PDA

View Full Version : M269* and L23XL51 - modern pattern remnant of different waves?



alan
07-17-2013, 01:41 PM
Sometimes the relatively modest showing of M269 and L23 in the western steppe is seen as evidence of a non-steppe origin. However, it must always be recalled that while M73 is old enough to have taken part (but didnt), M269 had only just come into existence when the first steppe waves moved into the Balkans c. 4000BC. So, its modest showing in the steppe should not be a surprise (and Ukraine steppe population replacement in modern times was extreme too). Indeed it is inevitable if the variance dating is correct. In fact, you could argue that M269* coming into existence may be a marker of new expansion opportunities it just didnt have in its long pre-M269 P297* phase 9000-4000BC. It suddenly came from nowhere.


It is interesting that M269* peaks in west Balkans groups with a likely history further east nearer the Black Sea end of the Balkans. Is this is a remanant of a particularly early wave when M269 was a very new player and L23 either was yet to come or a newbee with few numbers? Its a pity that there is a lot of mystery about the origin of the M269 and L23-rich IE speakers of the south and west Balkans and likely Bronze Age displacements from other areas to the north and east. It would be nice to try and tease this out a bit more.

I suspect that groups with expansion dates c. 4000BC relate to the new opportunities gained when they nibbled into the farming world and prior to that may have remained at a barely-surviving level. The other driver may have been the wheel and adaption to mobile pastoralism opening up the steppe areas between the rivers - that is of course more crucial in a steppe environment and usually dated slighly later c. 3500BC. Maybe the M269* group that expanded mostly in the eastern edge of Old Europe were one of the pre-wheel element whose expansion was essentially down to the new lands the steppe peoples aquired around 4000BC there. The dates fit very well and I think the M269* pattern can be explained in that way.

Could the much larger and more widespread L23* group relate to a few M269* people who stayed behind and didnt get the opportunity to expand in that the first M269* wave west had? I think its entirely possible. They, like their P297* predecessors may have remained in an area where they were essentially only just maintaining population and so only a very limited amount of M269* survived behind in numbers that would leave a permanent mark.

Eventually L23* appears c. 3500BC and I think this is significant. The appearance, survival and takeoff of this line may mark a significant change in opportunities and fortune. At that sort of date further steppe waves headed west into the farming zone and again maybe that was the trigger for the expansion of the L23 clade. While we rightly can question ballpark absolute central dates for clades, there is no doubt that an M269* clade expanding could by definition happen before an L23XL51 one and areas where M269* expanded are suggestive of a date where there was no or less competition from L23XL51.

I would suggest that the best archaeological fit for L23XL51 is being part of the expansion west a little later than the M269* group at a time when that lineage had grown and M269* had diminished and certainly lost the no-competion advantage it had in pre-L23 times. That time difference is usually suggested to be c. 500 years in variance terms. A date around 3500BC give or take a century or so would make a lot of sense.

A clear distinction between L23XL51 and M269* can be seen in numbers, distribution and age of coming into existence. That is undeniable. M269* is older by definition (even if its surviving lineages are not), it had a lesser impact and its remnants above noise level have a different and more limited distribution. I think this all fits well as a kind of package which mutually supports itself. M269* today has an odd pattern and has been noted only in reasonable numbers among Kosovar Albanians and Armenians and also to a lesser degree among Anatolians and Poles if I remember correctly. The frequencies of L23XL51 and M269* do not seem well correlated. I have heard that with the exception of Kosovars and Poles elevated frequencies are not correlated. I think this is probably further evidence that they were two separate waves that only partially overlapped.

Again it is a pity that the backstory of the Albanians is poorly understood. I understand they have been put in a Balkans group with Armenians, Greeks and even Anatolians by some. However, they were also, unlike the Greeks, Satemised. Furthemore the Albanian language has borrowed all its maritime terms for other languages suggesting their Adriatic location only came about in later times. In general a position further east and an ancestral land-orientated herding economy is implied in their language. This could be taken as evidence of M269* having had a more easterly location at one time. Its presence among Armenians and to a lesser degree Anatolians could be due to a common earlier ancestry in the eastern part of the Balkans. Certainly an east Balkans expansion of the M269* lineage would probably best explain its overall distribution today.

The Albanians also share in common with much of the Balkans and the wider circumpontic area a higher rate of L23XL51. Given the stronger evidence of movement into the Balkans (and then Anatolia) in the period 4000BC to after 3000BC and the very weak to absent evidence of a movement FROM Anatolia to the Balkans or from the Balkans into the steppe in this period it seems very likely to me that L23 moved from (or via) the steppes into the Balkans. Its impact was overlapping with and far more extensive than that of M269*. It looks like a bigger, slightly later wave that was far more extensive. L23XL51 gets dated often to c. 3500BC. That would place it among the post-Suvorovo sort of intrusions from the steppes. It also matches the fact that the waves into the Balkans after 3500BC were far more extensive and large than the geographically and numberically limited Suvorovo waves.

Whatever the archaeological explanation for L23XL51 (even if we see Armenians and Anatolians as overspill from the Bakans - which I do) it has to explain an impact across the whole of the Balkans and east-central Europe as well as a presence in the steppes, Urals and northern Caucasus foreland. Now, short of involking back migrations into the steppes from the farming world (which is not well attested -the big west-east wave of that sort in this period was across the forrest steppes) that distribution is an indicator that L23XL51 had remained behind and expanded from a position fairly far east in the steppe or the north Caucasus. It seems most likely to me it was incorportated into the big waves west from the eastern end of the western steppe and north Caucasus after 3500BC. The age of L23XL51 c. 3500BC suggests to me a link with the arrival of the wheel and mobility which would have obviously aided a wider expansion than would have been available in 4000BC (the time when M269 came into being). In addition the CMP network expanded across the steppes at this time from its older Maykop base, something that is almost certainly also related to gaining wheels.

We also should note as an aside that M73 never made it to the Balkans. This and its modern distribution would make a position fairly east in the western steppe or the Caucasus steppe foreland pretty likely.

TigerMW
07-17-2013, 03:40 PM
... It is interesting that M269* peaks in west Balkans groups with a likely history further east nearer the Black Sea end of the Balkans. Is this is a remanant of a particularly early wave when M269 was a very new player and L23 either was yet to come or a newbee with few numbers? ...

I think this possibility is real. As you know, I strongly disagree with any assumptions that higher modern frequencies are correlated with origin or launch locations (for ancient populations).

Given my position on frequency and the fact M269* diversity is low compared to L23xL51, I think it is quite possible that M269* in the Balkans is really an accumulation/destination point for M269*. This would be akin to L21 in Ireland. The wave of advance model seems to apply nicely to L11 subclades so I think the characteristics of the M269* cousins could easily be similar to L11 - and therefore the wave model applies.

BTW, I'm applying the same thinking to L51xL11. Richard has shown up some nice frequency charts for L51xL11 which shows higher frequencies along the Rhine and the south of France. Recognize I'm speculating, but I think odds are good this area was the accumulation/destination for a wave of advance of early L51.

I'm asking for everyone to consider the wave of advance model, but not just from a single wave and single allele (L21, P312, L11, L51, M269) perspective. The cultural advances, pauses, integrations, advances, etc. were no doubt complex. The trail of alleles is likely similar. Some will think this is just random and useless speculation, however, at least at the general level, we have known flows of cultural advancements (i.e. farming, dairying, horse-riding, metal working, etc., etc.) from east to west.

alan
07-17-2013, 04:50 PM
I think this possibility is real. As you know, I strongly disagree with any assumptions that higher modern frequencies are correlated with origin or launch locations (for ancient populations).

Given my position on frequency and the fact M269* diversity is low compared to L23xL51, I think it is quite possible that M269* in the Balkans is really an accumulation/destination point for M269*. This would be akin to L21 in Ireland. The wave of advance model seems to apply nicely to L11 subclades so I think the characteristics of the M269* cousins could easily be similar to L11 - and therefore the wave model applies.

BTW, I'm applying the same thinking to L51xL11. Richard has shown up some nice frequency charts for L51xL11 which shows higher frequencies along the Rhine and the south of France. Recognize I'm speculating, but I think odds are good this area was the accumulation/destination for a wave of advance of early L51.

