA:08.2 AME:05.1 NE:01.1 ___ (N=4)

Coding: GED=Gedrosia, CAU=Caucasus, SWA=SW Asia, AME=Atlantic Med, NE=N Europe

Here are introductions to these populations. This is what I find interesting. You've got folk-lores related to the military, nomadic pastoralists, Jewish tribes, Scythians, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshatriya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochin_Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnei_Menashe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_people

parasar
08-06-2013, 08:14 PM
...

Here are introductions to these populations. This is what I find interesting. You've got folk-lores related to the military, nomadic pastoralists, Jewish tribes, Scythians, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshatriya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochin_Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnei_Menashe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_people

Much if not all made up in the last couple of hundred years (except for the Kochi Jews whose traditions are older and appear genuine http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/the-last-jews-of-kochi/article2953652.ece ).

newtoboard
08-06-2013, 08:26 PM
Here is some more about Gedrosia. I find it fascinating. It is very strong in India so I thought I'd look for the combination of high Gedrosia with lower (relative) South Asian to see if there were commonalities in these populations that might be helpful to understanding Gedrosia in general. I'm not saying we should expect to see R1b in these populations as we know that R1b is very low in India. I'm just looking for a common thread among people with high Gedrosia content to see if we can link that thread to happenings to the west and into Europe.

Below are the South Asia/India populations with strong Gedrosia but with lower South Asian (relative to India). The South Asia component is 50% or less (which is low) for Indian populations:

Jatt_D ___________________________ GED:45.6 CAU:05.0 SWA:00.8 AME:03.1 NE:14.4 ___ (N=5)
Meena_M __________________________ GED:43.4 CAU:01.2 SWA:00.6 AME:02.9 NE:06.9 ___ (N=1)
Iyer_D ___________________________ GED:39.3 CAU:00.6 SWA:01.3 AME:02.9 NE:04.5 ___ (N=6)
Indian_D _________________________ GED:39.3 CAU:03.0 SWA:00.7 AME:01.1 NE:04.8 ___ (N=25)
Brahmins_from_Tamil_Nadu_M _______ GED:38.5 CAU:03.4 SWA:00.9 AME:01.5 NE:04.6 ___ (N=2)
Kshatriya_M ______________________ GED:37.6 CAU:02.2 SWA:00.0 AME:01.4 NE:09.4 ___ (N=7)
Brahmins_from_Uttar_Pradesh_M ____ GED:36.1 CAU:03.0 SWA:00.0 AME:01.9 NE:13.4 ___ (N=8)
Cochin_Jews ______________________ GED:33.1 CAU:07.0 SWA:05.9 AME:03.7 NE:01.5 ___ (N=4)
Brahmins_from_Uttaranchal_M ______ GED:27.4 CAU:03.6 SWA:00.0 AME:00.0 NE:06.0 ___ (N=1)
Bnei_Menashe_Jews ________________ GED:26.3 CAU:20.0 SWA:08.2 AME:05.1 NE:01.1 ___ (N=4)

Coding: GED=Gedrosia, CAU=Caucasus, SWA=SW Asia, AME=Atlantic Med, NE=N Europe

Here are introductions to these populations. This is what I find interesting. You've got folk-lores related to the military, nomadic pastoralists, Jewish tribes, Scythians, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshatriya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochin_Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnei_Menashe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_people

Looking at these numbers it makes it easier to see Michal's R1b East Caspian and Central Asian populations as higher in the Caucasus component than Gedrosia.

newtoboard
08-06-2013, 08:45 PM
I do wonder if Gedrosia includes South Asian specific admixture since it does seem to be South Asian shifted in comparison to the Caucasus component. Either that or the South Asian component includes Gedrosia type admixture.

Mikewww
08-06-2013, 09:04 PM
I will run through Europe and look at six of Dinekes' K12b autosomal components that are found in many European populations. Of course, I think the ones that look like imports are quit interesting so I'm not necessarily looking for the biggest content %, but just the signficant ones.

Here is the coding I'm using: GED=Gedrosia, CAU=Caucasus, SWA=SW Asia, AME=Atlantic Med, NE=N Europe, NWA=NW Africa

Populations in North Central and North West Europe:

Argyll_1KG _______________________ GED:13.1, CAU:00.5, SWA:00.0, AME:41.2, NE:45.2, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=4)
Orcadian _________________________ GED:12.0, CAU:00.0, SWA:00.0, AME:42.4, NE:45.6, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=13)
Irish_D __________________________ GED:11.9, CAU:00.2, SWA:00.0, AME:42.7, NE:45.1, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=14)
Orkney_1KG _______________________ GED:11.8, CAU:00.0, SWA:00.0, AME:41.8, NE:46.4, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=21)
Cornwall_1KG _____________________ GED:11.4, CAU:02.0, SWA:00.0, AME:43.8, NE:42.8, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=28)
British_D ________________________ GED:11.3, CAU:01.3, SWA:00.3, AME:43.5, NE:43.6, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=11)
Mixed_Germanic_D _________________ GED:10.7, CAU:06.3, SWA:00.5, AME:38.4, NE:44.1, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=7)
CEU30 ____________________________ GED:10.6, CAU:03.3, SWA:00.0, AME:41.4, NE:44.7, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=22)
English_D ________________________ GED:10.6, CAU:03.1, SWA:00.1, AME:41.5, NE:44.5, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=10)
Kent_1KG _________________________ GED:10.5, CAU:03.6, SWA:00.2, AME:41.9, NE:43.9, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=36)
Dutch_D __________________________ GED:09.9, CAU:04.8, SWA:00.6, AME:39.1, NE:45.6, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=8)
British_Isles_D __________________ GED:09.5, CAU:02.2, SWA:00.0, AME:42.5, NE:45.7, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=8)
Norwegian_D ______________________ GED:08.2, CAU:00.1, SWA:00.0, AME:36.0, NE:54.7, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=10)
French_D _________________________ GED:08.1, CAU:07.9, SWA:02.7, AME:43.9, NE:36.9, NWA:00.6 ___ (N=13)
French ___________________________ GED:07.9, CAU:08.4, SWA:02.5, AME:44.4, NE:36.5, NWA:00.2 ___ (N=27)
Swedish_D ________________________ GED:07.7, CAU:01.2, SWA:00.8, AME:32.9, NE:56.8, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=11)
German_D _________________________ GED:07.3, CAU:09.8, SWA:01.7, AME:33.0, NE:48.2, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=18)


Off the cuff comments:

It looks like the Isles didn't have much of the Caucasus DNA until the Germanics with an R1b-U106 contingent brought it in.

The Swedes/Norse don't have the Caucasus DNA so. This makes me wonder again (which I've questioned on other threads) that Proto-Germanic was not formed in Scandinavian Peninsula and that U106 didn't get there until late.

France has some Caucasus DNA but I would guess they got it through a different route rather from Germanics, just because I know we don't find much R1b-U106 in Atlantic France.

SW Asia barely shows up with just a touch in France. France does have some Caucasus DNA but I wonder if that came by a non-Germanic route (when we look at Iberia.)

There is no NW Africa to speak of.

Gedrosia has a persistent presence to go with the naturally high numbers for North and Atlantic Med Europe..

newtoboard
08-06-2013, 09:09 PM
It looks like the combined Caucasus+Gedrosia values for NE Europe and NW Europe are somewhat similar.

Mikewww
08-06-2013, 09:21 PM
I will run through Europe and look at six of Dinekes' K12b autosomal components that are found in many European populations.
...
Here is the coding I'm using: GED=Gedrosia, CAU=Caucasus, SWA=SW Asia, AME=Atlantic Med, NE=N Europe, NWA=NW Africa

Populations in Southwestern and Southern Europe.

French_Basque ____________________ GED:09.8, CAU:00.0, SWA:00.0, AME:73.1, NE:17.1, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=21)
Pais_Vasco_1KG ___________________ GED:09.1, CAU:00.0, SWA:01.2, AME:67.3, NE:22.4, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=7)
Cataluna_1KG _____________________ GED:07.3, CAU:09.2, SWA:03.5, AME:52.1, NE:25.2, NWA:02.4 ___ (N=8)
Andalucia_1KG ____________________ GED:07.2, CAU:12.9, SWA:03.2, AME:52.6, NE:18.1, NWA:05.1 ___ (N=4)
Extremadura_1KG __________________ GED:06.9, CAU:10.7, SWA:04.3, AME:48.2, NE:22.1, NWA:06.0 ___ (N=8)
Valencia_1KG _____________________ GED:06.8, CAU:09.9, SWA:02.4, AME:55.4, NE:22.2, NWA:03.0 ___ (N=10)
Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG ___________ GED:06.8, CAU:08.8, SWA:04.5, AME:54.3, NE:21.1, NWA:03.5 ___ (N=6)
Spaniards ________________________ GED:06.5, CAU:10.8, SWA:03.6, AME:53.0, NE:23.0, NWA:03.0 ___ (N=10)
Aragon_1KG _______________________ GED:06.3, CAU:08.8, SWA:03.0, AME:56.1, NE:21.8, NWA:03.4 ___ (N=6)
O_Italian_D ______________________ GED:06.2, CAU:28.5, SWA:07.8, AME:33.5, NE:21.8, NWA:01.1 ___ (N=5)
Spanish_D ________________________ GED:06.2, CAU:08.8, SWA:04.0, AME:52.5, NE:22.7, NWA:05.1 ___ (N=20)
Portuguese_D _____________________ GED:06.0, CAU:09.7, SWA:05.0, AME:47.5, NE:22.3, NWA:07.7 ___ (N=9)
Cypriots _________________________ GED:05.8, CAU:49.3, SWA:17.7, AME:20.5, NE:04.5, NWA:02.1 ___ (N=11)
Sephardic_Jews ___________________ GED:05.7, CAU:38.1, SWA:16.2, AME:26.5, NE:06.1, NWA:06.2 ___ (N=19)
N_Italian_D ______________________ GED:05.7, CAU:22.8, SWA:05.6, AME:41.2, NE:23.7, NWA:00.9 ___ (N=5)
Cantabria_1KG ____________________ GED:05.7, CAU:08.9, SWA:03.0, AME:54.8, NE:23.5, NWA:03.1 ___ (N=6)
S_Italian_Sicilian_D _____________ GED:05.5, CAU:36.5, SWA:12.5, AME:29.9, NE:11.8, NWA:02.5 ___ (N=10)
Baleares_1KG _____________________ GED:05.5, CAU:14.2, SWA:04.4, AME:49.4, NE:22.5, NWA:03.7 ___ (N=6)
Murcia_1KG _______________________ GED:05.5, CAU:11.2, SWA:05.9, AME:50.6, NE:19.6, NWA:06.0 ___ (N=8)
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG ______________ GED:05.4, CAU:10.0, SWA:04.0, AME:51.2, NE:22.3, NWA:06.1 ___ (N=12)
Galicia_1KG ______________________ GED:05.1, CAU:11.1, SWA:05.4, AME:48.3, NE:23.4, NWA:05.0 ___ (N=8)
Canarias_1KG _____________________ GED:05.0, CAU:11.2, SWA:03.7, AME:46.7, NE:17.6, NWA:11.8 ___ (N=2)
C_Italian_D ______________________ GED:04.8, CAU:32.1, SWA:08.7, AME:34.8, NE:17.1, NWA:02.3 ___ (N=13)
Tuscan ___________________________ GED:04.8, CAU:30.5, SWA:07.2, AME:37.9, NE:18.7, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=7)
Sicilian_D _______________________ GED:04.5, CAU:36.5, SWA:11.9, AME:30.0, NE:11.9, NWA:04.1 ___ (N=15)
North_Italian ____________________ GED:04.5, CAU:22.9, SWA:05.8, AME:44.0, NE:22.0, NWA:00.7 ___ (N=11)
Greek_D __________________________ GED:03.3, CAU:37.4, SWA:10.1, AME:28.0, NE:20.2, NWA:00.6 ___ (N=15)
Sardinian ________________________ GED:00.0, CAU:20.9, SWA:05.8, AME:70.5, NE:00.0, NWA:02.6 ___ (N=24)


Off the cuff comments:

Gedrosia has a persistent, but smaller presence in the south of Europe. It drops off in Greece and is missing from Sardinia. The Basques have it, though.

The Caucasus DNA is much more of a player in the south which is why I think probably that most French found Caucasus DNA is probably from the south or southeast rather than drug in by Germanics. However, the Basques are missing this component, more like the Northwestern Europeans. This component peaks above 30% in Greece, Italy and particularly, Cyprus.

The SW Asia component does have a consistent presence and increases as you move a long towards SW Asia. It seems to track with the Caucasus DNA a bit, but to a lesser degree of impact.

NW Africa DNA does have a mostly persistent, although low presence across these populations with a high in the Canary Islands.

North Europe DNA is still significant in the south, but is clearly lower than it is in the North. It is noticeably missing from Sardinia.

parasar
08-06-2013, 09:28 PM
...

Gedrosia has a persistent presence to go with the naturally high numbers for North and Atlantic Med Europe..

Gedrosia is much the same as the Baloch component at Zack's Harappa project. The Greek Gedrosia is essentially the modern Balochistan.
It is similar to the Caucasus component or the k5 component of Metspalu.

"Looking at the Pakistani populations (0.51) and Baluchistan (Balochi, Brahui, and Makrani) in particular (0.59), the proportion of the light green component (k5) is significantly higher than in the Indian populations, (on average 0.26) (Figure S5). Importantly, the share of this ancestry component in the Caucasus populations (0.50) is comparable to the Pakistani populations. There are a few populations in India who lack this ancestry signal altogether. These are the thus-far sampled Austroasiatic tribes from east India, who originated in Southeast Asia and represent an admixture of Indian and East Asian ancestry components,21 and two small Dravidian-speaking tribes from Tamil Nadu and Kerala ...

For alleles associated with k5, haplotype diversity is comparable among all studied populations across West Eurasia and the Indus basin (Figure S8). However, we found that haplotypic diversity of this ancestry component is much greater than that of those dominating in Europe (k4, depicted in dark blue) and the Near East (k3, depicted in light blue), thus pointing to an older age of the component and/or long-term higher effective population size (Figure S8)...
within India the geographic cline (the distance from Baluchistan) of the Indus/Caucasus signal (PC4 or k5) is very weak, which is unexpected under the ASI-ANI model, according to which the ANI contribution should decrease as one moves to the south of the subcontinent. This can be interpreted as prehistorical migratory complexity within India that has perturbed the geographic signal of admixture...
regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711004885

Mikewww
08-06-2013, 09:52 PM
I will run through Europe and look at six of Dinekes' K12b autosomal components that are found in many European populations.
...
Here is the coding I'm using: GED=Gedrosia, CAU=Caucasus, SWA=SW Asia, AME=Atlantic Med, NE=N Europe, NWA=NW Africa

Populations in North East and Eastern Europe.

