PDA

View Full Version : what is the latest thinking on were R1a originated



alan
06-16-2013, 05:38 PM
I mean by this DNA evidence of clades, phylogeny and variance. I think we tend to think too much based on the final modern position. If we applied that to R1b we would probably come to the wrong conclusions. I of course am aware of evidence for R1a in corded ware c. 2600BC in Germany and on the steppes after 2000BC and theories regarding Yamnaya etc. We have had various opinions from people like Anatole and others about the early origins. So what are the arguements for R1a before 3000BC? I have heard lots of alternatives but would be interested in what the data suggests.

alan
06-17-2013, 01:10 PM
I mean by this DNA evidence of clades, phylogeny and variance. I think we tend to think too much based on the final modern position. If we applied that to R1b we would probably come to the wrong conclusions. I of course am aware of evidence for R1a in corded ware c. 2600BC in Germany and on the steppes after 2000BC and theories regarding Yamnaya etc. We have had various opinions from people like Anatole and others about the early origins. So what are the arguements for R1a before 3000BC? I have heard lots of alternatives but would be interested in what the data suggests.


Dont all rush at once lol. There does not seem to be much R1a focus on this forum. I was really looking to see if there are alternative 'whole story' papers to Klyosov's model. He outlined it as follows:

We found that the most ancient R1a subclades (R1a1-M198- and R1a1a-M198+/M417-) bearers of which currently live in Europe (the present day haplotypes are scattered between England and the Balkans) appeared in Europe at least 7300 ybp, and possibly 9000 ybp. R1a’s three principal downstream subclades, L664 (North-Western branch), Z93 (South-Eastern branch), and Z283 (Eurasian branch), split from their common European ancestor at about the same time, around 7000 - 6000 ybp. L664 apparently stayed in North-Western Europe; its lineage recovered and began expanding ~ 4575 ybp. The Z93 subclade began to expand during the Aryan migrations, on the Aryan's journey to India and the Middle East in the 3rd-2nd millennia BC. The Z283 subclade split ~ 5500 ybp into three branches. One of them, Z280 (the Central Eurasian branch) moved east to the Russian Plain in 4800 - 4600 ybp, and formed at least 16 sub-branches there and in the course of the later westward repopulation of Europe in the 1st millennium BC – 1st millennium CE. Some of the older branches, like the Russian Plain branch, largely stayed in the present Russia-Ukraine-Belarus-Poland- Baltic countries region, and were described by early historians as the Scythians, Antes, Veneti, and a multitude of different proto-Slavic tribes (though many of them belonged to haplogroups other than R1a, primarily I1 and I2). Those R1a branches which are “older” than 3000 years, such as the Russian Plain branch (4600 ybp), the Western Eurasian (4300 ybp), and the Balto-Carpathian (4300 ybp), did not move en mass to Europe but stayed behind at the Russian Plain. In the middle of 1st millennium CE, the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire, multiple migrations of R1a were taking place eastward and westward; these migrations gradually formed the current landscape of R1a in Europe. All 38 branches and their datings are listed in the Appendix of this paper; current distribution maps are shown in the body of the paper.

lgmayka
06-17-2013, 04:08 PM
The STR-based portion of Klyosov's phylogeny has been superseded by SNP discoveries.

- Klyosov's paragraph does not even mention M458 and its enigmatic relationship to Z280. The expansion of M458 is arguably the most spectacular development in Central-Eastern European population history. Is it identical to the Slavic expansion? And if so, what is the implication of its apparent centering on southern Poland?

- Z280 has two major subbranches, Z92 and CTS1211, as well as some smaller clusters belonging to neither. Z92 is geographically concentrated east and southeast of the Baltic Sea (Lithuania, Belarus, and into Russia), whereas CTS1211 has a far wider spread and a bouquet of subclades and subclusters.

- Z93 has two major subbranches, L657 and Z2124. L657 is mostly found in South Asia and among Arabs, whereas Z2124 is spread widely all across West/South/Southwest Asia and with some frequency even in Eastern and Western Europe (even besides its phenomenal growth among Ashkenazi Levites).

newtoboard
06-17-2013, 04:25 PM
How do you suppose R1a entered Europe? Via the Caucasus or Caspian? Or an Anatolia to Balkans expansion?

Rathna
06-17-2013, 05:00 PM
How do you suppose R1a entered Europe? Via the Caucasus or Caspian? Or an Anatolia to Balkans expansion?

Are you sure that R1a entered Europe? I am always waiting that someone shows me all these R1a-M420* out of Europe. The R1 FTDNA Project have many from the Isles and also Italy, and probably also R1a1* is more diffused in Europe than elsewhere. Asia has last subclades above all. Are you sure of your thoughts (or desires)?

newtoboard
06-17-2013, 06:03 PM
Not my thought or desires. Just the general consensus. Find any reputable individual who says otherwise. And the same applies for R1b and IJ. All are ultimatley from West Asia whether you accept it or not. The genetics world isn't losing sleep over your rants on multiple online forums about R1a or R1b or whatever your agenda of the day wants to make Italian.

alan
06-17-2013, 06:15 PM
The STR-based portion of Klyosov's phylogeny has been superseded by SNP discoveries.

- Klyosov's paragraph does not even mention M458 and its enigmatic relationship to Z280. The expansion of M458 is arguably the most spectacular development in Central-Eastern European population history. Is it identical to the Slavic expansion? And if so, what is the implication of its apparent centering on southern Poland?

- Z280 has two major subbranches, Z92 and CTS1211, as well as some smaller clusters belonging to neither. Z92 is geographically concentrated east and southeast of the Baltic Sea (Lithuania, Belarus, and into Russia), whereas CTS1211 has a far wider spread and a bouquet of subclades and subclusters.

- Z93 has two major subbranches, L657 and Z2124. L657 is mostly found in South Asia and among Arabs, whereas Z2124 is spread widely all across West/South/Southwest Asia and with some frequency even in Eastern and Western Europe (even besides its phenomenal growth among Ashkenazi Levites).

Has variance looked at the relative ages of these clades? I still havent a clear idea of the ages of the various clades relative to geography. With R1b it is fairly well established by phylogeny and variance to be older around the circumpontic zone in its widest sense. I am not clear whether anything similar has been established for R1a. It seems to have been related to Yamnaya by a lot of people but is this actually supported by the nature of R1a phylogeny, variance etc. Is there any hint of its location in the Neolithic for example?

R.Rocca
06-17-2013, 06:24 PM
Not my thought or desires. Just the general consensus. Find any reputable individual who says otherwise. And the same applies for R1b and IJ. All are ultimatley from West Asia whether you accept it or not. The genetics world isn't losing sleep over your rants on multiple online forums about R1a or R1b or whatever your agenda of the day wants to make Italian.

A few questions:

1. Are there more European R1a** in FTDNA projects? If so, can it be attributable to American testing bias or is it even more so than in other haplogroups?
2. Is there anything R1a** in academic studies that might help?
3. Did the 1000 Genomes project show Asian R1a***?

alan
06-17-2013, 06:44 PM
How do you suppose R1a entered Europe? Via the Caucasus or Caspian? Or an Anatolia to Balkans expansion?

I dont know myself but, like R1b, its areas of high frequency could be misleading. The main possibility other than the Yamnaya link I see is the possibility that it was located on the western boundary of the steppe, possibly even within the farming part. I have posted many times that as well as steppe influences there was a corded ware element in the movement east from around the Carpathians and Middle Dnieper through a chain of cultures (maybe a reflux, maybe not) that have been associated by Anthony with Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Iranian. There was an huge melting pot and emergence of all sort of new hybrid cultures c. 4000-3000BC on the steppe-farming world boundary. There was a massive population displacement too of the farmers on the western steppe edge (C-Trypole) and morphing into new cultures. I think there is a possibility that R1a could have been linked to that and to have headed east with Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo, Abashevo and Sintashta. I wouldnt rule out the possibility then that R1a simultaniously headed west and east from a point at the western steppe-farmer interface. This possibility will not be ruled out until R1a is shown to be significantly pre-3000BC in a true steppe culture. It is equally possible that R1a is steppic but we cannot jump to conclusions based on post-3000BC steppic presence because there was clearly a west to east thrust into the steppes too with the whole Fatyanovo, Abashevo etc groups.

lgmayka
06-17-2013, 06:51 PM
- Z280 has two major subbranches, Z92 and CTS1211, as well as some smaller clusters belonging to neither. Z92 is geographically concentrated east and southeast of the Baltic Sea (Lithuania, Belarus, and into Russia), whereas CTS1211 has a far wider spread and a bouquet of subclades and subclusters.
I forgot what is arguably the most important division:

- CTS1211 has two major subbranches, one marked by CTS3402 and the other called Old Carpathian (for which one unifying SNP has not yet been found). CTS3402 is more Eastern European, stretching all the way to the Volga, whereas Old Carpathian is more Central European.

In contrast to Klyosov's scenario, which places the "action" on the Eastern European Plain (which he imperialistically calls the Russian Plain even in English), SNPs are generally locating most of the "action" near the Carpathian Mountains of southern Poland, with secondary "action" southeast of the Baltic Sea.

newtoboard
06-17-2013, 07:12 PM
I dont know myself but, like R1b, its areas of high frequency could be misleading. The main possibility other than the Yamnaya link I see is the possibility that it was located on the western boundary of the steppe, possibly even within the farming part. I have posted many times that as well as steppe influences there was a corded ware element in the movement east from around the Carpathians and Middle Dnieper through a chain of cultures (maybe a reflux, maybe not) that have been associated by Anthony with Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Iranian. There was an huge melting pot and emergence of all sort of new hybrid cultures c. 4000-3000BC on the steppe-farming world boundary. There was a massive population displacement too of the farmers on the western steppe edge (C-Trypole) and morphing into new cultures. I think there is a possibility that R1a could have been linked to that and to have headed east with Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo, Abashevo and Sintashta. I wouldnt rule out the possibility then that R1a simultaniously headed west and east from a point at the western steppe-farmer interface. This possibility will not be ruled out until R1a is shown to be significantly pre-3000BC in a true steppe culture. It is equally possible that R1a is steppic but we cannot jump to conclusions based on post-3000BC steppic presence because there was clearly a west to east thrust into the steppes too with the whole Fatyanovo, Abashevo etc groups.


Like I said Abashevo is also intrusive from the South. Arguing about the Pontic steepe is one things but I doubt there was R1b in the Caspian steepe. If so where did it go? Andronovo would have shown R1b otherwise and Tocharians are already too far east. And they likely took a forest steepe route anyways. This is based on the assumption Tocharians carried R1b. The Indo-Iranian element of Abashevo is from the Caspian steepe. And like I said Z93+ and Z283+ and likely older than this chain of movements. Some consider Abashevo to be a cosmpolitan culture and while it had a role in Sintasha it is a role. The Poltavaka culture to the south is likely the major element of Andronovo. There isn't any evidence for R1b on the steepe ever. Yea Slavs replaced the Turks but I sincerely doubt Timber Grave was R1b derived. Going beyond that is just speculation. The Yamnaya study should have been plublished by now and we wouldn't have to speculate then. Either way the homeland of PIE is more likely the forest steepe anyways.

And like I said there is aboslutley nothing special about Indo-iranian and Balto-Slavic besides Satemization. Balto-Slavic is most likely closer to other European languages. Balto-Slavs share their R1a clades with Centum speakers not Indo-Iranians. So the idea that Andronovo is derived from Corded Ware is pretty silly. Even Jean has said that makes no sense. You even see Z283+ hits among West Asians but none among Indo-Iranians. And I think most age estimates have shown Z93+ and Z283+ to be older than those movements.

TigerMW
06-17-2013, 07:34 PM
... Balto-Slavs share their R1a clades with Centum speakers not Indo-Iranians. ....
I just want to make sure I understand which ones you are talking about. What R1a subclades are found both among Balto-Slavic and Germanic speakers but not among Indo-Iranian speakers? Perhaps you were talking about other Centum languages, if not Germanic, but please specify.

Is there a chance that the R1a subclade Centum speakers were not originally speaking a Centum dialect but instead speaking Balto-Slavic; and then converted to Germanic speaking (pre or proto) during the formation of the Germanic languages?

TigerMW
06-17-2013, 07:38 PM
... And like I said there is aboslutley nothing special about Indo-iranian and Balto-Slavic besides Satemization. Balto-Slavic is most likely closer to other European languages. ...

Are you making a linguistic statement here? In other words are you saying Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian predecessor dialects did not develop out of the area where Satemization first occurred? from a common linguistic branch?
Or, instead, are you saying Satemization occurred in parallel more than once in IE languages in contrast to with a common predecessor dialect? or something else?

lgmayka
06-17-2013, 07:58 PM
Has variance looked at the relative ages of these clades?
A reasonable attempt at SNP chronology appears at the top of this page of the R1a1a and Subclades Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?section=results). Perhaps the most important point is that much of the high-level splitting occurred quite rapidly, so that even 67-marker haplotypes are often unclassifiable, or can be classified only on the basis of one lucky marker (which then occasionally fools us!).

In the YHRD database, certain 14-marker haplotypes will pull exact matches in both Poland and Nepal. Only with the recent discovery of SNPs do we realize that such matches are coincidental (unless someone actually finds Z280 in Nepal, of course).

An extreme example is kit 265538, who turned out to be Z284+ despite his Polish ancestry and surname. If we exclude DYS448, at which he has a Null (0), he has the following exact full (16-marker) matches in YHRD:


n of N Geoposition [Population] Metapopulation Continent
1 of 587 Buenos Aires, Argentina [Admixed] Admixed Latin America
1 of 154 Central Iran, Iran [Iranian] Eurasian - Indo-Iranian Asia

alan
06-17-2013, 08:57 PM
Like I said Abashevo is also intrusive from the South. Arguing about the Pontic steepe is one things but I doubt there was R1b in the Caspian steepe. If so where did it go? Andronovo would have shown R1b otherwise and Tocharians are already too far east. And they likely took a forest steepe route anyways. This is based on the assumption Tocharians carried R1b. The Indo-Iranian element of Abashevo is from the Caspian steepe. And like I said Z93+ and Z283+ and likely older than this chain of movements. Some consider Abashevo to be a cosmpolitan culture and while it had a role in Sintasha it is a role. The Poltavaka culture to the south is likely the major element of Andronovo. There isn't any evidence for R1b on the steepe ever. Yea Slavs replaced the Turks but I sincerely doubt Timber Grave was R1b derived. Going beyond that is just speculation. The Yamnaya study should have been plublished by now and we wouldn't have to speculate then. Either way the homeland of PIE is more likely the forest steepe anyways.

And like I said there is aboslutley nothing special about Indo-iranian and Balto-Slavic besides Satemization. Balto-Slavic is most likely closer to other European languages. Balto-Slavs share their R1a clades with Centum speakers not Indo-Iranians. So the idea that Andronovo is derived from Corded Ware is pretty silly. Even Jean has said that makes no sense. You even see Z283+ hits among West Asians but none among Indo-Iranians. And I think most age estimates have shown Z93+ and Z283+ to be older than those movements.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I wasnt talking about R1b at all other than the fact that final distributions can be misleading. All the rest was about R1a.

You will see in lots of archaeological literature that there is a clear corded ware element (a predominant one) in Middle Dnieper, Fatyaonovo and Abashevo. These are certainly the cultures that many archaeologists link with Slavic and Baltic. I am not sure about the extent of Absashevo in Sintashta but Anthony and other certain note its importance. Anthony explicitely links Sintashta with the Indic branch. Anyway at least Baltic and Slavic have been linked with cultures with very strong corded links and they are very much R1a-linked. It might be a reflux after steppe R1a got into corded cultures but it might not. I have an open mind on that. However, Yamnaya per se is not really directly linked by without some other mix to any IE language branch. That is a striking thing about Anthony's book. He bigs up Yamnaya or Repin and then in his models for the eastern half of IE he does not link it directly with any language branch except tentatively through linking Afanasievo to Yamnaya (despite the fact it is older). There is a clear pattern in new evidence that Yamnaya is of far less importance than previously thought. It is even questioned now if there really was a Yamnaya migration, whether the concept of Yamnaya is even valid and also whether there is any real evidence for true mobile pastoralism as opposed to groups travelling for trade. It is also now recogised that both Maykop from the south and displaced C-Typ groups from the west migrated and formed new culturesi in the Ukraine steppes. Most of the crucial elements of Kurgan culture can now be seen to have originated in Maykop. I dont think we will recognise the old steppe model in a few years. its not dead but its radically shifting.

alan
06-17-2013, 09:29 PM
Just to make clear I also do not think the centum-saetem split should be overegged. It may be an aerial spread that later effected most eastern IE. However, there are many other things that connect languages like Slavic and Baltic together and the areas have a similar archaeological background in the period from 3200BC for some time after. However, I am not a believer in corded ware related cultures being the root of Celtic or Italic. R1a essentially appears to have lost out to R1b in most of Europe west of Poland even if it had arrived in the area shortly before R1b. Pre-Germanic likely was located into part of the area where R1a only enjoyed a short period before R1b pushed in. Other populations studies looking at the boundaries between early Slavic, Germanic and Romance/Celtic show that R1a must have been practically unknown among the Italo-Celts. Even in Austria a study shows that R1a simply died off at the Slavic-Romance boundary and that the German superstrate shared by both substrates had added no R1a to the former Romance speaking areas. Everything I have seen points to R1b having been incredibly dominant in the west with U106 following in with the earlier Germanics and R1a clades either being associated with Slavs or Vikings. I short R1a seems to have practically died out west of the Vistula (or maybe the Elbe) and south of Norway-Sweden after a short period unchallenged between the Corded Ware arrival and the beaker arrival. I think it contributed absolutely nothing to Celtic, Italic and it weathered to very little among the core Jastorf proto-Germanic tribes. However, the brief pre-beaker corded ware period in north Germany/Denmark may have contributed to the odd nature of German. It is also worth noting that German appears to have a much larger non-IE substrate than Celtic and presably Balto-Slavic. That might represent its position of Denamark and adjacent on the edges of the two R1 expansions and a greater survival of non-R groups.

Essentially I would say that the IE-isation of western Europe must have been almost entirely achieved by beaker-R1b groups as they were the dominant new lineages who seem to have held the reigns of power from 2500BC until well into the Christian era. They were also one of the only cultures so widespread that they could achieve that. I personally think R1a was only really involved in Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.

alan
06-17-2013, 09:41 PM
A reasonable attempt at SNP chronology appears at the top of this page of the R1a1a and Subclades Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?section=results). Perhaps the most important point is that much of the high-level splitting occurred quite rapidly, so that even 67-marker haplotypes are often unclassifiable, or can be classified only on the basis of one lucky marker (which then occasionally fools us!).

In the YHRD database, certain 14-marker haplotypes will pull exact matches in both Poland and Nepal. Only with the recent discovery of SNPs do we realize that such matches are coincidental (unless someone actually finds Z280 in Nepal, of course).

An extreme example is kit 265538, who turned out to be Z284+ despite his Polish ancestry and surname. If we exclude DYS448, at which he has a Null (0), he has the following exact full (16-marker) matches in YHRD:


n of N Geoposition [Population] Metapopulation Continent
1 of 587 Buenos Aires, Argentina [Admixed] Admixed Latin America
1 of 154 Central Iran, Iran [Iranian] Eurasian - Indo-Iranian Asia


That is a superb tree. Very well presented. IMO (I dont trust the very oldest rare NW/British group because of massive sample biase to that area) it generally supports a central European origin over a steppic one. That does seem compatible with a corded ware sort of origin to me and does not especially support some sort of steppes-ural origin.

TigerMW
06-17-2013, 11:53 PM
A reasonable attempt at SNP chronology appears at the top of this page of the R1a1a and Subclades Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?section=results). Perhaps the most important point is that much of the high-level splitting occurred quite rapidly...

Are there a couple of the lineages where all the Germanic types of R1a are found?

I see "northwestern" as L664 but I also see Z284 where Scandinavian lineages are listed.

Are there differences in the R1a subclades between the Scandinavian Peninsula and Germany? or the Low Countries?

lgmayka
06-18-2013, 02:59 PM
Are there differences in the R1a subclades between the Scandinavian Peninsula and Germany? or the Low Countries?
Compare the maps:

L664 map (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/138/)
Z284 map (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/250/)
M458 map (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/11/)
Z280 map (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/249/)

newtoboard
06-18-2013, 03:49 PM
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I wasnt talking about R1b at all other than the fact that final distributions can be misleading. All the rest was about R1a.

You will see in lots of archaeological literature that there is a clear corded ware element (a predominant one) in Middle Dnieper, Fatyaonovo and Abashevo. These are certainly the cultures that many archaeologists link with Slavic and Baltic. I am not sure about the extent of Absashevo in Sintashta but Anthony and other certain note its importance. Anthony explicitely links Sintashta with the Indic branch. Anyway at least Baltic and Slavic have been linked with cultures with very strong corded links and they are very much R1a-linked. It might be a reflux after steppe R1a got into corded cultures but it might not. I have an open mind on that. However, Yamnaya per se is not really directly linked by without some other mix to any IE language branch. That is a striking thing about Anthony's book. He bigs up Yamnaya or Repin and then in his models for the eastern half of IE he does not link it directly with any language branch except tentatively through linking Afanasievo to Yamnaya (despite the fact it is older). There is a clear pattern in new evidence that Yamnaya is of far less importance than previously thought. It is even questioned now if there really was a Yamnaya migration, whether the concept of Yamnaya is even valid and also whether there is any real evidence for true mobile pastoralism as opposed to groups travelling for trade. It is also now recogised that both Maykop from the south and displaced C-Typ groups from the west migrated and formed new culturesi in the Ukraine steppes. Most of the crucial elements of Kurgan culture can now be seen to have originated in Maykop. I dont think we will recognise the old steppe model in a few years. its not dead but its radically shifting.

Well Yamnaya's ultimate successor is Timber Grave. And well all know who that gave rise to and what languages they spoke. The forest steepe model is more accurate not some North Cacuasian model given the linguistic patterns. I also sincerely doubt Maykop was some sort of pure, superior R1b carrying culture. Too many y-dnas in that area for that to happen.

newtoboard
06-18-2013, 03:52 PM
Just to make clear I also do not think the centum-saetem split should be overegged. It may be an aerial spread that later effected most eastern IE. However, there are many other things that connect languages like Slavic and Baltic together and the areas have a similar archaeological background in the period from 3200BC for some time after. However, I am not a believer in corded ware related cultures being the root of Celtic or Italic. R1a essentially appears to have lost out to R1b in most of Europe west of Poland even if it had arrived in the area shortly before R1b. Pre-Germanic likely was located into part of the area where R1a only enjoyed a short period before R1b pushed in. Other populations studies looking at the boundaries between early Slavic, Germanic and Romance/Celtic show that R1a must have been practically unknown among the Italo-Celts. Even in Austria a study shows that R1a simply died off at the Slavic-Romance boundary and that the German superstrate shared by both substrates had added no R1a to the former Romance speaking areas. Everything I have seen points to R1b having been incredibly dominant in the west with U106 following in with the earlier Germanics and R1a clades either being associated with Slavs or Vikings. I short R1a seems to have practically died out west of the Vistula (or maybe the Elbe) and south of Norway-Sweden after a short period unchallenged between the Corded Ware arrival and the beaker arrival. I think it contributed absolutely nothing to Celtic, Italic and it weathered to very little among the core Jastorf proto-Germanic tribes. However, the brief pre-beaker corded ware period in north Germany/Denmark may have contributed to the odd nature of German. It is also worth noting that German appears to have a much larger non-IE substrate than Celtic and presably Balto-Slavic. That might represent its position of Denamark and adjacent on the edges of the two R1 expansions and a greater survival of non-R groups.

Essentially I would say that the IE-isation of western Europe must have been almost entirely achieved by beaker-R1b groups as they were the dominant new lineages who seem to have held the reigns of power from 2500BC until well into the Christian era. They were also one of the only cultures so widespread that they could achieve that. I personally think R1a was only really involved in Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.

And likely Thracian too. And PIE too.

Like I said farmers multiply faster.

newtoboard
06-18-2013, 03:53 PM
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I wasnt talking about R1b at all other than the fact that final distributions can be misleading. All the rest was about R1a.

You will see in lots of archaeological literature that there is a clear corded ware element (a predominant one) in Middle Dnieper, Fatyaonovo and Abashevo. These are certainly the cultures that many archaeologists link with Slavic and Baltic. I am not sure about the extent of Absashevo in Sintashta but Anthony and other certain note its importance. Anthony explicitely links Sintashta with the Indic branch. Anyway at least Baltic and Slavic have been linked with cultures with very strong corded links and they are very much R1a-linked. It might be a reflux after steppe R1a got into corded cultures but it might not. I have an open mind on that. However, Yamnaya per se is not really directly linked by without some other mix to any IE language branch. That is a striking thing about Anthony's book. He bigs up Yamnaya or Repin and then in his models for the eastern half of IE he does not link it directly with any language branch except tentatively through linking Afanasievo to Yamnaya (despite the fact it is older). There is a clear pattern in new evidence that Yamnaya is of far less importance than previously thought. It is even questioned now if there really was a Yamnaya migration, whether the concept of Yamnaya is even valid and also whether there is any real evidence for true mobile pastoralism as opposed to groups travelling for trade. It is also now recogised that both Maykop from the south and displaced C-Typ groups from the west migrated and formed new culturesi in the Ukraine steppes. Most of the crucial elements of Kurgan culture can now be seen to have originated in Maykop. I dont think we will recognise the old steppe model in a few years. its not dead but its radically shifting.

I serously doubt Abashevo was Indic speaking. If so where did it split from the other 2 branches? Maybe in Poltavka which is seen as Iranian speaking.

TigerMW
06-19-2013, 12:40 AM
... I also sincerely doubt Maykop was some sort of pure, superior R1b carrying culture. Too many y-dnas in that area for that to happen.

I hope you don't think that anyone is saying some culture in SW or Central Asia or Eastern Europe was pure R1b. I don't know of anyone who is advocating the Maykops were all R1b or all anything as far as that goes.

Th only place I see a possibility of some pure R1b anything is Proto-Celtic cultures but we already know Bell Beakers had other Y DNA besides R1b so I don't think there is any real consideration of even that.

One thing I haven't heard on this thread is any strong feeling about where R1a originated. At least in very general terms is there a strong case it is from, say, East/Central Europe or Central Asia or South Central Asia or Southeastern Europe?

TigerMW
06-19-2013, 12:42 AM
... I also sincerely doubt Maykop was some sort of pure, superior R1b carrying culture. Too many y-dnas in that area for that to happen.

I hope you don't think that anyone is saying some culture in SW or Central Asia or Eastern Europe was pure R1b. I don't know of anyone who is advocating the Maykops were all R1b or all anything as far as that goes.

Th only place I see a possibility of some pure R1b anything is Proto-Celtic cultures but we already know Bell Beakers had other Y DNA besides R1b so I don't think there is any real consideration of even that.

One thing I haven't heard on this thread is any strong feeling about where R1a originated. At least in very general terms is there a strong case it is from, say, East/Central Europe or Central Asia or South Central Asia or Southeastern Europe?


That is a superb tree. Very well presented. IMO (I dont trust the very oldest rare NW/British group because of massive sample biase to that area) it generally supports a central European origin over a steppic one. That does seem compatible with a corded ware sort of origin to me and does not especially support some sort of steppes-ural origin.

I guess Alan would vote for Central European origin.

alan
06-19-2013, 12:29 PM
Well Yamnaya's ultimate successor is Timber Grave. And well all know who that gave rise to and what languages they spoke. The forest steepe model is more accurate not some North Cacuasian model given the linguistic patterns. I also sincerely doubt Maykop was some sort of pure, superior R1b carrying culture. Too many y-dnas in that area for that to happen.



That is not what I am saying. One thing I think is very important and is badly overlooked in a lot of these discussions is that before 3500BC the western steppe and forrest steppe was covered in a myriad of local groups spread over vast area not much different from the length of the remainder of Europe. There is no chance that these groups (many of whom were probably descended from people who had been there since the Palaeolithic) spoke anything remotely resembling similar languages. Its clear that a single dialect dated to c. 4000BC or so was a linguistic adstrate of copper age date almost everywhere it is found, apparently giving a common language to what must have been an incredibly complex mix of languages before it. To unite all of these steppe and non-steppe groups with one dialect either requires the mother of all displacements or (much more likely) it was an elite networking language that united a very mixed bag of peoples rather like Latin. The first network in the steppe area was the Maykop derived CMP one. This is the group that not only brought the CMP copper network to the steppes but was the originator in that zone of Kurgans, steep hierachical society and probably wheels=mobility etc.

Regardless of language Maykop was the originator of the societal aspects that people identify as Kurgan culture which many link to PIEs. It is possible that PIE language was donated by steppes peoples while the PIE 'Kurgan' society was created by Maykop. However, it is also possible that the CMP network, the only thing that linked all these diverse peoples across the western steppe and SE Europe, could have also given a common language.

Yamnaya has been relegated to a reciever of much of what made Kurgan society by recent findings and the role of Maykop is looking huge. Dont get me wrong, I think there is every chance that Yamnaya was local, R1a and simply highly influenced by Maykop. However, Yamnaya is looking more and more like a secondary culture inspired by Maykop. Even the concept of Yamnaya mobile pastoralism and migration has been put into question. The alternative that the mobile element and use of wheels was essentially the trade element rather than a long distance mobile pastoralist one has been raised due to the latter being an assumption lacking any evidence. The real importance of the wheel may have been the way it allowed the CMP network to penetrate the entire western steppe. That transformed society.

Yamnaya may well be R1a (the corded ware-middle Dnieper-Fatyanovo-Abashevo idea is just an alternative possibility that needs tested by finding pre-3200BC R1a in the steppes) but they were not the originators of most of the Kurgan culture or the CMP network. That has to raise questions. I think it is no coincidence that Yamnaya rose close to the Ural-Volga shortly after Maykop influences and CMP metallurgy (including mining at Kargaly) reached the area. Yamnaya and its Kurgans could largely be a result of its role in this trade network, having aquired the wheels that allowed long distance trading of this type. The actual initial metallurgical knowledge, mining etc was certainly intrusive from Maykop (metallugical specialists have stated that emulation cannot explain this) and that had reached the Urals by c. 3500BC at Kargaly. Yamnaya culture took off shortly after this in the same area.

Yamnaya I think is an element of all of this but not the root or the common denomenator. Its also to late in date to comfortably explain the spread of early offshoot groups west (and linguists dont just base this on centum-satem which I except could be a later aerial spread). Linguistically I have an open mind on PIE. I think the language and society likely arose at the Maykop-steppe interaction zone initially because they were the driving force of the Kurgan culture in its early phases. Certainly the early/central role of Yamnaya in the Kurgan culture has been badly weakened by recent data. It was part of the story but it was not the earliest part nor the whole story.

Always remember too that the people we find in the Kurgans may belong to a few extended high status lineages and may not be representative of society. This applies to non-Kurgan Europe too. Look at the first beaker burial coming up as R1b (and most likely L11* or P312*) in 2600BC. That lineage probably had only come into existence shortly before and at the time of that burial they must have been the tinyest percentage of the population imaginable.

Whatever the various roles of the steppe hunter-farmers and the Maykop peoples in the linguistic side of things, there is now solid archaeological data that the SOCIETY that we think of as Kurgan-PIE had huge Maykop input and influence. So, even if it was excepted that PIE language was created on the Ural-Volga, Maykop was a major influence on the creation of PIE society. Before its appearance and influence much of what we think of as PIE-Kurgan society did not exist. So the PIEs society and languages could have had contrasting roots and required a hybrid.

alan
06-19-2013, 12:37 PM
And likely Thracian too. And PIE too.

Like I said farmers multiply faster.

The farmer bit does not apply outside the steppes in the Corded Ware world where there was R1a. It has also been recently questioned that Yamnaya were in general (other than perhaps trading) really mobile pastoralists. The new evidence from their rare settlements doesnt support this. A lot of what looks like mobile pastoralism may simply be wealthy Yamnaya elements involved in trade on wheels bringing a small herd with them for subsistence. It could be the real reason for all the wagon type symbolism.

alan
06-19-2013, 01:02 PM
I hope you don't think that anyone is saying some culture in SW or Central Asia or Eastern Europe was pure R1b. I don't know of anyone who is advocating the Maykops were all R1b or all anything as far as that goes.

Th only place I see a possibility of some pure R1b anything is Proto-Celtic cultures but we already know Bell Beakers had other Y DNA besides R1b so I don't think there is any real consideration of even that.

One thing I haven't heard on this thread is any strong feeling about where R1a originated. At least in very general terms is there a strong case it is from, say, East/Central Europe or Central Asia or South Central Asia or Southeastern Europe?

Mike that is correct and we do indeed need to get back on topic i.e. does the DNA evidence support a deep-time position of R1a on the Volga-Ural zone before 3300BC? I have no opinion on this. I have raised the Corded-Middle Dnieper-Fatyanovo-Abashevo alterative only because it has been used by Anthony to explain at least Slavic and Baltic (and maybe Indo-Iranian-I accept there are issue with this) which are very R1a linked. That is Antony's model, not mine. Anthony actually emphasis the steppe aspect in them but if you look up anything about those cultures they also have a strong corded ware root. The question is whether it was the corded ware aspect or the steppe element in those cultures which linked R1a to those suggested culture-language correlations. I dont know and nobody does at present as we do not have old enough R1a. I am partly just being devils advocate on this but there were lots of steppe-farmer interface cultures around the east Carpathians and western steppe edge that had massive populations and who broke up and formed new cultures in the likely PIE period. Corded Ware is one of these, as is Globular Amphorae and all sorts of cultures that emerged in this period of massive change on the western steppe edge. Elements of C-Tryp, corded ware and Maykop are all now known to have expanded east.

People try to simplify the steppe story far too much. There were native hunters and probably several minor intrusions of farmers from early in the Neolithic including pre-pottery Anatolians, Cardial (recently identified) not to mention all the well known western steppe edge farming groups. Who were the distinctive Bug-Dniester group that the Cuc-Tryp farmers overrun? We have no idea of their haplotypes. I have already discussed the other intrusive elements post-3500BC from the Caucasus and the farmers to the west. It was a real jumble of influences and inputs. The use of massive umbrella terms that created the illusion of some sort of uniformity on the steppes has been heavily criticised/ Recently I was reading about cultures at the east end of the Black Sea that looked like strange hybrids of C-Tryp and Maykop groups out of their core range. forming new cultures. There is an illusion of some sort of uniformity in this area or some sort of pure R1a zone. Its practically impossible that this was the case. Look at the incredible mix of clades that the Tatars absorbed when they spread through the western steppes. They were clearly not exterminators but liked to integrate peoples in their path. This seems true of most of the Asiatic originated steppe peoples. Regardless of who was buried in Kurgans it seems that the population of the western steppes would have once been extremely mixed. There is room for all sorts of groups in the vast expanse of the Neolithic and copper age western steppes and the farming fringes on its western and southern borders including R1a and R1b.

IF R1a had been extremely dominant in the pre-Yamnaya western steppe people back to the year dot in hunting-gathering times then we would expect incredibly old branching within the zone. To me (and this is true of R1b too) R1a looks like elite lineage expansions rather than representing large chunks of a population in a broad area for a very deep depth of time. If it had been the latter you would see a myriad of very deep branching in the same locality. I think both R1a and R1b were elite lineage expansions and do not tell us much about the rest of the population who were not descended from those individuals who founded most of the modern R1a and R1b clades in the copper age.

I mean look at that R1a table. The vast majority (other than a small NW European group who I suspect are only placed there due to sampling bias) originate from one guy livin not much before 3000BC. R1b-P297 has a similar story of course although perhaps slighly earlier if we take L23 as the first real expansion. That actually fits very well the idea that some sort of R1b Maykop lineage (not population) expanded around 3500BC and was followed by a very successful R1a lineage c. 3000BC. The similarity is striking. I think the often seen need to contrast R1a and R1b as much as possible is not supported by the evidence. Both may have started out fairly close to each other (North Caucasus-steppe interface and western steppes respectively) and expanded primarily as a powerful lineage rather than a massive population movement. This happened at the same kind of timeframe and at a time when archaeology sees the main population change being a shift at the western steppe-farming boundary c. 4000-3000BC (and no movements from SW Asia). It stands to reason that they were part of the same broad changes that started c. 4000BC. There is no need to seek major contrasts between the two.

alan
06-19-2013, 01:50 PM
I cant say enough just how good that tree if for those who want to dabble in R1a and need to learn quickly. Whoever made that should be proud. I can work with R1b without a tree as I have focussed on it for years but that is superb for non-experts to look at R1a. Its still going to be hard to interpret but I think it is a very good demonstration of a rather R1b-like story. The terrible twins! The fact R1a may have undergone its first significant expansions slighly later than R1a but in an overlapping area could go a long way to explain R1b's slighly weird lack of a truly convincing wave pattern and its patchyness. The R1a tree also implies, that in 3000BC or so they could not have been more than a century or so into their growth period. its a sobering thought that in 3000BC just one 'mr big' was reponsible for so much. We no longer can say pretty well anything about R1a in eastern/central Europe other than that mr big was in charge somewhere. We dont know anything at all about who he lived among. Same deal as with Mr M269/L23. We have no idea about the population he lived in. When it boils down to so much being down to a couple of copper age individuals it demonstrates just how hard it would be to pinpoint their origins.

