PDA

View Full Version : The relationship of R1a, R1b and R2 in populations: ancient times up to the 1400s



Mikewww
07-19-2013, 06:38 PM
This thread is probably long overdue. These guys are R's for a reason. They all have M207+ and no one else does.

The research titled "New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree" (2008), Karafet et al. estimated the R TMRCA as 26.8k ybp and the R1 TMRCA as 18.5k ybp. This is probably a better update on the aging than from Wells earlier study.

In "The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity" (2001), Wells et al., he has Central Asia as being the origin for the R haplogroup and R, R1a, R1b and R2 if I remember correctly.

Here is my understanding of the very high level tree. Let me know if there are errors with it. I don't know above and beside R1b that well.

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


You've seen the chart below before, but here is the R1b-ht35 administrator and citizen-scientist Vince Vizachero's geographical depiction of the early branching of R.

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


I rarely get a chance to view and contemplate this whole chart, but here is the high level view of the ISOGG version of haplogroup R's tree:
http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

[EDIT on 07/22/2013: I just want to be clear that even though I showed the very early branching of R as proposed by Vince Vizachero I just included that as background for the topic. I'm not intending to restrict this topic to just the 20k to 15k ybp. In fact I think some of the most interesting relationships might be of R1a elements and R1b elements in populations in SW Asia and Central Asia and/or the Balkans during the metal ages. I apologize for my lack of clarity in describing "ancient".]

alan
07-19-2013, 09:41 PM
well dating would be crucial. Intepretation options are totally depended on date when you include climate, the situation with the large seas, subsistance economy etc. I certainly doubt M73 went west into Anatolia and entered Europe from there. For a start there is basically none in the Balkans. Think that is based on 1% of Turks, a people well known to also have m73 on their ancestral path west. Far easier IMO to place it nearer its present distribution and intermediate between that and M269's distribution. The north Caucasus or somewhere in the steppe nearby seems more likely to me. P297 is ancestor to both and I would again place it somewhere similar or northern Iran which would explain its nonthingness in the 4000 years between P297 and M73/M269. When it comes to upstream of P297 into the P25* period it gets harder to even guess. However, this is the pre-10000BC period a paper I recently posted did state that the central, south and eastern Caucasus and Iran have a striking lack of upper palaeolithic settlement before 10000BC. So that zone is not a likely area for a very old clade like P25 to have been initially located and more likely an area it might have spilled into several thousand years into its existence. That said it may have spilled into Iran at some point because a recent paper on Iran showed an unusually high amount of very upstream (P297 negative) R1b in the north of Iran. But on present archaeological evidence its unlikely to have first arisen there and is probably a later movement there despite the upstream form.

Silesian
07-19-2013, 10:00 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_mypYjUAwqw/UAjZdNrHAqI/AAAAAAAAAMY/nxbhHviubow/s1600/study4.png

This wiki entry should be corrected, as per the above cited study, is similar to Talysh.
"Genetically, the Gilaks display a high frequency of Y-DNA haplogroups R1a1a, J2a, J1, and G2a3b.[4]"
"Caspian languages are a branch of Northwestern Iranian languages spoken in northern Iran, south of the Caspian Sea."


Regards Brahui people, R1a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_people

"Another theory is that they migrated to Baluchistan from inner India during the early Muslim period of the 13th or 14th centuries.[5] A third theory says the Brahui migrated to Balochistan from South India after 1000 AD. The absence of any older Iranian (Avestan) influence in Brahui supports this hypothesis. The main Iranian contributor to Brahui vocabulary is a northwestern Iranian language,"

S_Tlsh 18N 44% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.,
Gilaki 43N 23% Indo-Iranian (IE) Roewer et al.
Mazan 46N 15% Indo-Iranian (IE)Mazandarani Roewer et al.
N_Tlsh 43N 19% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.

Gilaki/Talysh/Lurs.

DMXX
07-19-2013, 10:09 PM
In an ideal world, we'd have reliable node calculations and enough ancient DNA to definitively piece together how Y-DNA R disseminated itself across Eurasia. Unfortunately, we're not living in an ideal world. The best we can make do with, in my view, is the analysis and interpretation of parahaplogroups to give us a rough pointer as to where the formative steps for each successive downstream marker took place.

R-M207 was sporadically reported in scientific literature as well as among some FTDNA projects (my own Iranian DNA Project once had an R*-M207 individual originally from Badakhshan in Tajikistan-Afghanistan). Following the publication of R2*-M479, vineviz (who also manages the parahaplogroups project I believe) seemed confident that most (if not all) of the previously reported R*-M207 found would turn out to be M479+.

I have already posted data from Grugni et al. showing important R parahaplogroups (R1*-M173, R1a1*-SRY1532, R1b*-M343, R1b1a2*-M269, R1b1a2a*-L23) were found scattered across the Iranian plateau. Underhill et al. also discovered R1a*-M420 across the entire "Near-East" (Iran, Oman etc.) and it was completely absent in India. An early study from the Caucasus (an early Dr. Nasidze paper?) found R1a1*-SRY1532(xR1a1a-M17) in Armenia of all places, where R1a-derived subclades barely reach 3% in total.

All of this implies that...
- Central Asia was the location from which the major division formed within Y-DNA R into two clades, R1-M173 and R2-M479.
- R1 then seemed to have differentiated somewhere a bit further west, likely Iran.
- The picture becomes murkier at this point, with the presence of R1a1* and R1b1* in different countries and not just Iran.

I won't comment on R1a because my understanding of its' current structure is outdated. I still recall the unusual R1a1ax subclades found in South-Central Asia and don't know how they stack up now.

I therefore envision the dissemination of Y-DNA R took a path very similar to vineviz's chart, although I'd put "R1a" around Iran, "R" and "R2" close together in Central Asia and everything else pushed perhaps a bit more westerly.

For the record, I once considered India to have a significant role concerning developments within Y-DNA R. I no longer hold that opinion following the production of data showing Indian R subclades to be derived from elsewhere; all Indian R1a to date is Z93+, the picture concerning R2a hints towards an early L295+ wave followed by L295- intrusions further north, any R1b I've seen around the subcontinent in studies share the same haplotypes such as Nepali R1b etc.

alan
07-19-2013, 10:17 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_mypYjUAwqw/UAjZdNrHAqI/AAAAAAAAAMY/nxbhHviubow/s1600/study4.png

This wiki entry should be corrected, as per the above cited study.
"Genetically, the Gilaks display a high frequency of Y-DNA haplogroups R1a1a, J2a, J1, and G2a3b.[4]"
"Caspian languages are a branch of Northwestern Iranian languages spoken in northern Iran, south of the Caspian Sea."


Regards Brahui people, R1a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_people

"Another theory is that they migrated to Baluchistan from inner India during the early Muslim period of the 13th or 14th centuries.[5] A third theory says the Brahui migrated to Balochistan from South India after 1000 AD. The absence of any older Iranian (Avestan) influence in Brahui supports this hypothesis. The main Iranian contributor to Brahui vocabulary is a northwestern Iranian language,"

I take it that they have ruled out V88 - yes they did

alan
07-19-2013, 10:31 PM
The possibly role of northern Iran in R1b history first really came into my view in after the paper suggesting a link with Maykop. Having read into it I see the flow could have gone both ways and there are Makop kurgans in NW Iran. Also having read into Iran a bit I see that the northern plateau unlike zagros was only very late involved in the farming world.That makes the location a bit more R1b compatible IMO. Howevere I then read that northern Iran was along with the south and east Caucausus apparently not settled by modern humans until after 10000BC. That would rule it out as the homeland for R1b. On balance I think its easier to see the whole r1b sequence as occurring somewhere further north than Iran with Iran being the main southern 'out' for stray P25 into north Iran after 10000BC and further into the middle east after farming reached the iran area and trade networks were under way c. 4000bc.

Mikewww
07-19-2013, 10:34 PM
well dating would be crucial. Intepretation options are totally depended on date when you include climate, the situation with the large seas, subsistance economy etc. I certainly doubt M73 went west into Anatolia and entered Europe from there. For a start there is basically none in the Balkans. Think that is based on 1% of Turks, a people well known to also have m73 on their ancestral path west. Far easier IMO to place it nearer its present distribution and intermediate between that and M269's distribution. The north Caucasus or somewhere in the steppe nearby seems more likely to me. P297 is ancestor to both and I would again place it somewhere similar or northern Iran which would explain its nonthingness in the 4000 years between P297 and M73/M269. When it comes to upstream of P297 into the P25* period it gets harder to even guess. However, this is the pre-10000BC period a paper I recently posted did state that the central, south and eastern Caucasus and Iran have a striking lack of upper palaeolithic settlement before 10000BC. So that zone is not a likely area for a very old clade like P25 to have been initially located and more likely an area it might have spilled into several thousand years into its existence. That said it may have spilled into Iran at some point because a recent paper on Iran showed an unusually high amount of very upstream (P297 negative) R1b in the north of Iran. But on present archaeological evidence its unlikely to have first arisen there and is probably a later movement there despite the upstream form.

I would think that there would be some R1a in at least some of the communities that R1b-M73 was in when it expanded and moved. Is there much evidence for that? If so what kinds of R1a?

newtoboard
07-20-2013, 02:42 PM
I would think that there would be some R1a in at least some of the communities that R1b-M73 was in when it expanded and moved. Is there much evidence for that? If so what kinds of R1a?

Maybe but these seem to have not been mixed imo. If the R1b-M73 community was in the North Caucasus or near it I some Z283+ (and Z280+) would have have likely moved with it into Central Asia and the Tarim. As far as I know there isn't much Z283+ or Z280+ in the Tarim or Central Asia (some does exist in Uzbekistan/Kazakhstan but that could be Russian admixture since M458+ was also found in Uzbekistan/Kazakhstan. It would also suggest some sort of bottleneck occurring on the area once encompassed by the BMAC). The Tajiks, Turkmens, and Uzbeks all live in a similar area but the Tajiks lack M73+ (while Uzbeks and Turkmen carry it) despite the fact that they were once spread between Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan (countries where the Turkic speakers do carry R1b-M73).

newtoboard
07-20-2013, 02:44 PM
The possibly role of northern Iran in R1b history first really came into my view in after the paper suggesting a link with Maykop. Having read into it I see the flow could have gone both ways and there are Makop kurgans in NW Iran. Also having read into Iran a bit I see that the northern plateau unlike zagros was only very late involved in the farming world.That makes the location a bit more R1b compatible IMO. Howevere I then read that northern Iran was along with the south and east Caucausus apparently not settled by modern humans until after 10000BC. That would rule it out as the homeland for R1b. On balance I think its easier to see the whole r1b sequence as occurring somewhere further north than Iran with Iran being the main southern 'out' for stray P25 into north Iran after 10000BC and further into the middle east after farming reached the iran area and trade networks were under way c. 4000bc.