Hungarians _______________________ GED:04.1, CAU:16.2, SWA:03.0, AME:27.0, NE:48.4, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=19)
Bulgarian_D ______________________ GED:03.3, CAU:30.1, SWA:06.4, AME:23.7, NE:34.8, NWA:00.5 ___ (N=7)
Romanians ________________________ GED:03.0, CAU:28.4, SWA:05.9, AME:24.6, NE:36.0, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=16)
Ashkenazy_Jews ___________________ GED:02.8, CAU:39.0, SWA:12.8, AME:25.1, NE:13.2, NWA:04.2 ___ (N=17)
Ashkenazi_D ______________________ GED:02.1, CAU:38.3, SWA:13.9, AME:25.9, NE:13.0, NWA:04.7 ___ (N=19)
Russian __________________________ GED:02.0, CAU:09.2, SWA:02.0, AME:12.1, NE:65.4, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=20)
Russian_D ________________________ GED:01.8, CAU:11.7, SWA:01.4, AME:14.1, NE:66.4, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=17)
Bulgarians_Y _____________________ GED:01.5, CAU:30.7, SWA:05.7, AME:25.0, NE:34.9, NWA:00.3 ___ (N=10)
Mixed_Slav_D _____________________ GED:00.9, CAU:13.3, SWA:02.2, AME:16.6, NE:64.4, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=12)
FIN30 ____________________________ GED:00.9, CAU:01.3, SWA:02.2, AME:14.1, NE:73.5, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=24)
Polish_D _________________________ GED:00.5, CAU:12.1, SWA:02.3, AME:20.9, NE:63.3, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=18)
Ukranians_Y ______________________ GED:00.3, CAU:16.4, SWA:03.0, AME:16.3, NE:62.1, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=18)
Finnish_D ________________________ GED:00.3, CAU:01.3, SWA:02.6, AME:13.4, NE:75.5, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=14)
Russian_B ________________________ GED:00.2, CAU:14.3, SWA:00.6, AME:13.1, NE:66.5, NWA:00.1 ___ (N=2)
Belorussian ______________________ GED:00.0, CAU:13.3, SWA:01.9, AME:16.1, NE:67.8, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=8)
Lithuanian_D _____________________ GED:00.0, CAU:10.1, SWA:01.6, AME:13.9, NE:73.7, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=9)
Lithuanians ______________________ GED:00.0, CAU:08.0, SWA:01.0, AME:13.7, NE:77.1, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=9)

Off the cuff comments:

Except for the Finns, the Caucasus autosomal component is much stronger in these populations than to the west.

On the other hand, as you move northeast and east into Russia and the Baltic States, Gedrosia drops off to nearly nothing. This is the puzzler to me as Gedrosia is higher both to the west, particularly to the north, but also is high in Central Asia and in the Caucasus. There has to be something to this useful to this pattern.

Very little NW Africa DNA but there is some among Ashkenazi. Perhaps I don't have them grouped properly?

Its not on the chart above but Siberian DNA shows up amongst Russians and Finns to some extent but not Polish, Ukranians, etc.

As expected, very high North Europe DNA in the northern areas. Atlantic Mediterranean is much lower than to the south, but it is still significant.

SW Asia DNA is present, but not to the north. The Balkans appear to have have a decent dose of it as well as the Ashkenazi.

Mikewww
08-06-2013, 10:01 PM
Gedrosia is much the same as the Baloch component at Zack's Harappa project. The Greek Gedrosia is essentially the modern Balochistan.
It is similar to the Caucasus component or the k5 component of Metspalu.
Do you have any analysis that shows Dienekes' Gedrosia is the same as the components you are pointing to?

I'm just trying to figure out Dienekes' research and I find him credible so I have no inherent reason to search for another way to classify these autosomal patterns, but I will read this paper for sure. Thank you.

Are you saying Dienekes' K12b spreadsheet is off somehow?




"Looking at the Pakistani populations (0.51) and Baluchistan (Balochi, Brahui, and Makrani) in particular (0.59), the proportion of the light green component (k5) is significantly higher than in the Indian populations, (on average 0.26) (Figure S5). Importantly, the share of this ancestry component in the Caucasus populations (0.50) is comparable to the Pakistani populations. There are a few populations in India who lack this ancestry signal altogether. These are the thus-far sampled Austroasiatic tribes from east India, who originated in Southeast Asia and represent an admixture of Indian and East Asian ancestry components,21 and two small Dravidian-speaking tribes from Tamil Nadu and Kerala ...

For alleles associated with k5, haplotype diversity is comparable among all studied populations across West Eurasia and the Indus basin (Figure S8). However, we found that haplotypic diversity of this ancestry component is much greater than that of those dominating in Europe (k4, depicted in dark blue) and the Near East (k3, depicted in light blue), thus pointing to an older age of the component and/or long-term higher effective population size (Figure S8)...
within India the geographic cline (the distance from Baluchistan) of the Indus/Caucasus signal (PC4 or k5) is very weak, which is unexpected under the ASI-ANI model, according to which the ANI contribution should decrease as one moves to the south of the subcontinent. This can be interpreted as prehistorical migratory complexity within India that has perturbed the geographic signal of admixture...
regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711004885

Please help me undestand the quotes you have cited. I'm trying to reconcile the author's "haplotypic diversity of this ancestry component is much greater than that of those dominating in Europe"
with
"regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years."

I take it you think that Gedrosian expanded into Europe in the Mesolithic or more probably even the Paleolithic timeframe, correct? I guess that could account for it reaching the NW Atlantic Coast.

Mikewww
08-06-2013, 11:14 PM
I will run through Europe and look at six of Dinekes' K12b autosomal components that are found in many European populations. Of course, I think the ones that look like imports are quit interesting so I'm not necessarily looking for the biggest content %, but just the signficant ones.

Here is the coding I'm using: GED=Gedrosia, CAU=Caucasus, SWA=SW Asia, AME=Atlantic Med, NE=N Europe, NWA=NW Africa

There are some types of R1b running around in Central Asia and for comparison:

Populations in Iranian Plateau and into Central Asia vicinity:

Brahui ___________________________ GED:69.5, CAU:00.5, SWA:11.4, AME:04.5, NE:00.8, NWA:00.4 ___ (N=23)
Balochi __________________________ GED:64.5, CAU:05.5, SWA:10.3, AME:03.6, NE:02.3, NWA:00.5 ___ (N=21)
Makrani __________________________ GED:61.2, CAU:06.8, SWA:11.3, AME:03.3, NE:01.0, NWA:00.7 ___ (N=22)
Sindhi ___________________________ GED:50.9, CAU:04.8, SWA:03.4, AME:02.5, NE:06.0, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=22)
Pathan ___________________________ GED:44.5, CAU:12.4, SWA:02.6, AME:01.1, NE:13.2, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=22)
Burusho __________________________ GED:43.2, CAU:08.7, SWA:00.0, AME:00.0, NE:11.9, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=22)
Tajiks_Y _________________________ GED:33.9, CAU:18.0, SWA:03.1, AME:04.2, NE:18.6, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=15)
Iranians _________________________ GED:30.9, CAU:36.7, SWA:14.2, AME:05.9, NE:04.2, NWA:00.9 ___ (N=19)
Iranian_D ________________________ GED:28.8, CAU:40.3, SWA:12.4, AME:05.6, NE:06.0, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=8)
Turkmens_Y _______________________ GED:28.0, CAU:28.7, SWA:06.8, AME:04.7, NE:10.3, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=11)
Hazara ___________________________ GED:20.5, CAU:09.5, SWA:02.3, AME:02.6, NE:09.2, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=16)
Uzbekistan_Jews __________________ GED:20.3, CAU:45.4, SWA:18.5, AME:07.7, NE:04.4, NWA:00.9 ___ (N=2)
Iranian_Jews _____________________ GED:18.8, CAU:49.3, SWA:22.5, AME:06.8, NE:00.0, NWA:01.8 ___ (N=4)
Azerbaijan_Jews __________________ GED:18.7, CAU:52.1, SWA:17.8, AME:09.1, NE:00.8, NWA:00.4 ___ (N=8)
Uzbeks ___________________________ GED:17.5, CAU:15.0, SWA:02.3, AME:03.4, NE:16.0, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=15)
Uygur ____________________________ GED:17.1, CAU:11.6, SWA:01.6, AME:01.3, NE:13.7, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=10)
Altai ____________________________ GED:09.4, CAU:01.8, SWA:00.0, AME:02.5, NE:11.2, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=11)
Tuva _____________________________ GED:04.4, CAU:01.7, SWA:00.0, AME:00.5, NE:06.7, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=13)
Tu _______________________________ GED:03.0, CAU:01.4, SWA:00.0, AME:00.4, NE:01.1, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=8)


Off the cuff comments:

The first few are people from the Bachlostan area, or Gedrosia, so that is why it gets name. There is some SW Asia autosomal DNA in them too along with some Caucasus DNA.

You can see the Gedrosia is still strong across Iran in general and begins to drop as you go north out of Iran.

Jewish groups do drag along SW Asia DNA.

The North Europe autosomal component is very low in Bachlostan but picks up as you go north.


This is further north - Populations in Central and North Asia.

Selkup ___________________________ GED:06.9, CAU:00.0, SWA:00.0, AME:00.0, NE:27.6, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=9)
Mongol ___________________________ GED:05.9, CAU:03.8, SWA:00.0, AME:03.1, NE:05.5, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=8)
Ket ______________________________ GED:05.9, CAU:00.0, SWA:00.0, AME:00.0, NE:23.6, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=2)
Chuvashs _________________________ GED:04.5, CAU:10.2, SWA:00.7, AME:06.7, NE:52.7, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=15)
Buryat ___________________________ GED:03.3, CAU:01.5, SWA:00.4, AME:01.5, NE:02.9, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=11)
Mongola __________________________ GED:01.9, CAU:01.1, SWA:00.0, AME:00.1, NE:01.8, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=10)
Yakut ____________________________ GED:01.0, CAU:00.5, SWA:00.0, AME:01.0, NE:00.0, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=21)
Xibo _____________________________ GED:00.8, CAU:01.0, SWA:00.1, AME:00.2, NE:00.5, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=8)
Dolgan ___________________________ GED:00.0, CAU:02.4, SWA:00.0, AME:02.3, NE:07.7, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=6)
Daur _____________________________ GED:00.0, CAU:00.3, SWA:00.0, AME:00.0, NE:00.0, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=9)
Evenk ____________________________ GED:00.0, CAU:00.0, SWA:00.0, AME:00.0, NE:00.0, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=12)
Hezhen ___________________________ GED:00.0, CAU:00.0, SWA:00.0, AME:00.0, NE:00.0, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=7)
Nganassan ________________________ GED:00.0, CAU:00.0, SWA:00.0, AME:00.0, NE:00.0, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=10)
Oroqen ___________________________ GED:00.0, CAU:00.0, SWA:00.0, AME:00.0, NE:00.0, NWA:00.0 ___ (N=8)

Off the cuff comments:

Its not on the charts above, but Siberian DNA is very high in these northerly groups.

There is just about no Caucasus and SW Asia as you go north.

Gedrosia fades as you go north to nil for much of Siberia.

However, North Europe autosomal DNA picks up in the groups, i.e. Selkup, Kets, and particularly the Chuvash, where there is some Gedrosia content.

Michał
08-06-2013, 11:57 PM
That seems a sensible summary of the likely effects of their journeys. However, I am puzzled by your idea of an 'Early Neolithic R1b population that migrated from the East Caspian region to the North-Pontic steppe (Sredny Stog)'. I have never heard anyone suggest that before and have never seen any suggestion like that in archaeological literature.

As I have explained in one of my previous posts, what I suggest is not the direct migration from the East Caspian region to the Ukrainian steppe (Sredny Stog) but rather a series of much shorter migrations with the important stop in the North Caspian/South Ural region. It has been already noted by many that the early Neolithic sites in the North Caspian region (including the best known Seroglazovo and Elshanka sites) predate quite significantly the earliest Neolithic sites originating from the West Pontic region, including both Dnieper-Donets and the DD-related (or even DD-derived) Samara culture at the middle Volga river. It seems that those North Caspian sites show the earliest pottery in all Europe (as noted by Anthony) and their domestic animals included the horse, frequently the predominant species (as noted by Mallory). Mallory also points out that their “sequence of the egg-shaped ceramics bears a generic similarity to the earliest pottery of the southeast Caspian which should date back to the seventh millennium”. There are of course some discrepancies as to the dating of particular sites, but the potential connection between the South-East Caspian and North Caspian regions seems possible or even quite likely. (see pp. 192-193 in Mallory's "In Search of the Indo-Europeans")

Michał
08-07-2013, 12:01 AM
His STRs look very different - he may be P25+M343-

He rather seems to be M343+ (and also L278+ M415+) but probably negative for P25 and some other SNPs roughly at the current R1b1 level, so his results place him at the level between the former categories R1b and R1b1 (if we both are talking about kit 267597 from India).

Michał
08-07-2013, 12:25 AM
I never said it did. Michal was the one who said J2b might correlate with R1b or they might have moved together. I was questioning that theory based on the lack of R1b in South Asia. The lack of J2b in Anatolia just adds to my argument.
What I suggested (as a mere possibility) is that some J2b from the SE Caspian region could have migrated with R1b to Europe. If it was the case, it would not mean that we should see a strict correlation between R1b and J2b in Europe (especially when J2b was a small minority component in that migrating group), just like we don't see any strict correlation between R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2105 in Europe, although most people believe that they did not come to Europe separately. Also, it is the absence of J2b in Anatolia (plus its relatively low frequency in the Middle East) what makes the distribution of J2b so unusual, especially if one believes that this haplogroup originated in SW Asia.

As for the lack of R1b (and significant presence of J2b) in South Asia, this is of course consistent with the scenario that J2b constituted a significant proportion of the Early Neolithic Wave coming from the Middle East to South Asia, while only a very small portion of it could have joined the SE Caspian R1b group on its journey to the North Caspian region and further to Europe. And I will repeat once more that this is just a wild speculation that (first of all) needs to be verified by comparing the distribution of J2b with the phylogeny of this haplogroup.

alan
08-07-2013, 01:38 AM
Interesting. I must dig out Mallory and have a read into it. By chance everything recent I have read seems to have been about other areas of the Pontic-Caspian and that area slipped my mind.

I found this recent paper on the Elshanka culture

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf38/38_21.pdf

There only seems to be repetition of the sparse Wiki link on the web for Seroglazovo/Seroglazovka site and it seems to describe an epipalaeolithic date. That is interesting in itself but I couldnt find more.