TigerMW
06-19-2013, 07:59 PM
I cant say enough just how good that tree if for those who want to dabble in R1a and need to learn quickly. Whoever made that should be proud...

I absolutely agree. I've looked at that and thought about how to create such a thing for R1b but I'm not smart enough. I think someone like Rocca would have to take that on.

Michał
06-19-2013, 08:20 PM
I cant say enough just how good that tree if for those who want to dabble in R1a and need to learn quickly. Whoever made that should be proud.
This tree has been constructed by Łukasz Łapiński who started the R1a1a and Subclades project and is a main admin there.

Michał
06-19-2013, 08:49 PM
IF R1a had been extremely dominant in the pre-Yamnaya western steppe people back to the year dot in hunting-gathering times then we would expect incredibly old branching within the zone. To me (and this is true of R1b too) R1a looks like elite lineage expansions rather than representing large chunks of a population in a broad area for a very deep depth of time. If it had been the latter you would see a myriad of very deep branching in the same locality.
The main problem here is that there is actually no Y-DNA haplogroup in Eastern Europe that would meet your above requirement. So it seems that R1a and R1b are at least not worse than any other option, while in some respects they are much better candidates than any other haplogroup.



(other than a small NW European group who I suspect are only placed there due to sampling bias)
I think you are making a major mistake here. It is well documented that the North-Western branch L664 (DYS88=10) is indeed nearly absent in other parts of Europe. I have once estimated its frequency in North-Western Europe to reach maximally 1.5-3%, but Martin Voorwinden, a co-admin of our L664 section, suspects that it is only 0.2-0.8%. L664 is present in all countries located around the North Sea, including England, Belgium, Netherlands, Northern Germany, Denmark and Norway. Notably, it is relatively frequent in Cornwall and Ireland but very rare in Wales and Scotland (and practically absent in Iceland). All this suggests that the most recent common ancestor of all L664 members could have lived somewhere on the North Sea coast. I would suggest Frisia as the most likely center of expansion, which is consistent with some data suggesting that the DYS338=10 frequency there may reach 3% (though the sample was relatively small). In addition to some peaceful expansion along the maritime trading ways, the two major waves of L664 migrations were likely associated with the Anglo-Saxon invasion (known for the significant Frisian contribution to this process) and the more recent Norman conquest of Britain that was directed towards England, Cornwall and Ireland, but not towards Wales or Scotland. If I remember correctly, England, Netherlands and Germany are the only countries where all four major subclusters of L664 (A, B, C and D) seem to be present.

TigerMW
06-19-2013, 09:26 PM
... It is well documented that the North-Western branch L664 (DYS88=10) is indeed nearly absent in other parts of Europe. I have once estimated its frequency in North-Western Europe to reach maximally 1.5-3%, but Martin Voorwinden, a co-admin of our L664 section, suspects that it is only 0.2-0.8%. L664 is present in all countries located around the North Sea, including England, Belgium, Netherlands, Northern Germany, Denmark and Norway. Notably, it is relatively frequent in Cornwall and Ireland but very rare in Wales and Scotland (and practically absent in Iceland). All this suggests that the most recent common ancestor of all L664 members could have lived somewhere on the North Sea coast. I would suggest Frisia as the most likely center of expansion, which is consistent with some data suggesting that the DYS338=10 frequency there may reach 3% (though the sample was relatively small). In addition to some peaceful expansion along the maritime trading ways, the two major waves of L664 migrations were likely associated with the Anglo-Saxon invasion (known for the significant Frisian contribution to this process) and the more recent Norman conquest of Britain that was directed towards England, Cornwall and Ireland, but not towards Wales or Scotland. If I remember correctly, England, Netherlands and Germany are the only countries where all four major subclusters of L664 (A, B, C and D) seem to present.

L664 is quite interesting. What are the TMRCA estimates for it?

Michał
06-19-2013, 10:10 PM
L664 is quite interesting. What are the TMRCA estimates for it?
Rozhanskii and Klyosov suggest about 4500 ybp and this seems to be consistent with some other calculations I have seen.

alan
06-19-2013, 10:58 PM
The main problem here is that there is actually no Y-DNA haplogroup in Eastern Europe that would meet your above requirement. So it seems that R1a and R1b are at least not worse than any other option, while in some respects they are much better candidates than any other haplogroup.


I think you are making a major mistake here. It is well documented that the North-Western branch L664 (DYS88=10) is indeed nearly absent in other parts of Europe. I have once estimated its frequency in North-Western Europe to reach maximally 1.5-3%, but Martin Voorwinden, a co-admin of our L664 section, suspects that it is only 0.2-0.8%. L664 is present in all countries located around the North Sea, including England, Belgium, Netherlands, Northern Germany, Denmark and Norway. Notably, it is relatively frequent in Cornwall and Ireland but very rare in Wales and Scotland (and practically absent in Iceland). All this suggests that the most recent common ancestor of all L664 members could have lived somewhere on the North Sea coast. I would suggest Frisia as the most likely center of expansion, which is consistent with some data suggesting that the DYS338=10 frequency there may reach 3% (though the sample was relatively small). In addition to some peaceful expansion along the maritime trading ways, the two major waves of L664 migrations were likely associated with the Anglo-Saxon invasion (known for the significant Frisian contribution to this process) and the more recent Norman conquest of Britain that was directed towards England, Cornwall and Ireland, but not towards Wales or Scotland. If I remember correctly, England, Netherlands and Germany are the only countries where all four major subclusters of L664 (A, B, C and D) seem to be present.


Fair enough. Looking at it, its a very early split but with a coalecense much later around 2500BC which indeed leaves a lot of possibilities. Seems to me like it could have arrived with corded ware and then later been driven further west in historic times. I think that is in line with what you are suggesting. Seems reasonable to me. I am only dipping a toe in the R1a subject and was a bit too hasty to point to the isles bias.

TigerMW
06-20-2013, 01:21 AM
Thank you for the estimate for R1a-L664.

Rozhanskii and Klyosov suggest about 4500 ybp and this seems to be consistent with some other calculations I have seen.


... It is well documented that the North-Western branch L664 (DYS88=10) is indeed nearly absent in other parts of Europe. I have once estimated its frequency in North-Western Europe to reach maximally 1.5-3%, but Martin Voorwinden, a co-admin of our L664 section, suspects that it is only 0.2-0.8%. L664 is present in all countries located around the North Sea, including England, Belgium, Netherlands, Northern Germany, Denmark and Norway. Notably, it is relatively frequent in Cornwall and Ireland but very rare in Wales and Scotland (and practically absent in Iceland). All this suggests that the most recent common ancestor of all L664 members could have lived somewhere on the North Sea coast. I would suggest Frisia as the most likely center of expansion, which is consistent with some data suggesting that the DYS338=10 frequency there may reach 3% ...

As others will tell you, I'm pretty consistently against using frequency as an origin indicator. That's slightly off topic, though.

Just looking at this information calling it the mysterious haplogroup XYZ, I would almost guess R1a-L664 was some kind of Rhenish Bell Beaker component. Of course the lack of showing in Wales/Scotland would lead me to think it being a little more of a latecomer.

What's the showing for L664 in Ireland? and Cornwall?

How do we know L664 has a NW Europe origin?

Has any scientific study surveyed L664 across Europe?

alan
06-20-2013, 10:09 AM
The main problem here is that there is actually no Y-DNA haplogroup in Eastern Europe that would meet your above requirement. So it seems that R1a and R1b are at least not worse than any other option, while in some respects they are much better candidates than any other haplogroup..

Are you sure that is correct? The difference seems to me that while virtually all R1a and R1b split from a common ancestor node around 4000BC or so that wouldnt be true for haplogroups like I, G etc which on a Euroasian wide scale have much older interclades/branching nodes. I realise most local groups coalesce in a much later period but that is not the same thing as the depth of interclade/common node between them across Eurasia. That is much much deeper for I, G etc. I think that is a huge distinction that sets the vast majority of R1a and R1b apart from the rest. They clearly have a presence that only really became of any significance late by prehistoric standards in the late Neolithic/copper age.

alan
06-20-2013, 10:21 AM
Thank you for the estimate for R1a-L664.




As others will tell you, I'm pretty consistently against using frequency as an origin indicator. That's slightly off topic, though.

Just looking at this information calling it the mysterious haplogroup XYZ, I would almost guess R1a-L664 was some kind of Rhenish Bell Beaker component. Of course the lack of showing in Wales/Scotland would lead me to it being a little more of a latecomer.

What's the showing for L664 in Ireland? and Cornwall?

How do we know L664 has a NW Europe origin?

Has any scientific study surveyed L664 across Europe?


I think the problem with this one is its branching is much deeper than its coalescence. That leaves its pre-coalescence history in the dark. Coalescence only gives the minimum age and that could simply represent the survivors before it was further distributed around Europe at a different period. I think all we can say is that somewhere back in 2500BC there was basically one important guy who was part of a lineage which has existed somewhere for a couple of millenia before that. I would say the most likely scenario is an arrival in Corded Ware times in somewhere like Holland. There are some beaker burials in eastern Britain that are very close to corded ware/single grave in nature. It would almost be surprising if no R1a mixed into the beaker population at all although it does look like a very rare event in western Europe and like I said this is just one guy c. 2500BC. The fact his descendants are scatter widely across NW Europe may be a multi-period thing though and that may have happened later if his descendants were swept up among the Germanic heading west.

TigerMW
06-20-2013, 10:27 AM
I think the problem with this one is its branching is much deeper than its coalescence. That leaves its pre-coalescence history in the dark. Coalescence only gives the minimum age and that could simply represent the survivors before it was further distributed around Europe at a different period. I think all we can say is that somewhere back in 2500BC there was basically one important guy who was part of a lineage which has existed somewhere for a couple of millenia before that. I would say the most likely scenario is an arrival in Corded Ware times in somewhere like Holland. There are some beaker burials in eastern Britain that are very close to corded ware/single grave in nature. It would almost be surprising if no R1a mixed into the beaker population at all although it does look like a very rare event in western Europe and like I said this is just one guy c. 2500BC. The fact his descendants are scatter widely across NW Europe may be a multi-period thing though and that may have happened later if his descendants were swept up among the Germanic heading west.

Yes, after a second look, R1a-L664 could have been involved in the southern input into the formation of the Germanic tribes.

Webb
06-20-2013, 11:32 AM
Thank you for the estimate for R1a-L664.




As others will tell you, I'm pretty consistently against using frequency as an origin indicator. That's slightly off topic, though.

Just looking at this information calling it the mysterious haplogroup XYZ, I would almost guess R1a-L664 was some kind of Rhenish Bell Beaker component. Of course the lack of showing in Wales/Scotland would lead me to think it being a little more of a latecomer.

What's the showing for L664 in Ireland? and Cornwall?

How do we know L664 has a NW Europe origin?

Has any scientific study surveyed L664 across Europe?

Could this possibly be linked with the Flemish?

TigerMW
06-20-2013, 02:04 PM
Could this possibly be linked with the Flemish?

Alan would like to look at the surnames of R1a-L664 people in Ireland. That might be telling.

Strangely, the R1a haplogroup project doesn't have the Y DNA SNP report screen turned on so I'll have to download the haplotypes and check for 388=10, a proxy for L664.

Michał
06-20-2013, 03:40 PM
What's the showing for L664 in Ireland? and Cornwall?

See the map created by Igor Rozhanskii (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ptab=2&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=114781513110833464918.000468aaa7efd36208449&ll=55.083445,6.049043&spn=15.448633,34.158632&source=embed) (please note some L664 groupings in Cornwall and Ireland, even though these regions have relatively low population density when compared, for example, to England or Rheinland in Germany). As for the exact frequencies, it is not easy to provide such numbers with a reasonable accuracy, as L664 is generally very rare, so one would need to test some huge samples for each subregion of Britain (or Germany) in order to establish some reliable frequencies that would take into account some significant regional differences. I have once tried to assess the L664 frequencies by calculating the numbers of known DYS388=10 cases in Martin’s FTDNA-based L664 collection per total number of people from a given country who have tested at least 12 STR markers at FTDNA, and this suggested that the highest frequency of DYS388=10 is in Norway (1.7%), followed by England (1.0%), Denmark (1.0%), Sweden (0.81%), Ireland (0.61%), Netherlands (0.53%), Germany (0.44%, per whole country of course) and Scotland (0.18%).



How do we know L664 has a NW Europe origin?

It depends on what you mean by origin. Based on the current distribution of all potential sub-branches, we can be nearly certain that L664 expanded from a place located somewhere on the North Sea coast. But if you mean the moment when the L664 (or pre-L664) lineage first arose (as a sister clade of Z645), it could have been nearly everywhere between Atlantic and Ural. Personally, I consider Eastern Europe as the most likely option, although I don’t have enough data to support it (and I know many people who are strongly convinced that Western or Central Europe are much more likely options).



Has any scientific study surveyed L664 across Europe?
Despite its low frequency, L664 is relatively easy to study because it can be easily recognized based on just few STR markers that are routinely included into most STR-based studies. More specifically, the very characteristic DYS388=10 result in the 1-12 FTDNA panel makes it possible to very reliably recognize L664 based on just first 12 STR markers tested. Therefore, each STR-based study that examines a relatively large sample representing a European or non-European population should be able to detect R1a-L664 even if no SNPs are tested. Based on this, we can quite securely assume that L664 is practically absent in most regions except North-Western Europe. Also, some large FTDNA regional projects are important sources of data that can be used for estimating the frequency of L664 in such regions.

Michał
06-20-2013, 03:44 PM
the R1a haplogroup project doesn't have the Y DNA SNP report screen turned on
This was one of the many reasons why Łukasz Łapiński started a completely new R1a project nearly two years ago.

Jean M
06-20-2013, 03:55 PM
This was one of the many reasons why Łukasz Łapiński started a completely new R1a project nearly two years ago.

Which has been a huge success.

TigerMW
06-20-2013, 04:01 PM
This was one of the many reasons why Łukasz Łapiński started a completely new R1a project nearly two years ago.

Okay, got it. The newer project URL is
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/

Michał
06-20-2013, 04:35 PM
Are you sure that is correct? The difference seems to me that while virtually all R1a and R1b split from a common ancestor node around 4000BC or so that wouldnt be true for haplogroups like I, G etc which on a Euroasian wide scale have much older interclades/branching nodes. I realise most local groups coalesce in a much later period but that is not the same thing as the depth of interclade/common node between them across Eurasia. That is much much deeper for I, G etc. I think that is a huge distinction that sets the vast majority of R1a and R1b apart from the rest.
Firstly, it seems to be not fair to compare R1a or R1b with haplogroups I, G, etc., as it would be much more appropriate to compare I and G with the entire haplogroup R, or even P for that matter.

Secondly, I was only referring to your presumption that R1a or R1b show not enough deep branching to make them likely candidates for haplogroups associated with some Eastern European pre-Yamna cultures, so it has nothing to do with some very deep branching shown by other haplogroups that are not significantly present in Eastern Europe or include no sub-branches that would show some specific (and “deep”) association with Eastern Europe.

Michał
06-20-2013, 04:39 PM
Which has been a huge success.
Thank you Jean (in the name of the entire admin team). :)

Dubhthach
06-20-2013, 07:52 PM
From looking at the google maps link most of the names associated with samples in Ireland are non-native. Prendergast been a good example of a cambro-norman surname in Ireland.

alan
06-20-2013, 09:59 PM
Firstly, it seems to be not fair to compare R1a or R1b with haplogroups I, G, etc., as it would be much more appropriate to compare I and G with the entire haplogroup R, or even P for that matter.

Secondly, I was only referring to your presumption that R1a or R1b show not enough deep branching to make them likely candidates for haplogroups associated with some Eastern European pre-Yamna cultures, so it has nothing to do with some very deep branching shown by other haplogroups that are not significantly present in Eastern Europe or include no sub-branches that would show some specific (and “deep”) association with Eastern Europe.

I have an open mind about the Yamnaya and/or corded models for the first phase of R1a expansion. It just seems difficult to make a call on. There are just so many cultures in eastern Europe that have never had any ancient DNA testing to make a call and the current ancient DNA isnt old enough to through real light on this. I would love to see ancient DNA from both steppe and farming groups in east-central and eastern Europe in the 5000-3500BC range to get a handle on all of this. There were just so many cultures that are untested.

I really appreciate your very informed and considered input on this site and I hope you become a regular here.

alan
06-20-2013, 10:01 PM
From looking at the google maps link most of the names associated with samples in Ireland are non-native. Prendergast been a good example of a cambro-norman surname in Ireland.

I wondered about that.

alan
06-21-2013, 05:15 PM
The tree seems to imply a phase of very intensive branching phase starting around 3000BC or thereabouts. Coalescence seems earliest c. 2500BC in the west but as Newtoboard pointed out (and I think I didnt quite understand what he meant at the time - I thought he was implying an R1a-R1b contrast) coalescence would likely tend to be early when a clade entered a farming area while in steppe sort of societies we tend to see deep branching but relatively recent coalescence. You see that with R1b too on the steppes whereby an ancient 7000 year old branch like M73 only survives as scattered groups in Asia often with a relatively recent shared ancestor but with a huge inter-group distance back to common ancestor. It is sinteresting how R1a is similar to R1b in that it is not represented in pre-copper age ancient DNA as yet and first appears in the ancient DNA record around the time when intense branching and subclade coalescence indicated in the tree has commenced. Interestingly (to me anyway!) is that period of very intense branching c. 3000 the beginning of coalescences in the west c. 2500BC. R1b-P297 also commences a period of rapid branching is a similar sort of timefrrame. The first deep branch clades are M73* and M269* somewhat earlier c. 4000BC but from modern traces of M269* anyway it does look like there was much impact as early as that. It seems to me that the branching in earnest began with L23 dividing then one line seeing the L23-L51-L11-P312-L27/U152/L21-early subclades of those like L2 and so on branching which probably fills the period 3500-2400BC. You could then also nuance that by saying that the impact was much more massive from L11 downwards which seems to me to most likely date to between 3000 and 2600BC. So there is a similarity with R1a in its expansion period and patterns although not identical. Just how similar is hard to be certain as the dates are still debated but certainly a broad similarity.

They behave similarly despite partly contrasting geographies. I think they were two strands of the same broad phenomenon. I certainly think the final contrast in frequencies to geography should not detract from the strong similarities in their earlier patterns. I think it seems very likely that the movement of both clades westward across Europe is in both cases related to the turmoil in the steppes and adjacent farming areas a little to the west. In that period the zone from the Volga to the Lower Danube saw a complex blending of Old European farmers, steppe peoples, Maykop etc in a general reshuffle and displacement of the time. I dont think we can go further than that with the present lack of ancient DNA evidence for the multitude of cultures in the pre-3000BC era.

TigerMW
06-21-2013, 06:24 PM
.. Newtoboard pointed out ... coalescence would likely tend to be early when a clade entered a farming area while in steppe sort of societies we tend to see deep branching but relatively recent coalescence. ...

You lost me on this. By deep branching I think you mean early branching but I'm not sure I understand unless you are saying the branching was ancient but individually, the branches are young.

alan
06-21-2013, 06:33 PM
You lost me on this. By deep branching I think you mean early branching but I'm not sure I understand unless you are saying the branching was ancient but the individually, the branches are young.

Sorry I just meant that there is a big gap between ancient branching or interclade and recent coalescence. The coalescence dots on the lines are often much younger than the branch a lineage is on. I notice that on the branches on the left of the tree the coalescence tends to be somewhat older. In some other areas, despite the lines being on a line from an old branching the memebers f the line coalesce much more recently. I think its important to consider age of the beginning of the line and the age of coalescence of the people on that line. It does mean things are a bit on the dark in between but I do think that where a lineage has landed into an area it can multiply this will show in an earlier coalescence 'dot'. I thought it was interesting that the lineages that landed in north-west Europe seem to have older coalescense dates for the people on that line. I suspect this is simply a case that a lineage may have barely survived until it hit favourable ground. It is the latter that perhaps is the dictator of the coalescence date of survivors of that line today.

newtoboard
06-21-2013, 07:56 PM
Mike that is correct and we do indeed need to get back on topic i.e. does the DNA evidence support a deep-time position of R1a on the Volga-Ural zone before 3300BC? I have no opinion on this. I have raised the Corded-Middle Dnieper-Fatyanovo-Abashevo alterative only because it has been used by Anthony to explain at least Slavic and Baltic (and maybe Indo-Iranian-I accept there are issue with this) which are very R1a linked. That is Antony's model, not mine. Anthony actually emphasis the steppe aspect in them but if you look up anything about those cultures they also have a strong corded ware root. The question is whether it was the corded ware aspect or the steppe element in those cultures which linked R1a to those suggested culture-language correlations. I dont know and nobody does at present as we do not have old enough R1a. I am partly just being devils advocate on this but there were lots of steppe-farmer interface cultures around the east Carpathians and western steppe edge that had massive populations and who broke up and formed new cultures in the likely PIE period. Corded Ware is one of these, as is Globular Amphorae and all sorts of cultures that emerged in this period of massive change on the western steppe edge. Elements of C-Tryp, corded ware and Maykop are all now known to have expanded east.

People try to simplify the steppe story far too much. There were native hunters and probably several minor intrusions of farmers from early in the Neolithic including pre-pottery Anatolians, Cardial (recently identified) not to mention all the well known western steppe edge farming groups. Who were the distinctive Bug-Dniester group that the Cuc-Tryp farmers overrun? We have no idea of their haplotypes. I have already discussed the other intrusive elements post-3500BC from the Caucasus and the farmers to the west. It was a real jumble of influences and inputs. The use of massive umbrella terms that created the illusion of some sort of uniformity on the steppes has been heavily criticised/ Recently I was reading about cultures at the east end of the Black Sea that looked like strange hybrids of C-Tryp and Maykop groups out of their core range. forming new cultures. There is an illusion of some sort of uniformity in this area or some sort of pure R1a zone. Its practically impossible that this was the case. Look at the incredible mix of clades that the Tatars absorbed when they spread through the western steppes. They were clearly not exterminators but liked to integrate peoples in their path. This seems true of most of the Asiatic originated steppe peoples. Regardless of who was buried in Kurgans it seems that the population of the western steppes would have once been extremely mixed. There is room for all sorts of groups in the vast expanse of the Neolithic and copper age western steppes and the farming fringes on its western and southern borders including R1a and R1b.

IF R1a had been extremely dominant in the pre-Yamnaya western steppe people back to the year dot in hunting-gathering times then we would expect incredibly old branching within the zone. To me (and this is true of R1b too) R1a looks like elite lineage expansions rather than representing large chunks of a population in a broad area for a very deep depth of time. If it had been the latter you would see a myriad of very deep branching in the same locality. I think both R1a and R1b were elite lineage expansions and do not tell us much about the rest of the population who were not descended from those individuals who founded most of the modern R1a and R1b clades in the copper age.

I mean look at that R1a table. The vast majority (other than a small NW European group who I suspect are only placed there due to sampling bias) originate from one guy livin not much before 3000BC. R1b-P297 has a similar story of course although perhaps slighly earlier if we take L23 as the first real expansion. That actually fits very well the idea that some sort of R1b Maykop lineage (not population) expanded around 3500BC and was followed by a very successful R1a lineage c. 3000BC. The similarity is striking. I think the often seen need to contrast R1a and R1b as much as possible is not supported by the evidence. Both may have started out fairly close to each other (North Caucasus-steppe interface and western steppes respectively) and expanded primarily as a powerful lineage rather than a massive population movement. This happened at the same kind of timeframe and at a time when archaeology sees the main population change being a shift at the western steppe-farming boundary c. 4000-3000BC (and no movements from SW Asia). It stands to reason that they were part of the same broad changes that started c. 4000BC. There is no need to seek major contrasts between the two.


The issue with that will likely be clear when more Corded Ware samples get tested. Either way Y-DNA I has been found in Corded Ware and in time I bet Z283+ will be as well. So forgive me but I don't think these people move east and magically lose all their Z283+ and I Y-DNA and become Z93+ carriers.

TigerMW
06-21-2013, 09:36 PM
The issue with that will likely be clear when more Corded Ware samples get tested. Either way Y-DNA I has been found in Corded Ware and in time I bet Z283+ will be as well. So forgive me but I don't think these people move east and magically lose all their Z283+ and I Y-DNA and become Z93+ carriers.

I think you are talking about haplogroup I rather than referring to yourself. How is that pertinent to R1a's origination. Are you talking about any specific subclades of hg I and do you think they are highly correlated with Z93?

Perhaps you are saying Z283 could NOT have moved west to east because if they would, some hg I would have moved with them... Is that it?

Where do you think Z283 came from and when? Where do you think Z93 came from and when? Where was their common ancestor?

newtoboard
06-21-2013, 09:44 PM
I think you are talking about haplogroup I. How is that pertinent to R1a's origination. Are you talking about any specific subclades of hg I and do you think they are highly correlated with Z293?

Perhaps you are saying Z93 could NOT have moved west to east because if they would, some hg I would have moved with them... Is that it?

Not too sure about exact clades but it does look like Y-DNA I2a pretty much expanded alongside R1a-M458+ much in the same way J2a expanded alongside R1a-Z93+. I do recall reading about high levels of ydna I1 diversity in the eastern part of Corded Ware. So maybe Y-DNA I1 might have expanded alongside Y-DNA R1a-Z284+?

And that was my point, that Z93+ could not have moved West to East. But I'm also saying that the Corded Ware migration east has more to do with the people who would become Baltic speakers not Indo-Iranian speakers. I don't see the sense in linking a Z283+ and I population with a Z93+ one. Z93+ was probably born in the South Urals or North Caspian steepe. I think L342.2 was then born in Andronovo while Timber grave maintained L342.2- clades while also gaining L342.2+ via the back migrations of Central Asians explaining why Europe has L342.+ and L342.2- clades and Central/South Asia tend to be L342.+.

TigerMW
06-21-2013, 10:08 PM
Not too sure about exact clades but it does look like Y-DNA I2a pretty much expanded alongside R1a-M458+ much in the same way J2a expanded alongside R1a-Z93+. I do recall reading about high levels of ydna I1 diversity in the eastern part of Corded Ware. So maybe Y-DNA I1 might have expanded alongside Y-DNA R1a-Z284+?

Thanks. In bigger scheme of things, the I haplogroups may also be indicators as you've brought up.

Where are you getting that I1 was high diversity in the eastern part of the Corded Ware? What I remember from Ken Nordtvedt (kind of the hobbyist/scientist guru of I) is that he felt that much of hg I1 is fairly young and expanded out of Scandinavia at a fairly late date. I think he felt like it (I1 or its predecessor lineage) originally came from Anatolia, though, or close by. What subclades of I1 do you find in Eastern Europe?


And that was my point, that Z93+ could not have moved West to East. But I'm also saying that the Corded Ware migration east has more to do with the people who would become Baltic speakers not Indo-Iranian speakers. I don't see the sense in linking a Z283+ and I population with a Z93+ one. Z93+ was probably born in the South Urals or North Caspian steepe. I think L342.2 was then born in Andronovo while Timber grave maintained L342.2- clades while also gaining L342.2+ via the back migrations of Central Asians explaining why Europe has L342.+ and L342.2- clades and Central/South Asia tend to be L342.+.

Thank you. Have you (or anyone) drawn any maps with that laid out? I need to try to visually all of this geographically.

alan
06-21-2013, 11:02 PM
The issue with that will likely be clear when more Corded Ware samples get tested. Either way Y-DNA I has been found in Corded Ware and in time I bet Z283+ will be as well. So forgive me but I don't think these people move east and magically lose all their Z283+ and I Y-DNA and become Z93+ carriers.

I dont know. In c. 3500BC those two R1a lineages still shared a very recent common ancestor and may have lived close to each other in a mixed group. However, their numbers may have been small in that period or living a precarious existence where lineages were always under threat. The flurry of branching and and the coalescence of the ancestry of the survivors on each lineages is somewhat later and would seem to me to point to a sparse population at the time of the branching of the clades you mention. Any sort of lineage loss from a group is possible with group fission from a thin group. Someone takes his sub-clan one way and another goes the other way.

With either a corded ware or a Yamnaya type origin we are essentially talking about both an east and west movement from a centre point. The difference is in one case the centre point is somewhere like the Polish Capathian area while the other is in the western steppes. One way or another with either model there has to be a parting of the ways that only took part of the R1a population with them.

So, I dont think a corded origin can yet be 100% ruled out although I agree it is a longer shot than yamnaya and if I was a betting man I would bet on steppe cultures. Actually the strongest arguement that R1a was somewhere in the steppes seems to me to bee its lack of it apparently doing much before say 4000BC. That is not the behavour of a lineage that has been within a farming zone and growing rapidly. Again that is very similar to R1b.

alan
06-21-2013, 11:44 PM
Not too sure about exact clades but it does look like Y-DNA I2a pretty much expanded alongside R1a-M458+ much in the same way J2a expanded alongside R1a-Z93+. I do recall reading about high levels of ydna I1 diversity in the eastern part of Corded Ware. So maybe Y-DNA I1 might have expanded alongside Y-DNA R1a-Z284+?

And that was my point, that Z93+ could not have moved West to East. But I'm also saying that the Corded Ware migration east has more to do with the people who would become Baltic speakers not Indo-Iranian speakers. I don't see the sense in linking a Z283+ and I population with a Z93+ one. Z93+ was probably born in the South Urals or North Caspian steepe. I think L342.2 was then born in Andronovo while Timber grave maintained L342.2- clades while also gaining L342.2+ via the back migrations of Central Asians explaining why Europe has L342.+ and L342.2- clades and Central/South Asia tend to be L342.+.

Ah I get your point (having a bit of a stupid day). The simple west to east chain of cultures with corded ware links (middle Dnieper-Fatyanovo-Abasashevo etc doesnt work for more than the Balts and Slavs because the deep branch differences with the eastern and SW Asian R1a coming under Z93 and not sharing a common ancestor with the rest until back in 4000BC. Yes that would certainly not support the full chain that Anatony suggests as he adds Sintashta to the end of the chain I quoted above and link it to Indo-Iranian in some way.

I can definately see that the Sintashta/Indo-Iranian bit doesnt fit. Although I think that was always a little shaky and stretching the model. If the chain noted above is modified and linked to just Slavic and Baltic it could still remain a viable one. Anthony appears to see middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo and Abashevo as including both a corded and steppe element so it is possible (as he seems to) to interpret R1a as the steppe element and these cultures as a kind of reflux of partly steppic elements back through the forrest steppe. I can definately see that the R1a evidence of Indo-Iranian does not fit that Anthony model without a lot of wriggling. I do think though that the Yamnaya is just one part of the PIE story. There were a lot of groups in overlapping contact c. 3500BC in the western steppes which might be the origin of the dual R1a and R1b associations with different branches. One strand was Maykop and its offshoots in the western steppe which were incredibly influential in many aspects of the Kurgan culture.

alan
06-22-2013, 10:26 AM
Not too sure about exact clades but it does look like Y-DNA I2a pretty much expanded alongside R1a-M458+ much in the same way J2a expanded alongside R1a-Z93+. I do recall reading about high levels of ydna I1 diversity in the eastern part of Corded Ware. So maybe Y-DNA I1 might have expanded alongside Y-DNA R1a-Z284+?

And that was my point, that Z93+ could not have moved West to East. But I'm also saying that the Corded Ware migration east has more to do with the people who would become Baltic speakers not Indo-Iranian speakers. I don't see the sense in linking a Z283+ and I population with a Z93+ one. Z93+ was probably born in the South Urals or North Caspian steepe. I think L342.2 was then born in Andronovo while Timber grave maintained L342.2- clades while also gaining L342.2+ via the back migrations of Central Asians explaining why Europe has L342.+ and L342.2- clades and Central/South Asia tend to be L342.+.

That is an interesting concept of companion haplogroups moving with different R1a clades. Where do you think its likely that I2a and J2a would have joined the two R1a groups?

I know very little about these clades so feel free to shoot my ideas down in flames. I2a on this map has a strange distributon http://vieilleeurope.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/haplogroup_i2a1.gif

There doesnt look to be a single story for this clade. but it does have one peak in the region of Cucuteni-Trypole and before them there were hunter gatherer groups like Bug Dniester etc. Certainly it has a significant presence at the steppe-farmer interface (both sides). It difficult to image it actually entering that area much after 3500BC because of the prevailing flow of peoples currently envisaged. It seems to have a distinct cline although its not a near pattern that simply screams out a correlation with an archaeological culture. There were a lot of cultures collapsing and new ones forming in that area c. 4000-3000BC. Whatever its ultimate origin it does have a partial resemblance to the middle Dnieper-Fatyanovo-Abashevo spread.

http://i50.tinypic.com/ou1j13.png

It could have been picked up by R1a groups who followed that trail.

As for J2a there were loads of maps on the web and I just picked this one at random

http://thegeneticatlas.com/J2a.png

If this was a companion to the eastern/SW Asian R1a branch then where is it most likely to have joined. It looks very much like a farmers marker. It isnt obvious to me where that R1a branch would have picked this up it had originated in the Urals area. The nearest areas where it would have been likely picked up seem to be the farming area just west of the steppe or the Caucasus.

lgmayka
06-22-2013, 01:03 PM
Where are you getting that I1 was high diversity in the eastern part of the Corded Ware? What I remember from Ken Nordtvedt (kind of the hobbyist/scientist guru of I) is that he felt that much of hg I1 is fairly young and expanded out of Scandinavia at a fairly late date. I think he felt like it (I1 or its predecessor lineage) originally came from Anatolia, though, or close by. What subclades of I1 do you find in Eastern Europe?
This is Ken Nordtvedt's opinion as of March 15, 2013:
---
As I see the results it goes along with my hunch that I1 origins right after its founder happened more easterly in the north German plain than the present-day center of its population there today.
---

The North German Plain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_German_Plain) is simply the German portion of the North European Plain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_landforms_-_North_European_Plain.svg). Thus, Ken appears to be referring to (what is now) eastern Germany, a.k.a. western Pomerania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Administrative_division_of_pomerania.png).

Note: I am assuming that Ken did not literally translate his terms from German. To this day, Germans imperialistically call the entire plain Deutsch (German) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_European_Plain):
---
The North European Plain (German: Norddeutsches Tiefland or German: Norddeutsche Tiefebene), or Middle European Plain (Polish: Nizina Środkowoeuropejska, Russian: Среднеевропейская равнина) is a geomorphological region in Europe, mostly in Poland, Germany, Denmark and Netherlands (Low countries).
---

If Ken was referring to the entire plain, then his "more easterly" portion is central Pomerania.

It is unfortunate that Germans continue to call the North European Plain German, and Russians call the East European Plain Russian--mentally continuing to partition the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between themselves. Such carryover of obsolete geographical terms from the Age of Imperialism impedes clear discussion.

lgmayka
06-22-2013, 01:52 PM
Where do you think its likely that I2a and J2a would have joined the two R1a groups?
...
I2a on this map has a strange distributon http://vieilleeurope.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/haplogroup_i2a1.gif.
I2a-Dinaric (the primary clade of I2a in Central-Eastern Europe) is astonishingly young--perhaps only 2500 years old, as Jean Manco says based on Ken Nordtvedt's work (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/haplogroupi.shtml). Note that Jean's reference to Serbian must really refer to (what used to be called) Serbo-Croatian, because I2a-Dinaric is actually much more heavily concentrated among Croatians and Bosnians than Serbs.
---
I2a1b3a (L147, CTS10936, CTS11768, and CTS4002) is strongly correlated with the distribution of the Slavic languages, particularly Serbian. Its TMRCA of 500 BC would give it time to burgeon among the Proto-Slavic farmers on the Dniester, before the spread of Slavic. Prior to the discovery of SNPs defining this subclade, it was labelled by Ken Nordvedt as I2a-Dinaric.
---

Ken shares her view that I2a-Dinaric probably spread primarily via the Slavic expansion. In this view, the clade's concentration in the Dinaric Alps is basically a founder effect.

Note that the most proximate branch-off prior to Dinaric itself is a patrilineage from south-central Poland. In other words, this lone patrilineage (kit N113464 in the Polish Project) has some but not all of the SNPs characteristic of Dinaric. When this discovery was made, Ken Nordtvedt's immediate reaction was:
---
Is the new Dinaric's dna dripping wet with the waters of the Pripet marshes?
---

alan
06-22-2013, 03:29 PM
I2a-Dinaric (the primary clade of I2a in Central-Eastern Europe) is astonishingly young--perhaps only 2500 years old, as Jean Manco says based on Ken Nordtvedt's work (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/haplogroupi.shtml). Note that Jean's reference to Serbian must really refer to (what used to be called) Serbo-Croatian, because I2a-Dinaric is actually much more heavily concentrated among Croatians and Bosnians than Serbs.
---
I2a1b3a (L147, CTS10936, CTS11768, and CTS4002) is strongly correlated with the distribution of the Slavic languages, particularly Serbian. Its TMRCA of 500 BC would give it time to burgeon among the Proto-Slavic farmers on the Dniester, before the spread of Slavic. Prior to the discovery of SNPs defining this subclade, it was labelled by Ken Nordvedt as I2a-Dinaric.
---

Ken shares her view that I2a-Dinaric probably spread primarily via the Slavic expansion. In this view, the clade's concentration in the Dinaric Alps is basically a founder effect.