What is your route for more downstream clades making it back into Iran?

alan
07-20-2013, 10:56 PM
In an ideal world, we'd have reliable node calculations and enough ancient DNA to definitively piece together how Y-DNA R disseminated itself across Eurasia. Unfortunately, we're not living in an ideal world. The best we can make do with, in my view, is the analysis and interpretation of parahaplogroups to give us a rough pointer as to where the formative steps for each successive downstream marker took place.

R-M207 was sporadically reported in scientific literature as well as among some FTDNA projects (my own Iranian DNA Project once had an R*-M207 individual originally from Badakhshan in Tajikistan-Afghanistan). Following the publication of R2*-M479, vineviz (who also manages the parahaplogroups project I believe) seemed confident that most (if not all) of the previously reported R*-M207 found would turn out to be M479+.

I have already posted data from Grugni et al. showing important R parahaplogroups (R1*-M173, R1a1*-SRY1532, R1b*-M343, R1b1a2*-M269, R1b1a2a*-L23) were found scattered across the Iranian plateau. Underhill et al. also discovered R1a*-M420 across the entire "Near-East" (Iran, Oman etc.) and it was completely absent in India. An early study from the Caucasus (an early Dr. Nasidze paper?) found R1a1*-SRY1532(xR1a1a-M17) in Armenia of all places, where R1a-derived subclades barely reach 3% in total.

All of this implies that...
- Central Asia was the location from which the major division formed within Y-DNA R into two clades, R1-M173 and R2-M479.
- R1 then seemed to have differentiated somewhere a bit further west, likely Iran.
- The picture becomes murkier at this point, with the presence of R1a1* and R1b1* in different countries and not just Iran.

I won't comment on R1a because my understanding of its' current structure is outdated. I still recall the unusual R1a1ax subclades found in South-Central Asia and don't know how they stack up now.

I therefore envision the dissemination of Y-DNA R took a path very similar to vineviz's chart, although I'd put "R1a" around Iran, "R" and "R2" close together in Central Asia and everything else pushed perhaps a bit more westerly.

For the record, I once considered India to have a significant role concerning developments within Y-DNA R. I no longer hold that opinion following the production of data showing Indian R subclades to be derived from elsewhere; all Indian R1a to date is Z93+, the picture concerning R2a hints towards an early L295+ wave followed by L295- intrusions further north, any R1b I've seen around the subcontinent in studies share the same haplotypes such as Nepali R1b etc.

I certainly think in longitude terms this is probably giving us a reasonable idea. However, the problem with the latitude aspect I see is that individuals or small groups who entered the the farming world are more likely to have experienced conditions that allowed preservation of early clades than areas like the steppe where essentially the pre-5000BC era appears to have left little trace in terms of clades. Indeed I only give that early date because of M73 and its distribution. In fact it appears that other than that little is preserved of y lineages or clades pre-dating 3500BC.

That may simply be the nature of the non-farming/very basic farmer-herder-hunter societies there and they may have simply struggled to maintain population for a long period and probably tended at any given point to share relatively recent common ancestors. That might only have altered first c. 4200BC when steppe groups first expanded into new lands in Old Europe and again when horses, the wheel, mobility etc opened up large new areas of pasture c 3500BC onwards. Both of these might have allowing a phase of ydna expansion that survived to today. Those date do roughly coincide with the rise of R1a and R1b lineages of importance after a long period of nothingness. So it is possible that the early clade guys we see in the middle east are simply strays that entered the farming area early. I have recently posted that there was a barrier to north-south and east-west movement around the Black-Caspian sea area in the period after the LGM to around 10000BC too so movements in either direction probably had a long hiatus in this sort of longitude until 10000BC and there does seem to indeed be a lack of upper Palaeolithic settlement on the south side of this divide until around that date. There may have been a period in the upper palaeolithic where, counterintuitive though it seems, the north-west side of this barrier may have been much better settled by hunters. Taking the apparent period of those barriers, it seems to me to make the most likely phases of north-south movement at this sort of longitude to be around the LGM before the barrier and around 10000bc after the barrier passed. Given that these essentially coincide with the LGM and the Younger Dryas a north-south movement would seem far more likely than the reverse. Northern Iran did indeed seem to recieve an appearance of epi-palaeolithic hunters at this period. It is also important to remember that northern Iran and its plateau did not recieve farming until rather late too and there is no evidence of a movement from there northwards in either the Palaeolithic or the Neolithic. So, I think northern Iran is perhaps more likely an area that saw overspill from the north around the Younger Dryas than a source of northern R1b or R1a.

So, I tend to think that r1 was already in what is now the western steppe area by the LGM and got bottled up there by post-LGM water barriers to the east and south after the LGM. Karafet dates it to about 16500BC which is in the right ballpark.

alan
07-20-2013, 11:36 PM
I would think that there would be some R1a in at least some of the communities that R1b-M73 was in when it expanded and moved. Is there much evidence for that? If so what kinds of R1a?

Good question. I think the age of M73 is significant. Its old and it barely exists in the old farming world of Europe and SW Asia. It is as far as I understand the oldest possible steppe clade by quite a bit. As I posted before it is still virtually absent in the Balkans despite many waves into that zone from the steppes from 4200BC to Medieval times. So, not only is it old but its likely position would have been towards the eastern end of the steppes or tucked up in the north Caucasus slightly off the beaten track west. I cannot see it having originated east of the Urals due to the common ancestor P297 it shares with m279 around 9000BC and the lack of any evidence of the urals cultural barrier being pierced between then and 3500bc. It clearly took more of an eastern trajectory too judging by its positions of strength today.

So, in terms of R1a partners, I suppose initially you would have to ask what r1a might have been around in 5000bc. I am not sure. it doesnt seem to me at all likely it moved east of the urals until after 3500BC because there is basically no evidence of that kind of movement before then. So then I suppose the question would be which R1a clades existed and crossed the urals after 3500bc. I suppose if they were mixed with r1a it would most likely be among the groups that headed east after that date. i personally think they likely were involved with the early afansievo elements rather than andronovo or the like so that would be with r1a clades associated with the tocharians/tarmim mummies. Maybe someone can explain what r1a clades were found there.

Mikewww
07-20-2013, 11:36 PM
On this thread we haven't had a direction discussion on links of R subclades to languages. In the modern day distributions and the history leading up to those, we see a strong correlation between IE languages and R.

Does newtoboard's perspective on PIE origination help us understand a potential location from where different elements of R might have expanded from or passed through?


... 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. ... http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1118-M269*-and-L23XL51-modern-pattern-remnant-of-different-waves&p=10138&viewfull=1#post10138

In other words, does the timing and branching of IE help us?

alan
07-20-2013, 11:52 PM
One thing I should also have said is that collectively M73 has been said to have a high variance and very distant common ancestry between groups even if within groups its low, so it doesnt seem to be some kind of founder effect or late spread. I think it shouldnt be seen as odd that m73 seems to have turned a different way from much of m269. The very same thing seems to have happened with r1a too with it dividing into a couple of superclades early on, one of which is more eastern. These things just can happen.


On this thread we haven't had a direction discussion on links of R subclades to languages. In the modern day distributions and the history leading up to those, we see a strong correlation between IE languages and R.

Does newtoboard's perspective on PIE origination help us understand a potential location from where different elements of R might have expanded from or passed through?

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1118-M269*-and-L23XL51-modern-pattern-remnant-of-different-waves&p=10138&viewfull=1#post10138

In other words, does the timing and branching of IE help us?


I have posted this before but in terms of the nuancing of the position of PIE, it is fair to say that the use of IE loans into Uralic is a shaky piece of evidence as several linguists think they are post-PIE and relate to later eastern branches of IE

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

That is not an attempt to undermine the broader steppe hypothesis but I think it does reduce the need to see PIE as specifically located at the urals. Anthony's model of course implies at least Anatolian stage IE was present among groups which trace back to the Dnieper-Don sort of area before 4200BC. That and the major doubt that loans in Uralic are safe evidence to use makes me think it is not so clearcut that we should focus on the extreme east end of the western steppes. I am not trying to pose an alternative place but more the possibility of a broad western steppe evolution of dialects through from pre-anatolian to anatolian to PIE based on the networks we see linking this massive area where without networking you would expect deep diversity in languages. The network most likely associated with the Anatolian phase in the Anthony model would be the Skelya dominated one while PIE most likely evolved after that.

the other deeper linguistically genetic links to uralic are rather like the links postulated with caucasian languages and are extremely deep time.


On this thread we haven't had a direction discussion on links of R subclades to languages. In the modern day distributions and the history leading up to those, we see a strong correlation between IE languages and R.

Does newtoboard's perspective on PIE origination help us understand a potential location from where different elements of R might have expanded from or passed through?

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1118-M269*-and-L23XL51-modern-pattern-remnant-of-different-waves&p=10138&viewfull=1#post10138

In other words, does the timing and branching of IE help us?

One point Anthony seems to suggest is that the division between some sort of groups ancestral to IE and other ancestral to Uralic is most likely represented by a deep cultural division at the Urals seen in the archaeology before 3500BC and he suggests it originated back in the Palaeolithic when the expanded Caspian created a major barrier for some millenia after the LGM. I dont think anyone suggests r1 was in the uralic ancestral group so it seems likely to me that r1 was west of this barrier and that the whole sequence from R1 onwards took place among the gravettian and epigravettian hunters in what is now the western steppe. r1 itself is dated by karafet to 16500bc, apparently a little after the LGM and slightly pre-dating the extension of the Caspian sea barrier that happened as ice melted. During the LGM and before we must be back in the R* phase. I suppose it must have been in that state that the r1 guys arrived from somewhere further east but I am hazy on this.

I am digging about for options that would fit the R to R1 period. This is a book on the palaelithic of eastern Europe.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nXuqgInMOXIC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=epigravettian+crimea&source=bl&ots=UmwjGwTADJ&sig=hfXls3Qj8QBUoCIyb4TEGVywImU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fC7rUaDeGI3Z0QWgroCADg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=epigravettian%20crimea&f=false

DMXX
07-21-2013, 10:06 AM
I certainly think in longitude terms this is probably giving us a reasonable idea. However, the problem with the latitude aspect I see is that individuals or small groups who entered the the farming world are more likely to have experienced conditions that allowed preservation of early clades than areas like the steppe where essentially the pre-5000BC era appears to have left little trace in terms of clades. Indeed I only give that early date because of M73 and its distribution. In fact it appears that other than that little is preserved of y lineages or clades pre-dating 3500BC.


Frankly, it doesn't make much sense basing our speculation of the entire R-M207 phylogeny on the neolithic era alone. Y-DNA R-M207 is thousands of years older than the neolithic. Nor does framing every discussion concerning Y-DNA R in an archaeological paradigm. Mirroring the user Jaska's comments online concerning the Indo-European languages, the matter of Y-DNA R's development over numerous millennia is a genetic problem first and foremost. Archaeological and linguistic data are merely supportive here.