I have an entirely open mind about R1b origins other than I think it arose somewhere in a broad zone around the circuit of the Pontic-Caspian area. I cant really see past that zone as the origin but its a rather large area. There just seems to be som many possible options that its definately going to take ancient DNA to resolve this.


As I have explained in one of my previous posts, what I suggest is not the direct migration from the East Caspian region to the Ukrainian steppe (Sredny Stog) but rather a series of much shorter migrations with the important stop in the North Caspian/South Ural region. It has been already noted by many that the early Neolithic sites in the North Caspian region (including the best known Seroglazovo and Elshanka sites) predate quite significantly the earliest Neolithic sites originating from the West Pontic region, including both Dnieper-Donets and the DD-related (or even DD-derived) Samara culture at the middle Volga river. It seems that those North Caspian sites show the earliest pottery in all Europe (as noted by Anthony) and their domestic animals included the horse, frequently the predominant species (as noted by Mallory). Mallory also points out that their “sequence of the egg-shaped ceramics bears a generic similarity to the earliest pottery of the southeast Caspian which should date back to the seventh millennium”. There are of course some discrepancies as to the dating of particular sites, but the potential connection between the South-East Caspian and North Caspian regions seems possible or even quite likely. (see pp. 192-193 in Mallory's "In Search of the Indo-Europeans")

alan
08-07-2013, 02:16 AM
this was a great book and discusses the Caspian Meso-Neo transformation etc but it is rather too old now for comfort.


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RPw8DsBG-aIC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=epipalaeolithic+of+caspian&source=bl&ots=tm1ZddWz4x&sig=tj6_Pnb4X_7-Lr0TBhGIPAG7KuU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vKYBUtiYEMrYPdXigOgE&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=epipalaeolithic%20of%20caspian&f=false

parasar
08-07-2013, 03:02 AM
Do you have any analysis that shows Dienekes' Gedrosia is the same as the components you are pointing to?

I'm just trying to figure out Dienekes' research and I find him credible so I have no inherent reason to search for another way to classify these autosomal patterns, but I will read this paper for sure. Thank you.

Are you saying Dienekes' K12b spreadsheet is off somehow?

I don't think Dienekes is off. The South Asian populations where his Gedrosian peaks are almost identical to the ones where Metspalu's k5 peaks. I am not sure if Dienekes has done an allele diversity analysis of the nature Metspalu has done.





Please help me undestand the quotes you have cited. I'm trying to reconcile the author's "haplotypic diversity of this ancestry component is much greater than that of those dominating in Europe"
with
"regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years."

I take it you think that Gedrosian expanded into Europe in the Mesolithic or more probably even the Paleolithic timeframe, correct? I guess that could account for it reaching the NW Atlantic Coast.

Metspalu does not pin it down (Mesolithic or Upper Paleolithic), probably because they can't* as their detection is limited to 500 generations. It seems that Europe and the middle east underwent massive recent population expansions resulting in the younger k4 and k3 respectively. Both of these are present in South Asia but with some difference in distribution - "k4 dark blue component is present in India and northern Pakistani populations, whereas, in contrast, the k3 light blue component dominates in southern Pakistan and Iran."

If an Indo-Aryan movement occurred it is possible that that k4 is the one which best correlates - it is young, it dominates Europe and has presence in northern parts of South Asia. The k3 looks to be Iranic and Arab connection to the Balochistan/Sindh regions.

*Metspalu explains the difficulty even with measuring allele diversity: "Nucleotide substitutions arising in one population and then introduced to other populations are expected to show different levels of haplotype diversity in the source and recipient populations. However, this difference gets diluted because hybrid haplotypes arise through recombination in the recipient population. Their number will increase each generation, and it is therefore important to explore how the number of generations since the migration into new population will affect our ability to detect source and recipient populations for a given mutation on the basis of haplotype diversity differences."

parasar
08-07-2013, 03:32 AM
He rather seems to be M343+ (and also L278+ M415+) but probably negative for P25 and some other SNPs roughly at the current R1b1 level, so his results place him at the level between the former categories R1b and R1b1 (if we both are talking about kit 267597 from India).

My mistake, I was taking about N93357 whose STRs are a way off. He is P25+, which means he should be M343+, right? Or is P25 too problematic to be certain?
L21-, L23-, L51-, M18-, M222-, M269-, M335-, M73-, P25+, P297-, P312-, U106-, U152-, V88-
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/default.aspx?section=ysnp

alan
08-07-2013, 12:13 PM
The more I read up on the steppe area, the more the complex it looks and the less confidence I have in the possibility of ever inferring the origins of R1a and b with any sort of confidence. I kind of like my deep time idea of R1a and b and even R1 traces simply being left scattered around the Caspian the former shores of the massively expanded Caspian just after the LGM though I admit it leaves all the subsequent detail lacking. Unless dating ideas change it remains a reasonable concept as a starting point around 10000BC and probably in some way or other R1 peoples were among the epipalaeolithic peoples left behind at that date. The general zone is relatively late to farming and that has at least made me feel some confidence that the core early farming area around the mesopotamia, east/central Anatolia, west Iran and the Levant can be ruled out. The only other possibility I would seriously consider is NW Anatoila's dairy pastoralists. This area is also late to farming and does seem to have some possibilities of a Meso element in its inception. Its farming basis and probaby population element seems to come from central Anatolia though which is an early farming area which would not correlate well with the dates for R1b clades in the area.

Another thought is that it seems unlikely R1 is associated with the Gravettian groups of eastern Europe because those of the steppes tend to concentrate at the south-west Ukraine end and are culturally a continuation of those down to west side of the Black Sea and east-central Europe. That seems less likely to be part of the early R1 zone IMO.

The question really is how it entered non-steppe Europe. I just cannot see any route or culture that passed along the southern route into SE Europe in the timeframes of the R1 clades that are located there. The entire period is one where the story is one of steppe intrusions from the north side and it seems very counterintuitive not to see a connection. So, that really leaves the detail of R1 between epipalaeolithic peoples c. 10000BC and 4200BC as the dark zone in the story.

As I have noted before though, the age of p297 is great enough to see them as being separated from other P25* groups to the south in the Palaeolithic waxing and waining of the great water bodies in the area. The separation could have been a fact by c. 9000BC before the farming period and have been achieved by epipalaeolithic groups. M73 as the oldest P297 clade is probably the best evidence we currently have of P297's likely general zone. Its lack in SE Europe even today does seem to indicate it would have been quite easterly and towards the Europe-Asia border areas. It is all but unknown in Iran and SW Asia and even the Caucasus except in north Caucasus Turkic groups who clearly absorbed it on their path. So, it does provide some evidence of a separation of P297 from other P25* groups. Its hard not to conclude that this earliest represntative of P297 points to some sort of location at the east end of the European steppe. Everything else looks like special pleading. It suggests to me that the P297 line that led to M269 was not too far away from M73 as the age of P297 roughly corresponds to a period when the Caspian was shrinking back to something closer to its present size. Based on M269's later positions it seems only rational to see its ancestral lines as being close to but a little west of M73 although unfortunately the steppe area has seen so much population change over the last few centuries that its not easy to infer much at all from modern populations.

The other way of looking at it is working backwards. IF, and its a big IF, m269 really is linked to the Anatolian languages (and I do not mean that this was exclusive to R1b), as well as the early IE branches that headed west, then Anthony's Anatolian model would suggest it was involved in Sredny Stog related cultures. There strength area seems to be the Dnieper-Azov-Don zone, although with influence as far as the Urals. IF there is a link between M269 and Anatolian it seems the logical deduction that M269 was in that zone at the time, close to the time of the coming into existence of that clade.

I would not expect much of an autosomal signal though. Not only were the steppe intrusions that Anthony links to Anatolian rather modest but there is evidence that the elite groups that moved there had been mixing with western farming elements across the Dneiper to a significant degree. His model also allows for 1000 years in the Balkans before Anatolian entered Anatolia, another scenario of autosomal confusion. Finally a long period in Anatolia itself tops that all off. So, an autosomal signal of any clarrity seems unlikely to me in terms of Anatolian IEs. In general it seems to me that the early steppe waves into SE Europe were small and its main impact was creation of hybrid cultures.

Yamnaya seems different. Its bigger but at the same time seems to have stuck to steppe-like lands, leaving local cultures in the lands around them. They could however have had a considerable aerial effect on archaic IE dialects already there from the first wave. In the case of corded ware, I see no real good reason within Anthony's model to see an IE element in its zone of origin until the Yamnaya period and perhaps it is the great hybrid culture of that phase. Within a steppe model it seems to me that it could only have gained IE languages through hybriding of locals with Yamnaya elements around 3000BC and is therefore IMO most likely to represent one of the late branchings off the IE tree. It seems that its main influence in its western stretch was killed off fairly rapidly after a couple of centuries when it met the beaker culture so I think its rather pointless looking for traces of corded ware influence in Germanic as pre-Germanic seems to be an early branching and IMO is unlikely to derive from corded ware which didnt even arrive in the future Germanic speaking zone until something like 2700BC. I basically think that western corded ware became an IE dead end and that correlations with languages and corded ware should focus on its links with Slavic and Baltic and cultures like Fatyanovo and Abashevo. Baltic of course once had a much wider distribution and included parts of northern Poland and areas of Russia.

Mikewww
08-07-2013, 01:19 PM
...I would not expect much of an autosomal signal though. ..

I agree that the autosomal DNA components as understood today will not help us resolve Y haplogroup distribution, at least R and subclades, much.

However, I think the data is should not be ignored, but stored and compared with other data to see to evaluate and re-evaluate along with everything else. As I've said before, it may be hard/impossible to identify one for one correlations with R1b and autosomal DNA but there may be partial or limited correlations that can still be helpful.

I went back to Dienekes K7b calculator and downloaded the data into the same format I have for the K12b data. I can see why Dienekes likes the K7b's more simple, but more clear picture. Here is what he is calling West Asian.

The top West Asian autosomal DNA populations - those 50% or greater.

Georgians ________________________ 62.2 ___ (N=16)
Brahui ___________________________ 62.1 ___ (N=23)
Abhkasians_Y _____________________ 61.3 ___ (N=14)
Balochi __________________________ 61.3 ___ (N=21)
Makrani __________________________ 60.7 ___ (N=22)
Lezgins __________________________ 56.7 ___ (N=16)
Chechens_Y _______________________ 54.6 ___ (N=14)
Kurds_Y __________________________ 54.0 ___ (N=6)
Kurd_D ___________________________ 53.8 ___ (N=9)
Armenians ________________________ 53.4 ___ (N=18)
Armenians_15_Y ___________________ 53.2 ___ (N=13)
Iranian_D ________________________ 53.0 ___ (N=8)
North_Ossetians_Y ________________ 53.0 ___ (N=12)
Adygei ___________________________ 52.5 ___ (N=16)
Iranians _________________________ 52.3 ___ (N=19)
Armenian_D _______________________ 51.7 ___ (N=32)
Iranian_Jews _____________________ 51.4 ___ (N=4)
Georgia_Jews _____________________ 51.4 ___ (N=4)
Balkars_Y ________________________ 51.4 ___ (N=17)
Azerbaijan_Jews __________________ 51.0 ___ (N=8)
Assyrian_D _______________________ 50.7 ___ (N=13)
Kumyks_Y _________________________ 50.1 ___ (N=13)

Among Europeans, here are the high West Asian content populations - 20% or more:

Cypriots _________________________ 36.5 ___ (N=11)
Sephardic_Jews ___________________ 27.6 ___ (N=19)
Ashkenazy_Jews ___________________ 25.5 ___ (N=17)
S_Italian_Sicilian_D _____________ 25.4 ___ (N=10)
Sicilian_D _______________________ 25.3 ___ (N=15)
Ashkenazi_D ______________________ 25.0 ___ (N=19)
Greek_D __________________________ 24.8 ___ (N=15)
C_Italian_D ______________________ 22.4 ___ (N=13)
Bulgarian_D ______________________ 22.4 ___ (N=7)
Bulgarians_Y _____________________ 21.5 ___ (N=10)
Romanians ________________________ 21.0 ___ (N=16)
Tuscan ___________________________ 20.1 ___ (N=7)
O_Italian_D ______________________ 19.9 ___ (N=5)

Nothing surprising in the table above as being close to the West Asia seems to increase the likelihood of high West Asian autosomal DNA.

Below is the next step down for West Asian content in European populations - roughly from 10-16%:

N_Italian_D ______________________ 15.8 ___ (N=5)
Mordovians_Y _____________________ 15.2 ___ (N=13)
Hungarians _______________________ 14.5 ___ (N=19)
Ukranians_Y ______________________ 14.5 ___ (N=18)
North_Italian ____________________ 14.1 ___ (N=11)
Mixed_Slav_D _____________________ 13.6 ___ (N=12)
Russian_B ________________________ 13.2 ___ (N=2)
Russian_D ________________________ 13.1 ___ (N=17)
Polish_D _________________________ 12.3 ___ (N=18)
Russian __________________________ 12.1 ___ (N=20)
Dutch_D __________________________ 12.0 ___ (N=8)
German_D _________________________ 11.9 ___ (N=18)
Belorussian ______________________ 11.7 ___ (N=8)
Mixed_Germanic_D _________________ 11.4 ___ (N=7)
Lithuanian_D _____________________ 11.4 ___ (N=9)
Argyll_1KG _______________________ 10.8 ___ (N=4)
CEU30 ____________________________ 10.7 ___ (N=22)
French ___________________________ 10.4 ___ (N=27)
Lithuanians ______________________ 10.4 ___ (N=9)
Cornwall_1KG _____________________ 10.2 ___ (N=28)
Kent_1KG _________________________ 10.1 ___ (N=36)
Irish_D __________________________ 09.8 ___ (N=14)
French_D _________________________ 09.7 ___ (N=13)
English_D ________________________ 09.7 ___ (N=10)
Orcadian _________________________ 09.7 ___ (N=13)

Below are the European groups from 9.5% down to 4%:

Orkney_1KG _______________________ 09.5 ___ (N=21)
Swedish_D ________________________ 09.5 ___ (N=11)
British_D ________________________ 09.2 ___ (N=11)
British_Isles_D __________________ 09.2 ___ (N=8)
Baleares_1KG _____________________ 08.8 ___ (N=6)
Norwegian_D ______________________ 08.5 ___ (N=10)
Spaniards ________________________ 07.6 ___ (N=10)
Andalucia_1KG ____________________ 07.5 ___ (N=4)
Extremadura_1KG __________________ 07.5 ___ (N=8)
Murcia_1KG _______________________ 07.3 ___ (N=8)
Galicia_1KG ______________________ 07.1 ___ (N=8)
Cataluna_1KG _____________________ 06.9 ___ (N=8)
FIN30 ____________________________ 06.9 ___ (N=24)
Finnish_D ________________________ 06.8 ___ (N=14)
Portuguese_D _____________________ 06.5 ___ (N=9)
Valencia_1KG _____________________ 06.1 ___ (N=10)
Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG ___________ 06.0 ___ (N=6)
Canarias_1KG _____________________ 05.9 ___ (N=2)
Spanish_D ________________________ 05.7 ___ (N=20)
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG ______________ 05.6 ___ (N=12)
Aragon_1KG _______________________ 04.7 ___ (N=6)
Cantabria_1KG ____________________ 04.7 ___ (N=6)

As the chart above shows, Iberia and Scandianavia seem to have received this content last, or at least had it washed out by something else.