Note that the most proximate branch-off prior to Dinaric itself is a patrilineage from south-central Poland. In other words, this lone patrilineage (kit N113464 in the Polish Project) has some but not all of the SNPs characteristic of Dinaric. When this discovery was made, Ken Nordtvedt's immediate reaction was:
---
Is the new Dinaric's dna dripping wet with the waters of the Pripet marshes?
---

I think it would make sense if it was somewhere like south Poland or the Carpathians or thereabouts. It certainly would put it in the mixing pot area just west of the steppes in a position to be swept along by both earlier movements west and also the Slavic expansion. Would a location among the farming (possibly former hunting) groups just west of the steppes in the late Neolithic fit the DNA evidence?

newtoboard
06-22-2013, 04:33 PM
Why would I1 come out of Anatolia? Is there any I1*? Anatolia doesn't even look like the source for IJ*.

Jean M
06-22-2013, 04:48 PM
Note that Jean's reference to Serbian must really refer to (what used to be called) Serbo-Croatian, because I2a-Dinaric is actually much more heavily concentrated among Croatians and Bosnians than Serbs.


No I'm referring to the overall spread of the Serbian language, both as an official and minority language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_language

I don't mean to imply that I2a1b3a is specifically Serbian or exclusively Serbian.

Jean M
06-22-2013, 04:51 PM
Why would I1 come out of Anatolia? Is there any I1*? Anatolia doesn't even look like the source for IJ*.

Ken Nordtvedt has never (to the best of my knowledge) claimed that I1 came out of Anatolia. It seems to have arisen somewhere in northern Europe.

K.N. has simply assumed that I (L41/M170) arose from IJ somewhere in or near Western Asia. We cannot possibly be precise about these things and it seems pointless to try. The event was in the deep past and I suspect that a lot of lineages of that era have been lost. K.N. just has a line marked M170 coming out of Anatolia on his map. That was the route into Europe for the earliest Homo sapiens, but I (L41/M170) does not seem old enough to have arrived at that time. IJ was estimated to be 40,000 years old by Soares 2010. So it could have been an IJ man who entered Europe and gave rise to I there. We just don't know.

Silesian
06-22-2013, 05:32 PM
Why would I1 come out of Anatolia? Is there any I1*? Anatolia doesn't even look like the source for IJ*.

K.N. is listed on the web page, I can't help think he did not have any input in the age calculations.
I1 is estimated to be 4000 to 5000 years old (the now outdated "15,000 -20,000 years ago in Iberia" information was wrong) Which puts age of R-M253 in question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_%28Y-DNA%29

Grugni showed IJ[R-M429] Northwestern Iran.

and IJ-M429* were reported to have been observed in the Iranian plateau (Grugni et al. 2012).
J* is also around the region.

Jean M
06-22-2013, 05:51 PM
K.N. is listed on the web page, I can't help think he did not have any input in the age calculations.


Which web page? ISOGG?

TigerMW
06-22-2013, 06:53 PM
Why would I1 come out of Anatolia? Is there any I1*? Anatolia doesn't even look like the source for IJ*.

I had thought that Knordvedt and the I guys thought I1-M253 came out of Scandinavia but I may have misunderstood the subclade.

I may be looking at the map below incorrectly. It is speculative but his speculation is probably about as good as you can get ... for a National Science Board member.

http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20and%20Map%20for%20Hg%20I.pdf

Here is what Jean Manco says on here web site,

Despite its young TMRCA, this clade could have its origin in a Mesolithic migration of Haplogroup I* from South-Eastern Europe about 5,000 BC. This is by no means certain. Although we have found no-one alive today carrying just one or two of the many markers that define I1, each one of these markers may define a lineage that has died out in the male line. So all that is left is the healthy lineage I1, which appears to pop up out of nowhere in northern Europe about 2,200 BC and is found today most densely in Scandinavia. There is no trail of earlier clades from South-Eastern Europe. So in theory Haplogroup I could have arrived from any southern Ice Age refuge as soon as northern Europe was left habitable by the shrinking glaciers. It is only the fact that the spread of Haplogroup I overall leans towards Eastern Europe that has inclined researchers to look south-east for its Ice Age refuge. An alternative explanation proferred by some geneticists is that I1 is the male companion to mtDNA U5b1b1a, which seems to have travelled in the Mesolithic from Iberia to Scandinavia. http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/haplogroupi.shtml

Since there is no upstream trail for I1 it's hard to say when it was truly born. I interpret Ken's map as that hg I, generally came from SE Europe/Anatolia a very long time ago.

Here are the estimates for the major subgroups of I1.
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20I1%20Z58+%20Z60-.pptx
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20I1%20Z60+.pptx
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20I1d%20L22+.pptx
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20I1xL22xZ58.pptx

Silesian
06-22-2013, 07:03 PM
Which web page? ISOGG?
Group Co-Administrator.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/yDNA_I1

Jean M
06-22-2013, 07:45 PM
I had thought that Knordvedt and the I guys thought I1-M253 came out of Scandinavia but I may have misunderstood the subclade.


Ken used to think that the signs pointed to southern Jutland i.e. what is now northern Germany. I just revised my page today after I saw the update on this thread from lgmayka.

Maybe I should explain that I put up my page on haplogroup I because Ken hates to write. He kept promising us the Story of I, but it didn't appear! But I have been too busy with other things to keep it up-to-date, so it should probably come down now.

Jean M
06-22-2013, 08:50 PM
Group Co-Administrator.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/yDNA_I1

I see now. "I1 is estimated to be 4000 to 5000 years old." That is in line with Ken's estimate when I last saw one from him. I have 2,200 BC on my page = 4,200 years ago. Has there been a rethink?

newtoboard
06-22-2013, 09:32 PM
Ken Nordtvedt has never (to the best of my knowledge) claimed that I1 came out of Anatolia. It seems to have arisen somewhere in northern Europe.

K.N. has simply assumed that I (L41/M170) arose from IJ somewhere in or near Western Asia. We cannot possibly be precise about these things and it seems pointless to try. The event was in the deep past and I suspect that a lot of lineages of that era have been lost. K.N. just has a line marked M170 coming out of Anatolia on his map. That was the route into Europe for the earliest Homo sapiens, but I (L41/M170) does not seem old enough to have arrived at that time. IJ was estimated to be 40,000 years old by Soares 2010. So it could have been an IJ man who entered Europe and gave rise to I there. We just don't know.

I know that. My post was in response to Alan's most that I1's predecessor was born in Anatolia. I thought he was suggesting there was evidence that I1* has been found there. I don't think I was born in West Asia. The I2c in West Asia came with the Sea Peoples or Cimmerians imo.

alan
06-22-2013, 09:53 PM
I know that. My post was in response to Alan's most that I1's predecessor was born in Anatolia. I thought he was suggesting there was evidence that I1* has been found there. I don't think I was born in West Asia. The I2c in West Asia came with the Sea Peoples or Cimmerians imo.

Did I say that? I dont know anything much about I and had no idea anyone linked it to Anatolia. I always assumed it was European Palaelithic with some additional later expansions.

Silesian
06-22-2013, 10:07 PM
I see now. "I1 is estimated to be 4000 to 5000 years old." That is in line with Ken's estimate when I last saw one from him. I have 2,200 BC on my page = 4,200 years ago. Has there been a rethink?

I sent K.N. an invite hopefully/maybe he can respond and clear a few things up.

newtoboard
06-22-2013, 10:08 PM
Did I say that? I dont know anything much about I and had no idea anyone linked it to Anatolia. I always assumed it was European Palaelithic with some additional later expansions.

Sorry it was Mikewww. My mistake. Post #56

alan
06-23-2013, 01:18 AM
Sorry it was Mikewww. My mistake. Post #56

No problem. I think most people are in general agreement about the likely position of I2 in relation to the steppes-probably just west in the Carpathians or thereabouts. A likely position to be encorporated with westward movements of steppe groups. Do you have any thoughts on the J2 group. If it was mopped up by R1a groups heading east or south from the Caspian area the nearest concentration of that seems to be in the Caucasus. Is it a late encorporation into the Iranian peoples as they moved into SW Asia?

lgmayka
06-23-2013, 02:20 AM
No I'm referring to the overall spread of the Serbian language, both as an official and minority language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_language
No. You missed my point, even though your Wikipedia citation makes it clear:
---
Serbian (Serbian Cyrillic: српски, Latin: srpski, pronounced [sr̩̂pskiː]) is a standardized register of the Serbo-Croatian language[9][10][11] used by Serbs...
---

The historical and arguably least biased name for the language is Serbo-Croatian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbo-Croatian_language). Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are terms for the standardizations official in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Montenegro, respectively.

Please try to understand that some people are very sensitive about such naming issues.

lgmayka
06-23-2013, 02:32 AM
I may be looking at the map below incorrectly. It is speculative but his speculation is probably about as good as you can get ... for a National Science Board member.

http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20and%20Map%20for%20Hg%20I.pdf
Find the M253 label, and match it to the solid orange-brown edge it is labeling. Now look at the arrowhead (terminus) of that edge. It lies in central Pomerania--what is now western Poland.

Jean M
06-23-2013, 10:49 AM
@ lgmayka

I'm with you now. Yes it is a tricky topic with war so fresh in people's minds. I used the map of the spread of Serbian in my text because it shows Serbian speakers (as minorities) outside the countries labelled South Slavic (as national languages). In other words it fills the apparent gap between South Slavic and the East/West Slavic block. Genetically there is no gap. Whether I could have found a more tactful approach it is hard to say. Serbs want their language to be called Serbian. Croats want their language to be called Croatian. The idea of calling it Serbo-Croat does not seem to appeal. So I suspect that I would have been in hot water either way.

Jean M
06-23-2013, 10:52 AM
I always assumed it was European Palaeolithic with some additional later expansions.

The problem with that, as mentioned above, is that haplogroup I is too young to be Palaeolithic, apparently.

alan
06-23-2013, 11:53 AM
The problem with that, as mentioned above, is that haplogroup I is too young to be Palaeolithic, apparently.

The new evidence definately makes a very good case that most of the current I2 distribution began when it was encorporated into the farming waves at some points in eastern or SE Europe and of course by later waves too. There were hints of this many years ago when ideas on hunters, farmers DNA impact and dating methods were very different and it was very much assumed to be Palaelithic but Ken kept getting dates for subclades that sounded like local early Neolithic dates. It does now sound like I2 as it exists today through most of Europe arrived in the Neolithic and later spreads.

Its amazing looking back at how expectations of impact on yDNA have changed and how it has emerged that the local pre-faming populations have left almost no impact in the isles and indeed even the farming populations yDNA legacy seems very small. If someone had said that the vast majority of isles yDNA post-dates 2500BC in terms of its local existence they would have been considered crazy 10 years ago!

Jean M
06-23-2013, 12:35 PM
The new evidence .. makes a very good case that most of the current I2 distribution began when it was incorporated into the farming waves at some points in eastern or SE Europe and of course by later waves too.

Yes that was my conclusion in 2009 as I recall. Challenged to explain why I2 did not spread into Asia with Indo-European speakers to any notable extent, but what we now know as I2a1b3a correlates with Slavic speakers, I came up with the idea that I2 was among the farming villages that formed the non-steppe portion of the Middle Dnieper mix.

I don't think that we can get much further with logical deduction. We have to await aDNA.

newtoboard
06-23-2013, 02:47 PM
No problem. I think most people are in general agreement about the likely position of I2 in relation to the steppes-probably just west in the Carpathians or thereabouts. A likely position to be encorporated with westward movements of steppe groups. Do you have any thoughts on the J2 group. If it was mopped up by R1a groups heading east or south from the Caspian area the nearest concentration of that seems to be in the Caucasus. Is it a late encorporation into the Iranian peoples as they moved into SW Asia?

There has never been any conclusive proof of an Iranian migration through the Caucasus. From what I've been told on other boards the reason people came up with that theory is because they saw later groups did it and said it must have happened in the past.

I think the largest concentration would be in Central Asia particularly in the Ferghana valley and oases of SE Turkmenistan and N. Afghanistan. This J2a would have ultimately been from Iran anyways so it was a back migration in that sense.


Yes that was my conclusion in 2009 as I recall. Challenged to explain why I2 did not spread into Asia with Indo-European speakers to any notable extent, but what we now know as I2a1b3a correlates with Slavic speakers, I came up with the idea that I2 was among the farming villages that formed the non-steppe portion of the Middle Dnieper mix.

I don't think that we can get much further with logical deduction. We have to await aDNA.

That I2c among Georgians, Kurds and Armenians is the spreading to Asia imo. I don't think it ever moved east though unless there was a serious bottleneck. Hopefully some Andronovo and BMAC samples coul clear that up in the future.

TigerMW
06-25-2013, 05:21 PM
This is Ken Nordtvedt's opinion as of March 15, 2013:
---
As I see the results it goes along with my hunch that I1 origins right after its founder happened more easterly in the north German plain than the present-day center of its population there today. .

I found the whole message or a clarification of it, anyway.

Ken Nordtvedt said, on 03/15/2013 on Rootsweb,
"This reinforces my hunch that the origins of I1 some 4500 years ago will be more to the east than earlier expectations --- maybe Prussia or Pomerania. Perhaps the late blooming I1 moved up into the north German plain along the Elbe corridor, while M223+ Z161+ moved up using more the Danube/Rhine route? My prejudice for the pre-agriculture staging area for haplogroup I remains the middle Danube basin (present day Bohemia or thereabouts)." http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2013-03/1363359122

Pomerania ranges from about Warnow to Gdansk along the Baltic. Old Prussia is the continuation east/northeast along the Baltic, or essentially Lithuania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Prussians

I'll ask Ken what he meant. The general term Prussia in the pre-Germany sense of the word is such a broad territory I'm not sure its that useful other than it is not on the Scandinavian Peninsula obviously. The Old Prussian tribes resided in a more specific territory which makes sense in context of the use of the word Pomerania.

In terms of Ken's map. I'll try to clear up where I was coming from...
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20and%20Map%20for%20Hg%20I.pdf

Find the M253 label, and match it to the solid orange-brown edge it is labeling. Now look at the arrowhead (terminus) of that edge. It lies in central Pomerania--what is now western Poland.
I understand the orange-brown line/arrow is M253, but Ken shows the starting point for that line as essentially the Bosphorus.

Back on post #56 I was just struggling with Ken's I-M253/orange/brown line starting from the Bosphorus. It's never been my proposal that I1 originated in Anatolia.

Where are you getting that I1 was high diversity in the eastern part of the Corded Ware? What I remember from Ken Nordtvedt (kind of the hobbyist/scientist guru of I) is that he felt that much of hg I1 is fairly young and expanded out of Scandinavia at a fairly late date. I think he felt like it (I1 or its predecessor lineage) originally came from Anatolia, though, or close by. What subclades of I1 do you find in Eastern Europe?

That may be just unintentional or somehow that Ken is trying to represent pre-I1, or some kind of ancient I or IJ came across the Bosphorus from Anatolia into Europe. What may be instructive is he doesn't seem to see pre-I1 coming from the east and north of the Black Sea but rather from the south and apparently west of the Carpathian, while at the same time only having a secondary expansion out of Scandinavia.

T101
06-26-2013, 01:09 AM
I found the whole message or a clarification of it, anyway.

Ken Nordtvedt said, on 03/15/2013 on Rootsweb, "This reinforces my hunch that the origins of I1 some 4500 years ago will be more to the east than earlier expectations --- maybe Prussia or Pomerania.


Yes, we could certainly see the Norse, Ultra-Norse, and the Bothnian, Fenno-Scandian ancestral line ultimately originating in and expanding out from modern day Poland. (Please see the attached map and graph based on Ken Nordvedt's and Terry Robb's work.)

Various lineages were then absorbed with the arrival of R1a across Eastern and Central Europe, and some of these I1 populations, possibly heavily drifted, were then pushed into Fennoscandia, perhaps arriving with the fore-fathers of R1a-Z284, while the clades I1-P and I1-T2 remained behind with R1a-Z280 and the other likely suspects.

TigerMW
06-26-2013, 02:27 AM
Yes, we could certainly see the Norse, Ultra-Norse, and the Bothnian, Fenno-Scandian ancestral line ultimately originating in and expanding out from modern day Poland. (Please see the attached map and graph based on Ken Nordvedt's and Terry Robb's work.)

Various lineages were then absorbed with the arrival of R1a across Eastern and Central Europe, and some of these I1 populations, possibly heavily drifted, were then pushed into Fennoscandia, perhaps arriving with the fore-fathers of R1a-Z284, while the clades I1-P and I1-T2 remained behind with R1a-Z280 and the other likely suspects.

Thank you, for being this back to point about how and where R1a and I1 may have met and integrated.

I was drawn off a bit because I saw the following and wanted to track it down. I think of the eastern part of Corded Ware as going back into Russia and the northern side of the Yamnaya, but it looks like I1 was more North Central European (i.e. Pomerania) rather than that far east.

I do recall reading about high levels of ydna I1 diversity in the eastern part of Corded Ware. So maybe Y-DNA I1 might have expanded alongside Y-DNA R1a-Z284+?

I'm still a little puzzled about the the Old Norway project. If I1 and R1a met up in North Central Europe before crossing over into Scandinavia I would think their mix would be a little more evenly distributed within Scandinavia. Are the subclades of R1 in Scandinavia different than North Germany and North Poland? Same question for I1?

TigerMW
06-26-2013, 04:31 PM
I found the whole message or a clarification of it, anyway .
[see quote below in main body]

Pomerania ranges from about Warnow to Gdansk along the Baltic. Old Prussia is the continuation east/northeast along the Baltic, or essentially Lithuania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Prussians

I'll ask Ken what he meant. The general term Prussia in the pre-Germany sense of the word is such a broad territory I'm not sure its that useful other than it is not on the Scandinavian Peninsula obviously. The Old Prussian tribes resided in a more specific territory which makes sense in context of the use of the word Pomerania.

So here is the original quote.

Ken Nordtvedt said, on 03/15/2013 on Rootsweb,
"This reinforces my hunch that the origins of I1 some 4500 years ago will be more to the east than earlier expectations --- maybe Prussia or Pomerania. Perhaps the late blooming I1 moved up into the north German plain along the Elbe corridor, while M223+ Z161+ moved up using more the Danube/Rhine route? My prejudice for the pre-agriculture staging area for haplogroup I remains the middle Danube basin (present day Bohemia or thereabouts)." http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2013-03/1363359122

I received the clarification from Ken today. Ken was describing the are of the Old Prussian tribes (essentially Lithuania) so his area of focus is from about Warnow, Germany east through Lithuania.

Ken Nordtvedt said, on 06/26/2013 on Rootsweb,

"For most of my nine years in the hobby I have believed there is a close association of U106+ R1b..... with I1 x L22
But by Prussia I mean the geographical heartland of the peoples once called Prussians, not the political empire that the Prussians built up among the German peoples in historic times."
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2013-06/1372263039

This makes R1a subclades a little more difficult to tie in. In one of the other posts the suggestion was made that R1b and R1a in Scandinavia were inversely correlated. I think we figured out that was a really that R1b-U106 and R1a are inversely correlated but I still need to hone up on the R1a and I1 subclades.

...Various lineages were then absorbed with the arrival of R1a across Eastern and Central Europe, and some of these I1 populations, possibly heavily drifted, were then pushed into Fennoscandia, perhaps arriving with the fore-fathers of R1a-Z284...
They've probably already been posted here, but what is distribution and diversity of Z284?

The conversation on Hg I is on-going. The questions I had apparently were timely with some very recent results. I1 and Baltic (Old Prussian) might have a connection. Here is the message board for Hg I for the month of June.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2013-06

R.Rocca
06-27-2013, 01:57 PM
So here is the original quote.

Ken Nordtvedt said, on 03/15/2013 on Rootsweb,
"This reinforces my hunch that the origins of I1 some 4500 years ago will be more to the east than earlier expectations --- maybe Prussia or Pomerania. Perhaps the late blooming I1 moved up into the north German plain along the Elbe corridor, while M223+ Z161+ moved up using more the Danube/Rhine route? My prejudice for the pre-agriculture staging area for haplogroup I remains the middle Danube basin (present day Bohemia or thereabouts)." http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2013-03/1363359122

I received the clarification from Ken today. Ken was describing the are of the Old Prussian tribes (essentially Lithuania) so his area of focus is from about Warnow, Germany east through Lithuania.

Ken Nordtvedt said, on 06/26/2013 on Rootsweb,

"For most of my nine years in the hobby I have believed there is a close association of U106+ R1b..... with I1 x L22
But by Prussia I mean the geographical heartland of the peoples once called Prussians, not the political empire that the Prussians built up among the German peoples in historic times."
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2013-06/1372263039

This makes R1a subclades a little more difficult to tie in. In one of the other posts the suggestion was made that R1b and R1a in Scandinavia were inversely correlated. I think we figured out that was a really that R1b-U106 and R1a are inversely correlated but I still need to hone up on the R1a and I1 subclades.

They've probably already been posted here, but what is distribution and diversity of Z284?

The conversation on Hg I is on-going. The questions I had apparently were timely with some very recent results. I1 and Baltic (Old Prussian) might have a connection. Here is the message board for Hg I for the month of June.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2013-06

And we saw that inverse correlation in the Austrian Tyrol study as well.

DMXX
06-27-2013, 03:30 PM
Yes that was my conclusion in 2009 as I recall. Challenged to explain why I2 did not spread into Asia with Indo-European speakers to any notable extent ...

I'm unsure whether the above post acknowledged what I'm going to state or not:

Some sporadic cases of Y-DNA haplogroup I (seems to mostly be I2) has been picked up in South-Central Asia in a couple of studies after 2009. I contacted Nordtvedt concerning these but unfortunately the data in the original paper was insufficient for any formal analysis (see here for details (http://vaedhya.blogspot.com/2012/03/showcasing-of-y-dna-variation-among.html)).

As I remember from the entry, all the South-Central Asian I's belonged to I2b1-M223 and Nordtvedt felt they seemed M223+.

Jean M
06-27-2013, 05:58 PM
Duly noted and will add, but my point remains that I2 is at no more than trace level in Asia. We can't expect strict borders to any haplogroup unless it cropped up very recently in a leper colony or some such strictly isolated group.

newtoboard
06-27-2013, 08:07 PM
I'm unsure whether the above post acknowledged what I'm going to state or not:

Some sporadic cases of Y-DNA haplogroup I (seems to mostly be I2) has been picked up in South-Central Asia in a couple of studies after 2009. I contacted Nordtvedt concerning these but unfortunately the data in the original paper was insufficient for any formal analysis (see here for details (http://vaedhya.blogspot.com/2012/03/showcasing-of-y-dna-variation-among.html)).

As I remember from the entry, all the South-Central Asian I's belonged to I2b1-M223 and Nordtvedt felt they seemed M223+.

Found in one Tajik and two Hazaras. In the case of Hazaras they could have picked it up from Slavic groups. I posted about ydna I in the area on the English Molgen forum and most people thought it just represents Russian admixture in those gene pools.

The Kurds have ydna I2c but I have no idea on its frequency. It was said to be 10-25% but those were the days when studies mangaed to confuse Y-DNA G and Y-DNA I so the real frequency is likely much much lower.

alan
07-15-2013, 11:45 AM
Folks, I draw your attention to my thread in R1b general about the effect that the massively expanded Caspain c. 15000-9000BC and the connection of it with the Black Sea that blocked off the Caucasus and Iran. I think this potentially has as much relevance to the early history of R1a as R1b. I am pretty green when it comes to R1a but I understand that there is some belief in an ancient non-IE branch of R1a in Asia as well as the steppe one. This barrier blocked off movements east-west or west-east along the steppe for perhaps 6000 years and for part of that time the route between the Caspain and Black Sea was also blocked. I dont know enough about very ancient R1a but would appreciate some comment on this by those that do.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 06:37 PM
Folks, I draw your attention to my thread in R1b general about the effect that the massively expanded Caspain c. 15000-9000BC and the connection of it with the Black Sea that blocked off the Caucasus and Iran. I think this potentially has as much relevance to the early history of R1a as R1b. I am pretty green when it comes to R1a but I understand that there is some belief in an ancient non-IE branch of R1a in Asia as well as the steppe one. This barrier blocked off movements east-west or west-east along the steppe for perhaps 6000 years and for part of that time the route between the Caspain and Black Sea was also blocked. I dont know enough about very ancient R1a but would appreciate some comment on this by those that do.

That idea is outdated. There is no such thing as a non-IE branch of R1a in Asia. That was based off STR diversity in the Indus Valley. SNP diversity in that area is low (99%+ of R1a in the Indus Valley is Z93+ , Z94+, L342.2+).

TigerMW
07-19-2013, 08:03 PM
That idea is outdated. There is no such thing as a non-IE branch of R1a in Asia. That was based off STR diversity in the Indus Valley. SNP diversity in that area is low (99%+ of R1a in the Indus Valley is Z93+ , Z94+, L342.2+).

How old is this subclade in the Indus Valley?

When you say there is no such thing as a non-IE branch of R1a in Asia how do you know that? You might be right, but I think you have to at least consider qualifying your assertion to indicate a timeframe. I'm pretty sure we can find R1a in Asia speaking Semitic languages today, among other things.

alan
07-19-2013, 08:32 PM
ok. The IE thing was not the point of my post. I would remove it if I could. I am not up on the outcome of the idea of old Indian R1a etc. I knew there was a debate but I didnt know it had concluded. If you can post links that would be great.

Anyway my main point is the effect of long term barrier that the expanded caspian appears to have had in the upper palaeolithic. Also the linking of the caspian and black seas in the same period effectively blocking north-south comminication from moldova in the west to the urals in the east. This is said to have boxed in the Caucasus and northern Iran in the upper palaeolithic and the apparent lack of upper palaeolithic settlement in this area as a result. Just a bit of food for thought for those interested in ydna in the upper palaeolithic. It clearly would have an effect on the distribution of any group located anywhere near the black and caspian seas.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 09:10 PM
How old is this subclade in the Indus Valley?

When you say there is no such thing as a non-IE branch of R1a in Asia how do you know that? You might be right, but I think you have to at least consider qualifying your assertion to indicate a timeframe. I'm pretty sure we can find R1a in Asia speaking Semitic languages today, among other things.


Yes we can find some Z282 and more upstream R1a clades but I would be surprised if these even made up .25% of West Asian Y-DNA.

Z93+ is as old as every Central Asian movement to the Indus Valley. STR Diversity is high for that reason imo.

Yes we can find Semitic speakers with R1a most of which is Z93+ which I (and others have agreed with me) was likely born in Sintasha/Andronovo.

The other R1a clades L664+, Z283+, Z280+, M458+ have a European origins. Even Z93+ might depending on which side of the Urals it was born on.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 09:13 PM
ok. The IE thing was not the point of my post. I would remove it if I could. I am not up on the outcome of the idea of old Indian R1a etc. I knew there was a debate but I didnt know it had concluded. If you can post links that would be great.

Anyway my main point is the effect of long term barrier that the expanded caspian appears to have had in the upper palaeolithic. Also the linking of the caspian and black seas in the same period effectively blocking north-south comminication from moldova in the west to the urals in the east. This is said to have boxed in the Caucasus and northern Iran in the upper palaeolithic and the apparent lack of upper palaeolithic settlement in this area as a result. Just a bit of food for thought for those interested in ydna in the upper palaeolithic. It clearly would have an effect on the distribution of any group located anywhere near the black and caspian seas.

It concluded with the discover that Indian R1a is not mostly but entirely Z93+ which at this point was I believe was born in Sintashta. The predicted age of about 4300 years make it unlikely there was Z93+ prior to the arrival of IE speakers.


Edit: The predicted age actually matches better with Abashevo. Could be where and when Z283 and Z93 split and went their separate paths.

DMXX
07-19-2013, 09:34 PM
At present, I personally do not believe all the Y-DNA R1a in South-Central Asia arrived from further north in one fell swoop.

When I was investigating Pashtun Y-DNA following Lacaub et al.'s study*, I did detect two broad categories of Y-DNA R1a from the STR's; one which comprised the majority of Pashtun R1a lines (the MRCA calculation for the "prime" ancestor gave something like ~1000 B.C.), whereas another lesser strain existed that was unrelated to the others and mostly/only present in the south.

If I have the time this summer (unlikely as it is) I'll happily review the data and appraise it with what we know now.

* I indefinitely shelved any work I did on the Pashtuns firstly because of at least one other study being released a year later encompassing my work by coincidence, as well as a complete breakdown in communication with JoGG.

alan
07-20-2013, 12:37 AM
It concluded with the discover that Indian R1a is not mostly but entirely Z93+ which at this point was I believe was born in Sintashta. The predicted age of about 4300 years make it unlikely there was Z93+ prior to the arrival of IE speakers.


Edit: The predicted age actually matches better with Abashevo. Could be where and when Z283 and Z93 split and went their separate paths.

That does seem pretty clearcut to me. If its all derived from a clade that dates no earlier than that then there is not much chance of R1a having been there in pre-IE times. In general the tree with dates posted on the 2nd page of this thread makes R1a look like it expanded from nothing c. 4000BC. One of the main points I was trying to put across on the R1b threads is it is very similar in this regard. They both do not look like they were in a populous developed farming area before this sort of date.

alan
07-20-2013, 12:49 AM
It concluded with the discover that Indian R1a is not mostly but entirely Z93+ which at this point was I believe was born in Sintashta. The predicted age of about 4300 years make it unlikely there was Z93+ prior to the arrival of IE speakers.


Edit: The predicted age actually matches better with Abashevo. Could be where and when Z283 and Z93 split and went their separate paths.

this us where Anthonys model confuses me. Is it not easier in an R1a-yamnaya model to see Z93 as more of a stay-home clade that stayed on the steppe nearer the ural-volga area while z283 may have had a steppe origin but it headed west and got caught in the corded ware mix and then moved both west with corded ware and also east in a reflux through Fatyanovo and Abashevo.

newtoboard
07-20-2013, 02:23 PM
this us where Anthonys model confuses me. Is it not easier in an R1a-yamnaya model to see Z93 as more of a stay-home clade that stayed on the steppe nearer the ural-volga area while z283 may have had a steppe origin but it headed west and got caught in the corded ware mix and then moved both west with corded ware and also east in a reflux through Fatyanovo and Abashevo.

It is just a predicted age. I wouldn't base any model off it since it can't ever really be proven or determined with 100% accuracy. Z93's age could also match the Poltavka culture (which is where Abashevo's intrusive steepe element came from). An R1a Samara culture model makes more sense to me. I don't think there was a reflux Z283 movement through Abashevo since Z283 seems to have not made it into the Central Asian, Iranian or South Asian gene pools. From what I have been discussing with Michal it seems like the reflux movement through Fatyanovo and Abashevo would have been Z280+ and not Z283+.

newtoboard
07-20-2013, 02:29 PM
At present, I personally do not believe all the Y-DNA R1a in South-Central Asia arrived from further north in one fell swoop.

When I was investigating Pashtun Y-DNA following Lacaub et al.'s study*, I did detect two broad categories of Y-DNA R1a from the STR's; one which comprised the majority of Pashtun R1a lines (the MRCA calculation for the "prime" ancestor gave something like ~1000 B.C.), whereas another lesser strain existed that was unrelated to the others and mostly/only present in the south.

If I have the time this summer (unlikely as it is) I'll happily review the data and appraise it with what we know now.

* I indefinitely shelved any work I did on the Pashtuns firstly because of at least one other study being released a year later encompassing my work by coincidence, as well as a complete breakdown in communication with JoGG.

Would the earlier strain of R1a correspond with the SWAT culture (likely speaking some form of Indo-Dardic-Nuristani imo). I believe that was one of the earliest waves out of Central Asia to the South?

DMXX
07-20-2013, 03:22 PM
Would the earlier strain of R1a correspond with the SWAT culture (likely speaking some form of Indo-Dardic-Nuristani imo). I believe that was one of the earliest waves out of Central Asia to the South?

No idea, but it fits the linguistic picture, certainly. Would have to see if this "lesser" (not necessarily earlier) R1a strain has any presence in Pakistan or India.

newtoboard
07-20-2013, 03:52 PM
No idea, but it fits the linguistic picture, certainly. Would have to see if this "lesser" (not necessarily earlier) R1a strain has any presence in Pakistan or India.

What do you think about the Z93- lineages in Uzbekistan/Kazakhstan? I'm leaning towards Russian admixture (especially due to the presence of M458+ in addition to Z280+ and Z283+) but I believe the STR values don't match modern Eastern/Central Europeans well.

DMXX
07-20-2013, 04:26 PM
At present I'm inclined to agree; they're from recent European admixture of some sort, either via Russian imperialism or medieval contacts between East Europe and Central Asia. Take the ~250 year Golden Horde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horde)as an example. Some users online vehemently argue against eastern genetic influence in East Europe - Which I'm not opposed to if the data shows it - But I see no reason why the opposite couldn't have occurred.

newtoboard
07-20-2013, 07:28 PM
At present I'm inclined to agree; they're from recent European admixture of some sort, either via Russian imperialism or medieval contacts between East Europe and Central Asia. Take the ~250 year Golden Horde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horde)as an example. Some users online vehemently argue against eastern genetic influence in East Europe - Which I'm not opposed to if the data shows it - But I see no reason why the opposite couldn't have occurred.

I think the data actually does argue against Eastern genetic influence in Eastern Europe. What I find hilarious are the people who accept this but argue against Scythians being Z93+ because Eastern Europeans don't carry Z93+. So somehow they managed to avoid admixture from Asiatic nomads but they can't accept that they avoided Scythian admixture as well.

That being said I do think the Proto Indo-Iranians underwent sort of bottleneck (in the Sintasha to Andronovo transition imo) and likely carried other lineages at small frequencies (possibilities are Z280/Z283, I1/I2 and maybe even M269 and G2a3b1).

DMXX
07-20-2013, 07:46 PM
I think the data actually does argue against Eastern genetic influence in Eastern Europe. What I find hilarious are the people who accept this but argue against Scythians being Z93+ because Eastern Europeans don't carry Z93+.

If the Scythians did not carry Z93+, then according to the views of these people you have taken into account, what could they possibly be? Z283?

We have to take into account the few historical snippets we have concerning the Scythians. Herodotus in Histories stated several theories existed concerning the origin of the Scythians, but he favoured that which stated they were originally from Central Asia and migrated westwards after warring with the Massagetae (who themselves lived in what is now Turkmenistan).

Why he favoured that theory, I am uncertain. There's apparently criticism of Herodotus' inference among modern historians, but we don't know what aspects of Herodotus' reports are in question. It might simply be the "warring with the Massagatae" that is doubted rather than the east-west movement. After all, it does make sense given the steppe displacement model.

newtoboard
07-20-2013, 08:07 PM
If the Scythians did not carry Z93+, then according to the views of these people you have taken into account, what could they possibly be? Z283?

We have to take into account the few historical snippets we have concerning the Scythians. Herodotus in Histories stated several theories existed concerning the origin of the Scythians, but he favoured that which stated they were originally from Central Asia and migrated westwards after warring with the Massagetae (who themselves lived in what is now Turkmenistan).

Why he favoured that theory, I am uncertain. There's apparently criticism of Herodotus' inference among modern historians, but we don't know what aspects of Herodotus' reports are in question. It might simply be the "warring with the Massagatae" that is doubted rather than the east-west movement. After all, it does make sense given the steppe displacement model.

Some believe Z283+. Others Z280+. I've heard arguments for M458+ Scythians. I am sure they had Z283+ and Z280+ individuals especially in Europe but Z93+ was an element as well.

I thought the Massagatae lived in the vicinity of Uzbekistan.

DMXX
07-20-2013, 08:19 PM
I thought the Massagatae lived in the vicinity of Uzbekistan.

The maps I've seen basically showed they lived around Turkmenistan and a chunk of Uzbekistan, yes, but a bigger chunk of Uzbekistan belonged to the Soghdians, Bactrians etc. (settled Indo-Iranians).

newtoboard
07-20-2013, 08:24 PM
The maps I've seen basically showed they lived around Turkmenistan and a chunk of Uzbekistan, yes, but a bigger chunk of Uzbekistan belonged to the Soghdians, Bactrians etc. (settled Indo-Iranians).

Intresting. Would have thought that because I thought Turkmenistan was more Parthian (at least in the North and West). Khorosan included the South and East of Turkmenistan so I thought the Massagatae would have been more North especially since they always seemed to be fighting steepe nomads.

DMXX
07-20-2013, 08:45 PM
It could have been further east, yes; I'm not too familiar with all the intricacies and varying opinions concerning the placement of ancient Central Asian tribes, particularly the Massagetae. It's apparent the Dahae lived immediately south of them and Herodotus does state they live next to the eastern Caspian coastline and somewhere around the Jaxartes (Syr Darya) river. If I find some of the maps placing them around Turkmenistan I'll post them somewhere more relevant on the forum.

alan
07-20-2013, 09:54 PM
It is just a predicted age. I wouldn't base any model off it since it can't ever really be proven or determined with 100% accuracy. Z93's age could also match the Poltavka culture (which is where Abashevo's intrusive steepe element came from). An R1a Samara culture model makes more sense to me. I don't think there was a reflux Z283 movement through Abashevo since Z283 seems to have not made it into the Central Asian, Iranian or South Asian gene pools. From what I have been discussing with Michal it seems like the reflux movement through Fatyanovo and Abashevo would have been Z280+ and not Z283+.