I'm asking for everyone to consider the wave of advance model, but not just from a single wave and single allele (L21, P312, L11, L51, M269) perspective. The cultural advances, pauses, integrations, advances, etc. were no doubt complex. The trail of alleles is likely similar. Some will think this is just random and useless speculation, however, at least at the general level, we have known flows of cultural advancements (i.e. farming, dairying, horse-riding, metal working, etc., etc.) from east to west.

I certainly think the Balkans was a destination for M269* but it is possible given the proposed date of that SNP and the main period of flow into the Balkans from the steppe that it had not been around for long before it arrived in the Balkans. This is even more true for L23 if it only dated to 3500BC or thereabouts. That is after the collapse of Old Europe and in the secondary phase of steppe intrusions.

You are right that if a model of the appearance of R1b in the Balkans 4000-3000BC is adopted (which seems very likely), the integration period which also ran from 4000BC to 3000BC and beyond needs deeper consideration IMO. That needs IMO to focus on the Balkans and Danube area and the sort of new cultures that sprang up in the wake of the fall of Old Europe and the steppe intrusions. Its probably fair to say that most successor cultures in the Balkans and east-central Europe in the period 4000-3000BC or so were hybrids to at least some degree. I personally have not looked deep enough into those cultures because I have been primarily focussed on trying to work out the most likely position of R1b before 4 of 5000BC. I have now convinced myself (always a good start) that the coincidence of the appearance from nowhere of new R1b lineages in the period 5000-3500BC after 4000 years doing very little must be linked to an arrival from the steppe/north Caucasus zone which is the main theme of archaeology for most of that period. Alternatives such as out of Anatolia etc are completely unattested in the relevant period. So my mind is made up now. I had to read an awful lot of stuff over the last year to finally feel convinced.

Personally I think the next stage for me is to read as much as I can into possible link cultures between the the Dniester and the Alps. There is a period about 3500-3000BC I want to look at. The CMP model, Jean's Stelae model etc are an option. However, now we know L51* was significant in the pre-Slavic/pre-Germanic populations of Austrian Tyrol, I want to read up on the links between Austria and the hybrid steppes-farmers culture of the 3500-3000BC period in the Balkans/Danube area. I have not done enough reading on this to feel I can contribute much beyond the CMP idea which is basically a variant of Jean's Stelae model. Clearly L23XL51 has a large zone of significant showing today The problem of L51* is a lack of a trail of true L23* or to be more accurate L23* clades which doesnt have SNPs that pre-date L51.

Actually any L23XL51 clades that do not have downstream clades that pre-date L51 could be ancestral to L51 as SNPs that post-date that could have subsequently occurred in the ancestral line (in fact its almost inevitable if we had enough SNP resolution. Do we know if any of the L23XL51 clades could be younger than L51? I think that is a thread in itself!

alan
07-17-2013, 05:11 PM
I think this possibility is real. As you know, I strongly disagree with any assumptions that higher modern frequencies are correlated with origin or launch locations (for ancient populations).

Given my position on frequency and the fact M269* diversity is low compared to L23xL51, I think it is quite possible that M269* in the Balkans is really an accumulation/destination point for M269*. This would be akin to L21 in Ireland. The wave of advance model seems to apply nicely to L11 subclades so I think the characteristics of the M269* cousins could easily be similar to L11 - and therefore the wave model applies.

BTW, I'm applying the same thinking to L51xL11. Richard has shown up some nice frequency charts for L51xL11 which shows higher frequencies along the Rhine and the south of France. Recognize I'm speculating, but I think odds are good this area was the accumulation/destination for a wave of advance of early L51.

I'm asking for everyone to consider the wave of advance model, but not just from a single wave and single allele (L21, P312, L11, L51, M269) perspective. The cultural advances, pauses, integrations, advances, etc. were no doubt complex. The trail of alleles is likely similar. Some will think this is just random and useless speculation, however, at least at the general level, we have known flows of cultural advancements (i.e. farming, dairying, horse-riding, metal working, etc., etc.) from east to west.

Regarding wave of advance, I think the early R1b clades show how a wave could end up not looking like one on a map. A bunch of P297* guys about 4000BC with one leader with the new M269 SNP (and perhaps a few cousin nobles of the same new clade) could spread leaving very little of an M269* trail. Long term the small royal groups lineage expands while the P297* of the more generalised followers fades away. The effect is no wave-like trail.

Similarly, a slightly later group of P297*, M269* peoples c. 3500BC led by a new L23* lineage spread out. Again long term the L23* aristo lineage expands while the others fade away. Again no wave like pattern would be left and it would lead to a confusing pattern. Maybe the L23* elite experiences fission as branches sought to find their own areas of dominance. Again L23-derived subclades spring from these splinters which may have moved in multiple directions.

And so on. This is essentially what you see in Gaelic clans in Ireland. In many ways that system resembles the reconstructed PIE one and resembles descriptions writers make of the PIE period with lineage expansion, nested clientship etc. My main point is that this sort of process can leave a pattern that doesnt look like a classic wave model. Instead it can look like geographically spaced seperate lineage take off due to the process tending to hide the links between.

newtoboard
07-18-2013, 11:41 AM
Can you prove the Timber Grave replaced R1b populations? Can you also prove North Iranians/Assyrians/Iraqi Arabs have Balkan origins? Or explain why this doesn't fit with Armenian autosomal DNA? Or why the groups mentioned above don't exhibit other Balkan lineages? All I read was a bunch of speculation. You seeing something a certain way does not make it true.

TigerMW
07-18-2013, 02:04 PM
Can you prove the Timber Grave replaced R1b populations? Can you also prove North Iranians/Assyrians/Iraqi Arabs have Balkan origins? Or explain why this doesn't fit with Armenian autosomal DNA? Or why the groups mentioned above don't exhibit other Balkan lineages? All I read was a bunch of speculation. You seeing something a certain way does not make it true.

Newtoboard, please consider that most of us here are searching for answers and are reviewing data and evaluating alternatives. No high burden of proof will be met in these kinds of discussions and.... none is required! Disagreement is fine but please don't be flustered.

If you have a counter-hypothesis, please propose it rather than just throwing out challenges. Please bring some new information to the table.

I guess I should ask you if you can prove how Armenian autosomal DNA fits your assertions about M269* and L23xL51. I won't do that though, because I would not insist on a high burden of proof.

I am very interested in evidence and logic, though so please explain your point of view:

1. Why do you bring Timber Grave (or Srubna) into the discussion? I haven't seen it mentioned prior to this on this thread.

2. Are you saying all North Iranians/Assyrians/Iraqi Arabs do not have Balkan origins? If so, how do you know and where do they come from? What Balkan lineages do you think are lacking in Armenians that show this and why are they important?

2. Please explain how Armenian autosomal DNA is important to M269 and L23xL51 and how that affects the possible alternatives.

newtoboard
07-18-2013, 03:04 PM
Because the replacements refer to Slavs displacing Crimean Tatars but they were the ones who displaced Timber Grave groups (who were most likely not R1b carriers).

The Balkan lineages are not lacking in Armenians (I'm referring to I2, E-V13 and J2b here). They are lacking in Assyrians and Iraqi Arabs (while R1b is not lacking in them at all).

Because Armenian autosomal DNA is not much different than Azeri/Iranian/Kurdish/Assyrian autosomal DNA which is what you would expect if they were Balkan people living in West Asia.

alan
07-18-2013, 05:11 PM
Its all speculation , all of us, so noone can prove anything. I am just saying that the sudden appearance of a major block of L23XL51 and some M269* dated by variance to 4000 and 3500BC (whose biggest block in both cases is around the Balkans) with no predecessor lineages covering the previous 5000 years or more does almost perfectly fit the date of the movement of the steppe peoples into the Balkans area. It also fits the sudden rise from very little of both R1a and R1b. The similarity is striking even if the final positions are not. That is really the main point I am making. Its also true there is no comparible out of Asia Minor movement into the Balkans in this period.

Remeber (read Anthony on this) that the steppes groups were moving for almost 1000 years before Yamnaya into the Balkans. Do you seriously believe that all the steppe groups from the Dneister to the Urals from 4500BC-3000BC were R1a? Remember that most R1b and R1a comes from just a few men living around this time.