Maybe the big take away is the set of groups that don't seem to have West Asian autosomal content at all... your Basques and Sardinians.

Pais_Vasco_1KG ___________________ 00.4 ___ (N=7)
Sardinian ________________________ 00.0 ___ (N=24)
French_Basque ____________________ 00.0 ___ (N=21)

newtoboard
08-07-2013, 01:21 PM
You still can't explain why things like R*, R1*, early forms of R1a and R1b, R1a-Z282* and R2* are found in a region encompassing Eastern Anatolia, the South Caucasus, Iran, and South Central Asia but not in your proposed steppe refuge for R1, areas next to the steppe or areas which received the first migrations from the steppe.

Mikewww
08-07-2013, 01:48 PM
You still can't explain why things like R*, R1*, early forms of R1a and R1b, R1a-Z282* and R2* are found in a region encompassing Eastern Anatolia, the South Caucasus, Iran, and South Central Asia but not in your proposed steppe refuge for R1, areas next to the steppe or areas which received the first migrations from the steppe.

I'm not sure who you are addressing since you didn't quote anyone or name anyone in your posting and referred to "you", but I was not aware of R* and R1* being found anywhere, at least in great numbers. Where do you find them?

Your logic on your point of dispute as it relates to "are found... but not in", is not extremely valuable. We haven't found and deep clade tested that much ancient DNA out there. It is not even close to being a representative sample of vast regions of millions of square miles over a time depth of a couple of thousand years. The data situation is such that the old archaeological adage clearly applies, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

newtoboard
08-07-2013, 02:17 PM
I'm not sure who you are addressing since you didn't quote anyone or name anyone in your posting and referred to "you", but I was not aware of R* and R1* being found anywhere, at least in great numbers. Where do you find them?

Your logic on your point of dispute as it relates to "are found... but not in", is not extremely valuable. We haven't found and deep clade tested that much ancient DNA out there. It is not even close to being a representative sample of vast regions of millions of square miles over a time depth of a couple of thousand years. The data situation is such that the old archaeological adage clearly applies, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

DMXX outlined them in the thread you made.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1136-The-relationship-of-R1a-R1b-and-R2-in-populations-ancient-times-up-to-the-1400s&p=10274&viewfull=1#post10274

I don't really consider anything you you wrote to be valid since Europe (especially NW Europe) has been tested a lot better than West Asia and South Central Asia and those clades still haven't popped up to the same degree as in Asia. Yet we have memebers like Alan arguing the data is invalid on the basis of climate and using archaeology to make those clades European.

Mikewww
08-07-2013, 02:27 PM
DMXX outlined them in the thread you made.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1136-The-relationship-of-R1a-R1b-and-R2-in-populations-ancient-times-up-to-the-1400s&p=10274&viewfull=1#post10274

I don't really consider aqnythign you wrote valuable or valid since Europe (especially NW Europe) has been tested a lot better than West Asia and South Central Asia and those clades still haven't popped up to the same degree as in Asia. Yet we have memeber ruling out Asia for the orign of those clades and using archealogy to try to argue those clades are European.

Thank you for replying on the R1*, etc. findings. I do find it intriguing that Iran is such an unusual place in terms of R1 subclade early branching and paragroups.

I'm sorry you don't "consider aqnythign you wrote valuabe" (in reference to me), but please bear in mind I'm just researching, analyzing and sharing speculations. Nothing more. I'm hoping to learn something and appreciate logical feedback.

My criticism was not of you personally, but of your logic to assert that absence of evidence is meaningful in such cases where our data is so limited. Please don't take that personally. It's okay to be disagree and I disagree with your logic in this specific matter. However, you bring many valid points to bear and I value you and your insight in general.

As far as the value of archaeology, linguistics, histolry, etc., I think it is valuable. I agree with you that genetic information is still valuable and of course paramount to our topics, even if we don't have what we want data wise..... still, "lack of data" is not a meaningful argument in data poor/unrepresentative environments, so I advocate using the data we have but not reducing options because of potentially missing data.

alan
08-07-2013, 05:23 PM
You still can't explain why things like R*, R1*, early forms of R1a and R1b, R1a-Z282* and R2* are found in a region encompassing Eastern Anatolia, the South Caucasus, Iran, and South Central Asia but not in your proposed steppe refuge for R1, areas next to the steppe or areas which received the first migrations from the steppe.

If that is aimed at me, then I dont know what you are talking about. I am not talking about a steppe refugium and AGAIN putting words into my mouth. I proposed a circum-Caspian refugeum with the R1 group based on it during the LGM being pushed out in ALL directions circumcaspian style as it expanded six-fold. That process may have commenced about 15000BC and been over by 9000BC. At is greatest extend the waters would have pushed people al little more into the Caucasus, Iran, even Anatolia etc and a long distance into Russia and central Asia. That process commenced around the time R1 and perhaps even early R1a and b were in existence c. 15000BC could have split R1, R1a and R1b and split early R-P25* lines into different areas leading to different patterns among R1b peoples. These P-25 lines led to P297 somewhere probably north and P25 paragroup lines in other areas. So what does it not explain?

alan
08-07-2013, 05:39 PM
You must be trolling. Seriously this is YET ANOTHER case of you putting words into my mouth. I am not making anything European. R1b is largely derived from P25. P25 would be circumcaspian in my expanding lake model. Some clades became the paragroup P25 lineages and just one of the lines led to P297 from which M73 and M269 derive. I am only arguing that one P25 lines - the one leading to P297 - ended up on the north side of the Caspian. The other P25 lines may have never seen the steppes as they were pushed south of east or west by the sea as it expanded. The timing of the expansion and contraction c. 150000-9000BC would seem likely to have effected P25 lines if they were settled around the shores of the Caspian. Roughly at the time when this phase ended, ONE-ONLY ONE of perhaps many P25 lines gave rise to P297. P297's oldest clade is clearly northern. However, it is only one, important, P25 line. Other P25 parallel lines would have remained or been pushed in other directions by the Caspian and could have ended up well into north central Asia. The effect of the sea expansion was lesser on the high Iranian and Caucasus shores so dispersal to those areas pushed by the expanding sea would have been much more modest. It is also probably the case that the southern end of the Caspian sea was probably a lot more pleasant during the LGM period than the tundra of the north or the desert of the eastern shores especially so it wouldnt surprise me if the oldest R1 lineages with first-in rights had the nicest spot on the southern parts of the shores and later derived lineages spread out from there. Its the lineages that spread out that would have found themselves most dramatically pushed away to the north and east during the post-LGM expansion of the sea.





DMXX outlined them in the thread you made.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1136-The-relationship-of-R1a-R1b-and-R2-in-populations-ancient-times-up-to-the-1400s&p=10274&viewfull=1#post10274

I don't really consider anything you you wrote to be valid since Europe (especially NW Europe) has been tested a lot better than West Asia and South Central Asia and those clades still haven't popped up to the same degree as in Asia. Yet we have memebers like Alan arguing the data is invalid on the basis of climate and using archaeology to make those clades European.

newtoboard
08-07-2013, 05:51 PM
You must be trolling. Seriously this is YET ANOTHER case of you putting words into my mouth. I am not making anything European. R1b is largely derived from P25. P25 would be circumcaspian in my expanding lake model. Some clades became the paragroup P25 lineages and just one of the lines led to P297 from which M73 and M269 derive. I am only arguing that one P25 lines - the one leading to P297 - ended up on the north side of the Caspian. The other P25 lines may have never seen the steppes as they were pushed south of east or west by the sea as it expanded. The timing of the expansion and contraction c. 150000-9000BC would seem likely to have effected P25 lines if they were settled around the shores of the Caspian. Roughly at the time when this phase ended, ONE-ONLY ONE of perhaps many P25 lines gave rise to P297. P297's oldest clade is clearly northern. However, it is only one, important, P25 line. Other P25 parallel lines would have remained or been pushed in other directions by the Caspian and could have ended up well into north central Asia. The effect of the sea expansion was lesser on the high Iranian and Caucasus shores so dispersal to those areas pushed by the expanding sea would have been much more modest. It is also probably the case that the southern end of the Caspian sea was probably a lot more pleasant during the LGM period than the tundra of the north or the desert of the eastern shores especially so it wouldnt surprise me if the oldest R1 lineages with first-in rights had the nicest spot on the southern parts of the shores and later derived lineages spread out from there. Its the lineages that spread out that would have found themselves most dramatically pushed away to the north and east during the post-LGM expansion of the sea.

The only trolling is your long essays on archeology. I don't how you convinced yourself that clades such as R1*, R1a*, R1b* originated in Europe and West Asia can be ruled out on the basis of ancient climate patterns even though the data argues against ruling out a West Asian origin.



[[[ Mikewww/moderator on 07Aug2013: Let's try to stick to knocking each others' arguments down versus adding personal commentary. Also, if we want to cite another poster's hypothesis, its only fair to cite and quote them rather than try to summarize in your own words without qualification from the poster you are citing.]]]

newtoboard
08-07-2013, 06:02 PM
What I suggested (as a mere possibility) is that some J2b from the SE Caspian region could have migrated with R1b to Europe. If it was the case, it would not mean that we should see a strict correlation between R1b and J2b in Europe (especially when J2b was a small minority component in that migrating group), just like we don't see any strict correlation between R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2105 in Europe, although most people believe that they did not come to Europe separately. Also, it is the absence of J2b in Anatolia (plus its relatively low frequency in the Middle East) what makes the distribution of J2b so unusual, especially if one believes that this haplogroup originated in SW Asia.

As for the lack of R1b (and significant presence of J2b) in South Asia, this is of course consistent with the scenario that J2b constituted a significant proportion of the Early Neolithic Wave coming from the Middle East to South Asia, while only a very small portion of it could have joined the SE Caspian R1b group on its journey to the North Caspian region and further to Europe. And I will repeat once more that this is just a wild speculation that (first of all) needs to be verified by comparing the distribution of J2b with the phylogeny of this haplogroup.

What do you mean come to Europe? L51 likely originated there.

I've read J2b is pre Neolithic in South Asia. I would associate J2a and G2a with the South Asia's Neolithic.

alan
08-07-2013, 06:12 PM
If my idea that R1 was settled around the shore of the Caspian in the LGM is correct then Iran having the oldest clades makes sense. It was the best environment around the Caspian in the LGM. Importantly the post-LGM six-fold expansion of that sea made very little impact on the southern shores due to landform. The displacement of populations would have been tiny compared to the moderate impact on the Caucasus and enormous impact on the north and eastern shores. It makes sense that the oldest lineages are around Iran and adjacent. However the process of expansion of the sea would have scattered the shore dwellers of the Caspian further north huge distances north and east from the present shores. Its the ideal scenario for explaining the pattern of R1. I am not sure about its role in R1a, although it may have been crucial. In terms of R1b the combination of warming and sea expansion around 15000BC-10000BC would have scattered P25* lines in all directions.

In terms of R*, I generally go along with the idea it was in north central Asia but the LGM depopulated north-central Asia and it was a desert at the time. So, other than settlement around inland seas, which were very shrunken in the LGM, there wasnt much to keep them alive there. Their main choices would have been to head west to the Caspian or southwards to survive. I suspect myself that R1* relates to the R groups who reached the south Caspian in the LGM and that upstream R* and even older ancestral non-R forms may have been further to the east and predominantly just headed south in the LGM and of course towards as Q towards America. Its impossible to overestimate the incredible impact the LGM followed by warming and massive Caspian expansion would have had on people across a vast area including north central Asia, Russia, the Caucasus and to a lesser degree Iran. In general it seems to me that the long straw from the LGM to 10000BC would have been people who settled the south Caspian.


Thank you for replying on the R1*, etc. findings. I do find it intriguing that Iran is such an unusual place in terms of R1 subclade early branching and paragroups.

I'm sorry you don't "consider aqnythign you wrote valuabe" (in reference to me), but please bear in mind I'm just researching, analyzing and sharing speculations. Nothing more. I'm hoping to learn something and appreciate logical feedback.

My criticism was not of you personally, but of your logic to assert that absence of evidence is meaningful in such cases where our data is so limited. Please don't take that personally. It's okay to be disagree and I disagree with your logic in this specific matter. However, you bring many valid points to bear and I value you and your insight in general.

As far as the value of archaeology, linguistics, histolry, etc., I think it is valuable. I agree with you that genetic information is still valuable and of course paramount to our topics, even if we don't have what we want data wise..... still, "lack of data" is not a meaningful argument in data poor/unrepresentative environments, so I advocate using the data we have but not reducing options because of potentially missing data.

alan
08-07-2013, 06:16 PM
i have not said that. You have jumbled it up in your head as that. I have warned you about 6 times to stop inventing models and attributing them to me.


The only trolling is your long essays on archeology. I don't how you convinced yourself that clades such as R1*, R1a*, R1b* originated in Europe and West Asia can be ruled out on the basis of ancient climate patterns even though the data argues against ruling out a West Asian origin.



[[[ Mikewww/moderator on 07Aug2013: Let's try to stick knocking each others' arguments down versus adding personal commentary. Also, if we want to cite another poster's hypothesis, its only fair to cite and quote them rather than try to summarize in your own words without qualification from the poster you are citing.]]]

parasar
08-07-2013, 06:18 PM
DMXX outlined them in the thread you made.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1136-The-relationship-of-R1a-R1b-and-R2-in-populations-ancient-times-up-to-the-1400s&p=10274&viewfull=1#post10274

I don't really consider anything you you wrote to be valid since Europe (especially NW Europe) has been tested a lot better than West Asia and South Central Asia and those clades still haven't popped up to the same degree as in Asia. Yet we have memebers like Alan arguing the data is invalid on the basis of climate and using archaeology to make those clades European.

Re: "R*-M207 - Iran (Grugni et al.)"
They did not test M479. Unless that is tested any M207* is suspect.