I agree that dating, even if the methods are right, have to be considered as being potentially out by half a millenium anyway and that tends to keep choices open. One thing I have raised a few times is that if a movement if placed very close to the origin date of a clade it would essentially mean that we are talking about small groups or elites because there wouldnt be time to generate the numbers to have a folk movement. I think that stands to reason. I suppose that is a core question about the sudden expansion of the R1 clades. I think too that that depends on the sort of economy, territory and existing population size that they found in their paths. I tend to image on the steppe and in lightly populated areas and nearly empt area you would have had mobile clans basically expanding through its own reproduction as y lineage small entire population group.

Off the steppes and when intergrated into existing well populated developed settled farming societies I think some other model is needed such as elites, casts, trading lineages etc.

lgmayka
07-21-2013, 12:35 AM
I am not up on the outcome of the idea of old Indian R1a etc. I knew there was a debate but I didnt know it had concluded. If you can post links that would be great.
I would not say that the issue (of pre-Z93 R1a in India) is fully settled; I would merely say that no one has found any yet. The only officially published (i.e., peer-reviewed) journal article on Z93 in India is this one, which actually tested Malaysians of Indian ancestry (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22167/abstract).

Unfortunately, FTDNA's India Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/India/default.aspx?section=yresults) does not even display SNP results, much less encourage them.

My understanding is that all Indian-ancestry members of the R1a1a and Subclades Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?vgroup=R1a&vgroup=R1a&vgroup=R1a&section=yresults) are confirmed, predicted, or guessed to be Z93+ . In other words, we have no solid evidence for non-Z93 R1a1a in India at this point.

newtoboard
07-21-2013, 03:33 PM
I would not say that the issue (of pre-Z93 R1a in India) is fully settled; I would merely say that no one has found any yet. The only officially published (i.e., peer-reviewed) journal article on Z93 in India is this one, which actually tested Malaysians of Indian ancestry (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22167/abstract).

Unfortunately, FTDNA's India Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/India/default.aspx?section=yresults) does not even display SNP results, much less encourage them.

My understanding is that all Indian-ancestry members of the R1a1a and Subclades Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?vgroup=R1a&vgroup=R1a&vgroup=R1a§ion=yresults) are confirmed, predicted, or guessed to be Z93+ . In other words, we have no solid evidence for non-Z93 R1a1a in India at this point.

It is not fully settled but it is pretty close especially since Z93- lineages don't seem to have been found among numerous countries in that region (including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Sri Lanka). If there was any you would think at least one would have popped up by now.

TigerMW
07-22-2013, 01:20 PM
I would not say that the issue (of pre-Z93 R1a in India) is fully settled; I would merely say that no one has found any yet. The only officially published (i.e., peer-reviewed) journal article on Z93 in India is this one, which actually tested Malaysians of Indian ancestry (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22167/abstract).

Unfortunately, FTDNA's India Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/India/default.aspx?section=yresults) does not even display SNP results, much less encourage them.

My understanding is that all Indian-ancestry members of the R1a1a and Subclades Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?vgroup=R1a&vgroup=R1a&vgroup=R1a§ion=yresults) are confirmed, predicted, or guessed to be Z93+ . In other words, we have no solid evidence for non-Z93 R1a1a in India at this point.

I've got a standard email that I've sent to probably 100 project administrators asking them to consider turning on their Y DNA SNP reports and giving them explicit instructions. Most comply, more so than I thought actually. Anyway, I just hit up the India project so we'll see what response I get.

parasar
07-22-2013, 05:22 PM
At present, I personally do not believe all the Y-DNA R1a in South-Central Asia arrived from further north in one fell swoop.

When I was investigating Pashtun Y-DNA following Lacaub et al.'s study*, I did detect two broad categories of Y-DNA R1a from the STR's; one which comprised the majority of Pashtun R1a lines (the MRCA calculation for the "prime" ancestor gave something like ~1000 B.C.), whereas another lesser strain existed that was unrelated to the others and mostly/only present in the south... [/I]

My guess is that you were seeing a bifurcation between Z2124+ and L657+ (the two main branches under Z93+Z94+).

parasar
07-22-2013, 06:24 PM
That does seem pretty clearcut to me. If its all derived from a clade that dates no earlier than that then there is not much chance of R1a having been there in pre-IE times. In general the tree with dates posted on the 2nd page of this thread makes R1a look like it expanded from nothing c. 4000BC. One of the main points I was trying to put across on the R1b threads is it is very similar in this regard. They both do not look like they were in a populous developed farming area before this sort of date.

England has very high SNP diversity. Some think the intensity of testing in the UK and the USA has unearthed this immense diversity. Nevertheless we do know that England has M417-, Z2463 (L664+and-) and Z645 (Z283* and Z93*).

Edit: Z2463 aka CTS4385

Jean M
07-22-2013, 08:42 PM
I would not say that the issue (of pre-Z93 R1a in India) is fully settled; I would merely say that no one has found any yet. The only officially published (i.e., peer-reviewed) journal article on Z93 in India is this one, which actually tested Malaysians of Indian ancestry (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22167/abstract).


Dienekes has just helpfully pointed out (http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/y-chromosomes-in-lingayat-and-vokkaliga.html) another paper that covers Z93 in India. It went online in May: Shilpa Chennakrishnaiah et al., Y chromosomes in Lingayat and Vokkaliga Dravidians from SW India, Gene, Available online 7 May 2013 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111913005714 .

Dienekes posts from the paper:


The virtual absence of Z283 subclades, namely Z280 and M458, and the total representation of R1a1a-derived samples by the Z93 marker in our dataset support an earlier observation that the M198 chromosome likely differentiated in the region between Eastern Europe and South Asia (Pamjav et al., 2012), and subsequently expanded in opposite directions. However, it will require additional R1a1a* samples from different populations across Eurasia to comprehensively evaluate the geographic origins, distribution and ethno-linguistic associations of the individual M198-derived lineages (Pamjav et al., 2012).

newtoboard
07-23-2013, 11:36 AM
England has very high SNP diversity. Some think the intensity of testing in the UK and the USA has unearthed this immense diversity. Nevertheless we do know that England has M417-, Z2463 (L664+and-) and Z645 (Z283* and Z93*).

Edit: Z2463 aka CTS4385

What is your point? None of those clades originated in England.

newtoboard
07-23-2013, 11:37 AM
I don't think any Z93- will ever be found in South Asia. I think some sort of Z93+ bottleneck occurred somewhere in Central Asia.

TigerMW
07-23-2013, 12:19 PM
I don't think any Z93- will ever be found in South Asia. I think some sort of Z93+ bottleneck occurred somewhere in Central Asia.

What is your reasoning? Is Z93 STR diversity higher in Central Asia? By Central Asia, are you defining it as the five "stans" - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan?

What estimates do we have for the TMRCA of Z93?

newtoboard
07-23-2013, 12:55 PM
What is your reasoning? Is Z93 STR diversity higher in Central Asia? By Central Asia, are you defining it as the five "stans" - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan?

What estimates do we have for the TMRCA of Z93?

I just think there were non Z93+ lineages among ancient Indo-Iranians. I doubt that they were originally just R1a-Z93+ carriers with not a single other lineage.

In this case I was defining Central Asia as Andronovo and its South Siberian variants.

TigerMW
07-23-2013, 01:14 PM
I just think there were non Z93+ lineages among ancient Indo-Iranians. I doubt that they were originally just R1a-Z93+ carriers with not a single other lineage.

In this case I was defining Central Asia as Andronovo and its South Siberian variants.

Thank you.

It looks like the five "stans" pretty much covers the ancient Andronovo area. I assume we see R1a Z93- lineages in this area today. I'm not that familiar with these subclades, but that's the situation, right?

Do you think Z93 actually originated further west?

What TMRCA estimates are we getting for Z93? Hasn't Klyosov or someone calculated TMRCAs for these guys?

newtoboard
07-23-2013, 01:24 PM
Thank you.

It looks like the five "stans" pretty much covers the ancient Andronovo area. I assume we see R1a Z93- lineages in this area today. I'm not that familiar with these subclades, but that's the situation, right?

Do you think Z93 actually originated further west?

What TMRCA estimates are we getting for Z93? Hasn't Klyosov or someone calculated TMRCAs for these guys?

There is some Z283+/Z280+/M458+ in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan but the M458+ makes me think all of these lineages are Russian admixture especially since they aren't found further South in Indo-Iranian speakers (minus some Anatolian Kurds who seem to carry an old West Asian Z282+ cluster).

I think the estimate right now is 4400 or 4300 years. I see Z93+ as possibly originating a bit west in Poltavaka. Other theories would be Abashevo (but that had an intrusive Poltavka element) and Sintashta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltavka_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abashevo_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture

parasar
07-23-2013, 02:41 PM
What is your point? None of those clades originated in England.

How do we know that?

I thought you mentioned above in the thread that the lack of SNP diversity is supposed to point to a place of origin elsewhere. The converse would be that the place of origin would be the place with the maximum SNP diversity, right?

A completely parallel line to Z645 exists in western Europe - Z2463/CTS4385(xL664) with DYS388=12 - seen in England. This SNP is above L664/DYS388=10 and perhaps was present in Eulau. It is quite possible that this line was born somewhere else in western Europe, but that location certainly looks to be very close to England.

M198+ M417+ CTS4385+ L664- 259861 England George Stead, b. around 1780 http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/default.aspx?section=ycolorized
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/leavitt/default.aspx?section=yresults
Others: 112550, CTS4385+ L664- United Kingdom http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/kit/6908/
55766, V39WS, CTS4385+ L664-United States http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/kit/5422/

newtoboard
07-23-2013, 03:00 PM
How do we know that?

I thought you mentioned above in the thread that the lack of SNP diversity is supposed to point to a place of origin elsewhere. The converse would be that the place of origin would be the place with the maximum SNP diversity, right?

A completely parallel line to Z645 exists in western Europe - Z2463/CTS4385(xL664) with DYS388=12 - seen in England. This SNP is above L664/DYS388=10 and perhaps was present in Eulau. It is quite possible that this line was born somewhere else in western Europe, but that location certainly looks to be very close to England.

M198+ M417+ CTS4385+ L664- 259861 England George Stead, b. around 1780 http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/default.aspx?section=ycolorized
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/leavitt/default.aspx?section=yresults
Others: 112550, CTS4385+ L664- United Kingdom http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/kit/6908/
55766, V39WS, CTS4385+ L664-United States http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/kit/5422/


Which thread is that (are you referring to the thread on R1a, R1b and R2 in which I stated the origins of R is not in the steppe because of high diversity in more Southern locations like West Asia and South Central Asia? That was a case where those lineages were not found anywhere else. This isn't the case. Even your post says this line could have been present in Corded Ware). SNP diversity is arguably high in Central Asia since there has been some Z283+/Z280+/M458+ with rare STR's found there along with Z93+. But that could be artificial diversity due to Russian admixture. Same thing probably applies here.

But keep on thinking R1a originated in England. I know nothing will convince you otherwise.

Michał
07-23-2013, 03:17 PM
I think the estimate right now is 4400 or 4300 years.
I think Łukasz Łapiński estimates that Z93 is significantly older than that, as his schematic tree suggests about 5500 years. Also, the recent R1a tree created by Igor Rozhanskii indicates that he considers both Z93 and Z94 to be about 6000 years old (or even slightly older).

newtoboard
07-23-2013, 03:22 PM
I think Łukasz Łapiński estimates that Z93 is significantly older than that, as his schematic tree suggests about 5500 years. Also, the recent R1a tree created by Igor Rozhanskii indicates that he considers both Z93 and Z94 to be about 6000 years old (or even slightly older).

Do these time estimates make it less likely Z93's originated in the Caspian steppes?

Michał
07-23-2013, 03:42 PM
Do these time estimates make it less likely Z93's originated in the Caspian steppes?
Don't think so. However, it is possible that it was mostly Z94 that contributed to Sintashta and Andronovo, while Z93(xZ94) could have been left behind (in Eastern Europe?).

TigerMW
07-23-2013, 03:49 PM
I think the estimate right now is 4400 or 4300 years. I see Z93+ as possibly originating a bit west in Poltavaka. Other theories would be Abashevo (but that had an intrusive Poltavka element) and Sintashta.

Thanks, that's a little further west than I was thinking. The west edge of Poltavka is the Volga River in Central Ukraine. It's a good 2300 kilometers from Kremenchuk to Chelyabinsk and the Ural Mountains. I was trying reconcile some of the genetics with the Uralic influence on Proto-Indo-European but that looks like the wrong direction for Z93, but I guess the aging for Z93 is too young anyway.

newtoboard
07-23-2013, 04:06 PM
Don't think so. However, it is possible that it was mostly Z94 that contributed to Sintashta and Andronovo, while Z93(xZ94) could have been left behind (in Eastern Europe?).

I have suggested before that Z93* and Z93(xZ94) correspond best to the Timber Grave culture and European Scythians so that makes sense.

parasar
07-23-2013, 04:31 PM
Which thread is that (are you referring to the thread on R1a, R1b and R2 in which I stated the origins of R is not in the steppe because of high diversity in more Southern locations like West Asia and South Central Asia? That was a case where those lineages were not found anywhere else. This isn't the case. Even your post says this line could have been present in Corded Ware). SNP diversity is arguably high in Central Asia since there has been some Z283+/Z280+/M458+ with rare STR's found there along with Z93+. But that could be artificial diversity due to Russian admixture. Same thing probably applies here.

But keep on thinking R1a originated in England. I know nothing will convince you otherwise.

Evidence will, but please do not state that you know something that you can't possibly know.

You had mentioned - "That was based off STR diversity in the Indus Valley. SNP diversity in that area is low (99%+ of R1a in the Indus Valley is Z93+ , Z94+, L342.2+)." http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1026-what-is-the-latest-thinking-on-were-R1a-originated&p=10159&viewfull=1#post10159

Your statement looks logical to me.

Following the same logic we can also state for Eastern and Central Europe - 99+% of R1a in Eastern and Central Europe is Z645+, Z646+, Z647+
Right?

But we can't say the same for western Europe which has a pretty significant Z2463/CTS4385 presence.

So logically we have to conclude that western Europe is the place of origin for a marker that unifies Z645+, Z646+, Z647+ and CTS4385.

While it is true a western European origin has not been in serious consideration (in large part due to its low frequency there), the SNP diversity there has been noted.
Eg. "We found that the most ancient R1a subclades (R1a1-M198- and R1a1a-M198+/M417-) bearers of which currently live in Europe (the present day haplotypes are scattered between England and the Balkans) appeared in Europe at least 7300 ybp, and possibly 9000 ybp. R1a’s three principal downstream subclades, L664 (North-Western branch), Z93 (South-Eastern branch), and Z283 (Eurasian branch), split from their common European ancestor at about the same time, around 7000 - 6000 ybp. L664 apparently stayed in North-Western Europe; its lineage recovered and began expanding ~ 4575 ybp ... Since they belong to different subclades, M417− and M417+, their common ancestor lived 7600 ybp only if the “depth” of the M417+ subclade is no more than 7600 years. In that case, the Tenths actually initiated the M417+ subclade." http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=21698

The above was written prior to what is known now - that L664 or the Tenths is not a direct split. It was apparent early that DYS388=10 was not the ancestral form and now we have Z2463/CTS4385(xL664) in England with the ancestral form DYS388=12.

Michał
07-24-2013, 01:11 PM
So logically we have to conclude that western Europe is the place of origin for a marker that unifies Z645+, Z646+, Z647+ and CTS4385.

I don't think this is the most likely option in light of the modern distribution of the two major sub-branches of M417 (i.e. CTS4385 and Z645). It is indeed true that CTS4385 is seen almost exclusively in North-Western Europe (although it is relatively rare there, reaching 1-2% at best). However, Z645 is much more common in both Europe and Asia (exceeding 50% not only in Central and Eastern Europe but also is some regions of Asia) and its center of gravity lies somewhere close to the Pontic-Caspian steppe where we also see a kind of a border separating the regions dominated by the two major sub-branches of Z645 (Z283 and Z93, respectively). There is nothing that would strongly suggest that either Z283/Z282 or Z93 was born in Western Europe. On the contrary, the quite significant presence of Z283/Z282* in West Asia (in addition to Central and Western Europe) and the nearly absolute dominance of Z93 in Asia make the Eastern European homeland of their parental branch Z645 much more likely.

In other words, the fact that the two major sub-branches of M417 expanded most likely from the opposite ends of the European continent make nearly every location between Atlantic and Ural almost equally likely candidate for a potential homeland of M417. Of course, when taking into account some additional information (including all the data provided by archaeology, ancient DNA and the phylogenetic relationship between R1a, R1b, R2, P and Q), it seems much more likely that R1a-M417 was born in Eastern Europe rather than in the North-Western part of this continent.

Also, you cite a fragment of a paper by Rozhanskii and Klyosov, in which they suggest that R1a has entered Europe from the Middle East (through Asia Minor and Balkans) about 9000-7300 ybp (7000-5300 BC). Since this was exactly the time when the agriculture was introduced to Europe from Anatolia, we should expect that R1a was somehow associated with the early Neolithic farmers coming to Europe from West Asia, which is of course totally inconsistent with the available aDNA data (showing the presence of the West Asian haplogroups G2a and E1b, but no R1a, among the Neolithic farmers of the European LKB and Cardium Pottery cultures).

parasar
07-24-2013, 02:56 PM
I don't think this is the most likely option in light of the modern distribution of the two major sub-branches of M417 (i.e. CTS4385 and Z645). It is indeed true that CTS4385 is seen almost exclusively in North-Western Europe (although it is relatively rare there, reaching 1-2% at best). However, Z645 is much more common in both Europe and Asia (exceeding 50% not only in Central and Eastern Europe but also is some regions of Asia) and its center of gravity lies somewhere close to the Pontic-Caspian steppe where we also see a kind of a border separating the regions dominated by the two major sub-branches of Z645 (Z283 and Z93, respectively). There is nothing that would strongly suggest that either Z283/Z282 or Z93 was born in Western Europe. On the contrary, the quite significant presence of Z283/Z282* in West Asia (in addition to Central and Western Europe) and the nearly absolute dominance of Z93 in Asia make the Eastern European homeland of their parental branch Z645 much more likely ...


I am not saying that Z93 was born in NW Europe. Though I think even that is possible.
My comment is limited to the presence of Z2463/CTS4385 in NW Europe. This line along with Z283*, Z93* and M417- makes that location possible for the emergence of M417. Where the other branches expanded from and/or prospered is another issue. Center of gravity does not necessarily point to origin.

What is the proportion of CTS4385 in England and Ireland? I have seen numbers in the range of 20% (of R1a1) mentioned for England and Ireland.



In other words, the fact that the two major sub-branches of M417 expanded most likely from the opposite ends of the European continent make nearly every location between Atlantic and Ural almost equally likely candidate for a potential homeland of M417 ... it seems much more likely that R1a-M417 was born in Eastern Europe rather than in the North-Western part of this continent.

I would go with the almost equally likely scenario with just a small bias towards NW Europe.



Also, you cite a fragment of a paper by Rozhanskii and Klyosov, in which they suggest that R1a has entered Europe from the Middle East (through Asia Minor and Balkans) about 9000-7300 ybp (7000-5300 BC). Since this was exactly the time when the agriculture was introduced to Europe from Anatolia, we should expect that R1a was somehow associated with the early Neolithic farmers coming to Europe from West Asia, which is of course totally inconsistent with the available aDNA data (showing the presence of the West Asian haplogroups G2a and E1b, but no R1a, among the Neolithic farmers of the European LKB and Cardium Pottery cultures).


Rozhanskii and Klyosov think that "The Tenths, or the North-Western branch, is the oldest sub-clade of R1a-M417, identified thus far. It arose at least 6300 ybp." While their absolute timelines may not be persuasive, what is your opinion on the relative ages. In SNP terms which do you think is oldest - Z2463/CTS4385, Z93, or Z283?

Michał
07-25-2013, 10:03 AM
I am not saying that Z93 was born in NW Europe. Though I think even that is possible.
I agree that it cannot be totally excluded, but the chances for the NW European origin of Z93 seem to be extremely low.



My comment is limited to the presence of Z2463/CTS4385 in NW Europe. This line along with Z283*, Z93* and M417- makes that location possible for the emergence of M417.

AFAIK, there are no data demonstrating that R1a(xM417), Z93* or Z283*/Z282* are more common in Western Europe than in Eastern Europe or in West Asia. Of course, there is an apparent illusion that these lineages are more frequent among the FTDNA customers originating from Western Europe. However, when recalculating these absolute numbers in order to take into account the numbers of all FTDNA customers originating from each region, it will turn out that Z283/Z282* and Z93* are actually more frequent in Turkey/Armenia or even at the Persian Gulf than in Western Europe. The case of R1a(xM417) is more complicated as these lineages are extremely rare in both Europe and Asia. Nevertheless, I have already demonstrated on another forum that after finding just one case of R1a(xM417) in Belarus (like kit N86494 from our project), you will need to find about 100 similar cases among people of British or Irish origin to reach a similar “frequency” of those rare R1a species on the Isles:
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=826&start=316



What is the proportion of CTS4385 in England and Ireland? I have seen numbers in the range of 20% (of R1a1) mentioned for England and Ireland.

This seems to be more or less correct, and since the frequency of R1a in England and Ireland is very low (about 4-5%), this would correspond to less than 1% of the total population.

Martin Voorwinden (a co-admin of our R1a1a and Subclades project) has recently made a survey of the European geographical projects at FTDNA, and here are his results for the frequency of L664 (DYS388=10):

Scandinavia 7/755, 0.93%
Norway 10/1133, 0.88 %
Brtish Isles 35/4786, 0.73%
Sweden 5/755, 0.66%
Netherlands(1) 1/158, 0.63%
Germany 11/2282, 0.48%
IrishFamilies 3/636, 0.47%
Ireland 22/5023, 0.44%
Denmark 3/688, 0.44%
Scotland 13/3598, 0.36%
Netherlands(2) 1/332, 0.30%
UlsterHeritage 5/2553, 0.20%
Czech 1/573, 0.17%
Finland 4/3290, 0.12%
FrenchHeritage 3/2749, 0.11%

He found no L664 (DYS388=10) in any other European project, including for example the relatively large Polish, Russian, Slovak and Spanish projects.




I would go with the almost equally likely scenario with just a small bias towards NW Europe.

Assuming that you are right about R1a-M417 having been born in NW Europe, would you consider it more likely that M417 was associated with the local Mesolithic population or rather with a group of some Neolithic newcomers from SE Europe, for example with the members of the TRB culture whose Y-DNA association remains unknown (in contrast to LBK). If R1a was present in NW Europe since long time ago, did the different R1a species (both R1a(xM417) and M417+) represent a majority of the Mesolithic population in that entire region (so your theory could be easily verified by aDNA), or they were just a very small band of people who have somehow managed to suddenly explode with the expansion of the Corded Ware culture?

Also, will the potential finding of R1a among the ancient people representing the Eastern European Neolithic Dnieper-Doniets and/or Samara cultures constitute a sufficient proof that your “NW European” hypothesis is much less likely?




Rozhanskii and Klyosov think that "The Tenths, or the North-Western branch, is the oldest sub-clade of R1a-M417, identified thus far. It arose at least 6300 ybp.
It is not true that L664 (DYS338=10) is the “oldest subclade of R1a-M417”. The date you provide is a suggested date of the separation of L664 and the remaining subgroup of M417 (encompassing Z283 and Z93), which of course corresponds to the age of separation of the two major sub-branches of M417 (CTS4385 and Z645) or to the age of M417 itself.

In fact, Rozhanskii and Klyosov have estimated the age of L664 to be about 4500 years, which suggests that this branch is significantly younger than either Z93 (about 5700 years according to the same paper) or Z283 (about 5500 years), which of course implies that L664 is much younger than Z645 (a parental branch for Z93 and Z283).





While their absolute timelines may not be persuasive, what is your opinion on the relative ages. In SNP terms which do you think is oldest - Z2463/CTS4385, Z93, or Z283?
Both Z283 and Z93 seem to be significantly older than L664 (as noted above). It is much more difficult to compare the age of CTS4385 and Z645, since CTS4385 is composed of L644 and a very small (and very young) Leavitt/Stead lineage. However, I would estimate CTS4385 to be at least 1000 years older than L664 and it seems perfectly possible that these two sublineages of CTS4385 have been separated shortly after CTS4385 has been separated from the Z645 branch (i.e. as early as 6000 ybp or 4000 BC, according to the calculations by Rozhanskii and Klyosov).

Rathna
07-25-2013, 04:05 PM
Nevertheless, I have already demonstrated on another forum that after finding just one case of R1a(xM417) in Belarus (like kit N86494 from our project), you will need to find about 100 similar cases among people of British or Irish origin to reach a similar “frequency” of those rare R1a species on the Isles:
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=826&start=316


I don't see in your data the Italians tested. Anyway they are a few, but also Italy has a R1a-M420: N78270 Covelli.
I think that what is important is the haplotype. British men belong all to the same haplotype, then they count for 1. Unfortunately Covelli has been tested only for 12 markers and differs from the most part of the British men in DYS385b and in DYS389II. I don't consider DYS439. We may think that they belong to the same haplotype and, if my theory is right, the British men should derive from the Italian one.
In the past I have made you note the huge presence, if not of R1a*, at least of R1a1* and R1a1a* in the Rhaetian Region.
Germany has the haplotype of the Yeagers.
I'll look at this Belarussian and if my previous hypotheses were right about the Iranian R1a* as derived from the Russian plane. Unfortunately I think that we haven't their haplotype.
No R1a* so far in India.

newtoboard
07-25-2013, 04:24 PM
I don't see in your data the Italians tested. Anyway they are a few, but also Italy has a R1a-M420: N78270 Covelli.
I think that what is important is the haplotype. British men belong all to the same haplotype, then they count for 1. Unfortunately Covelli has been tested only for 12 markers and differs from the most part of the British men in DYS385b and in DYS389II. I don't consider DYS439. We may think that they belong to the same haplotype and, if my theory is right, the British men should derive from the Italian one.
In the past I have made you note the huge presence, if not of R1a*, at least of R1a1* and R1a1a* in the Rhaetian Region.
Germany has the haplotype of the Yeagers.
I'll look at this Belarussian and if my previous hypotheses were right about the Iranian R1a* as derived from the Russian plane. Unfortunately I think that we haven't their haplotype.
No R1a* so far in India.

No R1a* in India pretty much supports the idea that the Iranian R1a* is not derived from a more northern location such as the Eastern European plain.

Rathna
07-25-2013, 04:30 PM
N86494 is R1a1* and not R1a*.

parasar
07-25-2013, 04:31 PM
...

This seems to be more or less correct, and since the frequency of R1a in England and Ireland is very low (about 4-5%), this would correspond to less than 1% of the total population.

Thanks. The key point that I was addressing is SNP diversity within R1a1, not the proportion of R1a1 in the whole population.



It is not true that L664 (DYS338=10) is the “oldest subclade of R1a-M417”. The date you provide is a suggested date of the separation of L664 and the remaining subgroup of M417 (encompassing Z283 and Z93), which of course corresponds to the age of separation of the two major sub-branches of M417 (CTS4385 and Z645) or to the age of M417 itself.

In fact, Rozhanskii and Klyosov have estimated the age of L664 to be about 4500 years, which suggests that this branch is significantly younger than either Z93 (about 5700 years according to the same paper) or Z283 (about 5500 years), which of course implies that L664 is much younger than Z645 (a parental branch for Z93 and Z283).
...
Both Z283 and Z93 seem to be significantly older than L664 (as noted above).

To me, their "Tenths" age is the age of L664. So when they say that the Tenths arose at least 6300ybp, I take to mean that L664 arose about that same time. Though, I think their calculations in the paper are not fully reliable since they separate out L664- and + under DYS388=10 (now almost all of DYS388=10 is also L664+).

A more recent diagram is here: http://r1a.org/img/r1a1_700.jpg where Rozhanski puts the TMRCA of L657 and L664 NW-1 as about equal.
"The left ends of the colored bars mark the branch's TMRCA as calculated by I. Rozhanskii. SNPs were placed on branches between the branching points and TMRCAs arbitrarily. Updated 8 April 2013"



Assuming that you are right about R1a-M417 having been born in NW Europe, would you consider it more likely that M417 was associated with the local Mesolithic population or rather with a group of some Neolithic newcomers from SE Europe, for example with the members of the TRB culture whose Y-DNA association remains unknown (in contrast to LBK). If R1a was present in NW Europe since long time ago, did the different R1a species (both R1a(xM417) and M417+) represent a majority of the Mesolithic population in that entire region (so your theory could be easily verified by aDNA), or they were just a very small band of people who have somehow managed to suddenly explode with the expansion of the Corded Ware culture?

Also, will the potential finding of R1a among the ancient people representing the Eastern European Neolithic Dnieper-Doniets and/or Samara cultures constitute a sufficient proof that your “NW European” hypothesis is much less likely?


Yes. I keep changing my thinking as the data comes along. :) Ancient DNA would surely make me reconsider.

Even within current populations if something like Z2463/CTS4385 is found in Eastern Europe, Inner Asia, or South Asia, my thinking would shift.

Right now, I feel that M417 was born in the vicinity of the North Sea either on the continent or the Isles, but not in Norway, around LGM. With LGM, R1a1 retreated south and east and by 15000ybp was established on the Indus. The R1a1 in the Isles is some relict.

The reason for the number 15000ybp on the Indus is that the age of L657 on the Indus is essentially the age of R1a1 (calculated per Zhiv methods). Plus an increase in diversity due to a multiple input secnario does not work for L657. R1a1 must have entered South Asia prior to the birth of L657.

R1a1-L657 dominates South Asia from the NW to eastern and southern portions. Therefore, IMO, Metspalu should have noticed R1a1's signal if it had entered South Asia in the past 12500 years. They did not. "Y chromosome variants of the R1a clade are spread from India (ca 50%) to eastern Europe and their precise origin in space or time is still not well understood.76 In our analysis we find genetic ancestry signals in the autosomal genes with somewhat similar spread patterns. Both PC2 and k5 light green at K = 8 extend from South Asia to Central Asia and the Caucasus (but not into eastern Europe)...our current results indicate that the often debated episode of South Asian prehistory, the putative Indo-Aryan migration 3,500 years ago (see e.g., Abdulla15) falls well within the limits of our haplotype-based approach. We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8. Thus, 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

Now if Metspalu's k5 is not the signal associated with R1a1 then of course my timelines would not be supported. The R1a1-k5 association is also problematic with respect to the presence of the former but absence of the latter in eastern Europe. The only other component that could potentially trace R1a1 is their k4 (k3 is unlikely as that signal is absent in India - "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."). http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0002929711004885-gr2.jpg
So if k4 is the R1a1 signal then a recent Aryan/R1a1 connection becomes more plausible.

Rathna
07-25-2013, 04:36 PM
No R1a* in India pretty much supports the idea that the Iranian R1a* is not derived from a more northern location such as the Eastern European plain.

Now with Geno 2.0 you will see
some PF SNP coming out
and your house of cards
throwing down.

Rathna
07-25-2013, 04:57 PM
Right now, I feel that M417 was born in the vicinity of the North Sea either on the continent or the Isles, but not in Norway, around LGM. With LGM, R1a1 retreated south and east and by 15000ybp was established on the Indus. The R1a1 in the Isles is some relict.

The reason for the number 15000ybp on the Indus is that the age of L657 on the Indus is essentially the age of R1a1 (calculated per Zhiv methods).

Now we are coming to reason. I demonstrated that an Indian haplotype, of a late subclade, not R1a, R1a1 etc perhaps R-Z93, being an outlier, even calculated by the current methods, was more than 12,000 years old, like the Zhiv method applied to the most diffused haplotypes. These are the ages I think, and perhaps you know I think that both R1a and R1b were in the Alpine Region at least during the Younger Dryas.

P.S. The haplogroup was R1a1a-M17 and this was the post of mine:


This posting of mine, posted here and published also by Dienekes, is waiting some response, above all from Anatole Klyosov:


An interesting haplotype of R1a1a (M17) has been found in the paper of Gunjan Sharma et al., Genetic Affinities of the Central Indian Tribal Population, PLoS one, February 2012:
DYS19=18
DYS385=14-17
DYS389=15-30
DYS390=28
DYS391=12
DYS392=14
DYS393=13
DYS437=17
DYS439=13
DYS448=22
DYS456=17
DYS458=17

At first sight it could seem we have found the R-M420 not found so far in India with its DYS492=14, which presupposes a 13, whereas all the other R1a1a haplotypes have 11 or 10 and 12 from 11, but this haplotype has been tested for M17, then it isn’t an R-M420. Also the extremely large variance of the other markers makes us think that this value 14 derives from a modal 11 (or what was the modal at the origin of this subclade). Then again all the discourses about “modal” and “variance”, as I have supported many times, are worth nothing.
But I think it would be something to say about the TMRCA of 10.97+/-1.86 kya (25 y for generation) even though calculated by the Zhivotovsky rate. It is clear that these R1a1a-s belong to different clades and the massive presence of the clade most usually found falsifies the calculation. It is clear that this haplotype is an outlier, but for this more interesting, because testifies all the mutation gone mostly for the tangent and not around the modal. If we calculate the intraclade between two of these haplotypes, for instance with this closer to the modal: 15, 11-14, 14-32, 24,10, 11, 12,14,10, 20, 15,16 we have 32 mutations. Also using the usual mutation rate of 0,0022, we have:
(454x32)/28=518
518x25=12,950
and I have used a generation of 25 years and not 32 as I use usually, and I haven’t considered other mutations around the modal.

Conclusions? The ancientness of the haplogroups is much much more than it is usually thought.

newtoboard
07-25-2013, 05:32 PM
Thanks. The key point that I was addressing is SNP diversity within R1a1, not the proportion of R1a1 in the whole population.



To me, their "Tenths" age is the age of L664. So when they say that the Tenths arose at least 6300ybp, I take to mean that L664 arose about that same time. Though, I think their calculations in the paper are not fully reliable since they separate out L664- and + under DYS388=10 (now almost all of DYS388=10 is also L664+).

A more recent diagram is here: http://r1a.org/img/r1a1_700.jpg where Rozhanski puts the TMRCA of L657 and L664 NW-1 as about equal.
"The left ends of the colored bars mark the branch's TMRCA as calculated by I. Rozhanskii. SNPs were placed on branches between the branching points and TMRCAs arbitrarily. Updated 8 April 2013"



Yes. I keep changing my thinking as the data comes along. :) Ancient DNA would surely make me reconsider.

Even within current populations if something like Z2463/CTS4385 is found in Eastern Europe, Inner Asia, or South Asia, my thinking would shift.

Right now, I feel that M417 was born in the vicinity of the North Sea either on the continent or the Isles, but not in Norway, around LGM. With LGM, R1a1 retreated south and east and by 15000ybp was established on the Indus. The R1a1 in the Isles is some relict.

The reason for the number 15000ybp on the Indus is that the age of L657 on the Indus is essentially the age of R1a1 (calculated per Zhiv methods). Plus an increase in diversity due to a multiple input secnario does not work for L657. R1a1 must have entered South Asia prior to the birth of L657.

R1a1-L657 dominates South Asia from the NW to eastern and southern portions. Therefore, IMO, Metspalu should have noticed R1a1's signal if it had entered South Asia in the past 12500 years. They did not. "Y chromosome variants of the R1a clade are spread from India (ca 50%) to eastern Europe and their precise origin in space or time is still not well understood.76 In our analysis we find genetic ancestry signals in the autosomal genes with somewhat similar spread patterns. Both PC2 and k5 light green at K = 8 extend from South Asia to Central Asia and the Caucasus (but not into eastern Europe)...our current results indicate that the often debated episode of South Asian prehistory, the putative Indo-Aryan migration 3,500 years ago (see e.g., Abdulla15) falls well within the limits of our haplotype-based approach. We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8. Thus, 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

Now if Metspalu's k5 is not the signal associated with R1a1 then of course my timelines would not be supported. The R1a1-k5 association is also problematic with respect to the presence of the former but absence of the latter in eastern Europe. The only other component that could potentially trace R1a1 is their k4 (k3 is unlikely as that signal is absent in India - "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."). http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0002929711004885-gr2.jpg
So if k4 is the R1a1 signal then a recent Aryan/R1a1 connection becomes more plausible.

The signal is the Northern European component Polako has found in Indo-Iranian speakers. It is closest to that of Ukranians and Belorussians. Indian R1a is no older than the Bronze Age. You are forgetting it is all L342.2+ and Z94+.

parasar
07-25-2013, 05:47 PM
The signal is the Northern European component Polako has found in Indo-Iranian speakers. It is closest to that of Ukranians and Belorussians. Indian R1a is no older than the Bronze Age. You are forgetting it is all L342.2+ and Z94+.

No I am not forgetting. I am going backwards from the TMRCA of L657. Even using non-Zhiv methods it is quite high.

574
The left ends of the colored bars mark the branch's TMRCA as calculated by I. Rozhanskii. SNPs were placed on branches between the branching points and TMRCAs arbitrarily. Updated 8 April 2013

Michał
07-26-2013, 04:58 PM
I don't see in your data the Italians tested.
I am not sure what kind of “my data” you have in mind.




In the past I have made you note the huge presence, if not of R1a*, at least of R1a1* and R1a1a* in the Rhaetian Region.

Yes, I remember your claims about the “huge presence” of those rare R1a species in the Alpine region.
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=719&start=57
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=506&start=19
It is quite possible that each of us who posts on this forum has his/her favorite theory regarding some DNA-related issues, so we need to show some tolerance and accept your idée fixe, as well. :) However, your absolute inability to modify your opinion in light of some obvious facts makes me suspect that any further discussion on this subject will be fruitless.