If we don't find any R*, R1*, R2* etc. anywhere around the Pontic-Caspian steppe (which is the case now as far as I'm aware), then there is a basis, in my opinion, in entertaining the notion those lineages once existed on the steppe highway but were shuffled out with subsequent migrations. We have historical evidence of this occurring.

The problem with this argument is you'd expect some remnant subclades to survive in pockets in regions immediately peripheral to the Eurasian steppe (Caucasus, Tian Shan mountains, Dzungarian basin). Again, we have historical evidence of this occurring with other parameters (i.e. Ossetian and the Pamiri dialects are NE Iranic languages which form the most lateral remnants of a NE Iranic dialect continuum across Central Asia). None of that exists in those regions. The only zone in Eurasia where these parahaplogroups currently exist is across South-Central Asia and the Iranian plateau. Based on this, arguing the case for R1*, R1a*, R1b* etc. once existing north of the Caspian and disappearing without a trace only to appear further south is a textbook example of special pleading.

If future studies show we've miraculously missed the presence of R parahaplogroups the genetic evidence will dictate the course of this discussion, rather than archaeological suppositions.

alan
07-21-2013, 11:06 AM
Frankly, it doesn't make much sense basing our speculation of the entire R-M207 phylogeny on the neolithic era alone. Y-DNA R-M207 is thousands of years older than the neolithic. Nor does framing every discussion concerning Y-DNA R in an archaeological paradigm. Mirroring the user Jaska's comments online concerning the Indo-European languages, the matter of Y-DNA R's development over numerous millennia is a genetic problem first and foremost. Archaeological and linguistic data are merely supportive here.

If we don't find any R*, R1*, R2* etc. anywhere around the Pontic-Caspian steppe (which is the case now as far as I'm aware), then there is a basis, in my opinion, in entertaining the notion those lineages once existed on the steppe highway but were shuffled out with subsequent migrations. We have historical evidence of this occurring.

The problem with this argument is you'd expect some remnant subclades to survive in pockets in regions immediately peripheral to the Eurasian steppe (Caucasus, Tian Shan mountains, Dzungarian basin). Again, we have historical evidence of this occurring with other parameters (i.e. Ossetian and the Pamiri dialects are NE Iranic languages which form the most lateral remnants of a NE Iranic dialect continuum across Central Asia). None of that exists in those regions. The only zone in Eurasia where these parahaplogroups currently exist is across South-Central Asia and the Iranian plateau. Based on this, arguing the case for R1*, R1a*, R1b* etc. once existing north of the Caspian and disappearing without a trace only to appear further south is a textbook example of special pleading.

If future studies show we've miraculously missed the presence of R parahaplogroups the genetic evidence will dictate the course of this discussion, rather than archaeological suppositions.

woh hold the horses mate. I am aware that it way before the Neolithic and I am not trying to frame R*, R1 anyway into a steppe framework. I was just trying to work backwords in time at the possibilities and I hadnt reached any conclusion about those very early periods. I hadnt completed this process.

I was really trying to work out where the very early R may have come from. I actually assume it was somewhere like central Asia, I was just trying to work out contexts and timing other evidence suggested most likely. I certainly think R and R1 are old enough to have come from central Asia. I just think context like climate and temporary water barriers at the times have to be allowed for as it would be crazy not to factor them in. I am not pushing one possibility only. R and R1 anyway pre-date those barriers so they could have moved freely about at any latitude from east to west other than those too far north to realistically support human life at those periods.

Its really the period between R1 and very early R1a and b that I was trying to reason through and was hoping to find something in the archaeological record that would potentially show a movement from central Asia around 15000BC. I havent but I have only scraped the surface. Somewhere back in the remote past there must have been some movement that brought the first R man west from the whole P-Q thing somewhere in central Asia. What sort of dates have been put on that sequence and on R*?

I actually think what would be very useful for quick reference are a good set of maps showing the climate and inland sea situation in central Asia and the north pontic area across this period just to see what context the various phases of R faced. It saves a lot of words.

As for looking at the archaeology, it really what I know best and the main contribution I can make. I dont in any way wish this to lead to dna evidence. In fact I am accepting the DNA data and suggested DNA dating at face value as a starting point and only then looking to see what archaeology might provide in supporting evidence.

Just to be clear I am also not ruling out that R populations could not have first penetrated the steppes as late as the early Neolithic. I have already posted this paper which suggests an early Neolithic movement into the steppes from the south.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dlib.si%2Fstream%2FURN%3ANBN% 3ASI%3ADOC-UARUOLB0%2F98491aa4-70e2-4a34-8bac-7f1b029da4dc%2FPDF&ei=F8LrUYOFGMjoPKXDgJgM&usg=AFQjCNF9OFuYL7tyNadmOf6AUUBCtWK1NQ&sig2=X2tnIK7OI37ZLlkblVO2tQ&bvm=bv.49478099,d.d2k

northern Iran and its plateau though seem unlikely to be a Neolithic source as that part of Iran was very late in terms of farming, later than the early steppe cultures noted in the paper above. The connections with Iran in the north seem to commence around 4000BC in the north Caucasus not the Neolithic. In terms of pre-Neolithic connections between Iran and the northern area, all I would say is this possibily was blocked for some time perhaps around 14000BC-10000BC so it would have to be before or after that. Then of course climate issues would have effected things with the Younger Dryas effecting the period around the time the barrier opened again and discouraging a south-north move for a time. So, on balance it is hard to see how a north-south movement from Iran or an east-west movement from across the Urals would have happened in the period 14000-9000BC anyway. IF R1 clades were not already in the west steppe zone by 15000BC then it seems likely that they didnt arrive until the Neolithic or later. I think that is the stark choice

I also have posted in the past the possibility of even later movements of R1b. So please dont think I dont have an open mind. If I am anything its a sitter on the fence and I am happy to reinterpret as evidence becomes available.

Now I think we can do a lot better than this map of LGM conditions but its a start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png

At face value it does suggest that it would have been tricky for R1 and presumably ancestral R to have moved north south or south north in this period given the desert conditions east of the Caspian along central Asia. It seems to present a stark choice for any ydna lines of that sort of date - they surely were either north or south of that desert. It does seem to support a more southerly route west for R in the sort of period between R and R1 coming into existence.

I once posted a much better map sequence in a report about the climate conditions. I cannot remember what area it covered although it included the Caspian area. I recall Jean being happy when I stumbled on it. She probably has it. I cannot find it now.

Actually the paper I couldnt locate, I think I just found and it doest extend far enough east. This is a useful article of the world at tha LGM

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ray2001/ray_adams_2001.pdf

This shows the desert barrier from the Caspian stetching far to the east and seperating the relatively nice climate zone between Anatolia and India from the more harsh but also settled steppe tundra. This seems to be the environments that early R people would have faced. It does make a stark choice that R had to have remained on one side or the other for sime time.

As noted before, as the LGM warmed there then formed a major water barrier from the Black to Aral Seas perhaps down to around the Younger Dryas period. So again opportunities for R and R1 to have been on both sides of this barrier before 10000BC were limited although windows of opportunity cannot be ruled out.

It is easier to interpret the overall R picture as indicating a position on the south side of these environmental barriers.

I have been inspired to look at the Palaeolithic or central Asia. There are new papers but they are behind paywalls. This is about the Neolithic of the area but does have a useful reamble about the pre-farming era and you never know if the Neolithic bit might be interesting too.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n0V-xi2wAwUC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=upper+palaeolithic+central+asia&source=bl&ots=I2CbFp_GCs&sig=7pG2Rga-n-G_S7veVbqgbfYY8jw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8ufrUdusLoeW0AW0_YCADg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=upper%20palaeolithic%20central%20asia&f=false

much of the paper is missing but this review of it fills in some gaps

http://www.academia.edu/1505707/Review_Article_for_Origins_of_Agriculture_in_Weste rn_Central_Asia_An_Environmental_Archaeological_St udy_by_David_Harris_2010_._Ancient_Civilizations_f rom_Scythia_to_Siberia_18_2012_pp._183-194

newtoboard
07-21-2013, 03:44 PM
I'm still not buying this extremely late Neolithic for Iran based on climate conditions. Maybe in the Neolithic sense of Mesopotamia but Oasis farming could have been a viable lifestyle. Also where did South Asia's Neolithic come from if not Iran?

Just because something is less likely due to archeology shouldn't allow you to discount its possibility. Plenty of unlikely things have occurred in the world of genetics and archeology.

I don't see R1* couldn't have been present in Northern Iran because of climate and such but IJ* could have.

newtoboard
07-21-2013, 03:45 PM
Frankly, it doesn't make much sense basing our speculation of the entire R-M207 phylogeny on the neolithic era alone. Y-DNA R-M207 is thousands of years older than the neolithic. Nor does framing every discussion concerning Y-DNA R in an archaeological paradigm. Mirroring the user Jaska's comments online concerning the Indo-European languages, the matter of Y-DNA R's development over numerous millennia is a genetic problem first and foremost. Archaeological and linguistic data are merely supportive here.

If we don't find any R*, R1*, R2* etc. anywhere around the Pontic-Caspian steppe (which is the case now as far as I'm aware), then there is a basis, in my opinion, in entertaining the notion those lineages once existed on the steppe highway but were shuffled out with subsequent migrations. We have historical evidence of this occurring.

The problem with this argument is you'd expect some remnant subclades to survive in pockets in regions immediately peripheral to the Eurasian steppe (Caucasus, Tian Shan mountains, Dzungarian basin). Again, we have historical evidence of this occurring with other parameters (i.e. Ossetian and the Pamiri dialects are NE Iranic languages which form the most lateral remnants of a NE Iranic dialect continuum across Central Asia). None of that exists in those regions. The only zone in Eurasia where these parahaplogroups currently exist is across South-Central Asia and the Iranian plateau. Based on this, arguing the case for R1*, R1a*, R1b* etc. once existing north of the Caspian and disappearing without a trace only to appear further south is a textbook example of special pleading.

If future studies show we've miraculously missed the presence of R parahaplogroups the genetic evidence will dictate the course of this discussion, rather than archaeological suppositions.

Could you outline which parahaplogroups have been found in Iran and South Central Asia?

Also if those lineages were shuffled out with migrations they should all exist in Western Europe or among Crimean Tatars. Do they all exist in either Western Europe or Tatar groups?

alan
07-21-2013, 05:50 PM
I'm still not buying this extremely late Neolithic for Iran based on climate conditions. Maybe in the Neolithic sense of Mesopotamia but Oasis farming could have been a viable lifestyle. Also where did South Asia's Neolithic come from if not Iran?

Just because something is less likely due to archeology shouldn't allow you to discount its possibility. Plenty of unlikely things have occurred in the world of genetics and archeology.

I don't see R1* couldn't have been present in Northern Iran because of climate and such but IJ* could have.