Eighty-eight Y-chromosome binary genetic markers were hierarchically genotyped as AFLP (YAP, [30]), RFLP (M2 [31], SRY10831.2 [32], M12 [33]; P15 [34]; M74 [35]; M34, M60, M61, M67, M70, M76, M78, M81, M175, M198, M207, M213 [36]; LLY22g, P36.2, P43 [37]; M123, M172 [38]; M242, M253, M285 [23]; V12, V13, V22 [39]; M377 [24]; P128, P287 [40]; M406 [41]; M269 [42]; Page08 [43]; V88 [44]; M458 [45]; PAGE55 [46]; L23, M412 [47]; L91 [48]; M527, M547, Page19, P303, U1 [49]), by DHPLC (M217 [50]; M25, M35, M47, M68, M69, M82, M92, M124, M170, M173, M174, M201, M205, M214, M216 [36]; M429 [51]; P209 [40]; M241, M267, M343 [23]; M357, M378, M410 [24]; M346 [40]; M434, M458 [45]; M530 [46]; L497, P16 [49]), and direct sequencing (M18 [33]; M42, M73, M75, M96 [52]; M33, PN2 [36]; MEH2 [53]; M317 [24]; M356 [54]; M438 [51]; P297 [40]).

Mikewww
08-07-2013, 06:44 PM
... I don't how you convinced yourself that clades such as R1*, R1a*, R1b* originated in Europe and West Asia can be ruled out on the basis of ancient climate patterns even though the data argues against ruling out a West Asian origin.

I'm not sure who's model is what anymore, but I agree (I think) if you are saying that early branching for R1 and R1b might have occurred in West or Central Asia. I don't know R1a that well but it had to be in the vicinity at some time. I think we have to be careful about geographic definitions but I consider Anatolia part of West Asia and far eastern Europe north of the Black and Caspian Seas as bleeding into Asia. It is really all just Central Eurasia and where it is open plains any definitions are really just artificial. I wouldn't bet much money on one location over another within this vicinity.

alan
08-07-2013, 07:12 PM
The only trolling is your long essays on archeology. I don't how you convinced yourself that clades such as R1*, R1a*, R1b* originated in Europe and West Asia can be ruled out on the basis of ancient climate patterns even though the data argues against ruling out a West Asian origin.



[[[ Mikewww/moderator on 07Aug2013: Let's try to stick to knocking each others' arguments down versus adding personal commentary. Also, if we want to cite another poster's hypothesis, its only fair to cite and quote them rather than try to summarize in your own words without qualification from the poster you are citing.]]]

Right, I want to clarrify for the last time that my current idea is that R* came from west central Asia, R1* probably occurred as some of the groups there moved to the Caspian and fled south during the LGM c. 16000BC. R1a and b probaby occurred shortly after at some unknown point on the shrunken Caspian shores of that time - which now lie under the centre of the Caspian. R1a and b then may have expanded north with the warming around 15000BC. However the expansion of the Caspian etc around 15000-10000BC would have complicated this further and scattered early R1a and R1b clades all around the expanding Caspian in all directions.

In R1b terms this may have left P25* lines all around the Caspian and well beyond into central Asia, Iran, Russia, the Caucasus etc c. 10000BC. ONLY ONE P25* line in that zone led to P297. It is ONLY P297 that I am suggesting ended up in the north in Russia. Other P25* lines would have remained all around in the Caucasus, Iran (where the sea didnt encroach much) and central Asia. They then went on to have very different histories and identities. P297 may have been in the eastern half of the European steppe. Other P25* lines would have remained in Iran and the south Caucasus and perhaps eastern Anatolia. Most would become what we think of as the P25* paragroup. JUST ONE of these P25* lines led to P297 in the north. Then just one other southern P25* line gave birth to V88 in the early copper age, perhaps as a P25*clade was spread by the Kura Araxes expansion of that time through Anatolia to Israel.

So, there was no single R1b or even P25 culture or identity. Some were always in Asia and some were in the steppe. Later this got even more complex when cultures like Maykop linked to and later refluxed to NW Iran who were in turn linked to Mesopotamia at the time of the Uruk expansion. That may have led to L23 lines among these north Mesopotamians as early as 3500BC, possible the ancestors of the L23 Asssyrians and it means they probably became part of the population early in the history of Sumer.

Please take that as my current thoughts and preferred model on early R history. This is the only model I am currently pushing in terms of early R, R1, R1b before 4000BC. If you want to cite me for holding or pushing ideas, please base it on the above summary. I muse about other options but this is the one I would currently happily stand over.

Michał
08-07-2013, 07:13 PM
What do you mean come to Europe? L51 likely originated there.

This is exactly my point. If there is no correlation between the distribution of the two major sub-branches of R1b-M296 in Europe, why should we assume a strict correlation between J2b and "all European R1b" (if considering a possibility that R1b and J2b migrated together at some point)?

Anyway, after taking a closer look at the phylogeny of J2b and the distribution of this haplogroup in Europe and Asia, I must admit that I am unable to come with any reasonable scenario explaining its modern distribution.



I've read J2b is pre Neolithic in South Asia.
I wouldn't exclude such possibility, but the key question is not whether J2b in South Asia is Pre-Neolithic, Neolithic or Post-Neolithic (as suggested by its higher frequency among the upper castes in India) but how to explain the bipolar distribution of this clade in South Asia and Europe (while keeping in mind that J2b is relatively young, probably much younger than R1b).

newtoboard
08-08-2013, 02:06 PM
Right, I want to clarrify for the last time that my current idea is that R* came from west central Asia, R1* probably occurred as some of the groups there moved to the Caspian and fled south during the LGM c. 16000BC. R1a and b probaby occurred shortly after at some unknown point on the shrunken Caspian shores of that time - which now lie under the centre of the Caspian. R1a and b then may have expanded north with the warming around 15000BC. However the expansion of the Caspian etc around 15000-10000BC would have complicated this further and scattered early R1a and R1b clades all around the expanding Caspian in all directions.

In R1b terms this may have left P25* lines all around the Caspian and well beyond into central Asia, Iran, Russia, the Caucasus etc c. 10000BC. ONLY ONE P25* line in that zone led to P297. It is ONLY P297 that I am suggesting ended up in the north in Russia. Other P25* lines would have remained all around in the Caucasus, Iran (where the sea didnt encroach much) and central Asia. They then went on to have very different histories and identities. P297 may have been in the eastern half of the European steppe. Other P25* lines would have remained in Iran and the south Caucasus and perhaps eastern Anatolia. Most would become what we think of as the P25* paragroup. JUST ONE of these P25* lines led to P297 in the north. Then just one other southern P25* line gave birth to V88 in the early copper age, perhaps as a P25*clade was spread by the Kura Araxes expansion of that time through Anatolia to Israel.

So, there was no single R1b or even P25 culture or identity. Some were always in Asia and some were in the steppe. Later this got even more complex when cultures like Maykop linked to and later refluxed to NW Iran who were in turn linked to Mesopotamia at the time of the Uruk expansion. That may have led to L23 lines among these north Mesopotamians as early as 3500BC, possible the ancestors of the L23 Asssyrians and it means they probably became part of the population early in the history of Sumer.

Please take that as my current thoughts and preferred model on early R history. This is the only model I am currently pushing in terms of early R, R1, R1b before 4000BC. If you want to cite me for holding or pushing ideas, please base it on the above summary. I muse about other options but this is the one I would currently happily stand over.

I'm not convinced on M73 being fully Northern. Yes it is uncommon in West Asia. It could have had a southern origin near the Inner Asian Mountain corridor, pushed its way to the Altai or NE of it only to expand with later Turkic movements. I think there was discussion on the old DNA forums about Tajik M73 and I remember someone (maybe it was vineviz?) saying that it didn't look Turkic from the STR values. That might be an interesting theory to consider.

Mikewww
08-08-2013, 04:34 PM
I'm not convinced on M73 being fully Northern. Yes it is uncommon in West Asia. It could have had a southern origin near the Inner Asian Mountain corridor, pushed its way to the Altai or NE of it only to expand with later Turkic movements. I think there was discussion on the old DNA forums about Tajik M73 and I remember someone (maybe it was vineviz?) saying that it didn't look Turkic from the STR values. That might be an interesting theory to consider.

I'm also not convinced that M73 originated in the north. I think it is possible, though. It's clusters are strongly differentiated so I can see why it is considered old when compared with M269.

I moved newtoboard's and my posts related to the M73 clusters over to a new thread on types of M73 if anyone is interested. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1194-What-are-the-different-types-subclades-of-R1b-M73

Newtoboard, this may not be what you were intending to communicate anyway, but I can't find where Vineviz associated some types of M73 with Turkish ethnicity, at least solely to them. The "B" clusters clearly have a Asian bias to them and include locations like Turkey, Kazakhstan, Tajikstan, Uzebekistan, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Pakistan, China and, well yes, Luxembourg.

newtoboard
08-08-2013, 05:39 PM
I'm also not convinced that M73 originated in the north. I think it is possible, though. It's clusters are strongly differentiated so I can see why it is considered old when compared with M269.

I moved newtoboard's and my posts related to the M73 clusters over to a new thread on types of M73 if anyone is interested. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1194-What-are-the-different-types-subclades-of-R1b-M73

Newtoboard, this may not be what you were intending to communicate anyway, but I can't find where Vineviz associated some types of M73 with Turkish ethnicity, at least solely to them. The "B" clusters clearly have a Asian bias to them and include locations like Turkey, Kazakhstan, Tajikstan, Uzebekistan, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Pakistan, China and, well yes, Luxembourg.

I'm not even sure it was Vineviz. I think it would be hard to determine what originated where since we don't even know what ethnicity those Tajik and Uzbek samples belong to. They could all be Tajik or all be Uzbek.

But I do think there might be a possibility that M73 originated in a more southernly location but was primarily distributed in the mountains of Central Asia and the Altai. That could explain why it is not found in West Asia and South Asia,how it expanded with Turks and why small amounts of M73 are found in Tajikistan. I could be wrong and that Tajik M73 could be Turkic admixture though.

Looking at it it doesn't look like it would make sense to attribute it to Turks. I agree with that. I think Cluster B1 and Cluster B2 might tells us something. Cluster B1 seems very Northern in comparison to Cluster B2.

alan
08-08-2013, 10:33 PM
I think though that M73 and M269 have to be considered together, at least in terms of where they were c. 9000BC when they shared a P297 ancestor. Again, the the subject of the incredible changes the Caspian is important to the options and distancing of clades. This is the world that it seems likely P25 lineages had to live with before the rise of any major downstream lineages.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LK0O4XYbxUU/UZz4STLvPZI/AAAAAAAAA1Y/VBNCSYYBhoM/s1600/Pre-and-post-flood-size-of-the-Black-and-Caspian-Seas.png

The best estimate I have seen is the severe part which blocked off any roots from the south was 15000BC-12000BC, the middle phase which still had some severity was from then to about 9000BC but the link between the Caspian and Black Sea was open again, while the late phase after that for a millenium or so was modest. There has been relative stability throught the holocene. In terms of R1b, this meant that it was not until some time after 12000BC that south-north movement became possible again via the route between the Caspian and Black Seas. The period of the maximum of the flood to 12000BC would appear to have been the P25* phase. The prevallence of this clade in Iran and adjacent and lack of such paragroups to the north may be indicative that R1b resided at the south end of the Caspian prior to the opening up of the barriers to south-north movement in the millenia shortly after 12000BC. The only danger in this interpretation is that there has been enormous change in the population to the western steppes makes present population inferrences especially difficult. However, on balance the south end of the Caspian seems the most likely position c. 12000BC.

The question therefore rises on what happened next. There are traces of eplipalaeolithic groups with similarities to the ones from the south at Kamennay27a Balka at the north Caucasus-steppe interface area c. 18-15000BC and again c. 10000BC once the Caspian-Black Sea link had dried up again. So there was some flow. Perhaps the end is the most likely source for R1b in the north. I say this because of the lack of P25* in the north. By the time of the 2nd intrusion it is possible that P297* would have occurred. So, it makes sense to see an epipalaeolithic intrusion that quickly led to P297, perhaps even en-route.

There is no direct evidence for P297* - as far as I am aware its never been found. However, the indirect evidence does to me point to it occurring as a P25* line headed north. The timing fits very well the age of P297. More importantly, there is no evidence of it expanding beyond bear survival in the period between that SNP and its downstream M73 and M269 clades. This implies very strongly that it had moved itself out of the early farming zone in its period 9000-5000BC. If it had been in the farming zone we would expect lots of P297* lineages kind of like the P25* paragroups but they dont exist. I dont even think the P25* paragroup to the south looks like it was in the early farming zone. That would fit a position for these stay-home lineages being somewhere like northern Iran or the south Caucasus were farming arrived 4000 years later than in some areas.

The P297* lack of expansion until the appearance of M73 perhaps around 5000BC fits best a location that was well outside the core farming zone. The fact that M269 didnt exist until 4000BC means an even longer period of P297* non-expansion on its ancestral line. These kind of dates imply a long period outside the farming zone for both ancestal P297* lines leading to its two main clades. I dont think the complete lack of any remains of these P297*lines for 4 and 4000 years can be emphasised enough. Its very strong evidence of a position in a very late developed farming uptake zone. The range of options for a date like that for expansion correlating to a late uptake of farming or other means of expansion pushes the likely locations to the steppe, north Caucasus and some areas of northern iran. In the case of M269 its even more extreme and if the truth be told it didnt do much until L23 c. 3500BC. That is very late and best fits a steppe location for its ancestral P297* line. I think in general the broadly shared pattern of nothing going on of P297* indicated by both its clades makes it seem likely to me that the lineages leading to M73 and M269 remained in the same basic zone for much of the 4000 years after the P297 SNP and it makes sense to consider them together.

At some point they diverged in directions with M73 sitting more eastern and M269 expanding into Europe. The timeframe of this is dictated by the ages of those clades and this divergence must have begun after 5000bc but before by 4200bc ig we are to explain the lack of M73 spilling into old Europe with the M269. I personally think the steppe is plenty big enough for lineages to diverge in direction. However, I dont see it likely at all that M73 passed east of the Urals until 3500BC as there is simply a complete lack of archaeological evidence for such a movement until then. I think a position east of he Don is quite likely for M73 in the period between 4500 and 3500bc. A position for M269 west of the Don seem likely to me and I think that it is just one of these lineage that went one way rather like some R1a lineages moved predominantly east. There is a lot of scope for founder effects etc in the sort of societies of that zone at that period.

I think V88 on the other hand descends from P25* paragroup peoples who probably remained somewhere like the southen half of the Caucasus after the LGM is likely. Farming was relatively late in that area too c. 6000BC or later which would explain the fact P25* in that area did not undergo massive expansions until it span off the V88 clade in the early copper age. I see a very strong possible link with the expansion of kura-araxes culture into eastern Anatolia and down to the Levant towards the doorstep of Africa. It is a good match for the distribution and reasonably fits the timescales too. It could have been a founder effect of that expansion with its main take-off happening as it passed through eastern Anatolia and down the Levant before entering Africa in some less clear cultural guise. It corresponds to the trade networks of that period which indeed were taken over by the Kura-Araxes groups after 3500BC.