As for explaining groups of middle eastern L23 folks you could ask the same about R1a clades. There has just been a massive amount of movement in the middle east and all sorts of groups. Linking the Armenians, Anatolians etc to the Balkans is not some weird made up personal theory. It is the mainstream view of linguists, historians and archaeologists. So, I refer you to them. I didnt make up these ideas. I think most would feel this was a small male elite and not some sort of major population movement (no evidence of such in archaeology) that would have an autosomal impact. I think R1b groups may have operated a little differently from deep steppe groups because it appears that they were longer in contact and longer blending with other non-steppe groups and may have been interested in controlling nodal trade points etc as a means of power and so may have operated in a different way from folk movements of pastoralists. Its also important to note from an autosomal point of view that by the suggested time Anatolians, Armenians etc reached a secondary home in Anatolia and adjacent, they could have been living in the Balkans for 1000 and in the latter case several 1000 years so its unlikely their autosomal DNA would look very steppic anyway. Many have commented that the hittites look middle eastern on their depictions on art. If that is real then its evidence that their autosomal DNA was not steppic anymore. So, I just think autosomal DNA is very limited in tracing male elites. They could lose much of their autosomal DNA in a century or two, let alone thousands of years.

As for north Iranians, I have already said they are a potential source for P297. In fact I posted a thread suggesting this. They have recently been linked as a crucial influence on Maykop. The movements may have been two way and Maykop barrows have been found in NW Iran (Lake Ummia??). R1b could have flowed either way between those areas. Maykop too was apparenty connected stronly in trade (via Iran rather than directly through the Caucasus) to the Uruk expansion groups so there is an obvious potential route for flow of R1b into Mesopotamia. Again this is around the correct time too for the age of M269. The reason I think that was a flow from Iran or the north Caucasus INTO Mesopotamia rather than out of it is simply that Mesopotamia is the hearland of farming and you would not expect close to zero R1b clades in that area which had been agricultural for 4 or 5000 years before any substantial R1b clades existed. On the other hand the north Caucasus and northern Iran did take up farming far later much closer to the rise of clades like M269, L23 and M73 c. 5000-3500BC. So I hope I have answered your questions as to how M269 may have ended up in northern Iran and among Assyrians.

Asia Minor as an origin point would only become an option if M269 was 2000 years older though. So it does depend on variance being correct. However if we pushed back R1b clades 2000 years the same would be true of R1a. The option of advanced dairy pastoralism that arose around the area where Turkey meets Bulgaria c. 6000BC and entered the latter c. 5200BC has also been discussed but at the moment doesnt fir the variance dating for L23XL51. Elements from the culture in Bulgaria appear to have filtered into Cuc-Tryp among others. So its a possibility except it seems too early. The other thing against this is this kind of dairy pastoralism (discovered by Evershed's analysis of Neolithic pots) had reach even as far as Britain by 4000BC. That is a lot earlier than the date of the typical P312 clades which according to the variance gurus date to more like 2500BC.


Can you prove the Timber Grave replaced R1b populations? Can you also prove North Iranians/Assyrians/Iraqi Arabs have Balkan origins? Or explain why this doesn't fit with Armenian autosomal DNA? Or why the groups mentioned above don't exhibit other Balkan lineages? All I read was a bunch of speculation. You seeing something a certain way does not make it true.

alan
07-18-2013, 05:39 PM
I really do not understand what you mean about timber grave. My thoughts on that have nothing to do with R1a timber grave people replacing R1b pre-timber grave people. Its just not that monolithic. Mr M269 and Mr L23 were just one person in 4000 and 3500BC respectively. Same with Mr R1a clades who are also mainly from a few people of the early steppe migration era. So yes a person (or more likely a small, then new, dynasty of cousins to a few degress) can easily be replaced, move or die out. Its not about whole populations of M269 or L23 or R1a when you get back to the period. All we have today is descendants of a few men who lived then. We do not know who their followers were and what sort of yDNA mix they were. So, there is no need to cite entire cultures replacing other cultures. Patterns could form just by one small elite of cousins turning west, east, north or south in a fairly random way.

Even if we were talking about cultures, there are dozens of culture across the steppe and bordering it in the period 5000-3000BC and they stretch across an area from east to west over a huge zone the width of western Europe. It has even been shown that even single early steppe groups 5500BC onwards contained various different types of people according to craniology as well as varying between different cultures. So a mono-clade picture just does not fit what was going on in the steppe. Just one example is Skelya, sometimes seen as an elite of the Stredy Stog culture contained males with a real mix of what would traditionally be called steppe and Neolithic farmer types which might relate to their role as a Dnieper based contact between the Cuc-Tryp and Balko-Carpathian cultures and the deeper steppe groups. That is the very group who have been seen by most as the source of Suvorovo migrants. So chances are they were a mix of haplogroups. I recall seeing some similar observations about Repin etc. So, even at a crude level the idea of a mono-haplogroup steppe population is completely unlikely. You can have elite lineages of R1a and R1b spreading their Y DNA massively from 4000BC onwards when the main clades start to branch but prior to that the evidence is that these elites ruled mixed groups. This was probably highly variable too across the steppe in space and time.

As for proof, yoou know the ancient DNA situation. There are no available samples from any of the cultures that spread west in this timeframe, or Maykop. We just have later samples that people try and make deductions from by tracking back in time. That is of course totally unsafe. The steppes is an area about the width of western Europe that featured loads of cultures in the relevant period. We would need hundreds of samples to work out absence of a lineage in the area. So, I wouldnt hold my breath waiting on that. It will take a long long time unless a ton of money is thrown at it.


Can you prove the Timber Grave replaced R1b populations? Can you also prove North Iranians/Assyrians/Iraqi Arabs have Balkan origins? Or explain why this doesn't fit with Armenian autosomal DNA? Or why the groups mentioned above don't exhibit other Balkan lineages? All I read was a bunch of speculation. You seeing something a certain way does not make it true.

lgmayka
07-18-2013, 11:10 PM
Now that the SMGF database is again accessible, I have attached a screenshot of 3 probable Mongolian L51* in that database. Along with the DYS426=13 characteristic of L51*, two of them have DYS385b=15 and one has DYS464=15-15-17-18, off-modal alleles shared with kit 50168 of Croatia, who is known to be L51* .

By the way, kit 50168 is also mtDNA F1b1. He belongs to the often-described mtDNA F of Croatia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11571562). His nearest mtDNA neighbor (3 mutations difference on full sequence) is someone geographically from Turkey but with an apparently Armenian surname (-ian). Could this suggest that Armenians really did migrate to the Caucasus from the Balkans?

alan
07-18-2013, 11:43 PM
Because the replacements refer to Slavs displacing Crimean Tatars but they were the ones who displaced Timber Grave groups (who were most likely not R1b carriers).

The Balkan lineages are not lacking in Armenians (I'm referring to I2, E-V13 and J2b here). They are lacking in Assyrians and Iraqi Arabs (while R1b is not lacking in them at all).

Because Armenian autosomal DNA is not much different than Azeri/Iranian/Kurdish/Assyrian autosomal DNA which is what you would expect if they were Balkan people living in West Asia.

I think though there are so many factors involved in areas of high population turnover that its too problematic to use autosomal DNA in many cases. Lets say for example that Assyrians etc did originate in Maykop peoples passing into Uruk expansion groups in Mesopotamia via Iran. Maykop barrows in NW Iran do form firm evidence for some movement as far as Iran and from there we know that that Iran was closely linked to Uruk trade routes.

So firstly we know that Maykop c. 4000-3500BC was probably cosmopolitan in roots including steppe herder-hunter types, late farmers and perhaps some gene flow from NW Iran. So right away there is a complex mix that was probably fairly unusual for a people on the steppe and it may well have included a flow of marriage partners along the trade roots. So already there could have been a significant exotic element from Iran and even beyond within Maykop as well as the main local elements.

Then some Maykop elements pass into NW Iran and probably have further alliances sealed with marriages to local women in Iran (an area with ties to Mesopotamia at this time). This further moves their DNA towards an Iranian and perhaps Mesopotanian direction. Then perhaps from there R1b elements move down following the NW Iran to Uruk trade roots and end up entering the Mesopotamian population. There is no record of a major folk movement so we are talking small numbers of individuals who almost certainly would end up absorbed culturally and linguistically.