This is a link to the papers and thesis on Neolithic Iran via a previous thread

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?948-Links-between-Mesopotamia-Maykop-etc/page3

Its all very recent detailed analysis of dated sites and note that its only saying the north and the north-central plateau is late. I knew very little about this myself until I read up on it recently and I am just quoting what I found. If that throws up issues for the Neolithic of central Asia then that is not the first time problems like that have arisen. For example the paper I posted about early farming groups on the Azov steppe indicated sites there that are older than any dates from the Caucasus, which also recieved farming surprisingly late. They could have come from Anatolia and bypassed the mountains using the shores and settled beyond when there was a wetter period in the steppes. Anyway parts of Iran were very early involved in farming. Early farmers often leapfrogged more difficult environments as they spread.

Besides, I am not saying the area was empty. There were epipalaeolithic people in northern Iran from around 10000BC. Maybe they were R1. Unfortunately I have not read much comment on their origins other than they broadly fit into the European type cultures and I dont think they have much confidence on origin at all. We do not know how much input they had when the Neolithic did begin in northern Iran although it must have also involved immigrants from west-adjacent areas.

I notice in the summary of a paper very recent paper on the central Asian Palaeolithic behind a pay wall called In Terra Incognita. Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of Central Asia: New data from Uzbekistan

'Early Upper Palaeolithic industry that was sometimes seen as an Asian source of the Aurignacian complex'

although that of course is a far earlier period, long before R existed.

This book suggests that central Asia, by which they mean the north central 'stan' countries between Iran and China, lacks upper palaeolithic settlement pre-10000BC, which is not surprising given it was a desert in the LGM period. It indicates it was resettled in the Mesolithic/epi-palaeolithic c. 10000BC. This is very similar to the observations made in other papers about the central and east Caucasus and northern Iran. Looking at the LGM environment map it highlights the relatively reasonable conditions that stretched from Anatolia through Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. I will maybe have a bit of dig into the LGM period in other parts of Iran and maybe the other countries just listed. Give me some time though.

DMXX
07-21-2013, 06:53 PM
Could you outline which parahaplogroups have been found in Iran and South Central Asia?


Here are some specific examples. This list is by no means exhaustive or declared to be self-evident in any way aside from providing the gist of the pattern we currently see in Eurasia.

Iran/West Asia
R*-M207 - Iran (Grugni et al.).
R1*-M73 - Iran (Grugni et al.).
R1a*-M420 - Turkey, Iran, UAE, Oman (Underhill et al.). Absent from South-Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent per the same paper.
R1a1*-SRY1532 - Iran (Grugni et al., Underhill et al.), also Armenia (Weale et al.).
R1b*-M343 - Iran (Grugni et al.), I believe Cinnioglu et al. from Turkey might also have one or two samples with this?

South-Central Asia
R*-M207 - Tajikistan and Pakistan (see here (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Rasterisk/default.aspx?section=yresults), but note their haplotypes are all somewhat similar)

R2*-M479 is an interesting one. This has been reported sporadically across West Eurasia from Myres et al.;



Portugal, Lisbon
Andalusia, Sevilla
Tatars (Bashkortostan, Russia)
Italy North
Ossetians South (South Caucasus)
Pakistan North


Some posters may invoke Sharma et al. on this topic, which reputedly found all manner of Y-DNA R parahaplogroups in India. There was some controversy over the results on DNA-Forums which I cannot remember exactly.



Also if those lineages were shuffled out with migrations they should all exist in Western Europe or among Crimean Tatars. Do they all exist in either Western Europe or Tatar groups?

Precisely my point in the post you quoted; there isn't much sign of this "shuffle-out" phenomena if Western Europe and Iran/South-Central Asia are hypothetically recipients of a focal steppe Y-DNA R accumulative ground.

newtoboard
07-21-2013, 07:11 PM
From what I can tell it seems Alan thinks there was an R1 (if not R) refuge in the Western steppe and that Slavs and Indo-Iranians are the ones who replaced R1b rich populations who moved west. So therefore all these parahaplogroups should have the highest concentration in Western Europe due to these massive population replacements by Satem speakers. Somehow Western Europe lost all this diversity for whatever reason (why would like R1a-L664+/R1a Z93+ L342.2- lineages survive there then?) while spillover from the steppe brought these lineages into the Iranian gene pool and Iran never lost these haplogroups. I can't see how this theory is viable at all. I don't care how much archeological evidence there is. That all these parahaplogorups have been in found in South-Central Asia and Iran despite the sampling bias of NW Europe is enough evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion.

What population is Pakistan North for R2*-M479? The distribution of R2*-M479 could theoretically be traced back to South-Central Asia especially since Ossetians are on the list (and the range of Alans seems to have been just slightly north of South Central Asia), Bashkirs have likely had contact with South Central Asia and the the Alans did make it to Portugal and Spain (and might have managed to carry a J1b haplotype there).

alan
07-21-2013, 07:26 PM
From what I can tell it seems Alan thinks there was an R1 (if not R) refuge in the Western steppe and that Slavs and Indo-Iranians are the ones who replaced R1b rich populations who moved west. So therefore all these parahaplogroups should have the highest concentration in Western Europe due to these massive population replacements by Satem speakers. Somehow Western Europe lost all this diversity for whatever reason (why would like R1a-L664+/R1a Z93+ L342.2- lineages survive there then?) while spillover from the steppe brought these lineages into the Iranian gene pool and Iran never lost these haplogroups. I can't see how this theory is viable at all. I don't care how much archeological evidence there is. That all these parahaplogorups have been in found in South-Central Asia and Iran despite the sampling bias of NW Europe is enough evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion.

I am saying nothing of the kind. I have tried to make our conversations constructive and you post this. You are revealing a lot more about how you think than how I do with that sort of nonsense. You seem to be operating on the R1a vs R1b level. Seriously that is inside your head, not mine. You are selectively reading what I post and ignoring most of it except bits you do not like. I am just chewing through possibilities and thinking out loud. I am posting papers by others, the most up to date I can find on each subject for free on the net, not my own opinions. I am currently looking for info on the south option for R1. I have an open mind on this. I not interested in petty R1a vs R1b nonsense. Why do you keep 'reading between the lines' what doesnt exist. Its coming across as paranoid. Seriously I have better things to do than waste my time if my efforts get reinterpreted in the way posted above.

newtoboard
07-21-2013, 07:37 PM
I am saying nothing of the kind. I have tried to make our conversations constructive and you post this. You are revealing a lot more about how you think than how I do with that sort of nonsense. You seem to be operating on the R1a vs R1b level. Seriously that is inside your head, not mine. You are selectively reading what I post and ignoring most of it except bits you do not like. I am just chewing through possibilities and thinking out loud. I am posting papers by others, the most up to date I can find on each subject for free on the net, not my own opinions. This is ridiculous. I not interested in petty R1a vs R1b nonsense. Why do you keep 'reading between the lines' what doesnt exist. Its coming across as paranoid. Seriously I have better things to do than waste my time if my efforts get reinterpreted in the way posted above.

This isn't about R1a vs R1b. This is about your theory on R1 as a whole having a Ukrainian refuge. You are the one who is fixated on getting R1* and earliest forms of R1a/R1b into the steppe and using population replacements as a reason why they are not found there anymore. You ignore that they somehow survived south of the steppe in Iran/South Central Asia alongside R* and R2*. You still can't explain why these aren't found in groups which received the earliest migrations (Afanasevo/the Tarim or Western Europe). It is a waste of my time if you ignore the genetic evidence by responding to it with speculation on migrations and long posts on archeology.

alan
07-21-2013, 07:53 PM
This isn't about R1a vs R1b. This is about your theory on R1 as a whole having a Ukrainian refuge. You are the one who is beyond fixated on getting R1 and R1b into the steppe and then arguing migrations lowered the diversity of these lineages but they somehow all survived just south of the steppe alongside R* and R2*. Of course you would never state anything directly so you just choose to fill your your posts with essays on archeology hoping nobody will question you on why these lineages didn't move with the migrations west and survive there.

Again, I have no model. I am just gather up evidence to narrow down the options. We only started talking about this very early R OR R1 period yesterday and I have just started to dig into info on that period in the last 24 hours. How on earth could I have a model already. Have you read my last posts which actually are talking favourably about the southern LGM location. I have no idea how you could think I have some sort of preferred model. I havent read anywhere near enough yet. I was just one by one looking at locations to see what the archaeological, climatic etc situation was. I seriously thought we had got back to open minded and friendly discussion about all of this in the last few days and am pretty shocked to see some sort of set in stone model for R or R1 being attributed to me. I havent really looked at this extremely upstream period until 24 hours ago so I have no fixed ideas.

alan
07-22-2013, 12:27 AM
Here are some specific examples. This list is by no means exhaustive or declared to be self-evident in any way aside from providing the gist of the pattern we currently see in Eurasia.

Iran/West Asia
R*-M207 - Iran (Grugni et al.).
R1*-M73 - Iran (Grugni et al.).
R1a*-M420 - Turkey, Iran, UAE, Oman (Underhill et al.). Absent from South-Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent per the same paper.
R1a1*-SRY1532 - Iran (Grugni et al., Underhill et al.), also Armenia (Weale et al.).
R1b*-M343 - Iran (Grugni et al.), I believe Cinnioglu et al. from Turkey might also have one or two samples with this?

South-Central Asia
R*-M207 - Tajikistan and Pakistan (see here (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Rasterisk/default.aspx?section=yresults), but note their haplotypes are all somewhat similar)

R2*-M479 is an interesting one. This has been reported sporadically across West Eurasia from Myres et al.;



Portugal, Lisbon
Andalusia, Sevilla
Tatars (Bashkortostan, Russia)
Italy North
Ossetians South (South Caucasus)
Pakistan North


Some posters may invoke Sharma et al. on this topic, which reputedly found all manner of Y-DNA R parahaplogroups in India. There was some controversy over the results on DNA-Forums which I cannot remember exactly.



Precisely my point in the post you quoted; there isn't much sign of this "shuffle-out" phenomena if Western Europe and Iran/South-Central Asia are hypothetically recipients of a focal steppe Y-DNA R accumulative ground.

Just to be clear I am not pushing that idea. I just want to cover all angles. Small clades in areas with very colourful migration histories make it very hard to be certain about much. Having looked at the LGM period maps, considered the dates of R, R1 type paragroups etc, I can see a strong arguement for an origin in south-central Asia. What I did find looking into it is north central Asia to the west of Iran is very unlikley to have seen the R-R1 sequence due to it being desert and nearly devoid of traces of human settlement in the relevant period. That leaves south-central Asia to the south and the steppe area to the north as the only inhabited zones at the righ period that fall within the sort of longitudes that seem feasible. i have already looked at the Palaeolithic in the steppes, caucasus, north Iran etc. So, I plan on looking at the Upper Palaeolithic archaeology of the rest of Iran and south-central Asia. Ideally something will fit a move west from the P split area in the right timeframe for the rise of R, R1 etc.