So, IMO there is no single R1b cultural story other than a position outside the main area of developed farming which most of the P25* groups probably shared despite being scattered around all sides of the Caspian and adjacent areas. However, their subsequent histories, languages and cultural locations appear to have been entirely different.

alan
08-08-2013, 10:45 PM
I'm not even sure it was Vineviz. I think it would be hard to determine what originated where since we don't even know what ethnicity those Tajik and Uzbek samples belong to. They could all be Tajik or all be Uzbek.

But I do think there might be a possibility that M73 originated in a more southernly location but was primarily distributed in the mountains of Central Asia and the Altai. That could explain why it is not found in West Asia and South Asia,how it expanded with Turks and why small amounts of M73 are found in Tajikistan. I could be wrong and that Tajik M73 could be Turkic admixture though.

Looking at it it doesn't look like it would make sense to attribute it to Turks. I agree with that. I think Cluster B1 and Cluster B2 might tells us something. Cluster B1 seems very Northern in comparison to Cluster B2.

Mike the problem with that is it only dates to 5000BC and its shared ancestor with M269 to 9000BC and there is no evidence of either west-east or east-west movement from the eastern steppes into the western steppes in that period. Anthony noted that this was a profound cultural barrier that probably emerged around 15000BC with the massive Caspian expansion to the north and was not really breached until 3500BC. P297 is not old enough for one group to have been located on one side and another on the other before this long period of cultural barrier. They both had to either be on one side or the other IMO. The cultural barriers to the western steppe groups were only broken down around the time when both M73 and M269 existed. The western barrier fell after 4200BC and the eastern barrier around 3500BC. Its very hard to not conclude that P297 lay between those two barriers i.e. on the western steppes which lies between them by definition.

The alternative of M73 coming south-north into its present area from SW Asia, the Caucasus, Iran etc seems to be almost impossible given the lack of M73 in those areas. Same with the idea of an origin in Old Europe. It almost has to have been located in the eastern end of the western steppes or the Urals.

Mikewww
08-09-2013, 12:14 PM
... Anthony noted that this was a profound cultural barrier that probably emerged around 15000BC with the massive Caspian expansion to the north and was not really breached until 3500BC. P297 is not old enough for one group to have been located on one side and another on the other before this long period of cultural barrier. They both had to either be on one side or the other IMO. The cultural barriers to the western steppe groups were only broken down around the time when both M73 and M269 existed. The western barrier fell after 4200BC and the eastern barrier around 3500BC....
Alan, what pages can I find the discussion on this barrier? It seems hard to believe there weren't people moving north around or even across the Caspian before 3500 BC. I can't imagine it was particularly treacherous sea if it was drying up.

Do we know much about when people on the Steppes became adept at traveling riverways?

Michał
08-09-2013, 01:52 PM
It seems hard to believe there weren't people moving north around or even across the Caspian before 3500 BC. I can't imagine it was particularly treacherous sea if it was drying up.

During the period of the so-called Neo-Caspian transgression (roughly between 6000 BC and 1000 BC), the sea level was actually significantly higher than today. Also, the climate in the East Caspian region was different (much moister), with the former deserts having been replaced by a steppe or steppe-forest environment. The entire region was covered by an extensive network of rivers, including the large Uzboy river (formed as an offshoot of the overflowed Amu-Daria) that was running directly to the Caspian Sea. I guess this kind of environment could have greatly facilitated the hypothetical migration of the R1b-rich population to the North Caspian steppe, shortly after they have been influenced by the Early Neolithic Jeitun culture (about 6500 BC). When combined with the apparent similarity between the pottery produced at the East Caspian Early Neolithic sites (at Dzhebel, Kailyu and Dam Dam Chesma) and at some Early Neolithic sites of the North Caspian and Southern Ural region (Seroglazovo/Elshanka culture), and when additionally combined with the presence of the Gedrosia autosomal component in the R1b-rich populations of Europe and with the presence of some early separated R1b branches in Central Asia, South Asia and Iran, all this makes the South-East Caspian homeland of R1b the most likely option at the moment (at least this is my opinion).

newtoboard
08-09-2013, 04:50 PM
Going back to R1a-Satem connection, does anyone have any idea if this information from wikipedia is from a journal article?


The Centum–Satem isogloss is now understood to be a chronological development of Proto-Indo-European.
Centumization removed the palatovelars from the language, leaving none to satemize. In addition there is residual evidence of various sorts in satem languages of a former distinction between velar and labiovelar consonants, indicating the earlier centum state. It is therefore clear that centumization was followed by satemization.[citation needed] However the evidence of Anatolian indicates that centum was not the original state of Proto-Indo-European.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum-satem_isogloss

Everything seems to point to Satemization being an areal feature.

newtoboard
08-09-2013, 06:02 PM
Alan, what pages can I find the discussion on this barrier? It seems hard to believe there weren't people moving north around or even across the Caspian before 3500 BC. I can't imagine it was particularly treacherous sea if it was drying up.

Do we know much about when people on the Steppes became adept at traveling riverways?

That's a good point. I wonder if Central Asian R1b matching Caucasian R1b better than Iranian R1b is related to migrations across the Caspian. It might also explain why there is so much Y-DNA L1c among some Caucasian groups when L1c's concentration is in Central Asia/NW South Asia.

newtoboard
08-09-2013, 06:03 PM
During the period of the so-called Neo-Caspian transgression (roughly between 6000 BC and 1000 BC), the sea level was actually significantly higher than today. Also, the climate in the East Caspian region was different (much moister), with the former deserts having been replaced by a steppe or steppe-forest environment. The entire region was covered by an extensive network of rivers, including the large Uzboy river (formed as an offshoot of the overflowed Amu-Daria) that was running directly to the Caspian Sea. I guess this kind of environment could have greatly facilitated the hypothetical migration of the R1b-rich population to the North Caspian steppe, shortly after they have been influenced by the Early Neolithic Jeitun culture (about 6500 BC). When combined with the apparent similarity between the pottery produced at the East Caspian Early Neolithic sites (at Dzhebel, Kailyu and Dam Dam Chesma) and at some Early Neolithic sites of the North Caspian and Southern Ural region (Seroglazovo/Elshanka culture), and when additionally combined with the presence of the Gedrosia autosomal component in the R1b-rich populations of Europe and with the presence of some early separated R1b branches in Central Asia, South Asia and Iran, all this makes the South-East Caspian homeland of R1b the most likely option at the moment (at least this is my opinion).

Which early separated R1b branch is found in Central Asia? Are you viewing M73 as a local branch in this scenario of an R1b homeland in the Southeast Caspian?

Michał
08-10-2013, 03:08 PM
Which early separated R1b branch is found in Central Asia?
When judging from the information found in some FTDNA projects or from some published data (like that for the Uyghurs in the Tarim basin), we can securely assume that this would be mostly R1b-M73, but it seems that R1b(xM269,M73), which probably includes mostly L389*, should also be present in Central Asia.



Are you viewing M73 as a local branch in this scenario of an R1b homeland in the Southeast Caspian?
Even if M73 arose in the SE Caspian region (which cannot be excluded), it seems most likely that it migrated north with its sister clade M293. Only after settling in the North Caspian/South Ural region, a potential subclade of M73 (ancestral to the two Eastern clusters B1 and B2) was likely to go its own way, while the other (much smaller) potential subclade of M73 (cluster A) could have accompanied branch M269 in its way further west.

The above hypothetical separation between the M269 people and the major part of the M73 clade could have taken place about 5500 BC. This may correspond to the differentiation between the North Caspian (M269-rich?) and South Ural (M73-rich?) parts of the Seroglazovo/Elshanka culture, with the South Ural (M73) part subsequently developing into the so-called Agidel culture. Of course, all this could have been potentially associated with the development of a separate (Tocharian?) branch of IE, but connecting the Agidel culture with the Tarim basin would not be easy, so this needs to be considered as somehow less likely. On the other hand, the potential association of M73 with the Tocharian branch would be perfectly consistent with another element of my scenario, i.e. with the fact that only following some next 500-1000 years, the R1b-M269 group could have been involved in the IE-ization of the R1a-rich Samara and Dnieper-Doniets cultures (transforming them into Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog, respectively), which could have initiated the formation of the Late PIE group.

newtoboard
08-10-2013, 03:25 PM
When judging from the information found in some FTDNA projects or from some published data (like that for the Uyghurs in the Tarim basin), we can securely assume that this would be mostly R1b-M73, but it seems that R1b(xM269,M73), which probably includes mostly L389*, should also be present in Central Asia.



Even if M73 arose in the SE Caspian region (which cannot be excluded), it seems most likely that it migrated north with its sister clade M293. Only after settling in the North Caspian/South Ural region, a potential subclade of M73 (ancestral to the two Eastern clusters B1 and B2) was likely to go its own way, while the other (much smaller) potential subclade of M73 (cluster A) could have accompanied branch M269 in its way further west.

The above hypothetical separation between the M269 people and the major part of the M73 clade could have taken place about 5500 BC. This may correspond to the differentiation between the North Caspian (M269-rich?) and South Ural (M73-rich?) parts of the Seroglazovo/Elshanka culture, with the South Ural (M73) part subsequently developing into the so-called Agidel culture. Of course, all this could have been potentially associated with the development of a separate (Tocharian?) branch of IE, but connecting the Agidel culture with the Tarim basin would not be easy, so this needs to be considered as somehow less likely. On the other hand, the potential association of M73 with the Tocharian branch would be perfectly consistent with another element of my scenario, i.e. with the fact that only following some next 500-1000 years, the R1b-M269 group could have been involved in the IE-ization of the R1a-rich Samara and Dnieper-Doniets cultures (transforming them into Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog, respectively), which could have initiated the formation of the Late PIE group.

So you are suggesting a complete population replacement in the area of the North Caspian culture by 2800 BC?

alan
08-10-2013, 11:10 PM
Alan, what pages can I find the discussion on this barrier? It seems hard to believe there weren't people moving north around or even across the Caspian before 3500 BC. I can't imagine it was particularly treacherous sea if it was drying up.

Do we know much about when people on the Steppes became adept at traveling riverways?

Anthony mentions a prevailing barrier at the Urals more than the Caspian but he sees its origins as a cultural barrier being in the period 15000-12000BC when the sea stretch way to the north deep into Russia and formed a considerable barrier unless you wanted to go a very roundabout route around its north, an area that was very bleak in the period. I think his idea is that the cultural differention was created in that period and that even when the barrier was gone, the Urals still remained a major cultural barrier until 3500BC.

You are right that I am guilty ignoring maritime travel. I am not sure though what periods would have encourage cross-Caspian travel which is a huge sea and is a very different thing from fishing a little offshore etc. It was truly enormous in the period 15000-12000BC so it had an astonishing length of shoreline and width of sea. Major leaps would seem to me more feasible once it shrunk down a bit to something closer to its modern size at the end of the Palaeolithic. The earliest represenations of boats in the world are the Gobistan rock carvings of longboats which I think have been dated, probably by their relationship to the changing shore of the Caspian to 8000BC. That located in Azerbaijan is the mouth of the Kura river in the east Caucasus near the Caspian west shore.

The carvings are really mind blowing.

http://gobustan.si.edu/subject_matter

Could be the boats of our ancestors if the theory of R1 occurring on the south Caspian is correct. In fact collectively the early carvings are an incredible record of late Palaeolithic hunters in the south Caspian. Could be our ancestors who carved them.

alan
08-10-2013, 11:45 PM
I find Michal's theory interesting even though it differs a lot from my own. I need to chew it over a bit though and read up a bit on the archaeology of the east side of the Caspian in the relevant period.

alan
08-11-2013, 12:33 AM
During the period of the so-called Neo-Caspian transgression (roughly between 6000 BC and 1000 BC), the sea level was actually significantly higher than today. Also, the climate in the East Caspian region was different (much moister), with the former deserts having been replaced by a steppe or steppe-forest environment. The entire region was covered by an extensive network of rivers, including the large Uzboy river (formed as an offshoot of the overflowed Amu-Daria) that was running directly to the Caspian Sea. I guess this kind of environment could have greatly facilitated the hypothetical migration of the R1b-rich population to the North Caspian steppe, shortly after they have been influenced by the Early Neolithic Jeitun culture (about 6500 BC). When combined with the apparent similarity between the pottery produced at the East Caspian Early Neolithic sites (at Dzhebel, Kailyu and Dam Dam Chesma) and at some Early Neolithic sites of the North Caspian and Southern Ural region (Seroglazovo/Elshanka culture), and when additionally combined with the presence of the Gedrosia autosomal component in the R1b-rich populations of Europe and with the presence of some early separated R1b branches in Central Asia, South Asia and Iran, all this makes the South-East Caspian homeland of R1b the most likely option at the moment (at least this is my opinion).

Do you know of any papers or books online that are worth linking to on this.

Michał
08-11-2013, 01:54 PM
Do you know of any papers or books online that are worth linking to on this.
Nothing that haven’t been already mentioned on this forum. I have of course started with “In Search of the Indo-Europeans” by Mallory (see pages 192, 193 and footnotes 35 and 36):
http://pl.scribd.com/doc/148627069/In-Search-of-the-Indo-Europeans-Language-Archaeology-and-Myth

Mallory summarizes some data received by the Soviet/Russian archaeologists, including for example Matyushin whose paper on the Southern Ural cultures is (partially) available in the “Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and Their Transition to Farming”:
http://books.google.pl/books?id=RPw8DsBG-aIC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=%22Hunters+in+Transition%22+matyushin&source=bl&ots=tm1_7cPw1w&sig=OA1Jz1Cqdg4jkuLYkVln6dcFweA&hl=pl&sa=X&ei=iH0HUubMO5DOswaE-4H4Bw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Hunters%20in%20Transition%22%20matyushin&f=false

You have already provided a link to another paper from the above publication that provides some details about the environmental conditions in Central Asia:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RPw8DsBG-aIC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=epipalaeolithic+of+caspian&source=bl&ots=tm1ZddWz4x&sig=tj6_Pnb4X_7-Lr0TBhGIPAG7KuU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vKYBUtiYEMrYPdXigOgE&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=epipalaeolithic%20of%20caspian&f=false

Additionally, I know that there are some very interesting papers on this subject that were written in Russian but I don’t have any access to those publications. For example, a Polish member of another forum who has read one of such Russian papers by Matyushin has posted an interesting information that Russian archaeologists consider the Agidel culture to be related to its East Ural counterpart called Surtanda (it is actually mentioned in the above English paper by Matyushin, as well). Intriguingly, this Surtanda culture is supposed to be a culture ancestral to Tersek-Botai. Thus, if my hypothetical scenario is correct, this would mean that Tersek-Botai could have been associated with some R1b-M73 people who spoke an IE language (ancestral to Tocharian?). Here is an interesting map found on a Polish forum (though I don’t know its source):
607

Also, here is a citation from Mallory in which he summarizes the Matyushin’s view:
“The relationship between the Caspian and the Volga-Ural region is a perennial topic of debate among Soviet archaeologists. Witness most recently how G.Matyushin (in Zvelebil (1986): 133-150) links the southern Urals with the South Caspian by way of their 1) geometric lithic industry (Yangelsk culture of Urals; Belt; Hotu; Shanidar; Karim Shahir; Jarmo); 2) ovicaprids (most southern Ural Neolithic sites; north Mesopotamia, northern Iran); and 3) Mediterranean physical type (Mullino II in southern Urals, basic population known from south Caspian). According to Matyushin all of these contacts long preceded the seventh millennium BC.”