N86494 is R1a1* and not R1a*.
I don’t recall anybody having mentioned that kit N86494 is R1a*. :)




An interesting haplotype of R1a1a (M17) has been found in the paper of Gunjan Sharma et al., Genetic Affinities of the Central Indian Tribal Population, PLoS one, February 2012:

Personally, I find it a bit unlikely that this extremely unusual haplotype represents any potential subclade of R1a1a (M17+), hence I would rather be inclined to believe that this is simply a lab error. Please note that all other cases of R1a1a (including R1a1a*) that are known to us show a closer genetic distance to the theoretically more distantly related R1a1* and R1a* haplotypes than to this atypical haplotype reported by Sharma et al. as M17+ (i.e. R1a1a). The Fig.3C in their paper suggests that this particular haplotype may be related to a haplotype from another study, most likely to sample T068 from Thakur (Thangaraj et al., 2010), but after comparing the STR values of both haplotypes, it becomes obvious that T068 represents a much more typical case of M17 (or actually M417, since it shows DYS392=11) that lacks all these atypical values like DYS390=28, DYS19=18, DYS385=14-17, DYS439=13, DYS437=17(!), DYS448=22(!) and DYS635=22.

Michał
07-26-2013, 05:14 PM
Thanks. The key point that I was addressing is SNP diversity within R1a1, not the proportion of R1a1 in the whole population.
The vast majority of R1a in Britain and Ireland (probably about 80-90%) is represented by just two major clades, i.e. Z284 and L664 (and both of them have likely originated somewhere else). All other R1a branches are very rare (including Z283/2*, Z93, M458, Z280, and different M417- species), and some of them would have probably remained unnoticed if not the fact that the huge number of the FTDNA customers showing British and/or Irish ancestry makes it significantly easier to find some rare R1a clades. In other words, I could equally well say that since we know some L664, Z284, M458, Z280, Z93, Z282* and M417- members originating from Poland, this indicates the “highest SNP diversity” in Poland.



To me, their "Tenths" age is the age of L664. So when they say that the Tenths arose at least 6300ybp, I take to mean that L664 arose about that same time. Though, I think their calculations in the paper are not fully reliable since they separate out L664- and + under DYS388=10 (now almost all of DYS388=10 is also L664+).
Your interpretation is definitely incorrect, as you seem to confuse the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA, which corresponds to the “age of the clade”) with the moment when the lineage parental to L664 has been separated from the lineage parental to Z645.

Rozhanskii and Klyosov evidently mention 4575 ybp as the time when the most recent common ancestor of the entire “North-Western Branch” (including the “false negative” L664- cases showing DYS338=10) could have lived (see the title of the appropriate chapter on page 141). In that chapter they also state that two additional analyses suggested TMRCAs of 4300 and 4100 years, respectively, which has been commented as “the same value within the margins of error”. Additionally, the schematic R1a tree made by Igor last year was consistent with the above dating.



A more recent diagram is here: http://r1a.org/img/r1a1_700.jpg where Rozhanski puts the TMRCA of L657 and L664 NW-1 as about equal.

Still, the L664 branch remains to be shown as younger than Z93 or Z283. I hope you don’t pay attention to the exact position of the L664 label on this scheme, as it could have been placed anywhere between the positions representing the initial “branching off” and the subsequent division into some sub-branches.

It is indeed true that Igor has recently modified his tree, but apart from increasing the age of L664 (as you have rightly noticed), he has also introduced similar modifications for nearly all other branches (including Z93, Z280 and Z284), so this seems to be related to some “recalibration” of all his data, which apparently doesn’t affect the relative ages of particular subclades.




Right now, I feel that M417 was born in the vicinity of the North Sea either on the continent or the Isles, but not in Norway, around LGM. With LGM, R1a1 retreated south and east and by 15000ybp was established on the Indus. The R1a1 in the Isles is some relict.
It seems to me that you are a bit inconsistent in your line of thinking. The above scenario actually strongly contradicts your assumption that CTS4385 and L664 were born in NW Europe and have been staying there ever since, which was actually the only reason why you seemed to consider NW Europe as the most likely homeland of M417.

Your LGM-related theory actually assumes that after branch L664 was born in NW Europe, it was subsequently forced to migrate south or east and only after a few millennia it was able to come back to NW Europe. Importantly, it seems that L664 left no traces of that long migration process despite the fact this branch has been already divided into many separate sub-branches (at least according to your timeline).

Summarizing, I must admit that I find your LGM-related theory explaining the current distribution of R1a as totally unsupported.

newtoboard
07-26-2013, 09:00 PM
That is what I talked about with artificial diversity in Britain. I also fail to see how Z93 originated there with almost no trail in between until you get to Central Asia (or in ancient times maybe the Pontic steppe). Yet this NW European admixture doesn't seem to show up in autosomal admixture? Central Asia arguably has similar diversity in M458+/Z280+/ Z283+ clades with STR's quite different from European R1a in addition to Z93+ if we ignore their Russian admixture. I guess if we ignore the Scythian, Viking, likely Corded Ware admixture in Britain that brought Z93+, Z284+ and L664+ to them then parasar's theory makes some sense. The only thing unique about British R1a is high SNP diversity due to multiple sources. Similar to how STR diversity of R1a is highest around the Indus Valley because of multiple Central Asian and West Asian sources.

alan
07-26-2013, 10:20 PM
I totally agree with this point about British and Irish sampling being 100s of times greater than any other European country and this means that just a couple of examples in a poorly tested country so if one is logical you need to multiply them by that ffactor to get a real idea of frequency. This of course also plagues R1b.

parasar
07-27-2013, 02:52 AM
The vast majority of R1a in Britain and Ireland (probably about 80-90%) is represented by just two major clades, i.e. Z284 and L664 (and both of them have likely originated somewhere else). All other R1a branches are very rare (including Z283/2*, Z93, M458, Z280, and different M417- species), and some of them would have probably remained unnoticed if not the fact that the huge number of the FTDNA customers showing British and/or Irish ancestry makes it significantly easier to find some rare R1a clades. In other words, I could equally well say that since we know some L664, Z284, M458, Z280, Z93, Z282* and M417- members originating from Poland, this indicates the “highest SNP diversity” in Poland.

To look at the origin of M417, my thinking is this: Is M417- present? Is M417+ present? How many down-stream lines of M417 are present? What is the ratio among these lines?

The markers you mention except for M417- and L664 are not that useful to determine origin of M417.

To me the presence of Z93+Z94- and Z283* is helpful but not determinative.



Your interpretation is definitely incorrect, as you seem to confuse the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA, which corresponds to the “age of the clade”) with the moment when the lineage parental to L664 has been separated from the lineage parental to Z645.

… Still, the L664 branch remains to be shown as younger than Z93 or Z283. I hope you don’t pay attention to the exact position of the L664 label on this scheme, as it could have been placed anywhere between the positions representing the initial “branching off” and the subsequent division into some sub-branches.

It is indeed true that Igor has recently modified his tree, but apart from increasing the age of L664 (as you have rightly noticed), he has also introduced similar modifications for nearly all other branches (including Z93, Z280 and Z284), so this seems to be related to some “recalibration” of all his data, which apparently doesn’t affect the relative ages of particular subclades.

But in spite of similar modifications the oldest TMCRA he calculates is for NW-1, one of the L664 branches. And L664 should theoretically be older than one of its branches. I am looking at the left ends of the colored bars which are calculated TMRCAs, not the SNP circles.
“The left ends of the colored bars mark the branch's TMRCA as calculated by I. Rozhanskii. SNPs were placed on branches between the branching points and TMRCAs arbitrarily. Updated 8 April 2013”




It seems to me that you are a bit inconsistent in your line of thinking. The above scenario actually strongly contradicts your assumption that CTS4385 and L664 were born in NW Europe and have been staying there ever since, which was actually the only reason why you seemed to consider NW Europe as the most likely homeland of M417.

Your LGM-related theory actually assumes that after branch L664 was born in NW Europe, it was subsequently forced to migrate south or east and only after a few millennia it was able to come back to NW Europe. Importantly, it seems that L664 left no traces of that long migration process despite the fact this branch has been already divided into many separate sub-branches (at least according to your timeline).

Summarizing, I must admit that I find your LGM-related theory explaining the current distribution of R1a as totally unsupported.

To clarify what I meant by “is some relict” – that they were remnants or born of a few individuals that never left.




That is what I talked about with artificial diversity in Britain. I also fail to see how Z93 originated there with almost no trail in between until you get to Central Asia (or in ancient times maybe the Pontic steppe). Yet this NW European admixture doesn't seem to show up in autosomal admixture? Central Asia arguably has similar diversity in M458+/Z280+/ Z283+ clades with STR's quite different from European R1a in addition to Z93+ if we ignore their Russian admixture. I guess if we ignore the Scythian, Viking, likely Corded Ware admixture in Britain that brought Z93+, Z284+ and L664+ to them then parasar's theory makes some sense. The only thing unique about British R1a is high SNP diversity due to multiple sources. Similar to how STR diversity of R1a is highest around the Indus Valley because of multiple Central Asian and West Asian sources.

Much of South Asian STR diversity comes just from L657. Are you proposing multiple West Asian and Central Asian influxes of L657?

Where would you bring the Z2463/CTS4385+L664- to England from? The only place I can reasonably think of is some close by location in NW Europe, say France which has not been well studied and may indeed surprise.

No idea about Z283, but I doubt that Central Asian M458/Z280 markers are that different. The STRs published by Pamjav (admittedly limited in number) do not show them to be that different. As you can see from their Fig 1 the Uzbek and Mongolian are within the range of the eastern European ones. http://www.familytreedna.com/PDF/New_Y_Chromosome_Binary_Markers_Improve_Phylogenet ic_Resolution_Within_Haplogroup_R1a1.pdf



I totally agree with this point about British and Irish sampling being 100s of times greater than any other European country and this means that just a couple of examples in a poorly tested country so if one is logical you need to multiply them by that ffactor to get a real idea of frequency. This of course also plagues R1b.

No doubt, the Isles have benefited from higher participation there and in the US. But this has not resulted in any L657 being found even though England and South Asia have a history going back few hundred years. Therefore I have to think these exotic lines are remnants of a remote past in NW Europe and cannot be explained by some recent multiple inputs.

Similarly M458 which I think was born somewhere in Eastern Europe some 5000 ybp has barely made its presence felt in the Isles or Italy. That these exotic types made through in relative terms, just does not make sense unless they were already there in NW Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/R-M458_frequency_distribution.PNG

parasar
07-27-2013, 03:49 AM
Now we are coming to reason. I demonstrated that an Indian haplotype, of a late subclade, not R1a, R1a1 etc perhaps R-Z93, being an outlier, even calculated by the current methods, was more than 12,000 years old, like the Zhiv method applied to the most diffused haplotypes. These are the ages I think, and perhaps you know I think that both R1a and R1b were in the Alpine Region at least during the Younger Dryas.
...
If we calculate the intraclade between two of these haplotypes, for instance with this closer to the modal: 15, 11-14, 14-32, 24,10, 11, 12,14,10, 20, 15,16 we have 32 mutations. Also using the usual mutation rate of 0,0022, we have:
(454x32)/28=518
518x25=12,950
and I have used a generation of 25 years and not 32 as I use usually, and I haven’t considered other mutations around the modal.

Conclusions? The ancientness of the haplogroups is much much more than it is usually thought.

If the STR data ( http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032546.s003 ) is correct, yes it does look different from the norm and very diverse for that sample. This is the same Sahariya group (but not the same sample) that was also tested by different Sharma (Swarkar). The other Sharma had even found M17- in 13 Sahariya samples and in two Kashmiris, but never did publish STRs. One thing in common though is the diversity of haplotypes for both Sahariya sample sets. With the caveat that it should be considered suspect, this is the other Sharma's figure:
http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/images/jhg20082f4.gif
[In a personal communication, Sharma could only confirm that two Kashmiri samples were M17- in his dataset though the figure shows a higher number. Plus in the shoddy diagram error filled diagram there is a partial reversal of colors, and Sharma and Bamezai indicated some of the circles have weight of two.]

alan
07-27-2013, 09:46 AM
To look at the origin of M417, my thinking is this: Is M417- present? Is M417+ present? How many down-stream lines of M417 are present? What is the ratio among these lines?

The markers you mention except for M417- and L664 are not that useful to determine origin of M417.

To me the presence of Z93+Z94- and Z283* is helpful but not determinative.




But in spite of similar modifications the oldest TMCRA he calculates is for NW-1, one of the L664 branches. And L664 should theoretically be older than one of its branches. I am looking at the left ends of the colored bars which are calculated TMRCAs, not the SNP circles.
“The left ends of the colored bars mark the branch's TMRCA as calculated by I. Rozhanskii. SNPs were placed on branches between the branching points and TMRCAs arbitrarily. Updated 8 April 2013”




To clarify what I meant by “is some relict” – that they were remnants or born of a few individuals that never left.





Much of South Asian STR diversity comes just from L657. Are you proposing multiple West Asian and Central Asian influxes of L657?

Where would you bring the Z2463/CTS4385+L664- to England from? The only place I can reasonably think of is some close by location in NW Europe, say France which has not been well studied and may indeed surprise.

No idea about Z283, but I doubt that Central Asian M458/Z280 markers are that different. The STRs published by Pamjav (admittedly limited in number) do not show them to be that different. As you can see from their Fig 1 the Uzbek and Mongolian are within the range of the eastern European ones. http://www.familytreedna.com/PDF/New_Y_Chromosome_Binary_Markers_Improve_Phylogenet ic_Resolution_Within_Haplogroup_R1a1.pdf




No doubt, the Isles have benefited from higher participation there and in the US. But this has not resulted in any L657 being found even though England and South Asia have a history going back few hundred years. Therefore I have to think these exotic lines are remnants of a remote past in NW Europe and cannot be explained by some recent multiple inputs.

Similarly M458 which I think was born somewhere in Eastern Europe some 5000 ybp has barely made its presence felt in the Isles or Italy. That these exotic types made through in relative terms, just does not make sense unless they were already there in NW Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/R-M458_frequency_distribution.PNG

I think the thing is that where there is absence in the isles it is not a problem. If something is absent in the isles despite the massive bias then its clearcut. However, when you get clades that are presen in very low numbers in the isles it is a different story. That means they have been picked up through the enormous 'sample' that has happened in the isles. I particularly think where a clade is rare in the isles we really do have to at least wonder if its only a case that its so rare that a massive sampling will pick it up. This is even more the case when something has say 40 examples in the isles and say 3 on the continent. If you factor in the 100 times bias then in fact the three could be thought to represent 300. IMO all statistics based on hobbiest testing have to be considered on that basis.

parasar
07-27-2013, 04:02 PM
I think the thing is that where there is absence in the isles it is not a problem. If something is absent in the isles despite the massive bias then its clearcut. However, when you get clades that are presen in very low numbers in the isles it is a different story. That means they have been picked up through the enormous 'sample' that has happened in the isles. I particularly think where a clade is rare in the isles we really do have to at least wonder if its only a case that its so rare that a massive sampling will pick it up. This is even more the case when something has say 40 examples in the isles and say 3 on the continent. If you factor in the 100 times bias then in fact the three could be thought to represent 300. IMO all statistics based on hobbiest testing have to be considered on that basis.

If the claim is that there was a movement from central or eastern Europe one has to explain the near absence of M458 in England. L664 get picked up just be regular sampling in England, you do not have to rely on the private databases to flush that out. Very early DYS388=10 was picked up, just its position on the SNP chain was not known. L664's pre-historic presence in NW Europe looks evident IMO. How old, we perhaps have to wait for better calibration with ancient DNA. I go with the Zhivotovsky method ages for overall SNP age since they seem in line with ancient G2a finds.

On Z93+Z94- in England, I would agree with you on the over-representation part.

newtoboard
07-27-2013, 04:42 PM
If the claim is that there was a movement from central or eastern Europe one has to explain the near absence of M458 in England. L664 get picked up just be regular sampling in England, you do not have to rely on the private databases to flush that out. Very early DYS388=10 was picked up, just its position on the SNP chain was not known. L664's pre-historic presence in NW Europe looks evident IMO. How old, we perhaps have to wait for better calibration with ancient DNA. I go with the Zhivotovsky method ages for overall SNP age since they seem in line with ancient G2a finds.

On Z93+Z94- in England, I would agree with you on the over-representation part.

Why would M458+ have to move with L664+? The theory has been a migration from the Western portion of Corded Ware. That portion lies in Western Europe. Corded Ware is a very large archeological horizon especially if you count its expansions into Scandanavia and Russia. I see no reason to assume that its different clades of Y-DNA R1a were evenly distributed. Having L664+, M458+, Z280+ from West to East seems likely doesn't it?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Corded_Ware_culture.png

AJL
07-27-2013, 05:17 PM
I think the thing is that where there is absence in the isles it is not a problem. If something is absent in the isles despite the massive bias then its clearcut. However, when you get clades that are presen in very low numbers in the isles it is a different story. That means they have been picked up through the enormous 'sample' that has happened in the isles. I particularly think where a clade is rare in the isles we really do have to at least wonder if its only a case that its so rare that a massive sampling will pick it up.

Agreed. So far, most rare subclades that appear in the Isles (apart from some connected to L21, notably) appear in greater proportion elsewhere. Statistical bias of sheer numbers of people testing with paternal origins in the Isles can be partially overcome by examining proportion, rather than raw number, though one of the deficits we have is a near-vacuum of tests from a huge region of interest: the area between Central Asia and Ukraine/Belarus.

parasar
07-27-2013, 09:01 PM
Why would M458+ have to move with L664+? The theory has been a migration from the Western portion of Corded Ware. That portion lies in Western Europe. Corded Ware is a very large archeological horizon especially if you count its expansions into Scandanavia and Russia. I see no reason to assume that its different clades of Y-DNA R1a were evenly distributed. Having L664+, M458+, Z280+ from West to East seems likely doesn't it?


Yes it is quite possible that L664 spread from Western Europe (say the Eulau region) to North Western Europe.
Though even for that scenario I have certain doubts as L664 is absent in Iceland, and Norse colonies in Britain don't have it either. Therefore I am more inclined to place its origin in the neighborhood of the English Channel, perhaps northern France or England and a spread from there.
Z2463/CTS4385+L664-DYS388=12 will clarify. Lets how its distribution plays out.

The difference between my position and Michał's is regarding the point of origin (where it first arose) rather than the place of expansion. That was my reason for bringing in M458.


...
It depends on what you mean by origin. Based on the current distribution of all potential sub-branches, we can be nearly certain that L664 expanded from a place located somewhere on the North Sea coast. But if you mean the moment when the L664 (or pre-L664) lineage first arose (as a sister clade of Z645), it could have been nearly everywhere between Atlantic and Ural. Personally, I consider Eastern Europe as the most likely option, although I don’t have enough data to support it (and I know many people who are strongly convinced that Western or Central Europe are much more likely options)...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/NASA_NorthSea1_2.jpg/240px-NASA_NorthSea1_2.jpg

Michał
07-28-2013, 10:30 AM
The markers you mention except for M417- and L664 are not that useful to determine origin of M417.
I must disagree with that. Why is the presence of one particular sub-branch of M417 (L664, or actually CTS4385) so important for determining the origin of M417, while the presence (and diversity!) of the other (much larger!) sub-branch of M417 (Z645) is not useful in this respect. You seem to use double standards here. :)

As for branch Z645, the current distribution of all particular sub-branches of this huge clade (encompassing together more than 99% of all R1a members), as well as some hints from the aDNA data and archaeology, all speak against its NW European origin. In my opinion, it seems definitely most likely that Z645 arose somewhere between Central Europe and Ural. That’s why I think that we are currently unable to securely assign the origin of its parental branch M417 to any specific location between the Atlantic coast and the Ural mountains (or Caspian Sea), although I personally find the Eastern European homeland of M417 more likely.



But in spite of similar modifications the oldest TMCRA he calculates is for NW-1, one of the L664 branches. And L664 should theoretically be older than one of its branches. I am looking at the left ends of the colored bars which are calculated TMRCAs, not the SNP circles.

Now I see what was the reason of your confusion. You were simply comparing the ages of only those selected “branches” that have been distinguished by Igor in his scheme. The fact that Igor divided the large Z93 and Z283 branches into many smaller (and younger) sub-branches, with each of them being indeed younger than L664, does not change the fact that L664 is definitely younger than either Z93 or Z283 (not to mention Z645).

As for the two hypothetical sub-branches NW-1 and NW-2 (DYS492=14) that have been distinguished by Igor, our co-admin Mariusz Wilkoszewski (who have analyzed the L664 haplotypes in detail) is strongly convinced that NW-1 (corresponding to cluster D in our project) is a sub-branch of NW-1 (encompassing our clusters A, B and C1) rather than its sister branch, and I share this view with him. Additionally, Mariusz suggests that it was rather cluster A (a subgroup of Igor’s NW-1) that was split off first, and this is quite well supported by some apparent differences in the 68-111 panel (although I think it still needs some additional verification). Anyway, all this would suggest that the age of NW-1 (as defined by Igor) is the age of the entire branch L664.



To clarify what I meant by “is some relict” – that they were remnants or born of a few individuals that never left.
I am not sure if I understand this correctly. Are you suggesting that members of CTS4385* and L664 have survived the entire LGM period living in North-Western Europe? Were they supposed to live on the ice sheet that covered this part of Europe, including the entire North Sea?



Where would you bring the Z2463/CTS4385+L664- to England from? The only place I can reasonably think of is some close by location in NW Europe, say France which has not been well studied and may indeed surprise.
Assuming that CTS4385 was associated with the Corded Ware people (as suggested by the Eulau haplotype), France doesn’t seem to be the most likely point of its origin. As I wrote earlier in the same thread, CTS4385 (including L664) seem to represent the remnants of the westernmost part of the Corded Ware horizon that reached West Germany and Netherlands (plus Switzerland further south). Since Eulau is actually located in East Germany, we may expect to find some very rare CTS4385* cases in Germany and Scandinavia, as well (although when taking into account the fact that we know just one British lineage of CTS4385*, this may require testing many more people originating from those two regions). Importantly, this hypothetical westernmost part of CW was likely to additionally include some early separated sub-branches of Z280 (but not M458), currently represented by clusters 5.D and 5.E in our project. Those Western European subspecies of Z280 seem to have become nearly extinct following the arrival of the Bell Beaker people, although some of them could have somehow managed to survive, and are now occasionally seen among people originating from Germany, Britain, Ireland and Scandinavia. It seems that the only reason why L664 was able to recover so exceptionally well (when compared to CTS4385* and Western European Z280*) was that this lineage found a kind of niche (most likely on the Frisian coast, but some other locations cannot be excluded) that allowed its members to avoid the nearly absolute annihilation about 4500 years ago (this corresponds quite well with the estimated TMRCA for L664). I have actually suggested a similar “mechanism” for the Scandinavian branch Z284 that was probably pushed north by BB but was able to survive in Central and/or Northern Norway and Sweden (before expanding in the first millennium AD with the Norse Vikings colonization).



Similarly M458 which I think was born somewhere in Eastern Europe some 5000 ybp has barely made its presence felt in the Isles or Italy. That these exotic types made through in relative terms, just does not make sense unless they were already there in NW Europe.

TMRCA for M458 is indeed about 4500 years, but we should keep in mind that this branch is actually composed of just two major sub-branches (CTS11962 and L260) that are much younger and their sudden expansion is supposed to have been a much more recent event, most likely associated with the Slavic expansion in the historical times, so this is perfectly consistent with the absence of M458 in Italy or Britain. I have already discussed this question on another forum:
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1123&sid=e7b3f737a7b08fbd19f29e303a900634&start=16



If the claim is that there was a movement from central or eastern Europe one has to explain the near absence of M458 in England. .
M458 did probably not exist yet (as a large sub-branch of Z282) when CTS4385 was supposed to move west. Not to mention that we could actually revert this question and ask: If the claim is that there was a movement from NW Europe to Central and Eastern Europe, how should we explain the absolute absence of CTS4385 in Central and Eastern Europe?



L664 get picked up just be regular sampling in England, you do not have to rely on the private databases to flush that out. Very early DYS388=10 was picked up, just its position on the SNP chain was not known. L664's pre-historic presence in NW Europe looks evident IMO.
I absolutely agree with that.



How old, we perhaps have to wait for better calibration with ancient DNA.
Actually, the fact that the Corded Ware sample from Eulau (located in a region that currently shows the presence of practically just two branches of R1a, namely M458 and Z280) seems to contain a haplotype resembling CTS4385* (currently practically absent there) quite clearly suggests that CTS4385 arrived there not earlier than 5000 ybp (i.e. not before the CW expansion) and dispappered from that region shortly thereafter. Otherwise, it would be very hard to explain why Eulau contained CTS4385* but not the “very ancient” (i.e. having expanded in the LGM period, according to your scenario) branches M458 and Z280 that both seem to dominate in Central Europe nowadays.



Yes it is quite possible that L664 spread from Western Europe (say the Eulau region) to North Western Europe.
Though even for that scenario I have certain doubts as L664 is absent in Iceland, and Norse colonies in Britain don't have it either.
This actually speaks quite strongly against a very ancient (i.e. pre-LGM) origin of CTS4385 or L664 in NW Europe, as in such case the distribution of L664 would be much more diffused, showing some association with the native Celtic (or pre-Celtic) population in Britain (e.g. in Wales) and Ireland.

BTW, does your LGM theory also include the presence of R1b (and some other haplogroups) in NW Europe prior to LGM? Also, how is this related to the evolution of the IE languages? When and where was the PIE language spoken according to your scenario?



The difference between my position and Michał's is regarding the point of origin (where it first arose) rather than the place of expansion. That was my reason for bringing in M458.

Fair enough, although we also differ quite strongly in respect to the most likely timeline… :)

parasar
07-28-2013, 08:13 PM
I must disagree with that. Why is the presence of one particular sub-branch of M417 (L664, or actually CTS4385) so important for determining the origin of M417, while the presence (and diversity!) of the other (much larger!) sub-branch of M417 (Z645) is not useful in this respect. You seem to use double standards here. :)

Because of its phylogenic location. CTS4385 is equivalent to Z645 the others are down stream of Z645. A secondary consideration is that the oldest SNP downstream of Z645, Z93+Z94- is also present in England.




Now I see what was the reason of your confusion. You were simply comparing the ages of only those selected “branches” that have been distinguished by Igor in his scheme.
Yes I was only going by the TMRCAs calculated for the branches listed by Igor.



I am not sure if I understand this correctly. Are you suggesting that members of CTS4385* and L664 have survived the entire LGM period living in North-Western Europe? Were they supposed to live on the ice sheet that covered this part of Europe, including the entire North Sea?

Yes a few settlements. The coastal areas are always available.




Assuming that CTS4385 was associated with the Corded Ware people (as suggested by the Eulau haplotype), France doesn’t seem to be the most likely point of its origin.

Possible. I have not seen much data from France.



If the claim is that there was a movement from NW Europe to Central and Eastern Europe, how should we explain the absolute absence of CTS4385 in Central and Eastern Europe?
I was envisioning either M417 or Z645 moving east prior (LGM) to the birth of CTS4385, and CTS4385 born of the relict M417.



Otherwise, it would be very hard to explain why Eulau contained CTS4385* but not the “very ancient” (i.e. having expanded in the LGM period, according to your scenario) branches M458 and Z280 that both seem to dominate in Central Europe nowadays.

I wondered about that too, that is why I was so interested in the Caucasus, Lasithi and Cretan M458 to track where M458 originated and how it spread. My feeling is that M458 is about 7-10000 years old and was not present in Eulau. I would defer to your expertise on M458's movement and place of origin.



BTW, does your LGM theory also include the presence of R1b (and some other haplogroups) in NW Europe prior to LGM? Also, how is this related to the evolution of the IE languages? When and where was the PIE language spoken according to your scenario?


It includes R1b. I'm not clear about others - I think they were either further south or not in Europe.
R1b withdrew south too, to Africa across the Gibraltar, and to Anatolia across the Bosphorus. PIE dates at a minimum to the last Ice Age. I am going by the Vedic/Gathic branch's separation point. The European IE lines could be much older.



Fair enough, although we also differ quite strongly in respect to the most likely timeline… :)

I'm a Luddite on this, still with Zhivotovsky, Underhill and Feldman as regards to dates, and the scenario posited by Wells et. al. as regards to M173.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/photogalleries/journey_of_man/images/popup/jm2l.jpg

Michał
07-29-2013, 07:42 AM
Because of its phylogenic location. CTS4385 is equivalent to Z645 the others are down stream of Z645.

Yet you have mentioned a subclade of CTS4385 (L664) as relevant while the subclades of Z645 (Z93, Z280, M458 and Z284) as irrelevant. Also, you seem to agree with me that it is the diversity the counts the most, yet the diversity of Z645 in NW Europe is extremely low (more than 90% of it represented by just one subclade of a downstream lineage Z282 (i.e. Z284), which strongly indicates that Z645 was born somewhere else (most likely in Eastern Europe, where the diversity of Z645 reaches its maximum), and this in turn questions the origin of M417 in NW Europe.



A secondary consideration is that the oldest SNP downstream of Z645, Z93+Z94- is also present in England.

So far, the Z93* paragroup is represented by just one very specific lineage in England, although there is also one lineage in US (of unknown origin) and two independent lineages in Germany and Italy, respectively, while the much undertested populations of Eastern Europe and West Asia are represented by as many as nine independent sublineages of Z93* (some of them represented by multiple members, just like the English lineage), which is of course very telling.




PIE dates at a minimum to the last Ice Age.

This would be certainly rejected by the majority of linguists, so apart from lacking any clear support from the archaeological point of view, your theory is also inconsistent with the majority view in linguistics.



I'm a Luddite on this, still with Zhivotovsky, Underhill and Feldman as regards to dates, and the scenario posited by Wells et. al. as regards to M173.

You are indeed a true relict on this forum, and I’m afraid you are destined for extinction. :)
I hope you agree with me that the aDNA results for the pre-Neolithic population of Western Europe will be decisive for your theory (and in case there was no R1a and/or R1b there, you will consider your hypothesis as negatively verified).

alan
07-29-2013, 09:53 AM
Yet you have mentioned a subclade of CTS4385 (L664) as relevant while the subclades of Z645 (Z93, Z280, M458 and Z284) as irrelevant. Also, you seem to agree with me that it is the diversity the counts the most, yet the diversity of Z645 in NW Europe is extremely low (more than 90% of it represented by just one subclade of a downstream lineage Z282 (i.e. Z284), which strongly indicates that Z645 was born somewhere else (most likely in Eastern Europe, where the diversity of Z645 reaches its maximum), and this in turn questions the origin of M417 in NW Europe.



So far, the Z93* paragroup is represented by just one very specific lineage in England, although there is also one lineage in US (of unknown origin) and two independent lineages in Germany and Italy, respectively, while the much undertested populations of Eastern Europe and West Asia are represented by as many as nine independent sublineages of Z93* (some of them represented by multiple members, just like the English lineage), which is of course very telling.



This would be certainly rejected by the majority of linguists, so apart from lacking any clear support from the archaeological point of view, your theory is also inconsistent with the majority view in linguistics.



You are indeed a true relict on this forum, and I’m afraid you are destined for extinction. :)
I hope you agree with me that the aDNA results for the pre-Neolithic population of Western Europe will be decisive for your theory (and in case there was no R1a and/or R1b there, you will consider your hypothesis as negatively verified).

I very much appreciate your knowledge and input on R1a and pretty well agree with all you posted above. I was wondering if you would expand on where in eastern Europe you think most likely the expansion c. 4000-3000bc started from? Where is the east of Europe and adjacent areas of Asia do we get the most ancient clades or highest variance? I ask because there was a whole turmoil of demographic changes and new cultures etc in large parts of eastern Europe from 4500 to a little after 3000BC so there are a lot of options.

parasar
07-29-2013, 02:56 PM
Yet you have mentioned a subclade of CTS4385 (L664) as relevant while the subclades of Z645 (Z93, Z280, M458 and Z284) as irrelevant. Also, you seem to agree with me that it is the diversity the counts the most, yet the diversity of Z645 in NW Europe is extremely low (more than 90% of it represented by just one subclade of a downstream lineage Z282 (i.e. Z284), which strongly indicates that Z645 was born somewhere else (most likely in Eastern Europe, where the diversity of Z645 reaches its maximum), and this in turn questions the origin of M417 in NW Europe.

It is not low if trace amounts of Z93* and Z283* are considered in England which is not surprising considering R1a1 overall in England is low. I do not agree that the diversity of Z645 is the highest in Eastern Europe as ~95-99% of R1a1 there is just one subclade of Z645 (Z283) unlike say in Armenia and Anatolia which have a more balanced distribution of Z93 and Z283.



This would be certainly rejected by the majority of linguists, so apart from lacking any clear support from the archaeological point of view, your theory is also inconsistent with the majority view in linguistics.


The linguists chronology is wrong. They can't explain how Prakrit words appear in Sumerian texts ("prae-Indo-Aryan" http://books.google.com/books?id=-PsUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA166).

IMO, Avestan material remembers the LGM when severe cold forced the Aryan chief Yama to take his folk underground.

""There are ten winter months there, two summer months; and those are cold for the waters, cold for the earth, cold for the trees. Winter falls there, the worst of all plagues. [Hum 35: "Ten are there the winter months, two the summer months, and even then [in summer] the waters are freezing, the earth is freezing, the plants are freezing; there is the center of winter, there is the heart of winter, there winter rushes around, there (occur) most damages caused by storm."]" http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm

"O fair Yima, son of Vivanghat! Upon the material world the evil winters are about to fall, that shall bring the fierce, deadly frost; upon the material world the evil winters are about to fall, that shall make snow-flakes fall thick, even an aredvi deep on the highest tops of mountains ... 'Even where it (the snow) is least, it will be one Vitasti...
'And the beasts that live in the wilderness, and those that live on the tops of the mountains, and those that live in the bosom of the dale shall take shelter in underground abodes." http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd2sbe.htm




You are indeed a true relict on this forum, and I’m afraid you are destined for extinction. :)

:beerchug: Certainly, aren't we all.



I hope you agree with me that the aDNA results for the pre-Neolithic population of Western Europe will be decisive for your theory (and in case there was no R1a and/or R1b there, you will consider your hypothesis as negatively verified).

Yes.

alan
07-29-2013, 03:00 PM
This is an interesting craniological analysis from last year which includes a number of steppe groups

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

parasar
07-29-2013, 04:03 PM
...


So far, the Z93* paragroup is represented by just one very specific lineage in England, although there is also one lineage in US (of unknown origin) and two independent lineages in Germany and Italy, respectively, while the much undertested populations of Eastern Europe and West Asia are represented by as many as nine independent sublineages of Z93* (some of them represented by multiple members, just like the English lineage), which is of course very telling.


...

That American is now confused too:

"Or is it time to saddle up my steed and ride off into the steppes sunset searching for my ancestral homeland...and to think, not so long ago I used to tell folks I was "English" when they asked!" https://www.facebook.com/R1a1a?filter=2

Michał
07-29-2013, 04:08 PM
It is not low if trace amounts of Z93* and Z283* are considered in England which is not surprising considering R1a1 overall in England is low.

It is very low when you take into account the size of the sample tested (and then compare it with the appropriate numbers for West Asia and Eastern Europe).



I do not agree that the diversity of Z645 is the highest in Eastern Europe as ~95-99% of R1a1 there is just one subclade of Z645 (Z283) unlike say in Armenia and Anatolia which have a more balanced distribution of Z93 and Z283.

Maybe if considering the North-Western part of Eastern Europe (like Belarus or Lithuania), you would be right, but I was actually talking about the easternmost part of Eastern Europe (as a potential homeland of Z645) where the contribution of Z93 is very significant (exceeding the contribution of Z283 in Anatolia and Armenia).




The linguists chronology is wrong. They can't explain how Prakrit words appear in Sumerian texts ("prae-Indo-Aryan" http://books.google.com/books?id=-PsUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA166).
IMO, Avestan material remembers the LGM when severe cold forced the Aryan chief Yama to take his folk underground.

Do you suggest a kind of a world-wide conspiracy among the linguists? Or maybe all these renowned linguists who reject your chronology are simply not competent enough to be able to properly interpret all available data (including those putative Pra-Indo-Aryan loanwords in Sumerian)?

Michał
07-29-2013, 04:17 PM
I was wondering if you would expand on where in eastern Europe you think most likely the expansion c. 4000-3000bc started from?
I’m afraid that I am unable to answer your question with any confidence. :)
I can of course provide some more or less plausible scenarios, but the truth is that all of them will be just my wild guesses.