Mikewww
07-22-2013, 03:12 AM
...
All of this implies that...
- Central Asia was the location from which the major division formed within Y-DNA R into two clades, R1-M173 and R2-M479.
- R1 then seemed to have differentiated somewhere a bit further west, likely Iran.
- The picture becomes murkier at this point, with the presence of R1a1* and R1b1* in different countries and not just Iran.
...
I therefore envision the dissemination of Y-DNA R took a path very similar to vineviz's chart, although I'd put "R1a" around Iran, "R" and "R2" close together in Central Asia and everything else pushed perhaps a bit more westerly....

I used to think some of Vince Vizachero's early ideas of R1 and R1b in Asia south, southwest of the Caspian Sea as hard to accept.

However, I've turned to thinking that the Iranian Plateau area may well have played an important role in this. The more you look at the data on the early branching of R1b the more you get redirected to SW and Central Asia. Developments in Iran during the timeframe become central, particularly if you look how R1 types seemed to have missed the large, initial Neolithic advances west from the Fertile Crescent.

Murky is a good descriptor for the situation, at least for R1b as we move into L389, P297, V88, etc.

Mikewww
07-22-2013, 03:19 AM
From what I can tell it seems Alan thinks there was an R1 (if not R) refuge in the Western steppe and that Slavs and Indo-Iranians are the ones who replaced R1b rich populations who moved west.

I'm not saying I agree with everything Alan says or that Alan is even on point on all of his posting, but I don't see why you are trying to guess Alan's position and characterize it without full knowledge. When I don't know what someone is thinking, I ask them directly. Please consider this approach. To do otherwise, is akin to what you said on another thread recently - You are, in your own words, "reading between the lines."

Why assume someone else's thoughts when you can ask them directly?

I apologize, because I'm off-topic, but I leave this just as a moderation reminder to try to stay away from assuming one and another's agendas. I can see how this goes. One person guesses at another's agenda and then the other comes back with questions about the first assumer's agenda. I just don't think we need to waste time with this when we can ask direct questions courteously.

Mikewww
07-22-2013, 03:56 AM
.... This is about your theory on R1 as a whole having a Ukrainian refuge....
getting R1* and earliest forms of R1a/R1b into the steppe and using population replacements as a reason why they are not found there anymore.
....
they somehow survived south of the steppe in Iran/South Central Asia alongside R* and R2*.

I am not sure who is hypothesizing that R1 survived the LGM in a Ukranian refugium, but as I noted in my response to DMXX, I absolutely agree with you that Iran/South Central Asia and maybe Central Asia were critical to the branching of early R. On the R1b side of things, however, by the time we reach L23+, that may not have been in Iran/South Central Asia. R1b-L23x51's history is quite murky, to say the least. It has strong appearances from the very southern tip of Italy up through the Balkans, Anatolia and the Caucasus.

I think it is legitimate to investigate early R1b-M269 and early R1b-L23 as possibly appearing in the Steppes. Maybe some have other opinions, but I don't think there is hard evidence that L23 was in the Pontic Steppes but it sure seems to end up on several sides of the Pontic (Black) Sea.

Mikewww
07-22-2013, 04:18 AM
Frankly, it doesn't make much sense basing our speculation of the entire R-M207 phylogeny on the neolithic era alone. Y-DNA R-M207 is thousands of years older than the neolithic. Nor does framing every discussion concerning Y-DNA R in an archaeological paradigm. Mirroring the user Jaska's comments online concerning the Indo-European languages, the matter of Y-DNA R's development over numerous millennia is a genetic problem first and foremost. Archaeological and linguistic data are merely supportive here.
....
If future studies show we've miraculously missed the presence of R parahaplogroups the genetic evidence will dictate the course of this discussion, rather than archaeological suppositions.

I agree that the Neolithic and later are not the only factors and should not be the only timeframes to be discussed. However, they appear to be of paramount importance. I think this is part of the issue that is sometimes hard to grasp that I sometimes try to make...

R-M207 did not necessarily have a significant impact anywhere.

I can't speak too much of the genetic evidence on R1a and R2, but what I'm hearing so far is that the major subclades of R1a are not old, not older than the Neolithic? Do I have that wrong? I've asked before what the TMRCA's are on the major R1a subclades but I probably missed the answer.

As far as R1b, I've got a better understanding of its major subclades. R1b, barely made it. According to Karafet's R1 TMRCA, R1b could be as old as 18.5k ybp. We have Hammer, who was a co-author in Kareft's study, saying after the study was published that R1b-M269 was from 4-8k ybp. However, that is a bit of a misnomer as L23 is younger and L23 is the dominant (frequency wise) player of R1b. It was during the L23 expansion that we start seeing something that was starting to impact populations enough to leave significant long lived remnants that we see today.

The TMRCA estimates on L23 don't make it a major player in the early Neolithic timeframe. The challenging issue to grasp is that all of L23 descended from a single man who may not have even been alive yet prior to the middle Neolithic or even later. It is true that by this time (the time of L23), it and its R1a and R2 second cousins may have created some distance between themselves.

There are remnants of non-L23 R1b and non-M269 R1b and they seem to point back to Central and South and Southwest Asia. Early R1a and R2 may have connections to this region as well.

L23's ancestors and its R1a and R2 second cousins have the same origin so it would not be unexpected for some of elements of each to be mixed together in some ancient cultures. Again, I don't know, as there was quite a distance in time from the R and R1 TMRCAs.

In terms of a multi-discipline approach, I ask why not? In the investigation of any problem we should seek to have as much data as we can get. Archeological, linguistic, climatic, geographical and linguistic data are important. I don't think you are saying to ignore those and since this is a genetic type forum these things should be couched (presented in context) in terms of genetic information. I agree with you there, but let us not diminish the importance of a multi-disciplined approach. I don't think you are, but I do want to clarify that genetics does not stand alone. Of course, archaelogy does not either. There were people involved in the ancient cultures. They built things, spoke languages and possessed genes.

Mikewww
07-22-2013, 04:42 AM
Maybe but these seem to have not been mixed imo. If the R1b-M73 community was in the North Caucasus or near it I some Z283+ (and Z280+) would have have likely moved with it into Central Asia and the Tarim. As far as I know there isn't much Z283+ or Z280+ in the Tarim or Central Asia (some does exist in Uzbekistan/Kazakhstan but that could be Russian admixture since M458+ was also found in Uzbekistan/Kazakhstan. It would also suggest some sort of bottleneck occurring on the area once encompassed by the BMAC). The Tajiks, Turkmens, and Uzbeks all live in a similar area but the Tajiks lack M73+ (while Uzbeks and Turkmen carry it) despite the fact that they were once spread between Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan (countries where the Turkic speakers do carry R1b-M73).

You suppose that R1b-M73 was in the North Caucasus or near I. What is the evidence that M73 was in the North Caucasus or near I and at what timeframe are you talking? If we suppose that is true, which is definitely possible, then are you asserting that populations across the North Caucasus were monolithic and uniform? I ask because you make the statement "some Z283+ (and Z280+) would have have likely moved with it (M73) into Central Asia and the Tarim."

I may be confused on what you are saying, but are you saying M73 was involved in Russian admixture introduced into Central Asia? If so, what is your evidence that M73 was part of a Russian admixture?

What are you implying about M73's lack of presence in the Tajiks? Are you proposing that the populations all across Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan were monolithic and of a constant genetic mix? I admit I may not understand what are saying so please explain.

DMXX
07-22-2013, 10:32 AM
In terms of a multi-discipline approach, I ask why not? In the investigation of any problem we should seek to have as much data as we can get. Archeological, linguistic, climatic, geographical and linguistic data are important. I don't think you are saying to ignore those and since this is a genetic type forum these things should be couched (presented in context) in terms of genetic information. I agree with you there, but let us not diminish the importance of a multi-disciplined approach. I don't think you are, but I do want to clarify that genetics does not stand alone. Of course, archaelogy does not either. There were people involved in the ancient cultures. They built things, spoke languages and possessed genes.

I hold the view that a multidisciplinary approach employed as of this time into the matter of Y-DNA R's development is ineffective for two reasons:

1) Parahaplogroups usually represent the minority "budding-out" from a root SNP. Due to their minority status and issues with SNP specificity over the years, the primary genetic evidence of parahaplogroups isn't there yet (hence my post to newtoboard being ridden with qualifiers). We don't have a good enough idea of what geographical scope confirmed and indisputable R*-M207, R1*-M73 etc. can be found across Asia. I only take the current data as an indication rather than an indisputable fact. Since that is currently the case with our primary data, why furnish any arguments with a multidisciplinary approach in the first place? Doing so would literally only serve as an exercise in cross-examining data.

2) In this instance, the timeframe to which the usual multidisciplinary approach in population genetics (linguistic, geographical, archaeological considerations) greatly reduces the effectiveness and point in adopting it. If R1a and R1b split over 13kya around the middle portion of Eurasia somewhere, such a date vastly supersedes any known linguistic phenomena (even then a converse relationship presumably exists between the extent of scientifically sound conjecture and wild speculation the further back one goes). On top of this, we cannot have much confidence in our current knowledge of middle Eurasian archaeology; it was only a decade ago one Russian archaeologist unearthed an entire city in Cental Asia that once belonged to the prehistoric BMAC. Geography is probably the only consideration to which there is some merit as of now.

When a particular branch can be isolated (i.e. R1a-M458, R1b-L21) then yes, a multidisciplinary approach must be taken in my view. But the same cannot be said for parahaplogroups.

Mikewww
07-22-2013, 12:48 PM
I hold the view that a multidisciplinary approach employed as of this time into the matter of Y-DNA R's development is ineffective for two reasons:

1) Parahaplogroups usually represent the minority "budding-out" from a root SNP. Due to their minority status and issues with SNP specificity over the years, the primary genetic evidence of parahaplogroups isn't there yet (hence my post to newtoboard being ridden with qualifiers). We don't have a good enough idea of what geographical scope confirmed and indisputable R*-M207, R1*-M73 etc. can be found across Asia. I only take the current data as an indication rather than an indisputable fact. Since that is currently the case with our primary data, why furnish any arguments with a multidisciplinary approach in the first place? Doing so would literally only serve as an exercise in cross-examining data.

2) In this instance, the timeframe to which the usual multidisciplinary approach in population genetics (linguistic, geographical, archaeological considerations) greatly reduces the effectiveness and point in adopting it. If R1a and R1b split over 13kya around the middle portion of Eurasia somewhere, such a date vastly supersedes any known linguistic phenomena (even then a converse relationship presumably exists between the extent of scientifically sound conjecture and wild speculation the further back one goes). On top of this, we cannot have much confidence in our current knowledge of middle Eurasian archaeology; it was only a decade ago one Russian archaeologist unearthed an entire city in Cental Asia that once belonged to the prehistoric BMAC. Geography is probably the only consideration to which there is some merit as of now.