You may find at least one of the three Matyushin’s points very interesting, as you have once mentioned about a possibility that the presence of the Mediterranean physical type among the males from Sredny Stog may indicate a significant admixture from the neighboring Neolithic population. The above information provides an alternative explanation that is rather consistent with my hypothesis, i.e. that Sredny Stog has been formed as a result of overrunning the local (R1a(xM417)?) Dnieper-Donets-derived population by an intrusive IE-speaking (and R1b-rich) population from the North Caspian region.

Michał
08-11-2013, 02:00 PM
So you are suggesting a complete population replacement in the area of the North Caspian culture by 2800 BC?
In a steppe environment such population replacement would be of course perfectly possible. If my scenario is correct, I would expect that some R1a-M417 people could have reached the Middle Volga region by about 5500 BC (Samara culture). Their intensive IE-ization could have started around 5000 BC, and the subsequent expansion of the post-Khavlaynsk R1a-Z93-rich cultures (as a part of the Eastern Yamna horizon) would whave either pushed their R1b-M73 neighbors further east (or south-east) or, alternatively, could have transformed at least some of them into an Indo-Iranian-speaking tribe whose members could have been Turkicized at some much later point.

newtoboard
08-11-2013, 02:13 PM
You may find at least one of the three Matyushin’s points very interesting, as you have once mentioned about a possibility that the presence of the Mediterranean physical type among the males from Sredny Stog may indicate a significant admixture from the neighboring Neolithic population. The above information provides an alternative explanation that is rather consistent with my hypothesis, i.e. that Sredny Stog has been formed as a result of overrunning the local (R1a(xM417)?) Dnieper-Donets-derived population by an intrusive IE-speaking (and R1b-rich) population from the North Caspian region.

The Agidel culture is considered to be Uralic isn't it? I believe old school anthropology considers the Corded type to be Mediterranean derived as well. In that case I wouldn't rule out R1a being the intrusive population overrunning the local Proto-Europid physical type population (possibly associated with Y-DNA I or N1c-tat). I see almost zero R1b in the North Caspian area by 2800 BC if not before. You would think at least some would have survived. Isn't it easier to view Srendy Stog as forming as a mixture between Dnieper-Donets and Cucuteni-Trypillian culture? I believe there was a clade of Y-DNA G-P303 which seems to have expanded with the Indo-Europeans to some degree. Might also explain why G is found in Kazakhstan, the Urals and South Siberia.

newtoboard
08-11-2013, 02:16 PM
In a steppe environment such population replacement would be of course perfectly possible. If my scenario is correct, I would expect that some R1a-M417 people could have reached the Middle Volga region by about 5500 BC (Samara culture). Their intensive IE-ization could have started around 5000 BC, and the subsequent expansion of the post-Khavlaynsk R1a-Z93-rich cultures (as a part of the Eastern Yamna horizon) would whave either pushed their R1b-M73 neighbors further east (or south-east) or, alternatively, could have transformed at least some of them into an Indo-Iranian-speaking tribe whose members could have been Turkicized at some much later point.

I find it hard to buy complete population replacement happened. Your example of Turks is one reason why it seems hard to believe. Nomadic steppe population usually seemed to absorb one another rather than completely pushing out of the steppe. I would have also expected some R1b in these Z93 rich cultures in your elite dominance model. I realize there is some R1b-Z2103+/Z2105+ in South Asia but its low frequency makes me think it is more related to recent West Asian ancestry (either from Parsis, Armenians, or West Asian Muslims).

newtoboard
08-11-2013, 02:29 PM
Going back to the Gedrosia component anyone else see a possible link with lactose tolerance?

alan
08-11-2013, 05:32 PM
Michal - that you for that info. I will have a read into this. I have a copy of Mallory I havent dug out in ages. I have skimmed the Hunters in Transition on google books although it has a crucial couple of missing pages. I dont know about now but it was once a very expersive book so I dont own a copy. I have not read a couple of the links before and look forward to doing so. I have spend a lot of time trying to finally come to a conclusion about where R1 appeared so I have now to read into the movement north. I have done a lot of reading into the Caucasus route in the Neolithic and copper age without really convincing myself it is R1b related. It is still possible that different early P297* clades around the south Caspian c. 9000BC could have gone separate directions around the Caspian with one leading to M73 and another to M269. That is a possibility as long as the movement didnt commence until P297* came into being, which is suggested to be around 9000BC However, I cant say I have any really outstanding evidence for this. There were palaelithic peoples who were similar to north Iranian ones in the Caucasus, which is not very surprising. Encyclopedia Iranica states

Two sites along the southern Caspian coast have stone tools resembling those of the Terminal Paleolithic. The Caspian region, along the Māzandarān plain, was probably attractive to people because of its mild climate and rich resources, but there is no archeological evidence of their presence before the Terminal Paleolithic. Belt (Ḡār-e Kamarband; Coon, 1951, 1952, 1957), and Ali Tappeh (ʿAli Tappa) I (McBurney, 1968) have lithics similar to the Zarzian. During the Pleistocene, the Caspian Sea was at a higher level than today, and Ali Tappeh was just above its shoreline. As the sea receded, Belt and Hotu became accessible and were occupied. People living along the coast took advantage of the resources of the sea, the coastal marshes, and the mountain slopes. The fauna show an interesting change. Early there is a predominance of gazelle and seal, with some ox and deer, but later gazelle predominate, with some goat or sheep (McBurney, 1968). One may speculate that an environmental change led to the shift in diet. These sites give hints of the potential of the region for further exploration and excavation using modern methods.

Michał
08-11-2013, 05:55 PM
The Agidel culture is considered to be Uralic isn't it?
Yes, this culture used to be considered by some people as associated with the early Uralic population in the past, but it seems that associating the expansion of Uralic with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon becomes a predominant view today.



I believe old school anthropology considers the Corded type to be Mediterranean derived as well. In that case I wouldn't rule out R1a being the intrusive population overrunning the local Proto-Europid physical type population (possibly associated with Y-DNA I or N1c-tat).
AFAIK, the CW-associated anthropological types show indeed some diversity (which is associated with the presence of both Europoid and Mediterranean types), which seems to be rather consistent with the fact that many groups of CW entered the territory previously occupied by people representing the Mediterranean type (especially in Central Europe), hence we see for example a much higher level of the Med autosomal component among Poles and Czechs than among Lithuanians or Russians.

Also, it seems almost impossible that N1c was significantly present in Europe before 3000 BC (as you seem to suggest). This would be inconsistent with both the age of the major European subclades of N1c and the estimated age of the Proto-Uralic language that is supposed to be spoken east of Ural (where it borrowed from Proto-Indo-Iranian) and has been recently dated to 2000 BC only.



Isn't it easier to view Srendy Stog as forming as a mixture between Dnieper-Donets and Cucuteni-Trypillian culture?
Where would you place R1a and R1b in this scenario?

Michał
08-11-2013, 06:00 PM
I find it hard to buy complete population replacement happened. Your example of Turks is one reason why it seems hard to believe.
You are of course right when suspecting that such complete replacement is unlikely when a very large territory and a short time span is considered. However, please take a look at the North Pontic region during the last 2700 years (which would roughly correspond to a period between 5500 and 2800 BC in the above North Caspian/South Ural example). During those last 2800 years, the Ukrainian territory was inhabited, among others, by Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths, Heruli, Huns, early Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Magyars, Cumans, Varengians, Mongols, Crimean Tatars, Vlachs, Poles and Russians. What is the chance, in your opinion, that some significant traces of the original PIE population have survived in Ukraine till today? Would you be able to find an evidently Hunnic Y-DNA haplogroup in a sample of 100 modern Ukrainians (or an evidently Gothic Y-DNA haplogroup among some aDNA samples of Ukrainian Cumans)?



Nomadic steppe population usually seemed to absorb one another rather than completely pushing out of the steppe.
That’s why I mentioned a possibility that at least some of those R1b-M73 members were assimilated by the expanding Indo-Iranians (and then possibly Turkicized).



I would have also expected some R1b in these Z93 rich cultures in your elite dominance model.
This is a good point, and I would also expect this to have happened if assuming a language transfer either from R1b to R1a or from R1a to R1b. Nevertheless, we don’t see any evident R1a-associated elite among the R1b-rich population or vice versa, so we just need to assume that either such “foreign elite” was quickly diluted in a local population or, less likely, its influence was only temporary or had some very specific character (that would be extremely difficult to reconstruct). Anyway, this is why my model assumes that the process of IE-ization of Samara and Dnieper-Donets was completely different.

newtoboard
08-11-2013, 07:21 PM
Yes, this culture used to be considered by some people as associated with the early Uralic population in the past, but it seems that associating the expansion of Uralic with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon becomes a predominant view today.



AFAIK, the CW-associated anthropological types show indeed some diversity (which is associated with the presence of both Europoid and Mediterranean types), which seems to be rather consistent with the fact that many groups of CW entered the territory previously occupied by people representing the Mediterranean type (especially in Central Europe), hence we see for example a much higher level of the Med autosomal component among Poles and Czechs than among Lithuanians or Russians.

Also, it seems almost impossible that N1c was significantly present in Europe before 3000 BC (as you seem to suggest). This would be inconsistent with both the age of the major European subclades of N1c and the estimated age of the Proto-Uralic language that is supposed to be spoken east of Ural (where it borrowed from Proto-Indo-Iranian) and has been recently dated to 2000 BC only.



Where would you place R1a and R1b in this scenario?

Doesn't it make more sense to connect the elevated Mediterranean autosomal component in Central European Slavs to the R1b-U106 lineages found there? It looks more like recent admixture. Not to mention it seems easy to connect some of the Mediterranean components to I2a. Wouldn't the LBK people have been more West Asian?

I would place R1b in the area between Dnieper-Donets and Cucuteni-Trypillian cultures as well as some R1b in Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. I would place R1a in the rest of steppe and forest steppe zone along with some I2a in the forest steppe zone.

newtoboard
08-11-2013, 07:35 PM
You are of course right when suspecting that such complete replacement is unlikely when a very large territory and a short time span is considered. However, please take a look at the North Pontic region during the last 2700 years (which would roughly correspond to a period between 5500 and 2800 BC in the above North Caspian/South Ural example). During those last 2800 years, the Ukrainian territory was inhabited, among others, by Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths, Heruli, Huns, early Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Magyars, Cumans, Varengians, Mongols, Crimean Tatars, Vlachs, Poles and Russians. What is the chance, in your opinion, that some significant traces of the original PIE population have survived in Ukraine till today? Would you be able to find an evidently Hunnic Y-DNA haplogroup in a sample of 100 modern Ukrainians (or an evidently Gothic Y-DNA haplogroup among some aDNA samples of Ukrainian Cumans)?



That’s why I mentioned a possibility that at least some of those R1b-M73 members were assimilated by the expanding Indo-Iranians (and then possibly Turkicized).



This is a good point, and I would also expect this to have happened if assuming a language transfer either from R1b to R1a or from R1a to R1b. Nevertheless, we don’t see any evident R1a-associated elite among the R1b-rich population or vice versa, so we just need to assume that either such “foreign elite” was quickly diluted in a local population or, less likely, its influence was only temporary or had some very specific character (that would be extremely difficult to reconstruct). Anyway, this is why my model assumes that the process of IE-ization of Samara and Dnieper-Donets was completely different.

I don't think it would be hard to find a Y-DNA C or Q lineage in a sample of 100 Ukranians or an I1 lineage among Ukranian Cumans. Just look at Bashkirs. They have maintained ancestry from just about everybody who ever made it to the Ural region. They have Y-DNA C3, O, Q from Altaic speakers, R1a-Z93+ from Indo-Iranians, N1c-tat from Uralic speakers, R1b-U152 from Romans, in addition to R1b-M73.

It seems like both R1a or R1b groups likely had large population growths after expanding east and west. So it might be likely that the the "foreign elite" lineage was likely lost out of the gene pool especially if it was rare in the same place but probably also equally likely it had a chance to multiply very fast especially since it seems like there was a shift to an agricultural lifestyle in Central Asia and Central Europe.

There isn't much R1a in the most Western IE speakers but there isn't much R1b in the most eastern IE speakers so that doesn't tell us much.

Do you know when the Yamnaya study is coming out?

Silesian
08-11-2013, 08:50 PM
I don't think it would be hard to find a Y-DNA C or Q lineage in a sample of 100 Ukranians or an I1 lineage among Ukranian Cumans. Just look at Bashkirs. They have maintained ancestry from just about everybody who ever made it to the Ural region. They have Y-DNA C3, O, Q from Altaic speakers, R1a-Z93+ from Indo-Iranians, N1c-tat from Uralic speakers, R1b-U152 from Romans, in addition to R1b-M73.......

Yes good point. The Bashkirs are interesting case. Within striking distance of Samara R1b and they have both Z2103 and R1b-M73. Kind of similar to what is showing up in other areas like the Eastern Iranian speaking Digor, known as Ossetians[Although not as high R1b Z2103 % when compared with Media proper or Armenia proper, but still interesting nonetheless]. What if this pattern starts showing up in unlikely places like Jászság or perhaps let's say Transnistria region, or even Razgrad region[aka Abritus]?

newtoboard
08-11-2013, 09:11 PM
Yes good point. The Bashkirs are interesting case. Within striking distance of Samara R1b and they have both Z2103 and R1b-M73. Kind of similar to what is showing up in other areas like the Eastern Iranian speaking Digor, known as Ossetians[Although not as high R1b Z2103 % when compared with Media proper or Armenia proper, but still interesting nonetheless]. What if this pattern starts showing up in unlikely places like Jászság or perhaps let's say Transnistria region, or even Razgrad region[aka Abritus]?

The Jassic people of Hungary seem to be extremely mixed with Germanic and Slavic speakers.

parasar
08-12-2013, 01:15 AM
Going back to the Gedrosia component anyone else see a possible link with lactose tolerance?