Lets say they arrived in NW Iran c. 3500BC (as the Maykop barrows seem to date to that time) and arrived in the Uruk expansion zone very soon after which is approximately the timeframe of these kind of contacts. These were individuals (possibly important traders) and they basically were absorbed into a completley different culture, language zone and marriage network and have remained in it (Assyrians) for the past 5500 years. Can we seriously expect any autosomal DNA beyond the tiniest fraction to remain? I dont think anyone could say that the variance ages of R1b branching bares any resemblance to that what we would expect from a lineage that was native to Mesopotamia or eastern Anatolia or western Iran, all early centres of farming. In fact the suggested timing of this move of R1b into Uruk expansion Mesopotamia via NW Iran (all of which has archaeological evidence) strongly points to around 3500BC give or take only a couple of centuries - the window of opportunity was relatively short. it is also remarkable that the age of the L23XL51 clade most associated with Assyrians does date to 3500BC at the likely time of contact, which is also the date of the Maykop expansion, the Uruk expansion and the likey sort of date aa steppes expansion would have got the same clade to the Balkans. So, its the right

Armenians are slightly different. The mainstream interpretation of them is probably a steppe group who heavily mixed with native Balkans people, become part of the Balkans IE grouping, stayed around there long enough to be satemised etc and were probably a mixed bag even before leaving the Balkans. Then a male elite may have headed into Anatolia and eventually Armenia. I actually think the fact that Balkans peoples and Armenians are the only groups to have a significant amount of the M269* line is a strong hint of an association. They then had a very long period (thousands of years) in a different Anatolian/Caucasian marriage network from their Balkans phase. Surely we can expect almost no steppe DNA and only a minor/modest Balkans echo in their autosomal DNA.

I have already mentioned the example of the Hittites. They may have crossed over to Anatolia around 3000BC but if Anthony is right, that is up to 1200 years (40 generations) after their Suvorovo ancestors arrived in the Balkans from the steppe. If they left the Balkans around 3000BC then there are many centuries in the Anatolian marriage networks before we see their depictions on their art. Can we see them as genetically a significantly steppe people by then? No. They had 30 generations in the Balkans and perhaps 10 or more in Anatolia intermarrying there before they were depicted. By the time they were depicted, and many have commented that they look middle eastern, they probably had next to no steppe autosomal DNA left and even their Balkans DNA was probably very diluted after centuries there.

I think this is an important distinction to make. Folk movemetns are rare but make big impacts on autosomal DNA. Elites often make only minor/modest impacts on autosomal DNA. Individuals or small groups entering another culture and absorbing into it 4 or 5000 years ago will leave no traceable impact on autosomal DNA. Even after about 200 years their autosomal DNA might only have 1% of their yDNA ancestor's. I suspect that the Hittities and Armenians fall into the elite's with modest autosomal impact group while the L23 Assyrians fall into the category of probably fall into the class of being descended from a few individuals who were absorbed into the culture they moved into (possibly c. 3500BC when the Uruk network overlapped with the Maykop one in NW Iran before Kura-Araxes overrun this area.

Anyway the way autosomal DNA and yDNA can massively disconnect in a century or two after a move from a homeland makes me think it can, except in the case of massive folk movements, do little to help us undestand movemets or people or origins. yDNA is only a tiny part of our DNA but it is much handier for tracking movements, particularly male driven non-folk movements.

Humanist
07-19-2013, 12:03 AM
Relevant to the topic is the latest research on Sumerian-Akkadian language contacts. I think most would agree it is very interesting. Bold by me.

Akkadian and Sumerian Language Contact (http://elte.academia.edu/G%C3%A1borZ%C3%B3lyomi/Papers/632011/Akkadian_and_Sumerian_Language_Contact) (Gábor Zólyomi)

forthcoming in Stefan Weninger, ed., Semitic Languages. An International Handbook (HSK 36). Berlin — New York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 387–393


These developments started in about the 24th century B.C.E. and were completed by the first part of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. They therefore overlap in time with the period of assumed asymmetrical bilingualism. One is therefore tempted to assume that these phonological changes may in fact reflect the influence of a Sumerian speaking population gradually shifting to Akkadian. Hasselbach finds that contrary to expectations the orthography indicates the loss of gutturals and the phonemicization of /e/ in texts from the north first, but not from the south. She does, however, note the possibility that the Akkadian of the southern texts ‘might have been a learned literary language that was not native to this area’.

alan
07-19-2013, 12:08 AM
W
Now that the SMGF database is again accessible, I have attached a screenshot of 3 probable Mongolian L51* in that database. Along with the DYS426=13 characteristic of L51*, two of them have DYS385b=15 and one has DYS464=15-15-17-18, off-modal alleles shared with kit 50168 of Croatia, who is known to be L51* .

By the way, kit 50168 is also mtDNA F1b1. He belongs to the often-described mtDNA F of Croatia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11571562). His nearest mtDNA neighbor (3 mutations difference on full sequence) is someone geographically from Turkey but with an apparently Armenian surname (-ian). Could this suggest that Armenians really did migrate to the Caucasus from the Balkans?

While I dont believe for a minute that L51* originated anywhere near that far east. Mjost's recent calculation did raise the possibility it is older than we think and existed as a parallel line with the L23XL51 clades not that long after L23 happened. I know that is speculative but it is very interesting and would raise the possibility that it originated further east than we currently think from its modern distribution. The Tyrol study showed the massive impact that the Slavic folk movement could make with L51* represented in the area they didnt reach and absent in the areas they did. So, I dont think we should ever underestimate just how much the modern pattern can change. I get the impression that the Slavs were a true folk movement that made a massive impact in many areas.

In fact, weirdly this could be a clue to where L51* may have been if it once existed east of Austria. In areas where there hasnt been Slavic type folk movements in the south Balkans and we do not see L51*, I would suggests to me it was never there. However, in areas where there has been a much bigger Slavic impact, the Tyrol study has shown that a modest clade like L51* could be completely erased. So, I would suggest that a 'lost L51* eastern trail' (if there ever was one) passed through areas where there has been far greater replacement of the pre-Roman peoples by Slavs and others. Perhaps a location in the more northerly Slavic bits of the Balkans is most likely. Perhaps the Croat is a clue.

If there are genuine Mongol L51*'s that could be a clue to the start of the L51 hypothetical lost eastern trail. The Mongol empire extended as far west as Moldova and southern Romania. Could it have picked up L51* somewhere like that where L51's most easterly distribution could have overlapped with the westernmost edge of he Mongal empire?

Shamless speculation I know but that would place the lost trail going from Austria through Croatia towards Romania and Moldova. If L51* is closer in age to L23 then a location of origin like that would make perfect sense.

alan
07-19-2013, 12:17 AM
On the subject of languages I forgot to mention on my above post (connecting L23 Assyrians with Maykop-Uruk expansion contact via NW Iran c. 3500 BC) that its not only Whittaker that sees some sort of linguistic evidence of early contacts between archaic PIE and early Sumerians. Pretty well the only candidate for such contact now after much redating in recent years is the the Maykop-NW Iran-Uruk link. Certainly if a steppe or steppe-edge model for PIE is retained.


Relevant to the topic is the latest research on Sumerian-Akkadian language contacts. I think most would agree it is very interesting. Bold by me.

Akkadian and Sumerian Language Contact (http://elte.academia.edu/G%C3%A1borZ%C3%B3lyomi/Papers/632011/Akkadian_and_Sumerian_Language_Contact) (Gábor Zólyomi)

forthcoming in Stefan Weninger, ed., Semitic Languages. An International Handbook (HSK 36). Berlin — New York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 387–393

Rathna
07-19-2013, 05:15 AM
Now that the SMGF database is again accessible, I have attached a screenshot of 3 probable Mongolian L51* in that database. Along with the DYS426=13 characteristic of L51*, two of them have DYS385b=15 and one has DYS464=15-15-17-18, off-modal alleles shared with kit 50168 of Croatia, who is known to be L51* .