When a particular branch can be isolated (i.e. R1a-M458, R1b-L21) then yes, a multidisciplinary approach must be taken in my view. But the same cannot be said for parahaplogroups.

I agree 100% that we have such little information on things like R* or R1* that we can't do much with it, if that's what you mean.

That's part of what I was trying to get at when I posted earlier,
R-M207 did not necessarily have a significant impact anywhere.
I meant that pre-R1b, pre-R1a and pre-R2, R may have barely existed. He may have waxed and waned, but there was clearly a bottleneck(s) that resulted in only three major descendant group. Furthermore, of the R1b, really only L23 was significant. By now we are talking about no earlier than the Neolithic so it is understandable to spend a lot of time on the Neolithic and Metal Ages.

I do agree that rummaging around during the Mesolithic and particularly before is not going to be very fruitful, at least on some fronts, like the linguistic discipline, although I think archaeology and climatology still have something to offer in that timeframe. In some regards, I may be more optimistic than you in terms of using a multi-disciplinary approach. That's okay, but my own attitude is to push envelope so we know where we fall flat. BTW, I could never find Jaska's comments that you referred too. I faintly remember them, but if it is what I remember, I didn't necessarily agree.

Let me clarify the intentions of this particular thread. I did not intend to restrict it or relegate it to "ancient" populations only in terms of the first R1a men, the first R1b men, and the R*, R1* and R2 present at the time. By "ancient" I just meant anything before the modern exploration/global migration period (just think pre-Columbus/Magellan). However, I can see that even in a discussion of whether some form of R1b and some form R1a were together during the Viking migration period or if some forms of R1b and some R1a were together in the formation of the Armenians or Greeks, we'd also still want to understand who might have been British Empire migrants so as just to subtract them, even though I discourage focusing on the British Empire period since it is post the start of the modern exploration period.

Sorry for the confusion on my lack of definition of ancient. I'll retitle the thread so as not to restrict it.

alan
07-22-2013, 12:49 PM
I used to think some of Vince Vizachero's early ideas of R1 and R1b in Asia south, southwest of the Caspian Sea as hard to accept.

However, I've turned to thinking that the Iranian Plateau area may well have played an important role in this. The more you look at the data on the early branching of R1b the more you get redirected to SW and Central Asia. Developments in Iran during the timeframe become central, particularly if you look how R1 types seemed to have missed the large, initial Neolithic advances west from the Fertile Crescent.

Murky is a good descriptor for the situation, at least for R1b as we move into L389, P297, V88, etc.

I actually agree that Iran keeps cropping up in terms of very early R, R1a and R1b subclades. It does seem to me that on the DNA evidence it stands out, particularly in terms of the clades above P297 in terms of R1b. It definately is in the frame as the location of the R1-R1B/R1a early sequence and if it was not there it was somewhere close. It had a reasobably climate during the LGM too which cannot be said for the north-central Asia countries which were desert at the time. So, it is reasonabe to assume that the R*-R1/R2 sequence most likeley took place close to Iran or certainly on that sort of latitude. That apparently unsettled in the late upper palaelolithic desert streched from the Caspian through the north central Asian countries to China in the period of that sequence and provided a barrier between south central Asia and the difficult but settled steppe tundra areas to the north settled by late Gravettian and epigravettain peoples.

I seem to be under fire from some about bringing in climate and archaeology to narrow down the options but it would be plain stupid not to take into account climate and environment in particular when it clearly simpliefies the options in this early period.

If the most intuitive conclusion that the R*-R1 sequence took place in Iran and south central Asia C. 2000-16500BC is accepted then it does mean that all of R1 entered the steppe after this. As I have posted there was also the sea cascades in the period 15000-1000BC as things slowly warmed up to condend with which would have been a major boundary to both south-north movement from SW Asia and east-west movemement from east of the Caspian. This amazing period seems to be confirmed by archaeology which shows it limited settlement immediately around the south Caspian in the upper palaeolithic which was probably a combination of drowning of land, and the mountainous nature. It does strike me that the drowning of land might have removed or buried in sediment any pre-15000 upper Palaeolithic settlement remains in the south Caspian area, particularly if they were shoreline dwellers, something which the reports I have read oddly seem to overlook. On the other hand we might expect remains of the 15000-10000BC period to be found at the now-dryland shoreline areas. I am not clued into the naunces of the geography though. The Caspian shore is of course only the northern fringe of Iran anyway and there is a whole lot of Iran where people could have lived in the LGM.

The main question this leaves if R1 arose in Iran somewhere is how and when did it get north of this area. In general if we are talking about R1 arising around 16500BC somewhere like Iran and we take into account LGM conditions, the wide desert though north central Asia and the slightly later Black to Azov sea cascade barrier 15000-10000BC then that leaves us with the MAIN options of A post-10000BC or pre-15000BC move. Its unlikely that a move north would have been made in the teeth of the worst of the LGM as settlement badly declines in this period in the Ukraine and I have read that the epipalaeolithic groups of the Ukraine are seen as continuations of those Gravettain ones that had been there since times before R1 is thought to have even existed.


Indeed according to Karafet R1 didnt even exist in much of the LGM and certainly not in the worst of it. The date for R1 is interesting though as it corresponds rougly with the ammelioration that led to melting which incidentally caused the sea cascade. Its existence and establishing of a lineage could relate to this improvement in conditions. That of course tells us nothing about location as conditions improved across the world.

Anyway, given the age of R1, climatic/eenvironmental conditions, sea cascade barriers etc I can see only a few options

1. Early R1a and/or R1b hunters slipped up the west coast of the Caspian in a relativley narrow window of opportunity between the comming into existence of those haplogroups, the improvement of the LGM conditions enough to make it likely and the development of the sea cascade barrier. That would be around 16000-15000BC give or take a little. Problem with this is lack of evidence of much in the way of very early haplotypes in the relevant area.

2. R1 and therefore early R1a and/or R1b remained somewhere like Iran until after 10000BC and did not move into the steppes until after that. Perhaps epipalaeolithic R1a and/or R1b hunters moved around the shores after 10000BC after the end of the sea cascade and made it to the steppe area. The epipalaeolithic culture of the south Caspian was so similar that it would be hard to spot. Again, the lack of clades of that era doesnt help.

3. R1a and R1b did not expand into the steppes until the Neolithic either linked to early possible moves into the Azov area from east Anatolia c. 7000BC identified by some archaeologists or later via the Caucasus when farming and indeed copper working reached northern and plateau Iran c. 5000BC. May fit the clade pattern best. However, evidence for this being the source of so much impact on the steppe groups is light to put it politely.

Silesian
07-22-2013, 01:40 PM
I actually agree that Iran keeps cropping up in terms of very early R, R1a and R1b subclades. It does seem to me that on the DNA evidence it stands out, particularly in terms of the clades above P297 in terms of R1b. It definately is in the frame as the location of the R1-R1B/R1a early sequence and if it was not there it was somewhere close. It had a reasobably climate during the LGM too which cannot be said for the north-central Asia countries which were desert at the time. So, it is reasonabe to assume that the R*-R1/R2 sequence most likeley took place close to Iran or certainly on that sort of latitude. That apparently unsettled in the late upper palaelolithic desert streched from the Caspian through the north central Asian countries to China in the period of that sequence and provided a barrier between south central Asia and the difficult but settled steppe tundra areas to the north settled by late Gravettian and epigravettain peoples.

I seem to be under fire from some about bringing in climate and archaeology to narrow down the options but it would be plain stupid not to take into account climate and environment in particular when it clearly simpliefies the options in this early period.

If the most intuitive conclusion that the R*-R1 sequence took place in Iran and south central Asia C. 2000-16500BC is accepted then it does mean that all of R1 entered the steppe after this. As I have posted there was also the sea cascades in the period 15000-1000BC as things slowly warmed up to condend with which would have been a major boundary to both south-north movement from SW Asia and east-west movemement from east of the Caspian. This amazing period seems to be confirmed by archaeology which shows it limited settlement immediately around the south Caspian in the upper palaeolithic which was probably a combination of drowning of land, and the mountainous nature. It does strike me that the drowning of land might have removed or buried in sediment any pre-15000 upper Palaeolithic settlement remains in the south Caspian area, particularly if they were shoreline dwellers, something which the reports I have read oddly seem to overlook. On the other hand we might expect remains of the 15000-10000BC period to be found at the now-dryland shoreline areas. I am not clued into the naunces of the geography though. The Caspian shore is of course only the northern fringe of Iran anyway and there is a whole lot of Iran where people could have lived in the LGM.

The main question this leaves if R1 arose in Iran somewhere is how and when did it get north of this area. In general if we are talking about R1 arising around 16500BC somewhere like Iran and we take into account LGM conditions, the wide desert though north central Asia and the slightly later Black to Azov sea cascade barrier 15000-10000BC then that leaves us with the MAIN options of A post-10000BC or pre-15000BC move. Its unlikely that a move north would have been made in the teeth of the worst of the LGM as settlement badly declines in this period in the Ukraine and I have read that the epipalaeolithic groups of the Ukraine are seen as continuations of those Gravettain ones that had been there since times before R1 is thought to have even existed.


Indeed according to Karafet R1 didnt even exist in much of the LGM and certainly not in the worst of it. The date for R1 is interesting though as it corresponds rougly with the ammelioration that led to melting which incidentally caused the sea cascade. Its existence and establishing of a lineage could relate to this improvement in conditions. That of course tells us nothing about location as conditions improved across the world.

Anyway, given the age of R1, climatic/eenvironmental conditions, sea cascade barriers etc I can see only a few options

1. Early R1a and/or R1b hunters slipped up the west coast of the Caspian in a relativley narrow window of opportunity between the comming into existence of those haplogroups, the improvement of the LGM conditions enough to make it likely and the development of the sea cascade barrier. That would be around 16000-15000BC give or take a little.

2. R1 and therefore early R1a and/or R1b remained somewhere like Iran until after 10000BC and did not move into the steppes until after that. Perhaps epipalaeolithic R1a and/or R1b hunters moved around the shores after 10000BC after the end of the sea cascade and made it to the steppe area. The epipalaeolithic culture of the south Caspian was so similar that it would be hard to spot.

3. R1a and R1b did not expand into the steppes until the Neolithic either linked to early possible moves into the Azov area from east Anatolia c. 7000BC identified by some archaeologists or later via the Caucasus when farming and indeed copper working reached northern and plateau Iran c. 5000BC.

Taking into account most of the Native American are ydna Q:
The time range of 40,000—16,500 years ago is a hot topic of debate and will be for years to come. The few agreements achieved to date are the origin from Central Asia, with widespread habitation of the Americas during the end of the last glacial period, or more specifically what is known as the late glacial maximum, around 16,000 — 13,000 years before present.[40][47]

Where and when did QR split from P and where and when would that place Q and R-R1 split, Southwest Asia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iranian Plateau? What time frame are we looking at with respect to Q-R to being in Southwest Asia?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Spreading_homo_sapiens.svg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Haplogroup_Q_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG

AJL
07-22-2013, 03:24 PM
Where and when did QR split from P and where and when would that place Q and R-R1 split, Southwest Asia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iranian Plateau? What time frame are we looking at with respect to Q-R to being in Southwest Asia?