The main problem here is that there is no strong archaeological connection that would allow us to securely derive the Corded Ware culture from any earlier Late Neolithic culture in Europe (including those in Eastern, Central or Western Europe). However, assuming that R1a-M417 was somehow involved in the putative westward expansion of the Corded Ware culture (starting from about 3000 BC) and at least with the appearance of the Poltavka culture (about 2700 BC, at the middle Volga river), considered to be the most likely predecessor of Sintashta and Andronovo (but also Srubna), I can suspect that R1a-M417 was at least partially associated with the Yamna horizon (and thus with some Pre-Yamna cultures). On the other hand, the structure of the R1a tree and the lack of any evident correlation between the distribution of different subclades of R1a and the distribution of different branches of IE (except the two major Satem branches), make me strongly suspect that it was rather the R1b-rich population that spoke PIE (both Early PIE (Proto-Indo-Hittite) and Late PIE). Thus, we also need to find a place for R1b on the steppe, and all this together requires both R1a and R1b to be a part of the Yamna horizon that covered the most part of the Eurasian steppe in the middle of the fourth millennium BC. Since in such scenario R1b would need to have been present at least in the Western part of the Yamna horizon (from where the expansion to Anatolia, but also to Southern and Western Europe could have started), this makes the Eastern (or North-Central-Eastern) part of Yamna the most likely place where R1a was present in the Pre-Yamna period. This, in turn, makes the Repin and Late Khvalynsk cultures the relatively likely reservoirs of R1a-M417 for that period.

If all above is true (which is of course far from being proven), this would have some serious consequences regarding the most likely scenarios explaining the much earlier locations/migrations of both R1a and R1b people (and their relationship to some very early stages of the IE development). Below is one my hypothetical scenarios that I consider quite likely (at least at the current stage of our knowledge).


The R1a (including M17* and SRY1532.2*) people could have been present in Eastern Europe at least since the Mesolithic, and it seems likely that they formed the Early Neolithic Dnieper-Donets culture. Their offshoot could have formed a closely related Samara culture, where the R1a-M417 clade could have become the most frequent R1a lineage. At the same time, the R1b-M269 (or R1b-P297) folk could have been represented by the North Caspian (Seroglazovo/Elshanka) culture, showing some similarity (relationship?) to the East Caspian (or South-East Caspian) Neolithic horizon, probably derived from the Early Neolithic Jeitun Culture in Southern Turkmenistan. The North Caspian culture could have expanded about 5000-4500 BC, strongly influencing the neighboring Samara culture and overrunning the R1a people in Dnieper-Donets. This would result in the creation of a new R1b-dominated Sredny Stog culture where only some R1a(xM417) remnants could have survived.

The situation could have been completely different in the presumably R1a-M417-dominated Samara culture, where intensive contacts with the R1b people could have resulted in the formation of the Indo-europeanized (Satem-speaking) Khvalynsk population. By contrast to the above-postulated replacement of R1a (Dnieper-Donets) by R1b (Sredny Stog), the Khvalynsk culture could have remained mostly R1a-M417, and if there was any significant contribution of the R1b men to the Khvalynsk genetic pool, it could have remained on a very minimal level. Alternatively, those hypothetical R1a-R1b interactions in Khvalynsk could have had a transient character, with the R1b people leaving Khvalinsk very soon and moving further west (joining Sredny Stog or forming Lower Michailovka group?). Later on, the IE-speaking and R1a-rich Khvalynsk culture could have evolved into two main groupings, with one of them moving gradually west (R1a-CTS4385) and north-west (R1a-Z283), thus giving rise to the Corded Ware horizon, while the R1a-Z93 group could have initially stayed in the original place where they were likely to adopt some new cultural traits that were spread by the R1b-dominated “Yamna-proper” group. This transformation of R1a-Z93 into a part of the Yamna horizon could have been associated with the intensive contacts with the Centum-speaking R1b-Z2105 (Proto-Graeco-Armenian?) people who could have become the major R1b group on the steppe after the sister branch R1b-L51 (Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic?) has left the North-Pontic region, moving to Balkans and then along the Danube to Central and Western Europe.

Of course, some of the R1a-Z93 people (mostly R1a-Z94) have subsequently moved east (and then south), spreading the Proto-Indo-Iranian language to Central Asia. It should be noted, however, that the suggested late interaction between the R1a-Z93 and R1b-Z2105 people (within the broad Yamna horizon) could have been reflected by certain specific linguistic (and cultural?) similarities that are sometimes suggested for Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit) and ancient Greek.

Theoretically, the entire hypothetical North Pontic R1b group could have produced at least three waves of IE-speaking people (Anatolian, Graeco-Armenian and Italo-Celto-Germanic), although I would rather be inclined to suggest that the Anatolian branch of IE was not connected to this particular group of R1b people. Instead, I would rather see the separation of the Anatolian IE branch taking place much earlier (which would be consistent with the much larger genetic and linguistic distance to the remaining IE subgroupings). Therefore, my hypothesis assumes that the Pre-Anatolians (mostly R1b-L389(xP297) and R1b-V88) have rather stayed in the South-Eastern Caspian region where they could have been involved in some intensive interbreeding with the neighboring Neolithic populations (mostly J2a?), so their subsequent migrations to West Asia are not easy to follow using the Y-DNA traces. However, I would expect that there were at least several waves of such migrations towards West Asia, including Hittites, Hyksos and Kassites. All these hypothetical migrations are supposed to have taken place at a relatively late date (2000-1500 BC?) and they could have been forced by the increasing pressure from the expanding Proto-Indo-Iranian people. Also, this could have been related to some significant improvement of the military capabilities of those “Proto-Anatolians”, which was probably associated with the introduction of some new warfare technologies, including of course the chariot that has been developed by their Northern Indo-Iranian neighbors shortly before that period.

As for the Hyksos, I must admit that I like the “crazy” theory suggesting that they could have been a relatively small IE-derived group that has managed to preserve their original R1b-V88 haplogroup while switching from the IE language first to some Semitic dialect (when settling in Palestine) and then to the Old Egyptian language (when ruling this country). Eventually, some of them (who survived the Egyptian “revolution”) could have been forced to leave Egypt, possibly spreading a related (Proto-Chadic?) dialect further south. I have once consulted this hypothesis with some linguists but they were unwilling to either accept or definitely exclude the possibility that Proto-Chadic could have been derived from Old Egyptian (both belonging to the Afro-Asiatic family of languages).

The last IE branch that needs to be somehow placed in the above scenario is Tocharian. Of course, the most common view seems to be that the Tocharian-speaking people were mostly R1a members (as suggested by the aDNA analysis of the Tarim mummies). However, according to the above scenario, the only way to incorporate R1a into the Tocharian genetic pool would be to mix them with some Indo-Iranian people. Therefore, it seems more likely that the original haplogoup of people representing the Tocharian branch of IE was rather R1b-M269*, R1b-M73 or R1b-P297*. Of course, it is possible that the Tocharian-speaking people could have assimilated some neighbors representing other haplogroups (including not only R1a but also J2a, both present in large amounts among the Uyghurs living in the Tarim basin in whom the R1b-M73, R1b-M269 and R1b(xM269,M73) haplogroups have also been found).


Please keep in mind that all this is highly speculative and I am perfectly aware that many elements of the above scenario are very controversial (to say the least).

DMXX
07-29-2013, 04:24 PM
Yima is a shepherd character from the Vendidad who first received God/Ahura Mazda/Ormazd's message of good and enacted on this in several ways. Everything about the story of Yima fits the context of the Eurasian steppes perfectly; his being a shepherd, constant mention of "[replenishment of] flocks/herds", particularly earth, cold and sun's affect on said flocks/herds. As does the constant mentioning of fire, which we know full well was a part of the Indo-Iranian cult.

The phrase "six hundred winters" is certainly vague, but given the content of the rest of the Vendidad and the identification of Aryanam Vaejah with most of the year being "winter", it's far more plausible that phrase is related to AV than a prehistoric LGM.



The last IE branch that needs to be somehow placed in the above scenario is Tocharian. Of course, the most common view seems to be that the Tocharian-speaking people were mostly R1a members (as suggested by the aDNA analysis of the Tarim mummies). However, according to the above scenario, the only way to incorporate R1a into the Tocharian genetic pool would be to mix them with some Indo-Iranian people. Therefore, it seems more likely that the original haplogoup of people representing the Tocharian branch of IE was rather R1b-M269*, R1b-M73 or R1b-P297*. Of course, it is possible that the Tocharian-speaking people could have assimilated some neighbors representing other haplogroups (including not only R1a but also J2a, both present in large amounts among the Uyghurs living in the Tarim basin in whom the R1b-M73, R1b-M269 and R1b(xM269,M73) haplogroups have also been found).


I've personally always stayed away from the Tocharian question because the Silk Road and various steppe displacements must have shifted about the frequencies and removed/added some new subclades. For all we know, most of the R1b subclades presently found in Xinjiang might be Silk Road era introductions. The J2 may itself be from Saka-speaking Indo-Iranians who entered the Tarim from the Pamiri (SW) side. We know Y-DNA J2, R2a and L are all found in wildly varying frequencies around the isolated Pamirs today, as well as the expected R1a.

parasar
07-29-2013, 06:58 PM
...
Do you suggest a kind of a world-wide conspiracy among the linguists? Or maybe all these renowned linguists who reject your chronology are simply not competent enough to be able to properly interpret all available data (including those putative Pra-Indo-Aryan loanwords in Sumerian)?

No, but the pressure to follow precedent and to conform is certainly there in academia. If you recall Tibor had mentioned that to get their paper published they had to adhere to the Zhiv method which they disagreed with.

The chronology can differ quite a bit:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1567/1090.full
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1567/1090/F2.medium.gif


"Our main result is a unimodal posterior distribution for the age of Proto-Indo-European centred at 8400 years before Present with 95% highest posterior density interval equal to 7100–9800 years before Present." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9876.2010.00743.x/abstract

THE PALEOLITHIC CONTINUITY PARADIGM FOR THE ORIGINS OF INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES http://www.continuitas.org/intro.html


Yima is a shepherd character from the Vendidad who first received God/Ahura Mazda/Ormazd's message of good and enacted on this in several ways. Everything about the story of Yima fits the context of the Eurasian steppes perfectly; his being a shepherd, constant mention of "[replenishment of] flocks/herds", particularly earth, cold and sun's affect on said flocks/herds
...

In Indic mythology Yama is the lord of the underworld which is quite in line with the second Fargard - people and their possessions moving underground due to the cold.

"Therefore make thee a Vara, long as a riding-ground on every side of the square, and thither bring the seeds of sheep and oxen, of men, of dogs, of birds, and of red blazing fires. Therefore make thee a Vara, long as a riding-ground on every side of the square, to be an abode for man; a Vara, long as a riding-ground on every side of the square, for oxen and sheep."


Ahura Mazda warns him of an upcoming catastrophe: "O fair Yima, son of Vivaŋhat! Upon the material world the evil winters are about to fall, that shall bring the fierce, deadly frost; upon the material world the evil winters are about to fall ..."
Ahura Mazda advises Yima to construct a Vara (Avestan: enclosure) in the form of a multi-level cavern underground ... This he is to populate with the fittest of men and women; and with two of every animal, bird and plant; and supply with food and water gathered the previous summer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamshid

"son of Vivaŋhat" cf. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/v/vivasvat.html

R1b is very old in Africa, but for some reason R1a1 is almost absent. Is it possible this has to do with their respective refuges in Europe during LGM where France was cold steppe and Iberia and Italy forested? The latter perhaps sustained a larger population than the cold steppe, and recovered faster, and this still shows up as the present distribution in western Europe between R1b and R1a.

TigerMW
07-29-2013, 07:25 PM
No, but the pressure to follow precedent and to conform is certainly there in academia. If you recall Tibor had mentioned that to get their paper published they had to adhere to the Zhiv method which they disagreed with.

The chronology can differ quite a bit:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1567/1090.full[url]
...
"Our main result is a unimodal posterior distribution for the age of Proto-Indo-European centred at 8400 years before Present with 95% highest posterior density interval equal to 7100–9800 years before Present." [url]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9876.2010.00743.x/abstract ....

I hesitate to respond as we can easily dive way off topic into linguistics, but I think there are some basic logical issues related to archaeology that need to be addressed that make some of these aging estimates questionable.

The base PIE lexicon includes words for items that can not be attested to by archaeology in the timeframes in the same region as described above. That does not mean there wasn't a pre-PIE or something of the like but full PIE couldn't have come together without all of the base lexicon having real correlations. It is for those reasons, I lean away from the Gray/Atkinson and Renfrew kind of aging. We've got a hard edge on the earliest dates for full PIE... We could call it the PIE MRCA if that helps.

parasar
07-29-2013, 08:11 PM
I hesitate to respond as we can easily dive way off topic into linguistics, but I think there are some basic logical issues related to archaeology that need to be addressed that make some of these aging estimates questionable.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to disassociate Y-R from the PIE issue. For me it is the key reason what makes that tiny part of our DNA is so interesting.



The base PIE lexicon includes words for items that can not be attested to by archaeology in the timeframes in the same region as described above. That does not mean there wasn't a pre-PIE or something of the like but full PIE couldn't have come together without all of the base lexicon having real correlations. It is for those reasons, I lean away from the Gray/Atkinson and Renfrew kind of aging. We've got a hard edge on the earliest dates for full PIE... We could call it the PIE MRCA if that helps.

Anthony uses the Pre-Proto-Indo-European nomenclature for the language of the European foragers that later became Proto-Indo-European.

"The Bug-Dniester culture grew out of Mesolithic forager cultures that dwelt in the region since the end of the last Ice Age."
"the incoming pioneers spoke a non–Indo-European language, and the foragers spoke a Pre-Proto-Indo-European"
"The foragers' language might have been part of the broad language family from which Proto-Indo-European later emerged, although, since the ultimate fate of the Bug-Dniester culture was extinction and assimilation, their dialect probably died with their culture." http://books.google.com/books?id=0FDqf415wqgC&pg=PA148

I can accept this distinction - that pre-PIE speaking Europeans were the fore-runners of the later PIE.

alan
07-29-2013, 11:54 PM
@Michal

Thank you for outlining your ideas. very interesting. I like the way your model tries to take into account both the R1 links to later languages. Some aspects I have never considered too. The basic problem when dealing with the steppes is its had such a colourful history and nomads can jjust up sticks. So it probably the hardest place in the world to infer the past from modern patterns. The more I read on the steppes the more complex the potentially genetic situation I can see there in the past with different inputs from the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic etc even before we reach the copper age. There could have been quite a few yDNA lines in the pre-mobile pastoralism period.

The Neolithic-steppe frontier seems to have been a lot more porous than the soft focus summaries would give the impression of it being. I find your Stedny Stog observation interesting. Craniological material suggests they were a mix of steppe and farmer elements. This has also been noted for the Skelya groups who are considered their elite and who seem to have had close contacts with the Cuc-Trp groups and have acted as middlemen for the Carpatho-Balkan metalwork trade as far as the Volga and north Caucasus. The males in particular were noted as having a strong Neolithic farmer type phenotype element. So, it looks to me that there was a lot more geneflow involved in these interactions than is often credited. I actually have started to wonder about the linguistic impact of this group. This was the only steppes wide network before 4000BC. These Skelya (also known by other names) Stredny Stog elite groups are also considered to be the ancestors of the Suvorovo groups who spread into the Balkans from 4200BC and who Anthony has associated with Anatolian IE.

I have got to be honest I have had further doubts about the need to place initial PIE homeland as far east as the Urals since I have read a very recent article which seems to confirm that all Uralic borrowings from IE post-date PIE. While it doesnt much alter the possibilities in term of time it does considerably widen the possibilities in terms of area when it is considered that the wheel, the usual anchor word for dating PIE proper appeared about the same time all over eastern and east-central Europe, the Caucasus etc. I think the loss of a safe anchor in terms of the Uralic connection with PIE opens up all sort of possibilities. Social change from the village-tell type society to dispersed small settlements, hierachy etc appeared from 4500BC in east-central Europe and the Balkans. I wouldnt push this too hard but I do think that the period when Skelya groups controlled the metal network from the Dnieper to the Urals and which saw metal and lithic ideas flowing from the farming world of the west Ukraine and Balkans to the Urals and beyond in the case of lithic ideas is one of the only pre-3500bc horizons where widespread dialect influence could have happened across multiple steppe cultures. Whoever they were and whatever they spoke seems likely to have been influential in the steppes and then in the Balkans after 4200BC.

newtoboard
07-30-2013, 12:27 PM
It is not low if trace amounts of Z93* and Z283* are considered in England which is not surprising considering R1a1 overall in England is low. I do not agree that the diversity of Z645 is the highest in Eastern Europe as ~95-99% of R1a1 there is just one subclade of Z645 (Z283) unlike say in Armenia and Anatolia which have a more balanced distribution of Z93 and Z283.



The linguists chronology is wrong. They can't explain how Prakrit words appear in Sumerian texts ("prae-Indo-Aryan" http://books.google.com/books?id=-PsUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA166).

IMO, Avestan material remembers the LGM when severe cold forced the Aryan chief Yama to take his folk underground.

""There are ten winter months there, two summer months; and those are cold for the waters, cold for the earth, cold for the trees. Winter falls there, the worst of all plagues. [Hum 35: "Ten are there the winter months, two the summer months, and even then [in summer] the waters are freezing, the earth is freezing, the plants are freezing; there is the center of winter, there is the heart of winter, there winter rushes around, there (occur) most damages caused by storm."]" http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm

"O fair Yima, son of Vivanghat! Upon the material world the evil winters are about to fall, that shall bring the fierce, deadly frost; upon the material world the evil winters are about to fall, that shall make snow-flakes fall thick, even an aredvi deep on the highest tops of mountains ... 'Even where it (the snow) is least, it will be one Vitasti...
'And the beasts that live in the wilderness, and those that live on the tops of the mountains, and those that live in the bosom of the dale shall take shelter in underground abodes." http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd2sbe.htm



:beerchug: Certainly, aren't we all.



Yes.

You would have likely had plenty of Z93+ in parts of Eastern Europe in ancient times.

newtoboard
07-30-2013, 12:39 PM
I’m afraid that I am unable to answer your question with any confidence. :)
I can of course provide some more or less plausible scenarios, but the truth is that all of them will be just my wild guesses.

The main problem here is that there is no strong archaeological connection that would allow us to securely derive the Corded Ware culture from any earlier Late Neolithic culture in Europe (including those in Eastern, Central or Western Europe). However, assuming that R1a-M417 was somehow involved in the putative westward expansion of the Corded Ware culture (starting from about 3000 BC) and at least with the appearance of the Poltavka culture (about 2700 BC, at the middle Volga river), considered to be the most likely predecessor of Sintashta and Andronovo (but also Srubna), I can suspect that R1a-M417 was at least partially associated with the Yamna horizon (and thus with some Pre-Yamna cultures). On the other hand, the structure of the R1a tree and the lack of any evident correlation between the distribution of different subclades of R1a and the distribution of different branches of IE (except the two major Satem branches), make me strongly suspect that it was rather the R1b-rich population that spoke PIE (both Early PIE (Proto-Indo-Hittite) and Late PIE). Thus, we also need to find a place for R1b on the steppe, and all this together requires both R1a and R1b to be a part of the Yamna horizon that covered the most part of the Eurasian steppe in the middle of the fourth millennium BC. Since in such scenario R1b would need to have been present at least in the Western part of the Yamna horizon (from where the expansion to Anatolia, but also to Southern and Western Europe could have started), this makes the Eastern (or North-Central-Eastern) part of Yamna the most likely place where R1a was present in the Pre-Yamna period. This, in turn, makes the Repin and Late Khvalynsk cultures the relatively likely reservoirs of R1a-M417 for that period.

If all above is true (which is of course far from being proven), this would have some serious consequences regarding the most likely scenarios explaining the much earlier locations/migrations of both R1a and R1b people (and their relationship to some very early stages of the IE development). Below is one my hypothetical scenarios that I consider quite likely (at least at the current stage of our knowledge).


The R1a (including M17* and SRY1532.2*) people could have been present in Eastern Europe at least since the Mesolithic, and it seems likely that they formed the Early Neolithic Dnieper-Donets culture. Their offshoot could have formed a closely related Samara culture, where the R1a-M417 clade could have become the most frequent R1a lineage. At the same time, the R1b-M269 (or R1b-P297) folk could have been represented by the North Caspian (Seroglazovo/Elshanka) culture, showing some similarity (relationship?) to the East Caspian (or South-East Caspian) Neolithic horizon, probably derived from the Early Neolithic Jeitun Culture in Southern Turkmenistan. The North Caspian culture could have expanded about 5000-4500 BC, strongly influencing the neighboring Samara culture and overrunning the R1a people in Dnieper-Donets. This would result in the creation of a new R1b-dominated Sredny Stog culture where only some R1a(xM417) remnants could have survived.

The situation could have been completely different in the presumably R1a-M417-dominated Samara culture, where intensive contacts with the R1b people could have resulted in the formation of the Indo-europeanized (Satem-speaking) Khvalynsk population. By contrast to the above-postulated replacement of R1a (Dnieper-Donets) by R1b (Sredny Stog), the Khvalynsk culture could have remained mostly R1a-M417, and if there was any significant contribution of the R1b men to the Khvalynsk genetic pool, it could have remained on a very minimal level. Alternatively, those hypothetical R1a-R1b interactions in Khvalynsk could have had a transient character, with the R1b people leaving Khvalinsk very soon and moving further west (joining Sredny Stog or forming Lower Michailovka group?). Later on, the IE-speaking and R1a-rich Khvalynsk culture could have evolved into two main groupings, with one of them moving gradually west (R1a-CTS4385) and north-west (R1a-Z283), thus giving rise to the Corded Ware horizon, while the R1a-Z93 group could have initially stayed in the original place where they were likely to adopt some new cultural traits that were spread by the R1b-dominated “Yamna-proper” group. This transformation of R1a-Z93 into a part of the Yamna horizon could have been associated with the intensive contacts with the Centum-speaking R1b-Z2105 (Proto-Graeco-Armenian?) people who could have become the major R1b group on the steppe after the sister branch R1b-L51 (Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic?) has left the North-Pontic region, moving to Balkans and then along the Danube to Central and Western Europe.

Of course, some of the R1a-Z93 people (mostly R1a-Z94) have subsequently moved east (and then south), spreading the Proto-Indo-Iranian language to Central Asia. It should be noted, however, that the suggested late interaction between the R1a-Z93 and R1b-Z2105 people (within the broad Yamna horizon) could have been reflected by certain specific linguistic (and cultural?) similarities that are sometimes suggested for Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit) and ancient Greek.

Theoretically, the entire hypothetical North Pontic R1b group could have produced at least three waves of IE-speaking people (Anatolian, Graeco-Armenian and Italo-Celto-Germanic), although I would rather be inclined to suggest that the Anatolian branch of IE was not connected to this particular group of R1b people. Instead, I would rather see the separation of the Anatolian IE branch taking place much earlier (which would be consistent with the much larger genetic and linguistic distance to the remaining IE subgroupings). Therefore, my hypothesis assumes that the Pre-Anatolians (mostly R1b-L389(xP297) and R1b-V88) have rather stayed in the South-Eastern Caspian region where they could have been involved in some intensive interbreeding with the neighboring Neolithic populations (mostly J2a?), so their subsequent migrations to West Asia are not easy to follow using the Y-DNA traces. However, I would expect that there were at least several waves of such migrations towards West Asia, including Hittites, Hyksos and Kassites. All these hypothetical migrations are supposed to have taken place at a relatively late date (2000-1500 BC?) and they could have been forced by the increasing pressure from the expanding Proto-Indo-Iranian people. Also, this could have been related to some significant improvement of the military capabilities of those “Proto-Anatolians”, which was probably associated with the introduction of some new warfare technologies, including of course the chariot that has been developed by their Northern Indo-Iranian neighbors shortly before that period.

As for the Hyksos, I must admit that I like the “crazy” theory suggesting that they could have been a relatively small IE-derived group that has managed to preserve their original R1b-V88 haplogroup while switching from the IE language first to some Semitic dialect (when settling in Palestine) and then to the Old Egyptian language (when ruling this country). Eventually, some of them (who survived the Egyptian “revolution”) could have been forced to leave Egypt, possibly spreading a related (Proto-Chadic?) dialect further south. I have once consulted this hypothesis with some linguists but they were unwilling to either accept or definitely exclude the possibility that Proto-Chadic could have been derived from Old Egyptian (both belonging to the Afro-Asiatic family of languages).

The last IE branch that needs to be somehow placed in the above scenario is Tocharian. Of course, the most common view seems to be that the Tocharian-speaking people were mostly R1a members (as suggested by the aDNA analysis of the Tarim mummies). However, according to the above scenario, the only way to incorporate R1a into the Tocharian genetic pool would be to mix them with some Indo-Iranian people. Therefore, it seems more likely that the original haplogoup of people representing the Tocharian branch of IE was rather R1b-M269*, R1b-M73 or R1b-P297*. Of course, it is possible that the Tocharian-speaking people could have assimilated some neighbors representing other haplogroups (including not only R1a but also J2a, both present in large amounts among the Uyghurs living in the Tarim basin in whom the R1b-M73, R1b-M269 and R1b(xM269,M73) haplogroups have also been found).


Please keep in mind that all this is highly speculative and I am perfectly aware that many elements of the above scenario are very controversial (to say the least).

My issue with this is that at proposes some sort of Proto-Satem language that likely never existed. It also doesn't account for Corded Ware speaking NW Indo-European and Balto-Slavic-Germanic unity. Satemization is likely a later feature (after all only Indo-Iranian seems to be fully Samtemized) and the Satem languages are those that were bordered by Iranian languages (Balto-Slavic, Daco-Thracian, Armenian). Satemization seems to a feature of geography. Tocharian is the exception but Iranian speakers did not likely live too close to them as they mostly lived in the mountains bordering the Tarim.

alan
07-30-2013, 12:43 PM
Michal -Dienekes quoted an review by Mallory on work on Sredny Stog as follows:

D. Ya. Telegin et al. Srednestogovskaya i Novodanilovskaya Kul'tury Eneolita Azovo-Chernomorskogo Regiona. Kiev: Shlyakh, 2001.

Reviewed by J.P. Mallory, JIES vol. 32, 3/4, p. 363-366.

"The third section of the book surveys the anthropological literature concerning the Sredny Stog and Novodanylovka cultures. For the twenty Sredny Stog burials from Igren, we find the somewhat unusual situation of women outliving males on an average of 7.8 years (males - 35.8 years, females - 43.6); only one individual lived passed 55 years. In terms of the craniological analysis of physical characteristics the Sredny Stog females tend to exhibit a homogeneous Proto-Europoid type that is most similar to the earlier inhabitants of the region. The series of male crania, however, tend to vary more and indicate both more robust Proto-Europoid and more gracile southern European (or Mediterranean) components. The analysis of six Novodanilovka skulls from three sites suggests again the presence of both Proto-Europoid and Mediterranean types. The cranial evidence as a whole suggests a mingling of local Proto-Europoids (seen especially in the east) with more gracial south-east European types in the west, a attern that might be explained by the flow of populations from the Balkan Neolithic (Tripolje) into the western Ukraine."

alan
07-30-2013, 01:10 PM
Michal -Dienekes quoted an review by Mallory on work on Sredny Stog as follows:

D. Ya. Telegin et al. Srednestogovskaya i Novodanilovskaya Kul'tury Eneolita Azovo-Chernomorskogo Regiona. Kiev: Shlyakh, 2001.

Reviewed by J.P. Mallory, JIES vol. 32, 3/4, p. 363-366.

"The third section of the book surveys the anthropological literature concerning the Sredny Stog and Novodanylovka cultures. For the twenty Sredny Stog burials from Igren, we find the somewhat unusual situation of women outliving males on an average of 7.8 years (males - 35.8 years, females - 43.6); only one individual lived passed 55 years. In terms of the craniological analysis of physical characteristics the Sredny Stog females tend to exhibit a homogeneous Proto-Europoid type that is most similar to the earlier inhabitants of the region. The series of male crania, however, tend to vary more and indicate both more robust Proto-Europoid and more gracile southern European (or Mediterranean) components. The analysis of six Novodanilovka skulls from three sites suggests again the presence of both Proto-Europoid and Mediterranean types. The cranial evidence as a whole suggests a mingling of local Proto-Europoids (seen especially in the east) with more gracial south-east European types in the west, a attern that might be explained by the flow of populations from the Balkan Neolithic (Tripolje) into the western Ukraine."

A male geneflow from the farmers to the west is very interesting when it is considered that it is usually thought that steppe society was patrilocal and patrilineal which would rule out marriage as the mechanism of this flow. This foreshadows the later reverse situation of steppe influence seen in late C-Tryp towns. It seems clear to me that long before the usual date for PIE proper there was a very considerably mixing of the populations on either side of the steppe-farming world divide. Add in the Skelya elite who controlled the metal trade between the farming world and the steppes as far as the Urals and it does at the very least indicate that during the formation of at least the Anatolian phase and probably the eary PIE phase there was almost certainly a mixed population one the scene as the language emerged. Now that the Uralic borrowing from PIE is seen as doubtful, this frees up the possibility that PIE or at least Anatolian emerged further west. Certainly the groups Sredny Stog elite groups Anthony links to Anatolian were strongest around the Dneiper although widespread and I have long thought that that raised major issues with the Uralic link. Now that that link, other than extremely deep time nostratic type links, is very much questioned, it again raises the possibility that the development of Anatolian and even PIE could have been further west within the steppes. Indeed, the first groups to become aware of the wheel on the steppes were probably those closer to the Kuban/Azov area and perhaps the Dneiper c. 3500BC rather than Yamnaya a couple of centuries or more later. So I very much doubt that the first archaic PIEs to have a word for the wheel were Yamnaya.

I think therefore that the evidence before us requires a different model from that of the origins of IE being Yamnaya driven and the relegation of the latter to being a subset of the story. On the other hand I also believe that linguistic divergence across the European steppe should have been great by PIE times so some sort of cause of dialect convergence in the period 4500-3300BC should be sought to explain how both groups on the Urals and those much further west on the steppe both seem to have spoken some form of IE. It brings me back again to the network controlled by the Skelya Sredni Stog elite c. 4500BC-4000BC. That strikes me as a very likely source of dialect convergence, probably the only one that could explain closely similar dialects stretching from the Danube mouth to the Urals in 4000BC. The implication in Anthony's book is that that was archaic PIE/Anatolian. The cranial evidence suggests the Skelya were a mix of at least two groups and therefore likely two haplgroups.

Found this interesting recent article on the social structure of steppe and near-steppe groups


http://www.sociostudies.org/journal/files/seh/2011_1/the_comparative_study_of_chiefly_communities_in_th e_eurasian_steppe_region.pdf

parasar
07-30-2013, 02:07 PM
You would have likely had plenty of Z93+ in parts of Eastern Europe in ancient times.

If we do find that, yes then eastern Europe is a very plausible candidate for the birth of Z93 and even potentially Z645. Right now to me it looks like that Z93, wherever it was born, entered India quite early. I expect the Tarim and South Siberian finds to be Z2124, and the Indus Valley Civ. (if we ever get results on them) to be predominantly Z2124 too (I'am not sure if L657 was born by that time).

Michał
07-31-2013, 03:26 PM
My issue with this is that at proposes some sort of Proto-Satem language that likely never existed.
[…]
Satemization is likely a later feature (after all only Indo-Iranian seems to be fully Samtemized) and the Satem languages are those that were bordered by Iranian languages (Balto-Slavic, Daco-Thracian, Armenian). Satemization seems to a feature of geography.
You might be perfectly right when suspecting that the Satemization of the Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic branches could have been two independent events. However, in such case, it would require an independent Indo-Europeanization of the two major Eastern sub-branches of IE (R1a-Z283 and R1a-Z93), assuming of course that IE was initially associated with R1b.

On the other hand, I consider it quite likely that the entire branch R1a-M417 was Indo-Europeanized en masse (and in such case Satemization would simply reflect the presence of some shared non-IE phonetic background), although R1a-Z93 could have remained much longer in a strong cultural relationship with R1b (and more specifically with R1b-Z2105, possibly related to the hypothetical Graeco-Armenian-Thracoid branch of R1a), both constituting the major components of the Yamna horizon. Therefore, I suspect that the initial genetic relationship between the R1a-Z93-associated Indo-Iranians and the R1a-Z283-associated Balto-Slavs is no longer visible in their linguistic features (except for the Satemization itself, being possibly the only trace of their shared past, if not counting Y-DNA of course).

BTW, it seems to me that this hypothetical mutual relationship between R1a-Z93 and R1b-Z2105 (within the broad Yamna horizon) could have resulted in some significant infiltration of the early separated R1a-Z93 lineages into the “Graeco-Armenian-Thracoid” population, which could have led to the subsequent migration of those rare Z93* lineages (together with their R1b-Z2105 “partners”) both to West Asia and to the Eastern Mediterranean region. This would be consistent with the fact the frequency of such rare Z93* lineages in West Asia and in the Mediterranean region seems to be higher than in South Asia (including India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and probably Iran) , although we need much more data to verify this presumption.

As for the relationship between Z93 and M417(xZ93) in light of some archaeological data, there is of course an alternative scenario that you seem to dislike, though I wouldn’t exclude it so definitely. This alternative scenario makes all the sub-branches of R1a-M417 a part of a broad Corded Ware horizon, with the Z93 branch constituting its Eastern part that evolved to Abashevo and then contributed to Sintashta. The major advantage of this variant scenario is that it makes much more sense when the structure of the R1a tree and its relationship with particular archaeological cultures of the Eneolithic period is considered. On the other hand, it is hard to believe that Poltavka did not include any R1a-Z93 people and that R1a-Z93 had nothing to do with the Eastern part of the Yamna horizon (except for this relatively late contacts between Abashevo and Poltavka).



It also doesn't account for Corded Ware speaking NW Indo-European and Balto-Slavic-Germanic unity.
I really doubt that such Balto-Slavic-Germanic unity ever existed. There was never any consensus among the linguists as to the exact position of Germanic in the IE tree, and its putative “genetic” association with the Balto-Slavic branch of languages has never been unequivocally demonstrated. Instead, many linguists have always supported the idea of a relatively close association between the Germanic branch and the hypothetical Italo-Celtic branch of IE. In fact, it was the Y-DNA data that have provided a significant evidence in favor of both the existence of the Italo -Celtic family itself (quite clearly associated with R1b-P312) and its relatively close relationship with the Germanic family (showing apparent association with R1b-U106, a sister clade of R1b-P312), not to mention that R1b-P312 is also relatively frequent in most Germanic-speaking populations.

Of course, the fact that the Corded Ware culture (most likely represented by R1a) was significantly present on the territory that much later became a center of the Germanic expansion made some people think that this provides a kind of evidence for the previously postulated “genetic” relationship between the Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages. However, I am deeply convinced that most of the CW-associated R1a subclades in Western Europe have become nearly extinct long before the Proto-Germanic evolved from some Western European IE dialects. As I have already explained in some of my previous posts, the Western-European clades R1a-Z284 and R1a-L664, both suspected of being the major post-CW remnants that have been subsequently incorporated into the Germanic world, are extremely unlikely to play any significant role in the formation of the commonly postulated Proto-Germanic Jastorf culture. Instead, both these R1a subclades seem to have been pushed by the R1b newcomers to some peripheral locations (as early as about 2500-2000 BC) and were only much later able to moderately expand (moving to some territories that barely cover a one-third of the territory that was once occupied by the Early Germanic tribes). I have already discussed this issue in another tread on this forum:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades&p=8038#post8038
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades/page4&p=8275#post8275



Tocharian is the exception but Iranian speakers did not likely live too close to them as they mostly lived in the mountains bordering the Tarim.
From where (and how) did the Tocharians get there ( in your opinion)? Where and when was the Early PIE spoken (I mean the language spoken following the separation from the Pre-Anatolian branch and just before the Tocharian branch was split off)?

alan
07-31-2013, 08:20 PM
@Michal

I have also wondered in the past about satemisation originating in a substrate effect initially although it could then have been spread aerially to other groups. I also think that satemisation may have occurred somewhere in the middle Dnieper-Fatyanovo-Abashevo-Sintashta cultural chain. That is certainly Anthony's model for the origin of the modern languages that today are satem. Although Anthony does not emphasise this, the first three in the chain have strong CW roots as well as a likely steppe element. They also passed through what was the forest steppe area rather than the true steppe. So, there are at least two potential substrates in that story - the corded ware element (who have been shown already to be not just R1a) and also the peoples of the forrest steppe that they passed through as they passed through eastern Europe at that latitude.

The centum languages, usually associated with R1b, obviously would also have encountered substrates in their early areas of strength although in their case this was probably more Old Europeans only. You could say that both the centum and satem areas shared that sort of substrate and that it was the substrate that was encountered as the Fatyanovo and Abashevo groups progressed throught the forrest steppe that is the difference.

I find your point about a lack of R1a clade association with IE branches interesting. You come up with the usual but refreshing idea that R1b was the main PIE branch. You can safely do that without being accused of bias! My feeling is that the steppes may have been a zone of, for want of a better word, para-IE dialects quite diverged and that only some form of network-driven convergence would explain groups across the steppes from the west to the urals being responsible for various dialects with a common ancestor a common ancestor in the 4000sBC. The only network wide reaching enough in the right timeframe I can see is the Sredy Stog-Novodanilovka-Skerla-Survorovo sort of groups who appear to be rooted in Stredy Stog. This groups centred on the Dneiper-Don zone controlled a network that went as far as the Urals c. 4500BC and were a sort of link between the farming world and its metals and the entire steppe. I think they are probably the best smoking gun for the archaic PIE dialect spreading. I see them as potentially at least partly R1b and also perhaps non-R1 groups given the farming element detected in craniology. I tend to think that R1a was located at the eastern end of the European steppe, probably in the Khvalynsk/Repin group which led to earliest core of Yamnaya. I think their main impact was in the Yamnaya phase and were relatively passive and east-peripheral to steppe movements before that. I suspect M73 was within this population too.