By the way, kit 50168 is also mtDNA F1b1. He belongs to the often-described mtDNA F of Croatia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11571562). His nearest mtDNA neighbor (3 mutations difference on full sequence) is someone geographically from Turkey but with an apparently Armenian surname (-ian). Could this suggest that Armenians really did migrate to the Caucasus from the Balkans?

I'd say that these are just R-L51 for DYS464d=18, DYS461=11 beyond DYS426=13 etc. But this haplotype is close to the Western European one, thus, as here the frequency is the highest and this haplogroup declines to 0% Eastward of Italy, I'd ask when it reached the Mongolian people from Western Europe and not the other way around.

Rathna
07-19-2013, 07:41 AM
F1b 11759.5 4468.5
F1b1a 8235.2 2868.3
F1b1a1 6942.5 2667.1
F1b1a1a 5249.4 2133.7
F1b1a1a1 4132.7 1967.6
F1b1a1a1a 2721.3 2090.0
F1b1a1a2 1516.6 2020.0
F1d 6393.3 5037.0
F1e 23243.0 6270.0
F1e1 1279.4 1783.9
F1e2 5025.4 3926.4

These are the ages of Behar 2012b. The Croatian samples could be F1b or at least F1b1, thus they may have come also before the Younger Dryas and without an FGS we cannot say anything, neither about their link with the Armenian (and a Russian too) samples. It is a pity that anyone have tested them deeply.

P.S. But you say that the Croatian (I suppose the R-L51 Soric if I remember well) is at a GD of three from the Armenian, then he has had an FGS? I’ll study it.

Rathna
07-19-2013, 08:52 AM
I haven't found the FGS of Soric, anyway from this data we may have a picture of his mutations. He matches the Turk (Armenian) person in HVRI and II and is distant from the Asian ones. Then his haplotype could be ancient in Europe and, like a very rare one, to be the witness of ancient migrations: from Central Asia before the Younger Dryas and from Western Europe or the Balkans to Armenia after the Younger Dryas, what I suppose has happened also for hg. R1b (and perhaps also R1a).


Sample Id: MC13367
NCBI Id: AP008446
Unresolved Options:
Verified
Partial Descendants:
Private Mutations: [A Personal or Private Mutation is a marker (SNP) you have that is not part of the defining markers list for this haplogroup.] C152T; A153G; C14368T; C15459T;
Topologically Missing: [A 'Missing' Mutation is a marker (SNP) that is part of the defining list of markers for this haplogroup that you do not have.]
Country:
Geography:
Ancestry:
Reference: Tanaka 2004
Contact:

Sample Id: MC15068
NCBI Id: DQ272125
Unresolved Options:
Verified
Partial Descendants:
Private Mutations: [A Personal or Private Mutation is a marker (SNP) you have that is not part of the defining markers list for this haplogroup.] T204C; T8772C; A15924G; T16172C;
Topologically Missing: [A 'Missing' Mutation is a marker (SNP) that is part of the defining list of markers for this haplogroup that you do not have.]
Country:
Geography:
Ancestry:
Reference: Kong 2006
Contact:
Sample Id: MC17346
NCBI Id: FJ198216
Unresolved Options:
Verified
Partial Descendants:
Private Mutations: [A Personal or Private Mutation is a marker (SNP) you have that is not part of the defining markers list for this haplogroup.] C309T; T310C; T5508C; C10223T; T10235C; G11778A; G15119A; G15734A; C16311T;
Topologically Missing: [A 'Missing' Mutation is a marker (SNP) that is part of the defining list of markers for this haplogroup that you do not have.] C12633T(F1b); T16249C(F1b);
Country:
Geography:
Ancestry:
Reference: Ji 2008
Contact:
Sample Id: MC18378
NCBI Id: FJ748750
Unresolved Options:
Verified
Partial Descendants:
Private Mutations: [A Personal or Private Mutation is a marker (SNP) you have that is not part of the defining markers list for this haplogroup.] C152T; G2706c; A6040G; A13482G; A16335G;
Topologically Missing: [A 'Missing' Mutation is a marker (SNP) that is part of the defining list of markers for this haplogroup that you do not have.]
Country:
Geography:
Ancestry:
Reference: Ji 2010
Contact:
Sample Id: MC20310
NCBI Id: HQ108344
Unresolved Options:
Verified
Partial Descendants:
Private Mutations: [A Personal or Private Mutation is a marker (SNP) you have that is not part of the defining markers list for this haplogroup.] C152T; A8774G; G9548A; G12795A;
Topologically Missing: [A 'Missing' Mutation is a marker (SNP) that is part of the defining list of markers for this haplogroup that you do not have.]
Country:
Geography:
Ancestry:
Reference: FamilyTreeDNA
Contact:
Sample Id: MC20450
NCBI Id: HQ405768
Unresolved Options: F1b1;
Verified
Partial Descendants:
Private Mutations: [A Personal or Private Mutation is a marker (SNP) you have that is not part of the defining markers list for this haplogroup.] C152Y; T252C; G1709t; T1717Y; T7572Y; T8104C; A14587G; T15747C;
Topologically Missing: [A 'Missing' Mutation is a marker (SNP) that is part of the defining list of markers for this haplogroup that you do not have.] C146T(L1'2'3'4'5'6); A16129G(L2'3'4'6);
Country:
Geography:
Ancestry:
Reference: FamilyTreeDNA
Contact:

HQ108344(Armenian) FTDNA Haplogroup [F1b1] 23-AUG-2010
A73G A249- A263G 309.1C 315.1C C522- A523- A750G A1438G A2706G C3970T A4732G A4769G G5147A T6392C G6962A C7028T A8774G A8860G G9548A G10310A T10609C C10976T G11719A G12406A C12633T G12795A C12882T G13928C G14476A C14766T A15326G A16183- T16189C 16193.1C C16232A T16249C T16304C T16311C T16519C

HQ405768(Russian) FTDNA Haplogroup [F1b1] 26-OCT-2010
A73G T146C T152Y A249- T252C A263G 309.1C 309.2C 315.1C C522- A523- A750G A1438G G1709T T1717Y A2706G C3970T A4732G A4769G G5147A T6392C G6962A C7028T T7572Y T8104C A8860G G10310A T10609C C10976T G11719A G12406A C12633T C12882T G13928C G14476A A14587G C14766T A15326G T15747C G16129A A16183- T16189C 16193.1C C16232A T16249C T16304C T16311C T16519C

Search by Haplogroup > Displaying Users with Haplogroup F > Displaying User

Mutations
HVR1 HVR2
1. 16183C 00073G
2. 16189C 00249-
3. 16232A 00263G
4. 16249C 00309.1C
5. 16304C 00315.1C
6. 16311C 00522-
7. 16519C 00523-

Haplogroup: F
Tested with: Family Tree DNA
Contact person: Darko SORIŽA


Mutations
HVR1 HVR2
1. 16129A 00073G
2. 16183C 00146C
3. 16189C 00252C
4. 16232A 00263G
5. 16249C 00309.1C
6. 16304C 00315.1C
7. 16311C
8. 16519C
9. 00309.2C

Haplogroup: F
Tested with: Family Tree DNA
Contact person: [email protected]