While these are good questions it's worth noting that in the strictest sense it is wrong to talk of Q and R "splitting" from P. They rather both descended from P and diverged from each other (the ancestral state of P) by preserving new mutations, in the same way early hominins diverged from the ancestors of chimps. It's a very small thing and I think you know this already, but this term could confuse others.

The other factor in this phrasing is that Q and R need not have arisen at the same time nor in exactly the same place, though they should have been reasonably close to each other.

I am not sure that there is a better way to phrase things to avoid this confusion, but I'm just putting this out there so others don't get the wrong impression.

Silesian
07-22-2013, 03:36 PM
While these are good questions it's worth noting that in the strictest sense it is wrong to talk of Q and R "splitting" from P. They rather both descended from P and diverged from each other (the ancestral state of P) by preserving new mutations, in the same way early hominins diverged from the ancestors of chimps. It's a very small thing and I think you know this already, but this term could confuse others.

The other factor in this phrasing is that Q and R need not have arisen at the same time nor in exactly the same place, though they should have been reasonably close to each other.

I am not sure that there is a better way to phrase things to avoid this confusion, but I'm just putting this out there so others don't get the wrong impression.

Yes more specific what geographic location and time frame can this cluster of snps be found ?
P 92R7_1, 92R7_2, L138, L268, L405, L471/PF5989,
L536/PF5860, L721/PF6020, L741,
L768/PF5976/YSC0000274, L779/PF5907/YSC0000251,
L781/PF5875/YSC0000255, M45/PF5962, M74/N12,
P27.1_1/P207, P27.1_2, P69, P226/PF5879, P228/PF5927,
P230/PF5925, P235/PF5946, P237/PF5873, P239,
P240/PF5897, P243/PF5874, P244, P281/PF5941,
P282/PF5932, P283/PF5966, P284, P295/PF5866/S8,
Page83, V231
Q M242
R M207/Page37/PF6038/UTY2, P224, P227, P229/PF6019,
P232, P280/PF6068, P285/PF6059, S4, S9
S M230,P202, P204
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNATreeTrunk.html

alan
07-22-2013, 03:55 PM
Taking into account most of the Native American are ydna Q:
The time range of 40,000—16,500 years ago is a hot topic of debate and will be for years to come. The few agreements achieved to date are the origin from Central Asia, with widespread habitation of the Americas during the end of the last glacial period, or more specifically what is known as the late glacial maximum, around 16,000 — 13,000 years before present.[40][47]

Where and when did QR split from P and where and when would that place Q and R-R1 split, Southwest Asia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iranian Plateau? What time frame are we looking at with respect to Q-R to being in Southwest Asia?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Spreading_homo_sapiens.svg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Haplogroup_Q_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG

what sort of date is put on P or the splits after?

I found this

Y-DNA haplogroup P, an offshoot of Haplogroup K(xLT), originated in Central Asia some 35,000 years ago; sites in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and southern Siberia have been offered as the likely point of first appearance. Haplogroup P is best represented by its two immediate subclades, haplogroups Q and R, which expanded to become the dominant haplogroups in, respectively, the Americas and Europe.

It of course is a descendant of IJK which is basically back about 40000 years ago and is the node from which much of Eurasia is descended and is close back to the very begining of modern human settlement. It seems to me that one of the major parting of the ways looks like when this led to the K branch and the IJ branch. The latter is dated about 30-45000 years ago too on souces I have read. I apparently took the Anatolia route in Europe. However, the date for I of about 20-30 thousand years ago is too young to fit into the initial Aurignacian settlers of Europe making me wonder how that can fit with the dates of 40000 years ago known from archaeology. Would fit better something secondary like Gravettian. Funny enough I have read a suggestion that the Gravettian techology may have begun in Anatolia or the Levant where the forms are much earlier c. 40000BC.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpaleo.revues.org%2Fpdf%2F607&ei=LVntUZ3gCoj40gWh7oGADg&usg=AFQjCNGP25xlnd0xRrKWAg9l407pEmanxQ&sig2=yoqtfmjQSbvO7tAJ2LBdiw

MNOPS apparently headed east mainly and is dated to 35-45000 years ago on some sites. This ultimately gave rise to P which I have seen dated to around a very vague dating of 27-41000 years ago and then R and Q on one branches which are usually dated about half that age and other big Eurasian ones like N.

I have to say that the map and dates of the human y chromosome on wiki do not throw any light on the evidence of the first modern humans in Europe from Russia to the west 40000 years ago.
Or certainly the dates would put none of the big players of temperate Eurasia on the scene. Interestingly if the gravettian in Europe was associated with the I split from IJ moving into Europe from Anatolia 30000 years ago this tends to throw us back to the MNOPS branch and its downstreams as the only one that could have been involved in the initial proto-Aurignacian groups in Europe c. 40000 years ago although the main branches are too young. The best guess at the origin of the proto-Aurigancian of Europe is in the Ahmarian groups of the middle east. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16040.full

I havent read this yet but the title suggests it would be a useful read for getting more detail on these periods outside Europe.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qE4Rap1OlNEC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=ahmarian+culture&source=bl&ots=b4U839JiSo&sig=UiMejzCq-dXCs0nzRBlUoVwSYOY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q2vtUcqtNY2r0gWW4YGgDg&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=ahmarian%20culture&f=false

Mikewww
07-22-2013, 04:14 PM
Taking into account most of the Native American are ydna Q:
The time range of 40,00016,500 years ago is a hot topic of debate and will be for years to come. The few agreements achieved to date are the origin from Central Asia, with widespread habitation of the Americas during the end of the last glacial period, or more specifically what is known as the late glacial maximum, around 16,000 13,000 years before present.[40][47]

Where and when did QR split from P and where and when would that place Q and R-R1 split, Southwest Asia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iranian Plateau? What time frame are we looking at with respect to Q-R to being in Southwest Asia?

To add a little more background data, here are the TMRCA estimates for P, R and R1 from "New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree" by Karafet et al., 2008.

P 34.0k ybp
R 26.8k ybp
R1 18.5k ybp

They did not list Q, but Q can't be older than the P TMRCA. In comparison, here are some of the other branches.

I 22.2k ybp
IJ 38.5k ybp
E 52.5k ybp
E1b1 47.5k ybp
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Karafet-et-all-GR508.pdf

I like to use these estimates because this was a scientific attempt to count SNPs to do aging, rather than using STR diversity methods.

Silesian
07-22-2013, 04:26 PM
what sort of date is put on P or the splits after?

I found this

Y-DNA haplogroup P, an offshoot of Haplogroup K(xLT), originated in Central Asia some 35,000 years ago; sites in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and southern Siberia have been offered as the likely point of first appearance. Haplogroup P is best represented by its two immediate subclades, haplogroups Q and R, which expanded to become the dominant haplogroups in, respectively, the Americas and Europe.

It of course is a descendant of IJK which is basically back about 40000 years ago and is the node from which much of Eurasia is descended and is close back to the very begining of modern human settlement. It seems to me that one of the major parting of the ways looks like when this led to the K branch and the IJ branch. The latter is dated about 30-45000 years ago too on souces I have read. I apparently took the Anatolia route in Europe. However, the date for I of about 20-30 thousand years ago is too young to fit into the initial settlers of Europe making me wonder how that can fit with the dates of 40000 years ago known from archaeology. Would fit better something secondary. MNOPS or Kapparently headed east mainly.

So a conservative estimate @35 per generation is 1000+/- generations. In this time frame North America was colonized by Q, R2 split, R1b and R1a split and V88 back migrated into Africa? While other branches of R1b and R1a went into Eastern/ Western Europe? This all happened from South West Asia, or the Iranian plateau, as the possible starting point of P 92R7_1, 92R7_2, L138, L268, L405, L471/PF5989?

Or Central Asia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Central_Asia_%28orthographic_projection%29.sv g

newtoboard
07-22-2013, 05:33 PM
I don't like the use of climate as an argument for R/R1's origins because it should be a complement to the genetic data not be more important than it. If these parahaplogroups were found in

1. the stepppe
2. areas adjacent to the steeppe (Balkans, Caucasus, North Central Asia, Central Europe, Siberia)
3. areas which recieved the earliest migrations from the steppe (Afanasevo, the Tarim, Western Europe)

then using climate as a factor to narrow down where R/R1 originated is fine. But these don't exist there. So using climate is way to justify why they originated in the steppe but only exist in West Asia and South Central Asia reeks makes no sense. If these parahaplogroups show up in those area with more testing then I'd be more than willing to consider the presence of R1 in the steppe.

alan
07-22-2013, 07:41 PM
I don't like the use of climate as an argument for R/R1's origins because it should be a complement to the genetic data not be more important than it. If these parahaplogroups were found in

1. the stepppe
2. areas adjacent to the steeppe (Balkans, Caucasus, North Central Asia, Central Europe, Siberia)
3. areas which recieved the earliest migrations from the steppe (Afanasevo, the Tarim, Western Europe)

then using climate as a factor to narrow down where R/R1 originated is fine. But these don't exist there. So using climate is way to justify why they originated in the steppe but only exist in West Asia and South Central Asia reeks makes no sense. If these parahaplogroups show up in those area with more testing then I'd be more than willing to consider the presence of R1 in the steppe.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to do. I agree that its very unlikely the early groups like R, R1 and even very early R1a and R1b originated in the steppes but I just wanted to run through the environmental, climate and archaeological considerations before making my own mind up and to try and box in the possibilities. I was really seeking to work out the options and factors in terms of how R1 led to R1a and R1b.

When do you reckon R1a got into the steppes given the paragroups are generally to the south? If we solely look at the R1 dna clades then there is essentially almost no R1 pre-dating 5000BC and if you take away M73 then that is more like 4000BC or 3500BC. If DNA was taken in isolation without looking at other evidence we would be looking at a copper age entry of R1a and/or b to the steppe from somewhere like Iran.

parasar
07-22-2013, 07:43 PM
I agree that the Neolithic and later are not the only factors and should not be the only timeframes to be discussed. However, they appear to be of paramount importance. I think this is part of the issue that is sometimes hard to grasp that I sometimes try to make...

R-M207 did not necessarily have a significant impact anywhere.

I can't speak too much of the genetic evidence on R1a and R2, but what I'm hearing so far is that the major subclades of R1a are not old, not older than the Neolithic? Do I have that wrong? I've asked before what the TMRCA's are on the major R1a subclades but I probably missed the answer.

...