Broadly I think R1b was an earlier but much smaller movement that went largely west and created hybrid cultures that essentially had steppe characteristics but adopted a lot from the autochthons in the Balkans and adjacent, including a non-steppe economy. I think R1a was largely a Yamnaya thing and on a larger scale. There is evidence that they essentially remained steppic in economy and settled in steppe type areas leaving the locals on other types of lands all around them although they did enter corded ware to some degree although perhaps much less so than once thought. Although a larger group, their retention of a steppe culture and to some extent their living parallel but separate lives with the locals may have had a major effect on their ultimate ability to have an impact beyond steppe environments in Europe. So I think that R1a groups may have had a strong autosmal impact but in a limited zone while R1b probably had a low autosomal impact but were better adapted as an elite who were used to the farming world to expand more widely. R1b may to an extent have stolen the clothes of the Old Europeans and taken over their interest in controlling the local farming societies and the metal networks.

newtoboard
07-31-2013, 08:34 PM
That the Corded Ware element is not just R1a but Andronovo is mostly R1a speaks against a Corded Ware origin of Satem languages. You can't find a single Y-DNA I lineage in Central Asia / South Asia which would prove a Corded Ware migration theory.

You still can't tell me why Indo-Iranian languages are fully Satem while Balto-Slavic languages are not.

But keep on believing that Satem languages originate in Corded Ware. Maybe you didn't read Michal's statement about Poltavka and Z93+. That intrusive steepe element is what makes Abashevo Indo-Iranian. It is quite likely Abashevo had plenty of Z280+.

I guess the Thracian and Albanian (and likely Dacian and Illyrian) languages should also be associated with Corded Ware and R1a.

alan
07-31-2013, 10:13 PM
That the Corded Ware element is not just R1a but Andronovo is mostly R1a speaks against a Corded Ware origin of Satem languages. You can't find a single Y-DNA I lineage in Central Asia / South Asia which would prove a Corded Ware migration theory.

You still can't tell me why Indo-Iranian languages are fully Satem while Balto-Slavic languages are not.

But keep on believing that Satem languages originate in Corded Ware. Maybe you didn't read Michal's statement about Poltavka and Z93+. That intrusive steppe element is what makes Abashevo Indo-Iranian. It is quite likely Abashevo had plenty of Z280+.


I didnt say it originated in Corded Ware in my post. I didnt say satem originated in corded ware. In fact I implied that any substrate effect was most likely somewhere on the path through the forrest steppe. As for the Abashevo-Poltavka link that is Anthony's model not mine. I am definatley not a slavish Anthony follower. I am no expert in that area so I am happy to listen to peoples views on this. I only brought up the whole corded ware thing because Anthony

Michał
08-01-2013, 11:00 AM
I didnt say it originated in Corded Ware in my post. I didnt say satem originated in corded ware. In fact I implied that any substrate effect was most likely somewhere on the path through the forrest steppe. As for the Abashevo-Poltavka link that is Anthony's model not mine. I am definatley not a slavish Anthony follower. I am no expert in that area so I am happy to listen to peoples views on this. I only brought up the whole corded ware thing because Anthony
It is interesting to note that what Anthony suggests in his book is that Corded Ware was initially a population that did not speak IE (at least not Late PIE). Only after some relatively late contacts between the Late Yamna people and some CW groups residing in the Carpathian region (!) around 2500 BC, the Late PIE language is supposed to have been adopted by the local Corded Ware people and spread further (to Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo and Abashevo). Honestly speaking, I don’t find this hypothesis as plausible as some other scenarios, but it will rather be difficult to verify it (either positively or negatively), unless of course we find R1a-Z645 in both Khvalynsk and CW.

Here is an appropriate citation from the Anthony’s book:
“After this movement slowed or stopped, about 2800–2600 BCE, late Yamnaya people came face to face with people who made Corded Ware tumulus cemeteries in the east Carpathian foothills, a historic meeting through which dialects ancestral to the northern Indo-European languages (Germanic, Slavic, Baltic) began to spread among eastern Corded Ware groups.”

Michał
08-01-2013, 11:05 AM
Of course, the fact that the Corded Ware culture (most likely represented by R1a) was significantly present on the territory that much later became a center of the Germanic expansion made some people think that this provides a kind of evidence for the previously postulated “genetic” relationship between the Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages. However, I am deeply convinced that most of the CW-associated R1a subclades in Western Europe have become nearly extinct long before the Proto-Germanic evolved from some Western European IE dialects. As I have already explained in some of my previous posts, the Western-European clades R1a-Z284 and R1a-L664, both suspected of being the major post-CW remnants that have been subsequently incorporated into the Germanic world, are extremely unlikely to play any significant role in the formation of the commonly postulated Proto-Germanic Jastorf culture. Instead, both these R1a subclades seem to have been pushed by the R1b newcomers to some peripheral locations (as early as about 2500-2000 BC) and were only much later able to moderately expand (moving to some territories that barely cover a one-third of the territory that was once occupied by the Early Germanic tribes). I have already discussed this issue in another tread on this forum:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades&p=8038#post8038
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades/page4&p=8275#post8275

I’ve just read a paper by Åsa M. Larsson “Pots, Pits and People: Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden”:
http://www.academia.edu/188986/Pots_Pits_and_People._Hunter-Gatherer_Pottery_Traditions_in_Neolithic_Sweden

The author describes some characteristic features of a pottery made by the local (Mesolithic-derived) Pitted Ware Culture (PWC) in Sweden and compares it with a pottery made by the intrusive Battle Axe Culture (BAC), a Scandinavian variant of Corded Ware. Here is an interesting excerpt that is fully consistent with what I wrote above:

“It is imperative to note that the agricultural BAC did not acculturate the hunting-gathering PWC, since they both disappear from the archaeological record at this time. It would be more correct to state that they are both swept up in the large-scale continental changes taking place at this time. If anything, it was the PWC pottery tradition that had the strongest impact on Late Neolithic pottery.”

Importantly, this is also consistent with the hypothesis that haplogroup I1 (most likely derived from some local hunter-gatherers) had a much more significant impact on shaping the Nordic Bronze Age culture (the predecessor of the Proto-Germanic Jastorf culture) than the CW(BAC)-derived haplogroup R1a (Z284).

TigerMW
08-01-2013, 01:15 PM
.. Importantly, this is also consistent with the hypothesis that haplogroup I1 (most likely derived from some local hunter-gatherers) had a much more significant impact on shaping the Nordic Bronze Age culture (the predecessor of the Proto-Germanic Jastorf culture) than the CW(BAC)-derived haplogroup R1a (Z284).

I've been looking at the mix of Y haplogroups in Scandinavia and Benelux for some time and this actually makes quite a bit of sense as I have noticed that R1a is surprisingly light in some of the sub-regions. It is not well (consistently) mixed in.

alan
08-01-2013, 06:54 PM
It is interesting to note that what Anthony suggests in his book is that Corded Ware was initially a population that did not speak IE (at least not Late PIE). Only after some relatively late contacts between the Late Yamna people and some CW groups residing in the Carpathian region (!) around 2500 BC, the Late PIE language is supposed to have been adopted by the local Corded Ware people and spread further (to Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo and Abashevo). Honestly speaking, I don’t find this hypothesis as plausible as some other scenarios, but it will rather be difficult to verify it (either positively or negatively), unless of course we find R1a-Z645 in both Khvalynsk and CW.

Here is an appropriate citation from the Anthony’s book:
“After this movement slowed or stopped, about 2800–2600 BCE, late Yamnaya people came face to face with people who made Corded Ware tumulus cemeteries in the east Carpathian foothills, a historic meeting through which dialects ancestral to the northern Indo-European languages (Germanic, Slavic, Baltic) began to spread among eastern Corded Ware groups.”

Anthony's model does make the timeframe very tight for corded ware people to be IE-ised. Heyd's paper on Yamnaya kurgans in Old Europe looked at a series of RC dates and they fell after 3000BC. The earliest date for Corded Ware itself was in south-east Poland c. 3000BC. Seems a tight timeframe before corded and corded influenced groups headed west and east. I am not sure how this fits in with Fatyanovo too. It also is meant to date to 3000BC or just before. Certainly had to happen very fast.
http://www.academia.edu/1249528/_2011_V._Heyd_Yamnaya_Groups_and_Tumuli_west_of_th e_Black_Sea._In_Ancestral_Landscapes._Ed._by_E._Bo rgna_and_S._Muller_Celka._TMO_58_Lyon_p._536-555

newtoboard
08-02-2013, 03:33 PM
It is interesting to note that what Anthony suggests in his book is that Corded Ware was initially a population that did not speak IE (at least not Late PIE). Only after some relatively late contacts between the Late Yamna people and some CW groups residing in the Carpathian region (!) around 2500 BC, the Late PIE language is supposed to have been adopted by the local Corded Ware people and spread further (to Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo and Abashevo). Honestly speaking, I don’t find this hypothesis as plausible as some other scenarios, but it will rather be difficult to verify it (either positively or negatively), unless of course we find R1a-Z645 in both Khvalynsk and CW.

Here is an appropriate citation from the Anthony’s book:
“After this movement slowed or stopped, about 2800–2600 BCE, late Yamnaya people came face to face with people who made Corded Ware tumulus cemeteries in the east Carpathian foothills, a historic meeting through which dialects ancestral to the northern Indo-European languages (Germanic, Slavic, Baltic) began to spread among eastern Corded Ware groups.”

Wouldn't that apply a Germanic-Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity in Corded Ware? If you see Corded Ware as being mostly related to R1a and no Germanic-Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity then what was Western Corded Ware speaking?

alan
08-02-2013, 04:37 PM
Wouldn't that apply a Germanic-Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity in Corded Ware? If you see Corded Ware as being mostly related to R1a and no Germanic-Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity then what was Western Corded Ware speaking?

We know of a lot of IE languages that have died out since the classical history period and there is little doubt that many more could have dissapeared in the couple of millenia before that. The corded ware people are already known to have been a mixed group with a non-R component too. Just how much R1a was in it remains to be seen. It could have been a small minority. We need a few more CW sites to work out if R1a was a large or small element. If it was some sort of small, perhaps elite, element then they may have been basically replaced by R1b beaker lineages. That would be especially so in west-central Europe where corded ware arrived somewhat later c. 2750BC and only had a couple of centuries before the beaker culture arrived. Kromsdorf had an R1b beaker group perhaps already by perhaps 2600BC. The wvidence for corded ware later than 2400BC is dubious. So they appear to have had a short hegemony west of Poland, perhaps only 150 years before beaker appeared. Then their culture had disappeared within 200 years of beaker appearing. So, they didnt have a long time before beaker cultures were competing and their culture didnt survive very long once the two cultures were sharing the same parts of Europe while beaker culture continued on for 400 years after corded ware had dissapeared. So, there is a good fix scenario for the eclipse of corded ware groups. That would create a scenario where their lineages may have shrunk while beaker grew. It is interesting that we have ancient DNA of ancient beaker R1b and corded ware R1a from the same sort of area at the same period, pretty well at the exact period the two cultures started to compete in the same area.

TigerMW
08-02-2013, 07:02 PM
Wouldn't that apply a Germanic-Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity in Corded Ware?
I'm not sure how you are using the word "unity" but from I see from the linguistics cladistic analysis is that the pre-Germanic branching broke away from what would become the Balto-Slavic branching very early on from the PIE period.

Later, due to geographic proximities and after the splitting of the branches, borrowing, etc. led to Pre-Germanic/Germanic languages having both Balto-Slavic and then Celtic influences.

I would call that influence, exchange and borrowing rather than unity, at least in the sense of a common base.

alan
08-02-2013, 10:28 PM
I'm not sure how you are using the word "unity" but from I see from the linguistics cladistic analysis is that the pre-Germanic branching broke away from what would become the Balto-Slavic branching very early on from the PIE period.

Later, due to geographic proximities and after the splitting of the branches, borrowing, etc. led to Pre-Germanic/Germanic languages having both Balto-Slavic and then Celtic influences.

I would call that influence, exchange and borrowing rather than unity, at least in the sense of a common base.

It is interesting that proto-Germanic has a really high percentage of non-IE vocab compared to Celtic. There have been attempts to reduce this by finding odd IE ways of explaining some but they are not convincing. Even if the special pleading is believed it still tends to be oddball non-typical use of IE words again indicative of a situation with a big substrate effect. Quite a lot of really fundamental vocab in Germanic is not derived from any convincing IE source.

http://www.eupedia.com/linguistics/non-indo-european_germanic_words.shtml

Clearly there was a very different experience of IE-isation in the area where proto-Germanic arose. That is usually placed in Denmark and adjacent. The substrate language doesnt appear to be identified with any existing language group except by rather uncoventional linguists. Of course only the proto-Germanic phases is linked to Iron Age cultures around Denmark. There have also been rumblings about migrations from further north where you would expect a major substrate.

TigerMW
08-07-2013, 07:14 PM
It is interesting that proto-Germanic has a really high percentage of non-IE vocab compared to Celtic. There have been attempts to reduce this by finding odd IE ways of explaining some but they are not convincing. Even if the special pleading is believed it still tends to be oddball non-typical use of IE words again indicative of a situation with a big substrate effect. Quite a lot of really fundamental vocab in Germanic is not derived from any convincing IE source.

http://www.eupedia.com/linguistics/non-indo-european_germanic_words.shtml

Clearly there was a very different experience of IE-isation in the area where proto-Germanic arose. That is usually placed in Denmark and adjacent. The substrate language doesnt appear to be identified with any existing language group except by rather uncoventional linguists. Of course only the proto-Germanic phases is linked to Iron Age cultures around Denmark. There have also been rumblings about migrations from further north where you would expect a major substrate.

Perhaps this is what you are getting at, but the linguistics situation aligns nicely with the genetic situation as we see a diverse mix of I1, R1b-U106 and R1a people along with (more than many think) R1b-P312 and sundry others in German Language areas.
This is unlike the old Celtic lands and the correlation with R1b-P312 almost one for one.

I don't doubt that the Jutland Peninsula should have strongest consideration for the formation of the Proto-Germanic people, but I think we have to consider east and southeast along the Baltic too.

alan
08-07-2013, 08:33 PM
Perhaps this is what you are getting at, but the linguistics situation aligns nicely with the genetic situation as we see a diverse mix of I1, R1b-U106 and R1a people along with (more than many think) R1b-P312 and sundry others in German Language areas.
This is unlike the old Celtic lands and the correlation with R1b-P312 almost one for one.

I don't doubt that the Jutland Peninsula should have strongest consideration for the formation of the Proto-Germanic people, but I think we have to consider east and southeast along the Baltic too.

While Proto-Germanic does look like it spread from Denmark and adjacent in the iron age, I dont think anyone really could say much about the location of pre-Germanic in the period prior to this. It seems reasobable to place it in an area that included Denmark. Denmark was part of the Nordic Bronze Age network. That network lasted for millenia and included areas more remote than Denmark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nordic_Bronze_Age.png

Although there is no evidence, Scandinavia is probably one of the areas you might expect a pre-IE substrate to be present. So a network like that could explain the non-IE element that seems present by the time of proto-German in the Iron Age. Another possibility is actual migration from Sweden and Norway during the climatic downturn and collapse of the Nordic Bronze Age and in later times. Again that would be a scenario where relatively remote areas which seem prime spots for pre-IE substrates could have contributed to the pecuiarity of proto-Germanic when it formed.

Either way, Norway and Sweden may hold the key as they were well of the beaten track and did have a very slow and gradual take up of farming. Sweden anyway has been considered to have high levels of pre-farming genes too. The marginality of these regions for productive farming may have created a situation where a major substrate effect was likely.

The third alternative which I raised earlier is that Corded Ware itself was an imperfect medium for the spread of IE. However, on reflection this seems less likely as it did a pretty good job in terms of the Baltic families of languages.

newtoboard
08-08-2013, 02:10 PM
Perhaps this is what you are getting at, but the linguistics situation aligns nicely with the genetic situation as we see a diverse mix of I1, R1b-U106 and R1a people along with (more than many think) R1b-P312 and sundry others in German Language areas.
This is unlike the old Celtic lands and the correlation with R1b-P312 almost one for one.

I don't doubt that the Jutland Peninsula should have strongest consideration for the formation of the Proto-Germanic people, but I think we have to consider east and southeast along the Baltic too.

Wouldn't locations more east and southeast would likely have led to more M458+/Z280+, N1c among the Proto Germanic speakers?

TigerMW
08-08-2013, 03:10 PM
Wouldn't locations more east and southeast would likely have led to more M458+/Z280+, N1c among the Proto Germanic speakers?
Not necessarily. Why do you think so?

newtoboard
08-08-2013, 03:14 PM
Not necessarily. Why do you think so?

By locations more east and southeast along the Baltic I thought you were talking about NE Germany, Northern Poland and Lithuania?

TigerMW
08-08-2013, 04:45 PM
Wouldn't locations more east and southeast would likely have led to more M458+/Z280+, N1c among the Proto Germanic speakers?


By locations more east and southeast along the Baltic I thought you were talking about NE Germany, Northern Poland and Lithuania?
Yes, that is what I meant.

What I was asking is can you explain why you think M458+/Z280+, N1c among the Proto-Germanic should be higher than it was? My thought was "not necessarily" but I'd like to hear your reasoning as you might have a very good case.

newtoboard
08-08-2013, 05:30 PM
Yes, that is what I meant.

What I was asking is can you explain why you think M458+/Z280+, N1c among the Proto-Germanic should be higher than it was? My thought was "not necessarily" but I'd like to hear your reasoning as you might have a very good case.

I think those lineages were present in high frequencies in the area along the Baltic we are talking about (they might have even originated there) and it seems they are likely older than Proto Germanic. Michal would probably be able to offer a more valuable opinion.

TigerMW
08-08-2013, 06:23 PM
I think those lineages were present in high frequencies in the area along the Baltic we are talking about (they might have even originated there) and it seems they are likely older than Proto Germanic. Michal would probably be able to offer a more valuable opinion.

Good point. Do we know when R1a reached the Baltic and in what strength? Perhaps N1c is the key. We do see R1a in many Germanic areas to the west but I just don't know how to gauge how much R1a would have been in the area of Proto-Germanic formation anyway to cause the patterns we are seeing.

Here is the map from Eupedia/Maciamo. Do we think N1c is associated with the Ceramic Comb Culture? If so, it may have moved a little (very little) westward from its original location. I see it should be big player in modern Lithuania and I see it completely drops off by Benelux.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-N.gif

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/European-middle-neolithic-en.svg/600px-European-middle-neolithic-en.svg.png

This is probably a good question on the haplogroup I forum to see if Nordtvedt or others think there is some relationhip with I1 and Nc1 in the old Prussian tribal area.

alan
08-08-2013, 11:48 PM
My general impression is R1a was little involved in many of the Germanic waves west before the vikings. Seems to me that it probably survived mainly in peripheral northernmost parts of the Germanic speaking world in the northern Scandinavian countries. If I had to guess I would say it was a refuge area for the corded ware-battle axe elements who had only had a couple of centuries of hegemony in the zone before beaker-R1b groups took over in many areas.

parasar
08-09-2013, 02:02 AM
My general impression is R1a was little involved in many of the Germanic waves west before the vikings. Seems to me that it probably survived mainly in peripheral northernmost parts of the Germanic speaking world in the northern Scandinavian countries. If I had to guess I would say it was a refuge area for the corded ware-battle axe elements who had only had a couple of centuries of hegemony in the zone before beaker-R1b groups took over in many areas.

How about the Goths? The Huns, Goths, Alans, Antes, Sclaves, etc that broke past the Danube, all of them should have had a good amounts of R1a1. Even the Iron Age German tribes from west of the Vistula must have been R1a1 rich.

alan
08-09-2013, 04:33 AM
How about the Goths? The Huns, Goths, Alans, Antes, Sclaves, etc that broke past the Danube, all of them should have had a good amounts of R1a1. Even the Iron Age German tribes from west of the Vistula must have been R1a1 rich.

Huns, Alans etc were not Germanic. You may have a point about the Goths though given they seem to have roots in Scandinavia. I think R1a was only strong in the most northern Germanics. I get the impression from several population studies that have looked at the Germanic language interface that R1a was not a big element in many of the western Germans. Certainly not compared to U106. I think it was only when groups from Norway and Sweden moved south that there was a higher R1a impact. There is a lot of mystery about pre-Viking movements from those area southwards onto the south shores of the north and Black Sea. It does seem to me that the core area of Denmark and north Germany where several of the tribes who headed west and south probably originate had little R1a. I have a feeling its numbers were increased by movements from Scandinavia into areas like Denmark and the south Baltic fairly late, perhaps taking advantage of the vaccum caused by the exit of migrating tribes. I admit though each tribe needs looked at separately and their history traces back to source.

Michał
08-09-2013, 01:21 PM
Do we know when R1a reached the Baltic and in what strength?
We don’t have any aDNA data from this region that would allow us to answer your question with enough confidence. However, when assuming that R1a-M417(xZ93) was strongly associated with the expansion of the Corded Ware culture (which seems to be the mainstream view today), we can date this moment to about 2800 BC (or 3000-2500 BC). An interesting case of a CW-derived culture on the South-Eastern shore of the Baltic Sea is the so-called Rzucewo culture. Its beginnings are dated to about 2700 BC and it is sometimes considered a hybrid culture resulting from a mixture of a local Narva-derived component (haplogroup I1?) and an intrusive CW-derived component (R1a?).


Perhaps N1c is the key.
My view on this subject differs greatly from the most common view, so please keep in mind that there is no common agreement as to the participation of haplogroup N1c in different pre-Neolithic, Neolithic, but also Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures in Europe. In short, I not only doubt that N1c (and thus the Finno-Ugric speakers) were significantly present in NE Europe before 2000 BC, but I also find it rather unlikely that N1c was present among the Balts living on the SE Baltic shore before let’s say 500 AD. Here are some links to my posts on the Molgen forum that explain my view on the latter question:
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=844&start=40
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=844&sid=675bd5ffc3553ec79215c07d5c1e8ab8&start=55

As for your suggestion that the Proto-Germanic population could have originated from the region located east of Germany (like Pomerania , NE Poland or Lithuania), I don’t see anything that would strongly support such view. Firstly, there is no archaeological culture that would have spread from that region to Northern Germany and Jutland during any time within a period of 2500-700 BC, i.e. before the first undoubtedly Germanic culture (Jastorf) is attested in Germany and Denmark, unless you derive the Proto-Germanic population from the early Corded Ware migrants (which seems to be very unlikely for some previously discussed reasons). Secondly, it seems likely that the Bell Beaker culture that reached Germany and Scandinavia about 2500-2000 BC (and was most likely very rich in R1b) was somehow associated with the Pra-Germanic speakers and there is no evidence of any presence of Bell Beakers on the SE Baltic shore (either prior to the BB arrival to Germany or after it).

Michał
08-09-2013, 01:22 PM
If you see Corded Ware as being mostly related to R1a and no Germanic-Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity then what was Western Corded Ware speaking?
Assuming that the Balto-Slavic languages were associated with a specific population derived from some Eastern subgroup of Corded Ware, those North-Western European CW people could have initially used a dialect that was probably most closely related to Proto-Balto-Slavic (if considering only the known branches of IE) but it was probably relatively quickly replaced by another IE dialect that was more closely related to a language ancestral to Proto-Germanic.

newtoboard
08-09-2013, 06:05 PM
Assuming that the Balto-Slavic languages were associated with a specific population derived from some Eastern subgroup of Corded Ware, those North-Western European CW people could have initially used a dialect that was probably most closely related to Proto-Balto-Slavic (if considering only the known branches of IE) but it was probably relatively quickly replaced by another IE dialect that was more closely related to a language ancestral to Proto-Germanic.

Is there anything supporting a IE substratum in Germanic languages?

alan
08-09-2013, 06:57 PM
We don’t have any aDNA data from this region that would allow us to answer your question with enough confidence. However, when assuming that R1a-M417(xZ93) was strongly associated with the expansion of the Corded Ware culture (which seems to be the mainstream view today), we can date this moment to about 2800 BC (or 3000-2500 BC). An interesting case of a CW-derived culture on the South-Eastern shore of the Baltic Sea is the so-called Rzucewo culture. Its beginnings are dated to about 2700 BC and it is sometimes considered a hybrid culture resulting from a mixture of a local Narva-derived component (haplogroup I1?) and an intrusive CW-derived component (R1a?).


My view on this subject differs greatly from the most common view, so please keep in mind that there is no common agreement as to the participation of haplogroup N1c in different pre-Neolithic, Neolithic, but also Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures in Europe. In short, I not only doubt that N1c (and thus the Finno-Ugric speakers) were significantly present in NE Europe before 2000 BC, but I also find it rather unlikely that N1c was present among the Balts living on the SE Baltic shore before let’s say 500 AD. Here are some links to my posts on the Molgen forum that explain my view on the latter question:
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=844&start=40
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=844&sid=675bd5ffc3553ec79215c07d5c1e8ab8&start=55

As for your suggestion that the Proto-Germanic population could have originated from the region located east of Germany (like Pomerania , NE Poland or Lithuania), I don’t see anything that would strongly support such view. Firstly, there is no archaeological culture that would have spread from that region to Northern Germany and Jutland during any time within a period of 2500-700 BC, i.e. before the first undoubtedly Germanic culture (Jastorf) is attested in Germany and Denmark, unless you derive the Proto-Germanic population from the early Corded Ware migrants (which seems to be very unlikely for some previously discussed reasons). Secondly, it seems likely that the Bell Beaker culture that reached Germany and Scandinavia about 2500-2000 BC (and was most likely very rich in R1b) was somehow associated with the Pra-Germanic speakers and there is no evidence of any presence of Bell Beakers on the SE Baltic shore (either prior to the BB arrival to Germany or after it).

One potentially eastern element in the mix during the period of proto-German close to the Iron Age was the house urn culture of central-east Germany which is thought to be related to the Pomeranian culture which in turn may descend from Lusatian culture. I have wondered in the past about the DNA aspect of this group. Nothing certain though.

I currently see the U106 as an SNP that may have occurred in situ around the Elbe after a journey with beaker from the west in the form of L11*. If pre-Germanic is linked to this then I think a beaker source is probable for that branch. However, Germanic seems to me seems an odd branch with a lot of uncertainty about it. Its potentially high non-IE vocab element IMO could relate to it being tied into a bronze age network that included Norway and Sweden and their being on the periphery of most of the cultural waves that swept Europe. Autosomal DNA would suggest a significant pre-farming substrate in parts of Scandinavia.

parasar
08-09-2013, 10:00 PM
Huns, Alans etc were not Germanic. You may have a point about the Goths though given they seem to have roots in Scandinavia. I think R1a was only strong in the most northern Germanics. I get the impression from several population studies that have looked at the Germanic language interface that R1a was not a big element in many of the western Germans. Certainly not compared to U106. I think it was only when groups from Norway and Sweden moved south that there was a higher R1a impact. There is a lot of mystery about pre-Viking movements from those area southwards onto the south shores of the north and Black Sea. It does seem to me that the core area of Denmark and north Germany where several of the tribes who headed west and south probably originate had little R1a. I have a feeling its numbers were increased by movements from Scandinavia into areas like Denmark and the south Baltic fairly late, perhaps taking advantage of the vaccum caused by the exit of migrating tribes. I admit though each tribe needs looked at separately and their history traces back to source.

Yes I agree that the Goths were the only clear Germanics. I clubbed them with the others since elements of the others merged with the Goths. The Huns in particular are 'Germanic' heroes.

"burn me thereon on one side of the King of the Huns, and on the other those men of mine, two at the head and two at the feet"
“The great Rhine shall rule
O’er the hate-raising treasure,
That gold of the Niblungs,
The seed of the gods:
In the weltering water
Shall that wealth lie a-gleaming,
Or it shine on the hands
Of the children of Huns!”

"Swift, on steeds of the Huns,
Heavy vengeance to wreak." etc. etc. http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/volsunga/volsunga-saga.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=QMsN8TS81RoC&pg=PT172

Attila himself may have been a German Hun, at least by name:
The World of the Huns. Chapter IX. Language O. Maenchen-Helfen: "Attila is formed from Gothic or Gepidic atta, "father," by means of the diminutive suffix -ila. It has often been compared to batyushka, the diminituve of batya, "father," as the Russian peasants used to call the tsar ... Attila is not a rare name. Venantius Fortunatus mentions a regulus aulae domesticus by that name ... Some scholars, impressed by the similarity of Attila to Ätil, the Turkish name of the Volga, equated the two names without caring for their phonetic and semantic relationship"

Michał
08-10-2013, 02:49 PM
Is there anything supporting a IE substratum in Germanic languages?
Not that I know of.

As I wrote above, I would expect that the IE language of the surviving R1a population was replaced with Pra-Germanic, but since it has likely happened in some peripheral regions of NE Europe (like NE Norway or Frisia), it couldn’t have any significant impact on a Pra-Germanic dialect that eventually gave rise to Proto-Germanic. Also, it should be noted that even the presence of a hypoyhetical non-IE substratum in Germanic (as recently discussed by Alan) is not commonly accepted among the linguists (although such non-IE substratum would be perfectly consistent with the substantial presence of haplogroup I among all Germanic-speaking populations), so the chances for finding some convincing traces of another (relatively closely related) IE language are of course much lower.

parasar
08-11-2013, 11:56 PM
...
Attila himself may have been a German Hun, at least by name:
The World of the Huns. Chapter IX. Language O. Maenchen-Helfen: "Attila is formed from Gothic or Gepidic atta, "father," by means of the diminutive suffix -ila. It has often been compared to batyushka, the diminituve of batya, "father," as the Russian peasants used to call the tsar ... Attila is not a rare name. Venantius Fortunatus mentions a regulus aulae domesticus by that name ... Some scholars, impressed by the similarity of Attila to Ätil, the Turkish name of the Volga, equated the two names without caring for their phonetic and semantic relationship"
Bede the Venerable, Ecclesiastical History of England on Garmans
"Such are the Frisians,the Rugini,the Danes,the Huns,the Old Saxons,and the Boructuari."
http://books.google.com/books?id=-z486r0ZfbwC&pg=PA313
So by 700AD if not before the Huns had become Germans.

One reading of Priscus seems indicate that Hunic and Gothic were mutually intelligible.
"I was surprised at a Scythian speaking Greek. For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or--as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans--Latin; but none of them easily speak Greek"
"After him Zerkon, the Moorish dwarf, entered. He had been sent by Attila as a gift to Aetius, and Edecon had persuaded him to come to Attila in order to recover his wife, whom he had left behind him in Scythia; the lady was a Scythian whom he had obtained in marriage through the influence of his patron Bleda. He did not succeed in recovering her, for Attila was angry with him for returning. On the occasion of the banquet he made his appearance, and threw all except Attila into fits of unquenchable laughter by his appearance, his dress, his voice, and his words, which were a confused jumble of Latin, Hunnic, and Gothic. Attila, however, remained immovable and of unchanging countenance nor by word or act did he betray anything approaching to a smile of merriment except at the entry of Ernas, his youngest son, whom he pulled by the cheek, and gazed on with a calm look of satisfaction."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/priscus1.asp

alan
08-20-2013, 07:46 PM
I’m afraid that I am unable to answer your question with any confidence. :)
I can of course provide some more or less plausible scenarios, but the truth is that all of them will be just my wild guesses.

The main problem here is that there is no strong archaeological connection that would allow us to securely derive the Corded Ware culture from any earlier Late Neolithic culture in Europe (including those in Eastern, Central or Western Europe). However, assuming that R1a-M417 was somehow involved in the putative westward expansion of the Corded Ware culture (starting from about 3000 BC) and at least with the appearance of the Poltavka culture (about 2700 BC, at the middle Volga river), considered to be the most likely predecessor of Sintashta and Andronovo (but also Srubna), I can suspect that R1a-M417 was at least partially associated with the Yamna horizon (and thus with some Pre-Yamna cultures). On the other hand, the structure of the R1a tree and the lack of any evident correlation between the distribution of different subclades of R1a and the distribution of different branches of IE (except the two major Satem branches), make me strongly suspect that it was rather the R1b-rich population that spoke PIE (both Early PIE (Proto-Indo-Hittite) and Late PIE). Thus, we also need to find a place for R1b on the steppe, and all this together requires both R1a and R1b to be a part of the Yamna horizon that covered the most part of the Eurasian steppe in the middle of the fourth millennium BC. Since in such scenario R1b would need to have been present at least in the Western part of the Yamna horizon (from where the expansion to Anatolia, but also to Southern and Western Europe could have started), this makes the Eastern (or North-Central-Eastern) part of Yamna the most likely place where R1a was present in the Pre-Yamna period. This, in turn, makes the Repin and Late Khvalynsk cultures the relatively likely reservoirs of R1a-M417 for that period.

If all above is true (which is of course far from being proven), this would have some serious consequences regarding the most likely scenarios explaining the much earlier locations/migrations of both R1a and R1b people (and their relationship to some very early stages of the IE development). Below is one my hypothetical scenarios that I consider quite likely (at least at the current stage of our knowledge).


The R1a (including M17* and SRY1532.2*) people could have been present in Eastern Europe at least since the Mesolithic, and it seems likely that they formed the Early Neolithic Dnieper-Donets culture. Their offshoot could have formed a closely related Samara culture, where the R1a-M417 clade could have become the most frequent R1a lineage. At the same time, the R1b-M269 (or R1b-P297) folk could have been represented by the North Caspian (Seroglazovo/Elshanka) culture, showing some similarity (relationship?) to the East Caspian (or South-East Caspian) Neolithic horizon, probably derived from the Early Neolithic Jeitun Culture in Southern Turkmenistan. The North Caspian culture could have expanded about 5000-4500 BC, strongly influencing the neighboring Samara culture and overrunning the R1a people in Dnieper-Donets. This would result in the creation of a new R1b-dominated Sredny Stog culture where only some R1a(xM417) remnants could have survived.

The situation could have been completely different in the presumably R1a-M417-dominated Samara culture, where intensive contacts with the R1b people could have resulted in the formation of the Indo-europeanized (Satem-speaking) Khvalynsk population. By contrast to the above-postulated replacement of R1a (Dnieper-Donets) by R1b (Sredny Stog), the Khvalynsk culture could have remained mostly R1a-M417, and if there was any significant contribution of the R1b men to the Khvalynsk genetic pool, it could have remained on a very minimal level. Alternatively, those hypothetical R1a-R1b interactions in Khvalynsk could have had a transient character, with the R1b people leaving Khvalinsk very soon and moving further west (joining Sredny Stog or forming Lower Michailovka group?). Later on, the IE-speaking and R1a-rich Khvalynsk culture could have evolved into two main groupings, with one of them moving gradually west (R1a-CTS4385) and north-west (R1a-Z283), thus giving rise to the Corded Ware horizon, while the R1a-Z93 group could have initially stayed in the original place where they were likely to adopt some new cultural traits that were spread by the R1b-dominated “Yamna-proper” group. This transformation of R1a-Z93 into a part of the Yamna horizon could have been associated with the intensive contacts with the Centum-speaking R1b-Z2105 (Proto-Graeco-Armenian?) people who could have become the major R1b group on the steppe after the sister branch R1b-L51 (Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic?) has left the North-Pontic region, moving to Balkans and then along the Danube to Central and Western Europe.

Of course, some of the R1a-Z93 people (mostly R1a-Z94) have subsequently moved east (and then south), spreading the Proto-Indo-Iranian language to Central Asia. It should be noted, however, that the suggested late interaction between the R1a-Z93 and R1b-Z2105 people (within the broad Yamna horizon) could have been reflected by certain specific linguistic (and cultural?) similarities that are sometimes suggested for Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit) and ancient Greek.

Theoretically, the entire hypothetical North Pontic R1b group could have produced at least three waves of IE-speaking people (Anatolian, Graeco-Armenian and Italo-Celto-Germanic), although I would rather be inclined to suggest that the Anatolian branch of IE was not connected to this particular group of R1b people. Instead, I would rather see the separation of the Anatolian IE branch taking place much earlier (which would be consistent with the much larger genetic and linguistic distance to the remaining IE subgroupings). Therefore, my hypothesis assumes that the Pre-Anatolians (mostly R1b-L389(xP297) and R1b-V88) have rather stayed in the South-Eastern Caspian region where they could have been involved in some intensive interbreeding with the neighboring Neolithic populations (mostly J2a?), so their subsequent migrations to West Asia are not easy to follow using the Y-DNA traces. However, I would expect that there were at least several waves of such migrations towards West Asia, including Hittites, Hyksos and Kassites. All these hypothetical migrations are supposed to have taken place at a relatively late date (2000-1500 BC?) and they could have been forced by the increasing pressure from the expanding Proto-Indo-Iranian people. Also, this could have been related to some significant improvement of the military capabilities of those “Proto-Anatolians”, which was probably associated with the introduction of some new warfare technologies, including of course the chariot that has been developed by their Northern Indo-Iranian neighbors shortly before that period.

As for the Hyksos, I must admit that I like the “crazy” theory suggesting that they could have been a relatively small IE-derived group that has managed to preserve their original R1b-V88 haplogroup while switching from the IE language first to some Semitic dialect (when settling in Palestine) and then to the Old Egyptian language (when ruling this country). Eventually, some of them (who survived the Egyptian “revolution”) could have been forced to leave Egypt, possibly spreading a related (Proto-Chadic?) dialect further south. I have once consulted this hypothesis with some linguists but they were unwilling to either accept or definitely exclude the possibility that Proto-Chadic could have been derived from Old Egyptian (both belonging to the Afro-Asiatic family of languages).