3 : FMS (Full Mito Sequence, aka FGS)
142323 Romana MATANGUIHAN, b. c1889, Mataasnakahoy, Phili F1a3a T16172C, T16187C, C16189T, T16223C, G16230A, T16278C, T16304C C146T, C152T, C195T, A247G, A249D, 309.1C, 315.1C
N49892 Philomina Kloempen, 1884-1963 F1a3a T16172C, T16187C, C16189T, T16223C, G16230A, T16278C, T16304C C146T, C152T, C195T, A247G, A249D, 315.1C
176334 Honoria Verian, b. Caibiran, Leyte, Philippines; d F1a4a T16172C, T16187C, C16189T, T16223C, G16230A, T16278C, C16294T, T16304C, C16311T, T16362C C146T, C195T, A247G, A249D, A521D, C522D, 309.1C, 309.2C, 315.1C
166324 Makrouhi Arababian, 1880-1972, Sivas, Turkey F1b1 A16129G, A16183c, T16187C, T16223C, G16230A, C16232a, T16249C, T16278C, T16304C C146T, C152T, C195T, A247G, A249D, 309.1C, 315.1C
50168 Franka CARIC, b.c. 1815 F1b1 A16129G, A16183c, T16187C, T16223C, G16230A, C16232a, T16249C, T16278C, T16304C C146T, C152T, C195T, A247G, A249D, 309.1C, 315.1C
171488 Ekaterina Vissonova, born about 1845, Russia F1b1 A16183c, T16187C, T16223C, G16230A, C16232a, T16249C, T16278C, T16304C C152Y, C195T, A247G, A249D, T252C, 309.1C, 309.2C, 315.1C
264306 Sing-Yee Hwang, b. 1895 (Tientsin, China) F1-T16189C! A16129G, A16183c, T16187C, T16223C, G16230A, T16278C, T16304C, C16311T C146T, C152T, A247G, A249D, 309.1C, 315.1C
3 : FMS (Full Mito Sequence, aka FGS)
142323 Romana MATANGUIHAN, b. c1889, Mataasnakahoy, Phili F1a3a 16129A, 16172C, 16304C, 16311C, 16519C 73G, 249-, 263G, 309.1C, 315.1C, 522-, 523-
N49892 Philomina Kloempen, 1884-1963 F1a3a 16129A, 16172C, 16304C, 16311C, 16519C 73G, 249-, 263G, 315.1C, 522-, 523-
176334 Honoria Verian, b. Caibiran, Leyte, Philippines; d F1a4a 16129A, 16172C, 16294T, 16304C, 16362C, 16519C 73G, 152C, 249-, 263G, 309.1C, 309.2C, 315.1C, 520-, 521-, 522-, 523-
171488 Ekaterina Vissonova, born about 1845, Russia F1b1 16129A, 16183C, 16189C, 16232A, 16249C, 16304C, 16311C, 16519C 73G, 146C, 152Y, 249-, 252C, 263G, 309.1C, 309.2C, 315.1C, 522-, 523-
166324 Makrouhi Arababian, 1880-1972, Sivas, Turkey F1b1 16183C, 16189C, 16232A, 16249C, 16304C, 16311C, 16519C 73G, 249-, 263G, 309.1C, 315.1C, 522-, 523-
50168 Franka CARIC, b.c. 1815 F1b1 16183C, 16189C, 16232A, 16249C, 16304C, 16311C, 16519C 73G, 249-, 263G, 309.1C, 315.1C, 522-, 523-
264306 Sing-Yee Hwang, b. 1895 (Tientsin, China) F1-T16189C! 16183C, 16189C, 16304C, 16519C 73G, 195C, 249-, 263G, 309.1C, 315.1C, 522-, 523-

alan
07-19-2013, 02:58 PM
Having looked at the archaeological background a little in the Upper Palaeolithic it does seem that the main area where any groups on the north side of the Black Sea could spread without any major barriers in this period is westwards. I have read a number of time about a broad similarity of culture from the Ukraine to NW Turkey in thelate Upper Palaeoilithic to epi-Palaeolithic/Mesolithic. So I think it is possible for early groups of R1a and R1b to have leaked a few P25* and even further upstream types into the Balkans and Anatolia if they were in the north Black Sea zone at this time. That could be the source of rare P25* and perhaps ultimatley to V88. There was a much greater cultural barrier east and also at times south in this period. The latter barrier may have lessened after 9 or 10000BC around the time of P297 around the Younger Dryas period. However,, there is no sign of P297 doing anything from 9000BC until the M73 clade and then a little later the M269 Clade arose 4-5000 years later. So I massively doubt P297 moved south at that time into the farming world and we cannot lose sight of the fact that most R1b in Europe relates to just one M269 guy c. 4000BC and to a lesser degree just one M73 man around 5000BC. I even suspect the distant V88 clade could not have come from an early farming area and given its expansion date and would tend to think its ancestors may have been somewhere like north Iran and have been caught up in the Kura Araxes expansion/network.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 03:59 PM
Its all speculation , all of us, so noone can prove anything. I am just saying that the sudden appearance of a major block of L23XL51 and some M269* dated by variance to 4000 and 3500BC (whose biggest block in both cases is around the Balkans) with no predecessor lineages covering the previous 5000 years or more does almost perfectly fit the date of the movement of the steppe peoples into the Balkans area. It also fits the sudden rise from very little of both R1a and R1b. The similarity is striking even if the final positions are not. That is really the main point I am making. Its also true there is no comparible out of Asia Minor movement into the Balkans in this period.

Remeber (read Anthony on this) that the steppes groups were moving for almost 1000 years before Yamnaya into the Balkans. Do you seriously believe that all the steppe groups from the Dneister to the Urals from 4500BC-3000BC were R1a? Remember that most R1b and R1a comes from just a few men living around this time.

As for explaining groups of middle eastern L23 folks you could ask the same about R1a clades. There has just been a massive amount of movement in the middle east and all sorts of groups. Linking the Armenians, Anatolians etc to the Balkans is not some weird made up personal theory. It is the mainstream view of linguists, historians and archaeologists. So, I refer you to them. I didnt make up these ideas. I think most would feel this was a small male elite and not some sort of major population movement (no evidence of such in archaeology) that would have an autosomal impact. I think R1b groups may have operated a little differently from deep steppe groups because it appears that they were longer in contact and longer blending with other non-steppe groups and may have been interested in controlling nodal trade points etc as a means of power and so may have operated in a different way from folk movements of pastoralists. Its also important to note from an autosomal point of view that by the suggested time Anatolians, Armenians etc reached a secondary home in Anatolia and adjacent, they could have been living in the Balkans for 1000 and in the latter case several 1000 years so its unlikely their autosomal DNA would look very steppic anyway. Many have commented that the hittites look middle eastern on their depictions on art. If that is real then its evidence that their autosomal DNA was not steppic anymore. So, I just think autosomal DNA is very limited in tracing male elites. They could lose much of their autosomal DNA in a century or two, let alone thousands of years.

As for north Iranians, I have already said they are a potential source for P297. In fact I posted a thread suggesting this. They have recently been linked as a crucial influence on Maykop. The movements may have been two way and Maykop barrows have been found in NW Iran (Lake Ummia??). R1b could have flowed either way between those areas. Maykop too was apparenty connected stronly in trade (via Iran rather than directly through the Caucasus) to the Uruk expansion groups so there is an obvious potential route for flow of R1b into Mesopotamia. Again this is around the correct time too for the age of M269. The reason I think that was a flow from Iran or the north Caucasus INTO Mesopotamia rather than out of it is simply that Mesopotamia is the hearland of farming and you would not expect close to zero R1b clades in that area which had been agricultural for 4 or 5000 years before any substantial R1b clades existed. On the other hand the north Caucasus and northern Iran did take up farming far later much closer to the rise of clades like M269, L23 and M73 c. 5000-3500BC. So I hope I have answered your questions as to how M269 may have ended up in northern Iran and among Assyrians.

Asia Minor as an origin point would only become an option if M269 was 2000 years older though. So it does depend on variance being correct. However if we pushed back R1b clades 2000 years the same would be true of R1a. The option of advanced dairy pastoralism that arose around the area where Turkey meets Bulgaria c. 6000BC and entered the latter c. 5200BC has also been discussed but at the moment doesnt fir the variance dating for L23XL51. Elements from the culture in Bulgaria appear to have filtered into Cuc-Tryp among others. So its a possibility except it seems too early. The other thing against this is this kind of dairy pastoralism (discovered by Evershed's analysis of Neolithic pots) had reach even as far as Britain by 4000BC. That is a lot earlier than the date of the typical P312 clades which according to the variance gurus date to more like 2500BC.


You can't ask the same about R1a because there doesn't need to be speculation on where Asian R1a came from. Probably more than 95% of Asian R1a is Z93+. And it does obey linguistic patterns a lot better than R1b.

TigerMW
07-19-2013, 04:04 PM
You can't ask the same about R1a because there doesn't need to be speculation on where Asian R1a came from. Probably more than 95% of Asian R1a is Z93+. And it does obey linguistic patterns a lot better than R1b.