If that is a very old component >500 generations then its association with lactose tolerance is doubtful. Gedrosia looks to be from the period of M578 split under F.
"(G, H, IJK) → (G, (H, IJK)" French F-M282 HGDP00528

I think that Y-R would best correlate with lactose tolerance.

alan
08-12-2013, 02:34 AM
Personally I think for a long time I was thrown by the lack of a high level of R1b in Ukraine but when I bought a book on the history of the area I realised it must be almost the worst place in Europe for continuity of population. No point in me repeating the list just posted by Michal. I think however the expulsion of the pre-Russian/Ukraine population since the 18century was something much more thorough than most prehistoric displacements, finished of course by Stalin on a grand scale. That is what sets the Ukraine apart as an especially difficult area to infer much from the present population.

In terms of population continuity I wonder too in there is a difference between the impact of early steppe mobile pastoralists and that of true military steppe nomadic states in Medieval times. The former perhaps really were simply large clans competing for pasture and trade control while the later were something very different and more political. My impression is that the earlier phase could have been more along the lines where population replacements could have happened and you might see single lineage clans such as we see hints of in burial grounds tested for DNA. The latter is more of a political-state type deal which may have encorporated lots of people. I get that impression from Tatar DNA for example and that of Turkic groups and it also seems to have been the situation in Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. So, in short I do think population replacements by clans is possible in the early phases of steppe mobile pastoralism. Something akin to Gaelic clan expansion but on wheels.

I would generally tend to think the best chance of echos of populations before the mad sweeps of history over the steppes may be slightly off the steppes or in mountain areas on their fringes to the south, east and west. Perhaps the Urals, north Caucasus and parts of the Balkans. I just mean echos though, not necessarily large population elements. There we do see real mixture of R1a, R1b and other non-R groups. I am not sure how much of that looks like like Slavic expansions and how much looks older in those sort of areas just off-steppe. Anyone comment on this? The Balkans is complicated with its mix of R1a and b. The R1a in the Balkans does seem to have a correspondence with the strenght of the Slavic elements today. So, Balkans R1a is at least significantly down to the Slavs. I am not saying that it is not also partly much older. What is the evidence of R1a origin in the Balkans in terms of Slavic or much older? I do sometimes wonder what the dna map of Europe would look like if you could subtract the Medieval Slavic expansion and strip it back to the pre-Slavic period.

There is clear evidence that some R1a is early even beyond the steppes such as the Corded Ware ancient DNA etc but was it a small minority? The apparent lack of a high level of R1a in the western part of the former Corded Ware territory does make me wonder if it was ever more than a small element in west-central and northern Europe west of the Elbe. I prefer that idea to Anatole's killer R1b idea. It does not seem to me that beaker could have done much by strength of numbers c. 2600BC if the normal dating for P312 and U106 is even nearly right and it must have been more subtle than some sort of bloodbath. More likely prestige, networking skills and new ideas IMO. The earlier waves out the steppes c. 4200BC into the Balkans also do not look like weight of numbers and simple might is the answer. Mind you it is not clear what their yDNA was but if they are represented by some of the R1b and R1a in the Balkans and Lower Danube region it is well to remember that the clades found in the regions would have not been very old in 4200BC. Do we really have traces of pre-4200bc R1a or b clades in that area now? Most R1a clades were either non-existent or at least very new at that time if the current variance dating is neary correct. In terms of R1b, only M269xL23 might seem old phlogentically just about enough by the most popular hobbiest dating but it would also have been a very new clade at the time if it had been in existence. Maybe the small amount of M269* seen sligtly raised in the west Balkans, Anatolia and Armenians is a remnant of this phase, perhaps bottlenecked somewhat in the east Balkans for a long time before being dispersed by later waves to the western Balkans, Anatolia etc. Are there R1a traces in the Balkans, Anatolia etc old enough to be related to early waves c. 4200BC that might represent something similar?

My feeling is either the variance dates tend to be centred too young OR the earlier steppe waves were very small and conducted by very new R1b and perhaps R1a clades OR that they left very little impact indeed in the Balkans. The latter two options are compatile with each other. I also would not rule out non-R elements in this wave after reading about apparently Neolithic type skulls among some of the Sredny Stog groups at various times.

If the variance central dates are close to correct, then the main R1b clade in the Balkans is said to date to c. 3500BC and is more compatible with a Yamnaya intrusion than anything much earlier. I would guess its also a better fit for the R1a clades there other than the obviously Slavic ones but I dont know the details. Another thing I find interesting is that the same R1b clade does have an above-noise represention on the edges of the steppe around the north Caucasus and the Urals. I wonder if that is a remnant of it former distribution.
Most of the pre-Slavic groups of the steppes are no longer there of course and tend to have either been absorbed by later peoples of varous sorts or to have moved south etc. I look at the population of the south Ukraine and think basically that the vast majority are indeed Ukrainians or Russians who moved south in the last 300 years.

Michał
08-12-2013, 12:11 PM
Doesn't it make more sense to connect the elevated Mediterranean autosomal component in Central European Slavs to the R1b-U106 lineages found there? It looks more like recent admixture.
I really doubt that this would be the major factor responsible for that elevated Med level among the Central European Slavs. For example, the Gedrosia component that is typical for all R1b-rich populations (including the Germans) is practically absent among the Poles, yet their Mediterranean component is relatively high (21%), even when comparing to the Germans (33%). Also, the Baltic-speaking people who are supposed to be derived from the CW population and show about 30-40% of R1a, are among the most Europoid populations in the entire Europe. All this suggests that if there was any potential Mediterranean admixture among the members of the original CW population, its level was very low.


Not to mention it seems easy to connect some of the Mediterranean components to I2a.
This, again, is rather unlikely, since if I2a was a haplogroup responsible for this high Med level, we should expect that the Mediterranean component should be significantly higher among the Belarussians (showing about 20% of I2a-Din) than among the Poles (10% of I2a-Din at best), while what we see is just the opposite. Also, haplogroup I2a-Din has expanded relatively recently (probably about 2000 years ago), so its association with any autosomal component would depend mostly on what that original expanding population was, and since nearly everything indicates that this expansion took place among the Proto-Slavs residing in Eastern Europe, I wouldn’t expect any specific association with the Mediterranean component.


Wouldn't the LBK people have been more West Asian?
I know of course nothing about LBK in this respect, but the only ancient sample from the even more recent Neolithic TRB culture, occupying nearly the entire territory of Poland and a significant part of Scandinavia (just before the arrival of the Corded Ware culture), showed no West Asian component at all, while as many as 81% of the Mediterranean component.


I would place R1b in the area between Dnieper-Donets and Cucuteni-Trypillian cultures as well as some R1b in Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.
Would it be the Bug-Dniester culture? It seems to be native to that region (at least since Mesolithic), so you would need to explain how (and when) R1b got there.

Michał
08-12-2013, 12:27 PM
I don't think it would be hard to find a Y-DNA C or Q lineage in a sample of 100 Ukranians
Please just take a look at the paper by Battaglia et al. (2009), where a sample of 92 Ukrainians was tested and no haplogroup C was found, while only one case of Q has been detected. In the case of that single haplogroup Q, the chances that it was brought to Ukraine with the Tatars, Cumans, Bulgars or Khazars seem to be definitely much higher than a chance that it was left in Ukraine by the Huns. In other words, there is nothing indicating that the population of Huns that resided in Ukraine about 1600 years ago has not been nearly totally replaced by the multiple subsequent waves of newcomers.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n6/full/ejhg2008249a.html



or an I1 lineage among Ukranian Cumans.
I really doubt it, but let’s wait for some aDNA data to see if you find those significant Gothic traces among the Cumans. :)



Just look at Bashkirs. They have maintained ancestry from just about everybody who ever made it to the Ural region. They have Y-DNA C3, O, Q from Altaic speakers, R1a-Z93+ from Indo-Iranians, N1c-tat from Uralic speakers, R1b-U152 from Romans, in addition to R1b-M73.
You are absolutely right, but please notice that nearly each subgroup of Bashkirs shows a completely different composition of the Y-DNA haplogroups, and it is not unusual that a haplogroup that reaches 30 or even 50% in one subgroup is absent in most others. This is of course related to the social structure of those nomadic tribes (with the founder effect and genetic drift both contributing to some significant differences between particular “tribes”). As a consequence, it is perfectly possible that either an absolute annihilation of an “ancient” haplogroup or a sudden expansion of a new haplogroup can take place in such situation, which may of course lead to a nearly total Y-DNA replacement in a given nomadic subpopulation in a relatively short time span, not to mention when a period of about 3000 years is considered for a given (relatively small) territory.



It seems like both R1a or R1b groups likely had large population growths after expanding east and west. So it might be likely that the the "foreign elite" lineage was likely lost out of the gene pool especially if it was rare in the same place but probably also equally likely it had a chance to multiply very fast especially since it seems like there was a shift to an agricultural lifestyle in Central Asia and Central Europe.
Agreed.



Do you know when the Yamnaya study is coming out?
Nope. :(

Mikewww
08-13-2013, 06:52 PM
If that is a very old component >500 generations then its association with lactose tolerance is doubtful. Gedrosia looks to be from the period of M578 split under F.
"(G, H, IJK) → (G, (H, IJK)" French F-M282 HGDP00528

I think that Y-R would best correlate with lactose tolerance.

I don't know if there is a correlation between Gedrosia and lactose tolerance but I've read one of the papers that estimated the age of the Gedrosia autosomal component and done some checking on autosomal age estimation. I conclude that autosomal age estimation techniques right now are fairly crude. That doesn't mean Gredrosia is not very old, but I would not eliminate alternatives based solely on autosomal age estimates, particularly geographic/age correlated criteria.

alan
09-24-2013, 01:57 AM
This new article which follows up a lot of work on the subject recently may go some way to explaining why the Neolithic Med. component had less impact than would have originally been expected. It shows that after the first proper Neolithic settlement expansion in Ireland c. 3750BC (this is the new refined kind of date rather than the old vague c. 4000BC) they only had a couple of centuries before they hit major problems and their continental template seems to have failed to some degree

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440313002987

A downturn c. 3500BC is of course long before beakers etc and if anyone benefited from this it may have been surviving hunter-gatherer elements IMO. Perhaps that is why the north-western European autosomal component is two or three times larger than the Med. one today in Ireland.

Simon_W
10-13-2014, 02:24 PM
During the period of the so-called Neo-Caspian transgression (roughly between 6000 BC and 1000 BC), the sea level was actually significantly higher than today. Also, the climate in the East Caspian region was different (much moister), with the former deserts having been replaced by a steppe or steppe-forest environment. The entire region was covered by an extensive network of rivers, including the large Uzboy river (formed as an offshoot of the overflowed Amu-Daria) that was running directly to the Caspian Sea. I guess this kind of environment could have greatly facilitated the hypothetical migration of the R1b-rich population to the North Caspian steppe, shortly after they have been influenced by the Early Neolithic Jeitun culture (about 6500 BC). When combined with the apparent similarity between the pottery produced at the East Caspian Early Neolithic sites (at Dzhebel, Kailyu and Dam Dam Chesma) and at some Early Neolithic sites of the North Caspian and Southern Ural region (Seroglazovo/Elshanka culture), and when additionally combined with the presence of the Gedrosia autosomal component in the R1b-rich populations of Europe and with the presence of some early separated R1b branches in Central Asia, South Asia and Iran, all this makes the South-East Caspian homeland of R1b the most likely option at the moment (at least this is my opinion).

This is interesting. Yes, that Elshanka culture may have roots in the eastern Caspian area. And according to Mallory its pottery then spread westwards to the North Pontic area at a very early date (before 7000 BC). However, personally I would rather link this with early R1a dispersals, that would make much more sense than R1b. Presumably both R1a and R1b originated in the Iranian area. As for R1b: Grugni et al. wrote in 2012: "the variance distribution of the rare R1b-M269* Y chromosomes, displaying decreasing values from Iran, Anatolia and the western Black Sea coastal region, is also suggestive of a westward diffusion from the Iranian plateau". As for R1a: Underhill et al. noted in 2014 that paragroups R1a* and R1a1* are most common in Iran. So it would make sense if R1* was present in Iran and split into R1a and R1b right there. However, I don't believe that R1a stayed in Western Asia until the time of the Proto-Indo-European dispersals. I'd rather say R1a moved eastwards and then northwards, and thus acquired an early diffusion east and north of the Caspian Sea, as Dienekes has speculated already long ago. Because, after all, both R1a and R1b populations were the main sources for the ANE admixture in Western Eurasians. But ANE admixture has two different peaks in Western Eurasians: An R1b-related peak in Lezgins, and an R1a-related peak in Russians and Mordovians. The latter peak must be related with eastern Steppe hunter-gatherers in general. And let's not forget, there were some instances of mt-DNA C4 in Yamnaya, but already in earlier Ukrainian cultures as well, which shows that there were quite some eastern relations on the vast steppe and movements hither and thither. There is really no need to derive the Southeastern European and hence western European R1b from Kurgan invasions, though I can leave this possibility open. The bulk of R1b may have moved to Southeastern Europe directly from Anatolia. Though I noted that there is also some R1b in southern Russians north of the Caucasus, at least judging from the Eupedia maps. This may well have accompanied the spread of the Kurgan custom from the Leylatepe Culture in Azerbaidjan to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, where it merged into a presumably R1a dominated population.

Michał
10-28-2014, 06:23 PM
As for R1a: Underhill et al. noted in 2014 that paragroups R1a* and R1a1* are most common in Iran. So it would make sense if R1* was present in Iran and split into R1a and R1b right there.
As for R1a* in Iran (and generally in the Middle East), it seems that this is just one West Asia-specific and relatively young subclade. As this subclade "expanded" in the Middle East only about 3500 years ago and, importantly, it has some rare very distant cousins in Europe, this is definitely not enough to suggest a Middle Eastern origin of R1a.


However, I don't believe that R1a stayed in Western Asia until the time of the Proto-Indo-European dispersals. I'd rather say R1a moved eastwards and then northwards, and thus acquired an early diffusion east and north of the Caspian Sea, as Dienekes has speculated already long ago.
In such case, one should expect to find some early (pre-M417) subclades of R1a east of the Caspian see (and east of Ural), which, as we all know, is not seen at all. By contrast, we know multiple examples of such early separated R1b subclades being present in those very regions, which quite strongly suggests that it was rather R1b and not R1a that was significantly present in the East Caspian region between about 15.000 and 5.000 ybp. Also, it seems that after the very early R1a people left Central Asia (while migrating westward) they have never migrated back until some relatively recent time when the pre-Indo-Iranians from branch R1a-Z93 started migrating east.



There is really no need to derive the Southeastern European and hence western European R1b from Kurgan invasions, though I can leave this possibility open. The bulk of R1b may have moved to Southeastern Europe directly from Anatolia.
How would you date this hypothetical massive movement of R1b from Anatolia to SE Europe (and then further west)?
Which archaeologically attested migrations (cultures) would you assign to that ancient migration of the R1b folk?