The last IE branch that needs to be somehow placed in the above scenario is Tocharian. Of course, the most common view seems to be that the Tocharian-speaking people were mostly R1a members (as suggested by the aDNA analysis of the Tarim mummies). However, according to the above scenario, the only way to incorporate R1a into the Tocharian genetic pool would be to mix them with some Indo-Iranian people. Therefore, it seems more likely that the original haplogoup of people representing the Tocharian branch of IE was rather R1b-M269*, R1b-M73 or R1b-P297*. Of course, it is possible that the Tocharian-speaking people could have assimilated some neighbors representing other haplogroups (including not only R1a but also J2a, both present in large amounts among the Uyghurs living in the Tarim basin in whom the R1b-M73, R1b-M269 and R1b(xM269,M73) haplogroups have also been found).


Please keep in mind that all this is highly speculative and I am perfectly aware that many elements of the above scenario are very controversial (to say the least).

So, are you placing the archaic IE homeland in north Iran? I recall objections, then support then further objections about the PIE fauna not fitting a homeland somewhere like Iran. I do not find this sort of thing convincing as people dont retain names, or original meaning of the names, for animals that they no longer see. Linguistics is just not as clinching as it sometimes seems. A lot of people use the PIE loans into Uralic aspect as a major lychpin in their arguement of location of the Urheimut but soe major experts now believe non of these loans date back as early as PIE. Its on a very shaky peg indeed according to recent papers I have read.

newtoboard
08-21-2013, 11:56 AM
So, are you placing the archaic IE homeland in north Iran? I recall objections, then support then further objections about the PIE fauna not fitting a homeland somewhere like Iran. I do not find this sort of thing convincing as people dont retain names, or original meaning of the names, for animals that they no longer see. Linguistics is just not as clinching as it sometimes seems. A lot of people use the PIE loans into Uralic aspect as a major lychpin in their arguement of location of the Urheimut but soe major experts now believe non of these loans date back as early as PIE. Its on a very shaky peg indeed according to recent papers I have read.

Can you post the recent papers arguing that none of the IE loans in Uralic are from PIE?

alan
08-21-2013, 11:13 PM
Can you post the recent papers arguing that none of the IE loans in Uralic are from PIE?

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

This of course is a different matter from the much deeper time genetic relationship of languages like IE, Uralic and a couple of the Caucasian branches. That is also very interesting but its way before the PIE period, probably back somewhere in the Palaeolithic. There seems to be quite a bit of new work on the IE-Caucasian structural similarities. That would seem pretty natural to me as the Caucasus are fairly close to most proposed PIE homelands and also close to where some people are placing the R1 homeland.

parasar
08-22-2013, 01:31 AM
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf

This of course is a different matter from the much deeper time genetic relationship of languages like IE, Uralic and a couple of the Caucasian branches. That is also very interesting but its way before the PIE period, probably back somewhere in the Palaeolithic. There seems to be quite a bit of new work on the IE-Caucasian structural similarities. That would seem pretty natural to me as the Caucasus are fairly close to most proposed PIE homelands and also close to where some people are placing the R1 homeland.

"If, however, the oldest Archaic Indo-European loanwords are only contemporaneous with the Early ProtoAryan loanwords – which now seems the most probable option - things get more complicated ... the continuum of consequent Aryan loanword layers (Early Proto-Aryan, Middle Proto-Aryan, Late Proto-Aryan) in Proto-Uralic make it practically impossible that the Aryan languages could be native in India. The development of the Aryan branch must be located in the Southeast European steppes, south of the Volga-Ural taiga zone"

It would get even more complicated if Early ProtoAryan loanwords were shown to be older than the oldest Archaic Indo-European loanwords.
The author fails to explain the complete absence of Proto Uralic, or any Uralic in Indic. If they had been in contact through the so entitled Early Proto-Aryan, Middle Proto-Aryan, Late Proto-Aryan periods, perhaps spanning a few millenia, you would expect some Uralic transfer and retention in Indic.

alan
08-22-2013, 10:04 PM
I am no expert in all of this but I do have a feeling that the distribution of Uralic may owe a lot to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon. This dates from around 1800BC while proto-uralic is now being dated to around 2000BC. I am not saying it is necessarily the origin but it may have been a major driver in the westward expansion.


"If, however, the oldest Archaic Indo-European loanwords are only contemporaneous with the Early ProtoAryan loanwords – which now seems the most probable option - things get more complicated ... the continuum of consequent Aryan loanword layers (Early Proto-Aryan, Middle Proto-Aryan, Late Proto-Aryan) in Proto-Uralic make it practically impossible that the Aryan languages could be native in India. The development of the Aryan branch must be located in the Southeast European steppes, south of the Volga-Ural taiga zone"

It would get even more complicated if Early ProtoAryan loanwords were shown to be older than the oldest Archaic Indo-European loanwords.
The author fails to explain the complete absence of Proto Uralic, or any Uralic in Indic. If they had been in contact through the so entitled Early Proto-Aryan, Middle Proto-Aryan, Late Proto-Aryan periods, perhaps spanning a few millenia, you would expect some Uralic transfer and retention in Indic.

alan
08-25-2013, 09:48 PM
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf

Thought I would post this paper on Uralic on this thread. The stuff about date is obviously guessology. The interesting thing is that it places the Uralic homeland in Siberian Russia to the north or west of Mongolia. That is a long way to the east of the most popular proposed PIE homeland. If you couple this with the sort of dates for proto-Uralic proposed in the other paper I posted (not much before 2000BC) then a lack of PIE loans that stand up to scrutiny makes complete sense. The oldest branch off is thought to be Samoyed in its pre-modern more southern home. It apparently lacks the earlier IE borrowings proposed for some other Uralic branches anyway. All of this points to Uralic and PIE being well separated and not coming into contact until some time after the PIE period.

The above paper goes more for a Urals homeland for Uralic but still doesnt see the first contacts of proto-Uralic with IE until 2800BC. So, they are in the same rough ballpark although I find the other paper's suggestion of a homeland for proto-Uralic in Russia north or north-west of Mongolia more convincing as it does not make sense to me that no IE contacts happened until 2800BC if proto-Uralic was in the Urals.

It makes more sense to me to take the best bits from both papers and place proto-Uralic NW of Mongolia/Siberia as the other paper suggests but more like around 3000BC and view the early loans down to Tocharian around then and Aryan somewhat later. Then associate the spread west of Uralic with the Seima-Turbino phenomemon about 1800BC onwards which apparently commenced around Altai which is within the proposed proto-Uralic homeland of the other paper.

Anyway, the upshot of my take on squaring those two partly divergent papers is that proto-Uralic was not in contact with PIE BUT this does not need to surprise if proto-Uralic was well to the east of the Urals. This all does mean though that the Uralic arguements for the PIE homeland need to be dropped. On the other hand, despite that, something along the usual Kurgan theory seems to work quite well if you place the proto-Uralic homeland in the path of Tocharian d it arrived far to the east.

alan
09-03-2013, 11:54 PM
I was looking for more up to date papers on the Neolithicisation of the north pontic-Caspian area and thought I would share these that I found:

http://www.mas.ncl.ac.uk/~nas13/AS/2009Radiocarbon_Dolukhanov_etal_Neolithic_South_Ea st_European_Plain.pdf

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/.../3049‎

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/zaposleni/Budja%20%202011%20FestMinch.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/124598836/david-anthony-2007-pontic-caspian-mesolithic-early-neolithic-at-time-of-black-sea-flood-pdf

Miraculix
11-10-2013, 12:34 AM
The phrase "six hundred winters" is certainly vague, but given the content of the rest of the Vendidad and the identification of Aryanam Vaejah with most of the year being "winter", it's far more plausible that phrase is related to AV than a prehistoric LGM.


The mysterious phrase "six hundred winters" mentioned in the quoted text is an interesting term. If we look at history, we have to go back about 12 000 years to find a natural phenomena that fits this description. Volcanoes in Iceland at that time had Mega eruptions which impacted the global climate in a disastrous way. The ash from the eruptions formed a layer in the upper atmosphere, stopping much of the sun's rays from reaching the surface. That means it went dark everywhere, and the global mean temperature dropped considerably. It caused previously green fertile pastures to turn into polar desert. Also the hot sand deserts grew in size. In Scandinavia the impact was possibly even worse than elsewhere, because the ash from the volcanoes drifted with the winds to Norway. Excavations show layers of ash above knee-high. But the impact of the eruptions was global, and humans before this event are what used to be called Cro-Magnon humans, and after the event, around 11 000 years ago, humans all over the planet had turned into a leaner version of what they were prior to the event. The modern version of humans have approximately 50% less muscle mass than they had before the event. So it is clear that these were hard times everywhere. In Norse sources, there is the legend of the 'Fimbulwinter', or the never-ending winter. In current sources, it is said to have lasted only three years, but I am pretty sure this is an error due to the stories being handed over orally for generations. During the Fimbulwinter the names Liv (life) and Livtrase(Life-Spite) are mentioned as appropriate names for the humans. The only natural phenomena which fits this story is also here the eruptions 12 ooo years ago. There are also stories which seem to be about Humans and the practice of keeping cattle. The story of Ymir and Audhumla seem to be a vague description of how the early Norse started the practice of keeping cattle and also to drink their milk.
The volcanoes kept erupting for about 1 000 years from what I have read about it. So it could be more than 600 winters.
The other thing that is interesting in the sources from India, is the mention of the Aryans being the victims of great floods which made them seek a new life further south in India.
In Europe it has been discovered that there were enormous floods as the climate warmed after the LGM 20 000 years ago. The Ice sheet in Europe was as far south as Berlin 20 000 years ago. Along the southern edge of the Ice-sheet, the ice melted and formed a lake and river system which drained westwards from Russia through Poland, Germany and then into the North Sea. The cluster of R1a1a in Poland is located just south of where the Ice sheet stopped, so it seems to suggest they were already there at the LGM. As the climate warmed, we can estimate that after about 2000 years there would be a flood, because the Ice in eastern Germany and Poland acted as a dam, holding a gigantic amount of water back because it was a solid wall of ice from Bottenviken to just south of berlin and in Poland, where the Ice was moving to and the elevation gets higher. So when it melted, the water was released. The last of the Great floods in the area was about 8000 years ago. These floods would have impacted the people living west of Berlin, along the Elbe river the most. Also the people living in the North Sea basin which at the time was above sea level. And there are really no other known floods which are similarly catastrophic. These floods appear to have happened at steady intervals of a couple of thousand years, as the ice sheet melted and the southern edge moved further north. The lake/river system to the south of the Ice-sheet has different shapes and different names in different periods. The system drained into the North Sea between Sweden and Denmark after the first flood, and global sea levels went up because of all the fresh water being released into the oceans. Later it drained into the North Sea through a canal going straight through Sweden exiting northwest of present day Gothenburg. The last flood, 8000 years ago, set off the largest tsunami in all of human history off the Northwest coast of Norway, the Storegga tsunami. The flood in the Black Sea by comparison was slow, and not disastrous in the same way. There are also some things in the Indian sources which indicate that they used to live somewhere near the Polar Circle prior to coming to India.
The R1a1a cluster in Ukraine is like the Polish one located just south of where the edge of the ice sheet stopped during the last Glacial maximum.
So I think these facts indicate a possible migration of R1a1a Eastwards after these flood events.
Is it possible this is the origin of the R1a1a in India?
It seems clear that R haplogroup has developed in Pakistan or maybe a little north of there originally. The M207 are found there. But looking at the map of distribution for R1a and R1b, it seems clear to me that the R-M207 moved into Europe early on moving along the lakes and rivers south of the Ice sheet to Ukraine, Poland the North Sea region and to the west coast of Europe(Spain, France, Brittany). The R1b seems to have evolved from the R or the R1 in the 'Iberian Ice age refuge'. It is obviously older than the R1a, as R1b has many more branches than the R1a. So since Europe is so clearly divided into R1b in the West and R1a starting from Germany/Scandinavia and moving into the East, I think this clearly shows the two branches appearing there originally. And so the R1a in India should then be from somewhere in central or eastern Europe, like maybe the north sea basin when it was above sea level. Poland and Ukraine are also good candidates for the initial appearance of the R1a. The current model stating that the R1b became so numerous in W Europe because there were no people there seem a little desperate and far fetched. I don't believe in that paradigm. It is only the floods in the Indian sources that seem to put the Aryans further west than Poland, as this is the area directly impacted by the enormous floods. At this point I am skeptical of all estimates of how old the different clades are because the history of this topic shows that the estimates keep changing, and there seems to be little reason to think that will stop anytime soon. So an understanding of climate and glaciology can tell us something about the stories in the old sources too, and possibly also about the DNA history.

parasar
11-10-2013, 11:36 PM
... The Ice sheet in Europe was as far south as Berlin 20 000 years ago. Along the southern edge of the Ice-sheet, the ice melted and formed a lake and river system which drained westwards from Russia through Poland, Germany and then into the North Sea. The cluster of R1a1a in Poland is located just south of where the Ice sheet stopped, so it seems to suggest they were already there at the LGM. ... The flood in the Black Sea by comparison was slow, and not disastrous in the same way. There are also some things in the Indian sources which indicate that they used to live somewhere near the Polar Circle prior to coming to India.
... The R1a1a cluster in Ukraine is like the Polish one located just south of where the edge of the ice sheet stopped during the last Glacial maximum.

It seems clear that R haplogroup has developed in Pakistan or maybe a little north of there originally. The M207 are found there. But looking at the map of distribution for R1a and R1b, it seems clear to me that the R-M207 moved into Europe early on moving along the lakes and rivers south of the Ice sheet to Ukraine, Poland the North Sea region and to the west coast of Europe(Spain, France, Brittany). The R1b seems to have evolved from the R or the R1 in the 'Iberian Ice age refuge'. It is obviously older than the R1a, as R1b has many more branches than the R1a. So since Europe is so clearly divided into R1b in the West and R1a starting from Germany/Scandinavia and moving into the East, I think this clearly shows the two branches appearing there originally. And so the R1a in India should then be from somewhere in central or eastern Europe, like maybe the north sea basin when it was above sea level. Poland and Ukraine are also good candidates for the initial appearance of the R1a. The current model stating that the R1b became so numerous in W Europe because there were no people there seem a little desperate and far fetched. I don't believe in that paradigm. It is only the floods in the Indian sources that seem to put the Aryans further west than Poland, as this is the area directly impacted by the enormous floods. At this point I am skeptical of all estimates of how old the different clades are because the history of this topic shows that the estimates keep changing, and there seems to be little reason to think that will stop anytime soon. So an understanding of climate and glaciology can tell us something about the stories in the old sources too, and possibly also about the DNA history.

That was in part my thinking too as I had mentioned in this thread http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1026-what-is-the-latest-thinking-on-were-R1a-originated/page16

But recent SNP based calculations indicate that that is not likely. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1507-Some-provisional-calculations-for-haplogroup-R1a-based-on-the-first-FGC-result&p=17525&viewfull=1#post17525

Generalissimo
11-11-2013, 05:17 AM
At this point I am skeptical of all estimates of how old the different clades are because the history of this topic shows that the estimates keep changing, and there seems to be little reason to think that will stop anytime soon.

True, but the story of R1a-M17 seems pretty straightforward these days. Its latest phylogeny and presence in very specific ancient remains shows that it had to have expanded with the earliest Indo-Europeans. Before that it was probably living a quiet life in Eastern Europe as either a Mesolithic lineage along with mtDNA haplogroups U4, U5 and U2, or one that entered Europe from West Asia with the same Neolithic groups that brought mtDNA haplogroups T, J and more easterly variants of H (think Unetice and Corded Ware samples from Brotherton et al. and Brandt et al.).

R1b is a lot more difficult to decipher. That's because it looks older than R1a and shows some very strange patterns in distribution, like its presence in Sub-Saharan Africa. My guess is that the Sub-Saharan, Western European, and Southeast European/West Asian R1b clusters can't be linked to one recent expansion. The Western European R1b might well be a Mesolithic lineage which survived on the Atlantic fringe and then re-expanded during the late Neolithic, to fill the vacuum left by the collapsing LBK-derived middle Neolithic societies of Central Europe. Indeed, it's probably not a coincidence that there were expansions into Central Europe from both the west and east at about the same time, probably involving populations heavy in R1b and R1a respectively.

I expect this R1b mystery will be solved once and for all when we see many more ancient DNA results from Mesolithic and Neolithic Western Europe. That should come next year.

[[[Mikewww/Moderator 11Nov13: The latter part of this message gets into specific R1b things so for those who want to go on to that tangent I've quoted this over on the "R1b consensus?" thread. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?824-Are-we-getting-some-consensus-on-the-R1b-story&p=18865&viewfull=1#post18865 ]]]

parasar
06-04-2014, 04:32 AM
...
The reason for the number 15000ybp on the Indus is that the age of L657 on the Indus is essentially the age of R1a1 (calculated per Zhiv methods). Plus an increase in diversity due to a multiple input secnario does not work for L657...

...
Comparison:

Underhill 2009
TD time estimates (in ky) ... assuming mutation rate (6.9 x 10 -4 per 25 years)
Pakistan
43 15.0[thousand years] 16 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 10 10
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n4/extref/ejhg2009194x4.pdf

Underhill 2014
Td (mut. rate 6.9×10-4)
M780 Pakistan 20 17210 15 12 14 18 25 10 11 13 10 10
Z2125 Pakistan 14 9058 17 12 13 17 24 11 11 13 10 10
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg201450x5.xls

As can be seen, Z2125 is actually reducing the age, so a multiple input scenario increasing the R1a1 age on the Indus is not valid.

ThrashRaghead
04-10-2015, 07:38 PM
R1a, R1b, and IJ are all West Asian/Middle Eastern Haplogroups originating in Iran and moved into europe during the Neolithic.

Artmar
04-11-2015, 03:51 PM
R1a, R1b, and IJ are all West Asian/Middle Eastern Haplogroups originating in Iran and moved into europe during the Neolithic.
No way, I have to absolutely disagree with the second part of a sentence. It was already present in Eastern and Northeastern Europe at least in Mesolithic but expanded mostly in eneolithic/bronze age. "I" that belongs to IJ family, was present in Europe most likely since Upper Paleolithic period and was SURELY existed here in the Mesolithic.

ThrashRaghead
04-11-2015, 04:07 PM
IJ the ancestor of I and J was found only in Iran of any nation in the world.

chances are the foragers that had I also had the SLC24A5 mutation.

they are descendants of Iranians, either way.

parasar
04-11-2015, 04:34 PM
No way, I have to absolutely disagree with the second part of a sentence. It was already present in Eastern and Northeastern Europe at least in Mesolithic but expanded mostly in eneolithic/bronze age. "I" that belongs to IJ family, was present in Europe most likely since Upper Paleolithic period and was SURELY existed here in the Mesolithic.

The first part makes even lesser sense, IMO. The 7500yb Karelian R1a has very little if any near-eastern affinity. Nor did the 17000 year old AG2 or the 24000 year old MA1. Both R1a and R1b are inner/upper Euro-asiatic deriving from precursors in the Baikal/S. Siberia/NW China region. That none of these samples from 24000ybp to 7500 ybp had any near-eastern affinity is telling.


IJ the ancestor of I and J was found only in Iran of any nation in the world.

chances are the foragers that had I also had the SLC24A5 mutation.

they are descendants of Iranians, either way.

There were no Iranians in the IJ time-frame, but let us say that Y-I originated in the area of modern Iran, why would you think it is completely absent in South Asia.

To me it looks like I and J are some of oldest haplogroups of Europe (incld Turkey), I went NW and J went SE.

ThrashRaghead
04-11-2015, 05:00 PM
you're saying haplogroup J originated in europe? you have to be joking.

haplogroup I and J originated in West Asia, probably modern day Iran.

Like I said the Ancestor IJ was only found in Iran. europe doesn't have that ancestor.

newtoboard
04-11-2015, 05:07 PM
The first part makes even lesser sense, IMO. The 7500yb Karelian R1a has very little if any near-eastern affinity. Nor did the 17000 year old AG2 or the 24000 year old MA1. Both R1a and R1b are inner/upper Euro-asiatic deriving from precursors in the Baikal/S. Siberia/NW China region. That none of these samples from 24000ybp to 7500 ybp had any near-eastern affinity is telling.



There were no Iranians in the IJ time-frame, but let us say that Y-I originated in the area of modern Iran, why would you think it is completely absent in South Asia.

To me it looks like I and J are some of oldest haplogroups of Europe (incld Turkey), I went NW and J went SE.

Yea obviously J is very old in Europe. We have clearly seen that from aDNA. Europe does not include Turkey unless Europe in the Iron age stretched to the Altai and south to Afghanistan. Hint: It didn't.

vettor
04-11-2015, 06:27 PM
IJ the ancestor of I and J was found only in Iran of any nation in the world.

chances are the foragers that had I also had the SLC24A5 mutation.

they are descendants of Iranians, either way.


since its stated that IJ was once in union and the following SNP's indicate this ( M429/P125/PF3535 )..............then check for the origin of these SNP to give a rough guide on where IJ went before they split apart.

parasar
04-11-2015, 07:56 PM
Yea obviously J is very old in Europe. We have clearly seen that from aDNA. Europe does not include Turkey unless Europe in the Iron age stretched to the Altai and south to Afghanistan. Hint: It didn't.
You got to wait until we get ancient DNA from Greece and Anatolia. As Vettor mentions, I and J did not come out in vacuum. Anatolia was culturally in the SE European sphere, and Anatolians even today after hundreds of years of Turkic influence are close genetically to Greeks and Balkans.

Persians, Aramaics, Indians, called Anatolians, Greeks, Macedonians as Yona/Yavana/Yauna.
Yauna paradraya, Yauna takabara, etc.

newtoboard
04-11-2015, 10:46 PM
You got to wait until we get ancient DNA from Greece and Anatolia. As Vettor mentions, I and J did not come out in vacuum. Anatolia was culturally in the SE European sphere, and Anatolians even today after hundreds of years of Turkic influence are close genetically to Greeks and Balkans.

Persians, Aramaics, Indians, called Anatolians, Greeks, Macedonians as Yona/Yavana/Yauna.
Yauna paradraya, Yauna takabara, etc.

Being in the cultural sphere of something doesn't make it part of Europe. Unless the Russian Far East and Central Asia are in Europe today too because of them having been or being in the Soviet and modern Russian cultural spheres. What about Dagestan? Even Iranian Azerbaijan and Assyria were once in the Greek and Roman cultural sphere. Are those regions European?

Anatolians are only close to the Europeans who are the most distant from other European populations and have likely experienced extra post Neolithic gene flow from West Asia. Anatolians aren't particularly close to Europeans despite Anatolia having seen how many groups migrating from Europe (Greeks, Armenians, Thracians, Scythians, Cimmerians, admixture during the Ottoman empire) etc. It took all those groups leaving ancestry behind and they are still mostly closer to other West Asian people. That tells you a lot about how European ancient anatolia was.

And lets clear something up about Anatolia. It only referred to the regions west of the Euphrates so probably not the regions characterized by high y J diversity which seems to be concentrated in Eastern Turkey, Iran and the Caucasus. if this is just modern diversity I would suspect the ancient diversity of J was more southern ie Levantine and Mesopotamian as Agamemmon has suggested in the past.

And once again did Europe stretch to the Altai because any of those Scythio-Siberian geneomes tested by Kesyer were much more "European" than any Anatolian ever was in any point in history. The answer is still a resounding no.

parasar
04-12-2015, 06:17 AM
Being in the cultural sphere of something doesn't make it part of Europe. Unless the Russian Far East and Central Asia are in Europe today too because of them having been or being in the Soviet and modern Russian cultural spheres. What about Dagestan? Even Iranian Azerbaijan and Assyria were once in the Greek and Roman cultural sphere. Are those regions European?

...


In some ways yes. Russia indeed Europeanized a lot of Asia. So are North America and Australia now quite European. And this may change again. Clasically Asia was defined as starting at the Don. Now it is the Volga/Ural/Georgia-Azerbaizan. Dagestan under current definition is in Europe.

Philip Johan von Strahlenberg, a German geographer, was the first to depart from the classical dividing line along the Don River in 1725, moving it farther east to follow the Volga River north and then north along the Ural Mountains.



Controversy continued in Russian and German geographical circles, however, with some scholars attempting to push the boundary further east to the Ob or even the Yenisey River, while others argued for holding the line at the Don ... von Strahlenberg's position was eventually to triumph not only in Russia but throughout Europe.
https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/l/lewis-myth.html
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/files/2013/07/1133_EurasiaNGS.png
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/09/geography-in-the-news-eurasias-boundaries/


Where the Europe-Asia boundary lies in Eurasia has changed and will change again. Definitions change - that is the nature of things.

Most students of history, political science, economics and geography through the 20th century learned that Europe and Asia were two separate continents.The reasoning, however, was based more on cultural variables than on physical facts. In recent years, students began learning that Europe and Asia are not separate continents at all.

Mamluk
04-13-2015, 04:25 AM
Persians, Aramaics, Indians, called Anatolians, Greeks, Macedonians as Yona/Yavana/Yauna.
Yauna paradraya, Yauna takabara, etc.

Just a side comment:
In Arabic it's yonani, or yūnani, (and in Turkish it's yunan) which literally means "Ionian."

parasar
04-13-2015, 04:03 PM
Just a side comment:
In Arabic it's yonani, or yūnani, (and in Turkish it's yunan) which literally means "Ionian."

The modern pronunciation in India too is Yunani for Greek - I suppose because Greeks were re-introduced by Arabs, while the older form of the name Yavan/Javan/Jaman is now used more in the generic sense of a barbarian or foreigner.

Interestingly the Javan form is also seen in Hebrew and Jaman in Assyrian.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10021.html

JAVAN (Heb. יָוָן), fourth of the seven sons of Japheth, son of Noah and father of Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim (or Rodanim; Gen. 10:2, 4; 1 Chron. 1:5, 7). The name Javan reflects the Greek heroic name Ion, the legendary ancestor of the Ionians, a section of the Greek people. They are mentioned only once in Homer but became important later after colonizing the central part of the west coast of Asia Minor to which they gave their name, Ionia (Ἰωνἰα). The rise to power of the Ionians in the mid-eighth century has implications for dating the Genesis passages. Assyrian sources of the eighth century B.C.E. call the area Jawan and Jaman. Egyptian, and Persian sources also mention the Ionians.

Through the Near East Javan came to refer to all Greece. The biblical sources mention Javanites as merchants in trade with the Phoenicians of Tyre (Ezek. 27:13, cf. 19) and as slave traders who bought Judean captives from Phoenicians and Philistines (Joel 4:6). The Javanites are also mentioned among the far-off nations who are destined to witness God's glorious deeds (Isa. 66:19). Other biblical texts seem to reflect the tensions and hopes of the Hellenistic period in which Judah and Ephraim are to take revenge on the Javanites (Zech 9:13). The Book of Daniel, which certainly refers to this period, contains an odious reference to the king of Javan (Dan. 8:23) and alludes to the power struggles of the period of the Greco-Macedonian Empire (10:20, 11:2). Javan has continued to be the Hebrew for *Greece.

parasar
08-26-2015, 05:05 PM
Time to revisit this old thread.


My guess is that you were seeing a bifurcation between Z2124+ and L657+ (the two main branches under Z93+Z94+).
This part is almost certain.



I don't think any Z93- will ever be found in South Asia. I think some sort of Z93+ bottleneck occurred somewhere in Central Asia.
With khanabadoshi's result (in addition to the Underhill samples) this part is no longer true.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4848-New-FTDNA-SNP-tests-within-R1a-Z280&p=104487&viewfull=1#post104487

Tomenable
08-27-2015, 08:26 PM
Clasically Asia was defined as starting at the Don.

And German statesman Konrad Adenauer defined Asia as starting at the Elbe... :)

In fact there is no "Asia" and no "Europe", but just one landmass - Eurasia.

Anyway - Ural and Caucasus are certainly greater natural obstacles than Don. But the Eurasian steppe is a sort of a natural highway connecting all of its parts. And the steppe played a huge role in the circulation of ideas and inventions, which made Eurasia the main center of human civilisation for such a long time.

George
10-09-2015, 03:08 PM
Compare the maps:

L664 map (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/138/)
Z284 map (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/250/)
M458 map (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/11/)
Z280 map (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/249/)

All these maps seem to have been eliminated

parasar
11-05-2015, 04:23 AM
http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Screenshot-10272015-034122-PM.png

crop of Figure S3. Y chromosome phylogeny based on BEAST analyses
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/suppl/2015/02/18/gr.186684.114.DC1/Supplemental_Figures.pdf

RVBLAKE
06-14-2016, 02:43 PM
Good Morning, Michal

I'm new to this thread, although having read it for some time now, and finally decided to join. I'm particularly interested in your take on the subclade L664, my own. I'm awaiting the results of an L-664 Panel test I submitted to Yseq. What I would like to know in particular is in regards to the 4 subclusters of this subclade. I've been able to find almost nothing as to what constitutes belonging to these subclusters. So far it looks like I've tested negative for S3864 and S2894, and am awaiting word on S2863. Sincerely, R. Blake

Michał
06-15-2016, 06:13 PM
What I would like to know in particular is in regards to the 4 subclusters of this subclade. I've been able to find almost nothing as to what constitutes belonging to these subclusters.
Those STR-defined subclusters were used to classify all predicted or confirmed L664 members before the more detailed structure of branch L664 SNPs has been determined based on the discovery of crucial SNPs defining particular subclades. Although some of those early predictions turned out wrong, the above-mentioned division into four major STR-defined clusters corresponded more or less to the four major SNP-defined subclades, ie. S3479 (parental to S3485, tested by YSEQ), S2880, YP285 and S2857 (equivalent to S2863, tested by YSEQ). Please visit our R1a project's Results page (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/default.aspx?vgroup=r1a&section=yresults) to see the FTDNA customers (and the corresponding STR haplotypes) assigned to particular subclades.

leonardo
10-08-2016, 05:17 PM
Does current evidence point to the Yamna culture?

Mixed
12-04-2016, 12:37 AM
R1a from Iran. I've read some findings on that recently from a 2014 study from Underhill.

Agamemnon
12-04-2016, 01:06 AM
^^Not again...

Mixed
12-04-2016, 01:53 AM
^^Not again...

Don't worry chief. I'm just a fly by visitor. I won't be back after tonight. I received good enough responses to move forward.

Observer
12-04-2016, 03:21 AM
Underhill et al (2014) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24667786) maps. They were not posted here yet, might be helpful for discussion.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v6YlXJXhMvk/UJDwo_oAemI/AAAAAAAABRQ/fXpVQEDKw60/s1600/Underhill2010-R1a1.jpg

European clads
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jo4YVdHcczM/UzN-U6CtGnI/AAAAAAAAJiI/-cIin5Gh4Ow/s1600/ejhg201450f2.jpg

Asian clads
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yo928Hon9Ww/UzN-U-aGWMI/AAAAAAAAJiM/3AE7m5bNwCY/s1600/ejhg201450f3.jpg

wmehar
12-05-2016, 03:19 PM
The modern pronunciation in India too is Yunani for Greek - I suppose because Greeks were re-introduced by Arabs, while the older form of the name Yavan/Javan/Jaman is now used more in the generic sense of a barbarian or foreigner.

Interestingly the Javan form is also seen in Hebrew and Jaman in Assyrian.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10021.html

Didn't classical Arabs also call certain Greeks Rum?

In Turkish, they call me Rumlar/Rum or something to that effect. And the Greek speaking Suhayb Ar Rumi (companion of the Prophet Muhammad SAW), was given the title.

Not all Greek speaking people were Ionian, some were Anatolian (like my maternal grandmother's family), Cypriot/Islander (maternal grandfather), Pontic, etc. etc.

"Under the Ottoman Empire's Millet system, Greeks were in the "Rum Millet" (Millet-i Rum). In today's Turkey, Rum are the Turkish citizens of Greek ethnicity. The term "Urums", also derived from the same origin, is still used in contemporary ethnography to denote Turkic-speaking Greek populations. "Rumaiic" is a Greek dialect identified mainly with the Ottoman Greeks"

Rûm (Arabic pronunciation: [ˈruːmˤ]), also transliterated as Roum or Rhum (in Koine Greek "Ρωμιοί" - Romioi, "Romans", in Arabic الرُّومُ ar-Rūm, Persian/Turkish روم Rûm), is a generic term used at different times in the Muslim world to refer to:
ethnocultural minorities such as the various Christian groups living in the Near East and their descendants, notably the Antiochian Greek Christians who are members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church of Syria, Lebanon, Northern Israel and the Hatay Province in Southern Turkey whose liturgy is still based on Koine Greek (called Al-Rûm)
more generally, to Greek Orthodox community members of the Ottoman Empire and also citizens of Turkey (Rûmi or Rûm in the broader sense, but that use is disappearing from the quasi-extinction of Greek communities in Izmir, Istanbul, Cappadocia, and the Black Sea coast).
geographic areas such as the Balkans and Anatolia generally to the Eastern Roman Empire in particular or to the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm in Medieval Turkey.

The name derives from the Greek word Ρωμιοί (singular Ρωμιός), a later form in Greek of Ῥωμαῖοι Rhomaioi: "Romans". It refers to the Byzantine Empire, which was then simply known as the "Roman Empire" and had not yet acquired the designation "Byzantine," an academic term applied only after its dissolution. The city of Rome itself is known in modern Arabic as Rūmā روما (in Classical Arabic Rūmiyah رومية). The Arabic term Rûm is found in the pre-Islamic Namara inscription[1] and later in the Quran.[2] In the Sassanian period (pre-Islamic Persia) the word Hrōmāy-īg (Middle Persian) meant "Roman" or "Byzantine", which was derived from Rhomaioi.


I know that it comes from Rome/Roman but genetically, Greeks aren't far from them nor Turks either.

parasar
12-16-2016, 05:15 PM
Didn't classical Arabs also call certain Greeks Rum?

In Turkish, they call me Rumlar/Rum or something to that effect. And the Greek speaking Suhayb Ar Rumi (companion of the Prophet Muhammad SAW), was given the title.

Not all Greek speaking people were Ionian, some were Anatolian (like my maternal grandmother's family), Cypriot/Islander (maternal grandfather), Pontic, etc. etc.

"Under the Ottoman Empire's Millet system, Greeks were in the "Rum Millet" (Millet-i Rum). In today's Turkey, Rum are the Turkish citizens of Greek ethnicity. The term "Urums", also derived from the same origin, is still used in contemporary ethnography to denote Turkic-speaking Greek populations. "Rumaiic" is a Greek dialect identified mainly with the Ottoman Greeks"

Rûm (Arabic pronunciation: [ˈruːmˤ]), also transliterated as Roum or Rhum (in Koine Greek "Ρωμιοί" - Romioi, "Romans", in Arabic الرُّومُ ar-Rūm, Persian/Turkish روم Rûm), is a generic term used at different times in the Muslim world to refer to:
ethnocultural minorities such as the various Christian groups living in the Near East and their descendants, notably the Antiochian Greek Christians who are members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church of Syria, Lebanon, Northern Israel and the Hatay Province in Southern Turkey whose liturgy is still based on Koine Greek (called Al-Rûm)
more generally, to Greek Orthodox community members of the Ottoman Empire and also citizens of Turkey (Rûmi or Rûm in the broader sense, but that use is disappearing from the quasi-extinction of Greek communities in Izmir, Istanbul, Cappadocia, and the Black Sea coast).
geographic areas such as the Balkans and Anatolia generally to the Eastern Roman Empire in particular or to the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm in Medieval Turkey.

The name derives from the Greek word Ρωμιοί (singular Ρωμιός), a later form in Greek of Ῥωμαῖοι Rhomaioi: "Romans". It refers to the Byzantine Empire, which was then simply known as the "Roman Empire" and had not yet acquired the designation "Byzantine," an academic term applied only after its dissolution. The city of Rome itself is known in modern Arabic as Rūmā روما (in Classical Arabic Rūmiyah رومية). The Arabic term Rûm is found in the pre-Islamic Namara inscription[1] and later in the Quran.[2] In the Sassanian period (pre-Islamic Persia) the word Hrōmāy-īg (Middle Persian) meant "Roman" or "Byzantine", which was derived from Rhomaioi.


I know that it comes from Rome/Roman but genetically, Greeks aren't far from them nor Turks either.

The Byzantine/Greek portion of the Roman empire was the one in contact with the east. As the eastern Roman empire (Constantinople) became ascendant over the western (Rome) and then separate, the Rum moniker continued to be used. The moniker never was technically used for Greeks, though no doubt Greeks were a major component of the eastern Roman Empire.

The subcontinent had good contacts with Rome. Supposedly the currency of India - Dinar - was derived from that of Rome.
Gupta Dinar http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/0300_0399/earlyguptacoins/earlyguptacoins.html
Kushan Dinar https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Coin_of_KanishkaII.jpg
Shunga and Maurya dinars are also referred to in some material (Asokavadana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashokavadana ).


http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/0300_0399/earlyguptacoins/samudracoin3.jpg
"King standing, wearing a kushan style coat and trousers, holding a tall standard in his left hand, sacrificing over an altar. In the field to his right is his garudadhvaja. Samudragupta, gold dinar, Ca.355-380, The Skanhe Collection, ACSAA."