Newtoboard, that is good news!:) for those that care. I don't think anyone is saying R1a wasn't found in the Steppes, or Central Asia or associated with IE languages. I don't study R1a per se, but I don't think anyone is arguing anything here in the R1b section of this forum that R1a wasn't associated with those.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 04:04 PM
On the subject of languages I forgot to mention on my above post (connecting L23 Assyrians with Maykop-Uruk expansion contact via NW Iran c. 3500 BC) that its not only Whittaker that sees some sort of linguistic evidence of early contacts between archaic PIE and early Sumerians. Pretty well the only candidate for such contact now after much redating in recent years is the the Maykop-NW Iran-Uruk link. Certainly if a steppe or steppe-edge model for PIE is retained.

Doesn't account for the PIE-Uralic linguistic links. The steepe edge model is wrong because PIE speakers have their origins in the forest steepe of Russia not the Ukranian steepe.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 04:07 PM
Newtoboard, that is good news!:) for those that care. I don't think anyone is saying R1a wasn't found in the Steppes, or Central Asia or associated with IE languages. I don't study R1a per se, but I don't think anyone is arguing anything here in the R1b section of this forum that R1a wasn't associated with those.

I mentioned it because he said you could ask the same question for R1a in the ME. You can't. R1a is not the dominant lineage of any ME population and is nonexistent in many groups. R1b on the other hand is still the most common Assyrian lineage.

TigerMW
07-19-2013, 04:15 PM
I mentioned it because he said you could ask the same question for R1a in the ME. You can't. R1a is not the dominant lineage of any ME population and is nonexistent in many groups. R1b on the other hand is still the most common Assyrian lineage.

The point I was making was I don't think Alan is arguing R1a wasn't in the Steppes, PIE, etc., etc. which seems to be important you. I guess Alan can explain if that was his point or whatever if he wants so I'll let that be.

What is your hypothesis? You've never fully explained, at least not that I have found.

What do you mean be dominant lineage? Are you talking about a modern day high frequency of over 50% or something or something less or something different than frequency?
Is there some percentage that you see as important for a lineage to have had an impact on the language or to have appeared at a certain time at a certain location.

If you recall the the conditions that Alan put forward in his discussion were related to the aging of these clades and how many (actually how few) may have been around depending on the timeframe.


Remember that most R1b and R1a comes from just a few men living around this time.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 04:52 PM
The point I was making was I don't think Alan is arguing R1a wasn't in the Steppes, PIE, etc., etc. which seems to be important you. I guess Alan can explain if that was his point or whatever if he wants so I'll let that be.

What is your hypothesis? You've never fully explained, at least not that I have found.

What do you mean be dominant lineage? Are you talking about a modern day high frequency of over 50% or something or something less or something different than frequency?
Is there some percentage that you see as important for a lineage to have had an impact on the language or to have appeared at a certain time at a certain location.

If you recall the the conditions that Alan put forward in his discussion were related to the aging of these clades and how many (actually how few) may have been around depending on the timeframe.


The bolded is exactly what he has been arguing if you read between the lines of his posts.

I've already said I believe that PIE originates near the South Urals and that the Pontic-Caspian steepe is more of a secondary homeland from where expansions took place. There are just too many PIE-Uralic links for PIE to originate anywhere else. And no linguistic links with Maykop. Maykop is just an influence.

I mean having at least a significant frequency (>20%).

TigerMW
07-19-2013, 05:20 PM
The bolded is exactly what he has been arguing if you read between the lines of his posts.

I've already said I believe that PIE originates near the South Urals and that the Pontic-Caspian steepe is more of a secondary homeland from where expansions took place. There are just too many PIE-Uralic links for PIE to originate anywhere else. And no linguistic links with Maykop. Maykop is just an influence.

I mean having at least a significant frequency (>20%).

Newtoboard, thank you for being clear about your hypothesis of PIE near the South Urals as the initial home of PIE, or I guess we'd have to say early or pre-PIE if we are not including the expanded ("secondary" as you call it) homeland.

Alan, can you elaborate? Newtoboard is reading between the lines on your posts.
I'd like to hear it straight from you mouth. I think I could probably dig it up somewhere along the line in your prior posts, but are you arguing that R1a was not or could not have been in the Steppes or associated with PIE? Perhaps so and I'm glossing over it. I'm not asking if you to assert R1a was in the Steppes and/or the PIE homeland, just if you are thinking that R1a probably was not.

Silesian
07-19-2013, 05:24 PM
Alan, can you elaborate? Newtoboard is reading between the lines on your posts.
I'd like to hear it straight from you mouth. I think I could probably dig it up somewhere along the line in your prior posts, but are you arguing that R1a was not or could not have been in the Steppes or associated with PIE? Perhaps so and I'm glossing over it. I'm not asking if you to assert R1a was in the Steppes and/or the PIE homeland, just if you are thinking that R1a probably was not.

Just a reminder the subheading of this thread is "Thread: M269* and L23XL51 - modern pattern remnant of different waves?"

David Mc
07-19-2013, 05:28 PM
A word as well, (being pedantic), it is "steppe," not "steepe."

TigerMW
07-19-2013, 05:39 PM
I mentioned it because he said you could ask the same question for R1a in the ME. You can't. R1a is not the dominant lineage of any ME population and is nonexistent in many groups...


.. What do you mean be dominant lineage? Are you talking about a modern day high frequency of over 50% or something or something less or something different than frequency?
Is there some percentage that you see as important for a lineage to have had an impact on the language or to have appeared at a certain time at a certain location...


... I mean having at least a significant frequency (>20%).

Thank you for your clarification on this as well.

Is your 20% rule only applicable in certain situations? An easy to understand the example that appears to counter that rule is Ireland. R1b-L21 is very, very high there and few argue that these folks were much besides Celtic speakers. Most people would associate R1b-U106 with the Anglo-Saxons but today I think Ireland is pretty much all of English speaking, with Gaelic something as a cultural rebirth experience. I'm not from Ireland, but that is my understanding anyway.

U106 is pretty much from 1-5% across Ireland and not anything close to 20%. To make matters worse for the 20% rule concept, English was only introduced in the last 2000 years where as IE languages may have been introduced 4000-5000 years ago. A lot could change in that much time.

Maybe you have some other point that I'm missing.

TigerMW
07-19-2013, 05:48 PM
Just a reminder the subheading of this thread is "Thread: M269* and L23XL51 - modern pattern remnant of different waves?"

I agree. Thanks for the reminder.

Newtoboard or Alan, do you want to setup a separate thread in general R about the relationship of R1a and R1b? We should probably include R2 as well. Please go ahead.

I'll do it if you want. If I do it, I just ask for your participation since this seems to come up often.

R.Rocca
07-19-2013, 05:49 PM
Newtoboard, thank you for being clear about your hypothesis of PIE near the South Urals as the initial home of PIE, or I guess we'd have to say early or pre-PIE if we are not including the expanded ("secondary" as you call it) homeland.

Alan, can you elaborate? Newtoboard is reading between the lines on your posts.
I'd like to hear it straight from you mouth. I think I could probably dig it up somewhere along the line in your prior posts, but are you arguing that R1a was not or could not have been in the Steppes or associated with PIE? Perhaps so and I'm glossing over it. I'm not asking if you to assert R1a was in the Steppes and/or the PIE homeland, just if you are thinking that R1a probably was not.

I don't really see the point in anyone elaborating to someone else's "reading between the lines". In fact, I think Newtoboard is guilting of "adding between the lines". This is an R1b topic on an R1b sub-forum, so I don't see a reason for adding legal-type disclaimers including R1a in every IE discussion just because some R1a folks get all worked up when their R1a/IE exclusivity is even remotely challenged.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 06:15 PM
I don't really see the point in anyone elaborating to someone else's "reading between the lines". In fact, I think Newtoboard is guilting of "adding between the lines". This is an R1b topic on an R1b sub-forum, so I don't see a reason for adding legal-type disclaimers including R1a in every IE discussion just because some R1a folks get all worked up when their R1a/IE exclusivity is even remotely challenged.

Learn to read before accusing me of making statements I never made. My original post did not talk about R1a/IE exclusivity. Alan keeps on talking about population replacements so I wanted to know his evidence for Timber Grave replacing R1b populations. What's unfair is you using a strawman argument to dismiss my post because it might mess up Alan's theories on wishful thinking and R1b/IE exclusivity (which is indeed what he is arguing without saying it directly). Apparently it is not ok to ask questions about why Assyrians and Armenians don't look Balkans in origin if you think R1a was in the PIE homeland according to you.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 06:17 PM
A word as well, (being pedantic), it is "steppe," not "steepe."

Thanks. I'll be sure to correct any spelling mistakes you make in the future.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 06:22 PM
Newtoboard, thank you for being clear about your hypothesis of PIE near the South Urals as the initial home of PIE, or I guess we'd have to say early or pre-PIE if we are not including the expanded ("secondary" as you call it) homeland.

Alan, can you elaborate? Newtoboard is reading between the lines on your posts.
I'd like to hear it straight from you mouth. I think I could probably dig it up somewhere along the line in your prior posts, but are you arguing that R1a was not or could not have been in the Steppes or associated with PIE? Perhaps so and I'm glossing over it. I'm not asking if you to assert R1a was in the Steppes and/or the PIE homeland, just if you are thinking that R1a probably was not.

Yes I would also like a direct answer .


I agree. Thanks for the reminder.

Newtoboard or Alan, do you want to setup a separate thread in general R about the relationship of R1a and R1b? We should probably include R2 as well. Please go ahead.

I'll do it if you want. If I do it, I just ask for your participation since this seems to come up often.

Yes that would be good. Thanks.

alan
07-19-2013, 06:26 PM
Doesn't account for the PIE-Uralic linguistic links. The steepe edge model is wrong because PIE speakers have their origins in the forest steepe of Russia not the Ukranian steepe.

i just posted a paper rom last year by one of the leading uralic linguists Jaakko Häkkinen called 'Uralic evidence for the Indo-European homeland'. The link on the web seems broken now. He states that none of the uralic borrowings from IE appear to be borrowed at the PIE stage. in fact proto-uralic seems to significantly post-date PIE which probably explains why the IE borrowings all seem to post-date PIE. So that aspect of PIE studies is set to die.

Besides (and its just an aside to my main point above), its completely wrong to think that we have a great handle on where Uralic was in say 4000-2000BC. It an even bigger a house of cards. I agree they were probably east of the Volga at the steppe latitude but their typical forrest sort of environment was not dictated by a north-south barrier but is broadly more to do with lattitude.

DMXX
07-19-2013, 06:34 PM
Accusing other users of bias or attempting to undermine their logic with ad hominem strategies is not conducive to a proper discussion on the topics we're all interested in.

By accusing others of an unspoken bias - when it's probably a genuine interest in the subject matter - personalises discussions and leads us down an unnecessary path. Others forums gladly facilitate the fighting of idealogical ghosts - We have no tolerance for it on Anthrogenica.

Mikewww has kindly offered to set up another thread to explore the various facets of Y-DNA R with respect to prehistory (and an opportunity to get some messy tangents flying). Any more posts deviating from this thread's topic (including personalised comments) will be deleted without notice.

alan
07-19-2013, 06:40 PM
The bolded is exactly what he has been arguing if you read between the lines of his posts.

I've already said I believe that PIE originates near the South Urals and that the Pontic-Caspian steepe is more of a secondary homeland from where expansions took place. There are just too many PIE-Uralic links for PIE to originate anywhere else. And no linguistic links with Maykop. Maykop is just an influence.

I mean having at least a significant frequency (>20%).

LOL I am not arguing R1a wasnt on the steppe. anything is possible but in recent posts I have not at all been arguing that at all. The steppe was a vast place and there was plenty room from the Dniester to the Urals for different male lineages to live in and never have any idea who lived at the other end of the steppe.

I think you are harking back to when I raised the issue of r1a rich slavic and baltic seemingly having been correlated to middle dnierper-fatyanovo-abashevo chain of cultures by Anthony and the fact that if you read any archaeological book the strong corded ware element in those is always noted. I played about with this idea but I have put it away for now as I was only pointing out the logic of Anthony's model. I am not saying he is right. IN fact I am not his biggest fan. For the purposes of my recent posts I am assuming R1a was in the steppes area.

In short I am not too interested in R1a right now and the only observations I have strongly made recently is the very similar branching period and lack of action before that that both R1 groups feature and the suggestion that the branching of both starts in earnest at just the very time when steppe groups were entering the Balkans. Other than that I am purely talking about R1b and you are adding a subtext about R1a that doesnt exist.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 06:42 PM
i just posted a paper rom last year by one of the leading uralic linguists Jaakko Häkkinen called 'Uralic evidence for the Indo-European homeland'. The link on the web seems broken now. He states that none of the uralic borrowings from IE appear to be borrowed at the PIE stage. in fact proto-uralic seems to significantly post-date PIE which probably explains why the IE borrowings all seem to post-date PIE. So that aspect of PIE studies is set to die.

Besides (and its just an aside to my main point above), its completely wrong to think that we have a great handle on where Uralic was in say 4000-2000BC. It an even bigger a house of cards. I agree they were probably east of the Volga at the steppe latitude but their typical forrest sort of environment was not dictated by a north-south barrier but is broadly more to do with lattitude.

I've seen recent papers still arguing for extensive relationships with PIE. I'll post them later.

alan
07-19-2013, 06:47 PM
I agree. Thanks for the reminder.

Newtoboard or Alan, do you want to setup a separate thread in general R about the relationship of R1a and R1b? We should probably include R2 as well. Please go ahead.

I'll do it if you want. If I do it, I just ask for your participation since this seems to come up often.

Not really. I dont have time to work on R1a. There is no subtext in my R1b posts about R1a not being on the steppe. That is a really weird bit of reading between the lines. I have said several times if I wanted to be on a petty R1b vs R1a glory hunt forum there are plenty out there already. I post here to avoid it.

Just to be clear, the thing that strikes me more and more is the similarity in the branching history and timing of R1a and R1b. I have no wish to polarise them.

alan
07-19-2013, 06:55 PM
Learn to read before accusing me of making statements I never made. My original post did not talk about R1a/IE exclusivity. Alan keeps on talking about population replacements so I wanted to know his evidence for Timber Grave replacing R1b populations. What's unfair is you using a strawman argument to dismiss my post because it might mess up Alan's theories on wishful thinking and R1b/IE exclusivity (which is indeed what he is arguing without saying it directly). Apparently it is not ok to ask questions about why Assyrians and Armenians don't look Balkans in origin if you think R1a was in the PIE homeland according to you.

Newtoboard, I have tried to answer all your recent questions one by one. believe me its time consuming but I am happy to do so. Keep asking as I prefer when people disagree with me to be honest. Its the only way to work through a model and work out if it works. I didnt anwer the timber grave question simply because its a period later than what I think was the crucial one. Its probably post-PIE. To be honest I have really spent much more time studying the period 4500-3000BC so I wouldnt claim to have the knowledge to answer questions about timber grave. Anyway keep asking the questions but please dont read hidden agendas. I dont have one. If you think I have one just say and ask me as I prefer to just straight talk about these things. Your models for R1a and my ideas about R1b are totally compatible IMO.

alan
07-19-2013, 06:56 PM
Accusing other users of bias or attempting to undermine their logic with ad hominem strategies is not conducive to a proper discussion on the topics we're all interested in.

By accusing others of an unspoken bias - when it's probably a genuine interest in the subject matter - personalises discussions and leads us down an unnecessary path. Others forums gladly facilitate the fighting of idealogical ghosts - We have no tolerance for it on Anthrogenica.

Mikewww has kindly offered to set up another thread to explore the various facets of Y-DNA R with respect to prehistory (and an opportunity to get some messy tangents flying). Any more posts deviating from this thread's topic (including personalised comments) will be deleted without notice.

OK. I Think this has been cleared up now.

TigerMW
07-19-2013, 07:58 PM
... Mikewww has kindly offered to set up another thread to explore the various facets of Y-DNA R with respect to prehistory (and an opportunity to get some messy tangents flying)...

Here it is: "The relationship of R1a, R1b and R2 in ancient populations" under the general R category in the threads at the bottom of the screen.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1136-The-relationship-of-R1a-R1b-and-R2-in-ancient-populations

Have fun!