Tamils
R1b - absent
R-M124 - 8.21%
R-M17 12.74%
R-M207 2.02% (possibly M479 which was not tested)
P-M45 (xM207, xM242) 0.36%
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0050269.s005

Maldives
K(xL,M,NO,P,S,T)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/ajpa.22256/asset/supinfo/ajpa22256-sup-0010-suppinfo6.xlsx?v=1&931292c1

alan
07-22-2013, 07:46 PM
what sort of date is put on P or the splits after?

I found this

Y-DNA haplogroup P, an offshoot of Haplogroup K(xLT), originated in Central Asia some 35,000 years ago; sites in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and southern Siberia have been offered as the likely point of first appearance. Haplogroup P is best represented by its two immediate subclades, haplogroups Q and R, which expanded to become the dominant haplogroups in, respectively, the Americas and Europe.

It of course is a descendant of IJK which is basically back about 40000 years ago and is the node from which much of Eurasia is descended and is close back to the very begining of modern human settlement. It seems to me that one of the major parting of the ways looks like when this led to the K branch and the IJ branch. The latter is dated about 30-45000 years ago too on souces I have read. I apparently took the Anatolia route in Europe. However, the date for I of about 20-30 thousand years ago is too young to fit into the initial Aurignacian settlers of Europe making me wonder how that can fit with the dates of 40000 years ago known from archaeology. Would fit better something secondary like Gravettian. Funny enough I have read a suggestion that the Gravettian techology may have begun in Anatolia or the Levant where the forms are much earlier c. 40000BC.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpaleo.revues.org%2Fpdf%2F607&ei=LVntUZ3gCoj40gWh7oGADg&usg=AFQjCNGP25xlnd0xRrKWAg9l407pEmanxQ&sig2=yoqtfmjQSbvO7tAJ2LBdiw

MNOPS apparently headed east mainly and is dated to 35-45000 years ago on some sites. This ultimately gave rise to P which I have seen dated to around a very vague dating of 27-41000 years ago and then R and Q on one branches which are usually dated about half that age and other big Eurasian ones like N.

I have to say that the map and dates of the human y chromosome on wiki do not throw any light on the evidence of the first modern humans in Europe from Russia to the west 40000 years ago.
Or certainly the dates would put none of the big players of temperate Eurasia on the scene. Interestingly if the gravettian in Europe was associated with the I split from IJ moving into Europe from Anatolia 30000 years ago this tends to throw us back to the MNOPS branch and its downstreams as the only one that could have been involved in the initial proto-Aurignacian groups in Europe c. 40000 years ago although the main branches are too young. The best guess at the origin of the proto-Aurigancian of Europe is in the Ahmarian groups of the middle east. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16040.full

I havent read this yet but the title suggests it would be a useful read for getting more detail on these periods outside Europe.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qE4Rap1OlNEC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=ahmarian+culture&source=bl&ots=b4U839JiSo&sig=UiMejzCq-dXCs0nzRBlUoVwSYOY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q2vtUcqtNY2r0gWW4YGgDg&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=ahmarian%20culture&f=false

Actually even that book is Eurocentric. I need to dig about a bit more.

For those interested in Iran in the upper Palaeolithic, this looks like a bit of a gold mine of papers

https://sites.google.com/site/fbiglari/publication

The first one doesnt link but I found it on the web

http://www.irancaves.com/download/Biglari_1391_Development_Paleolithic_Archaeology_I ran.pdf

Most is not in English but has a useful biog

This one is very recent and about north Iran

http://www.academia.edu/1583906/Biglari_F._and_V._Jahani_2011_The_Pleistocene_Huma n_Settlement_in_Gilan_Southwest_Caspian_Sea_Recent _Research_Eurasian_Prehistory_8_1-2_3-28

The conclusion of the latter reiterates what I have previously read about northern Iran not having confirmed upper palaeolithic material until the epipalaeolithic

Compared with the Lower and Middle Paleo-lithic records, the Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleo-lithic periods are relatively well represented in Gilan. The known sites are mainly con centrated atAmarlou and Rudbar regions at altitude between about 800–1200 m a.s.l. (Fig. 1; Table 1). Whilesome of these sites have produced typologicallycharacteristic artifacts such as small end-scrapers and truncated elements that could be assigned to Epipaleolithic, none of the known sites providedartifacts attributable to Upper Paleolithic with any cer tainty. This is also the case at the eastern andcentral part of the Alborz Mountains where thelarge number of sites fall within the Epipaleolithicperiod, with only one exception, the open-air site of Garm Roud 2 that produced a rich bladelet in-dustry associated with faunal remains that are dated to the end of the OIS 3. (Berillon

et al.

,2007, 2009).

alan
07-23-2013, 09:26 AM
JJJJJJJJJJJJ

alan
07-23-2013, 11:04 AM
Having read more into it I have had a massive change of opinion on this. A bit of a Eureka moment. Any remains of shore dwellers would be very subject to waxing and waning of the Caspian which clearly happened as temperatures varied. I have already posted about the extreme period of the sea cascade when it expanded massively in some directions but the opposite - shrinking-would have a particularly bad affect on the archaeological record as subsequent expansion would bury archaeological remains.

If you look at fig 14 on page 13 of this excellent paper on the Caspian

www.benthamscience.com/open/togeogj/articles/V002/1TOGEOGJ.pdf

it can be seen that the coldest period of the LGM shrank the Caspian hugely to it Atelian state which was much smaller than today - this is dated to 25-18 thousand years ago in this paper and the shores of that period are under the present Caspian. This was followed by a massive Khvalynian expansion where it was massively larger than today and linked to the Black and Aral Seas. This would mean that most of the shore before 18 thousand years ago is lost and under the Capsian.

The absolutely incredible termporary expansion of the Caspian in the Khvalynian transgression perhaps in the period somewhere 15000-10000BC must have had a dramtic effect on shore dwellers whose earlier remains would be deep under the modern Caspian. As well as the older sites being under the present sea, their earlier likely retreat lines, moving with shore, are also under the present sea and in their later lines of retreat on what is now dry land would surely be under deep deposits laid down by the Khvalynian transgression. That to me seems the very likely reason why we only find settlement from after this phase c. 10000BC in north Iran but it is probably an illusion. It would be very very odd if the south Caspian hadnt been well settled before this and it seems likely that the remains are now under the sea or under deep marine deposits now on dry land. So, it may be fair to see the Epipalaeolithic remains that suddenly appear around 10000BC in north Iran as potentiallly people whose ancestors had once lived along the much smaller LGM Caspain shores.

It is possible that R1 groups could have been present in the much smaller Caspian shores of the LGM period and on the surface anyway the environment at its south end would look to have been attractive. The enormous change from the hugely reduced Atelian Caspian to the hugely expanded Khvalynian Sea would have been a major dispersion phase for shore peoples around, all but the final stages c. 10000BC of which will never be archaeologically recovered.

Interestingly, the least impact these spectacular shrinking, expansion and contraction to present levels has had is the north shore although it doesnt take much sea level rise to lose the ancient shoreline. The least change over time seems to be east Gilan and west Mazandaran provences of Iran. That would possibly make it the best bet as an area where south Caspian settlement of the LGM period might not now be under water. That said, even that area probably lose a few miles of coast and even that would be bad from the point of view of archaeological recovery of LGM period remains if they were coast huggers

Obviously, short of miracles most of the idea of a major population displacement from around the little Caspian of the LGM period at some point between 15000-10000BC when it expanded to a size massively bigger than today's sea will never be archaeologically attested. All we will see is the end game of this around 10000BC when populations would have been along the Khvalynian Sea shores. All the rest of the story would be flooded or buried by sea deposits now on dry land. However, it seems reasonable to assume that the Caspian sea, even in its much reduced LGM size would have been very attractive to people and this could have been a very important event in terms of dispersal of peoples.

The dispersal could have been multi-directional pushing people towards the shores of the Khvalynian Sea. It would also have caused much wider separation of the peoples who had lived round the much smaller LGM Atelian Caspian and had previously has a much shorter journey to move around the shores and mingle. At the height of the Khvalynian transgression people would might have previously been in contact would have been separated by enormous distances and north-south and west-east movement would have become impossible. This simply has to have been a very significant phase in the development of yDNA patterns although of course we have no idea who they were at present.

Obviously it COULD have effected R1 or very early R1a and b. It is a possible period when the differences is patterning of geography of these lines could have started. It actually would make a tremendous amount of sense and broadly dates correctly if we see R1 as being on the shrunken Caspian shores around the time of its appearance c. 16500BC and then dispering 15000-10000BC during with the Khvalynian massive expansion of the sea. That could have been multidirectional and pushed people who wished to stay on a shoreline environment into the new shores which are now present dry land around north Iran, the eastern part of the western steppe, the east Caucasus and central Asia with separation of these groups by a massive water barrier. Who knows that could have been the start of extremely deep language splits too.

While it is clearly of interest then to consider changes indicative of new peoples around the former Khvalynian Sea shorelines and look for a pattern, it also has to be remembered that that shore was the end game of perhaps thousands of years of expansion and separation of the peoples and also drove them into contrasting environments in Russian, Iran, the east Caucasus and central Asia. So by the time we can see these peoples epipalaeolithic archaeological remains around 10000bc they could have already become somewhat culturally divergent and may not look like a group of an obviously similar origin. On the other hand they might. I need to dig into this more but the entire maximum extent of that shoreline covers many countries. My prelimary observations are that this timing does fit the appearance of epipalaeolithic industries in areas not previously favoured, presumably becausee previously they were not near the shores and/or in upland area. It certainly rings bells about the timing of appearance of epipalaeolithic peoples in previously apparently non-settled areas like the east Caucasus, north Iran, north central Asia etc. In terms of the lattter, the shore of the Khvalynian may have been the only major attraction to hunters in what was a desert area. In other areas like the steppe there were hunters there long before that although they were much reduced in the LGM.

newtoboard
07-23-2013, 11:42 AM
I think Central Asia could be important to the picture of early R/R1. Unfortunately so little is known about Pre IE Central Asia.

1. What did the pre IE Hunter-Gatherers (Botai culture?) of the Central Asian steppe carry?
2. What did the Paleolithic/Mesolithic people in South Central Asia carry?
3. What about the Neolithic people (Keltiminar/Jeitun/Hissar cultures and BMAC?)?

alan
07-23-2013, 11:47 AM
I think Central Asia could be important to the picture of early R/R1. Unfortunately so little is known about Pre IE Central Asia.

1. What did the pre IE Hunter-Gatherers (Botai culture?) of the Central Asian steppe carry?
2. What about the Paleolithic/Mesolithic (Keltiminar/Jeitun/Hissar cultures?) people in the South Central Asia?
3. What about the Neolithic people (BMAC?)?

I have just had a bit of a eureka. See final edit of post directly above. I think this would make a lot of sense.

It is crucial to look at the map I cite a the beginning. You can even see from that map that shore dwellers of the little LGM Caspian around 16000BC would have been driven into separate areas that would have included water barriers that would involve an epic shore treck to move around. It looks that at its maximum groups would have been separated into groups in the north Caucasus spit by a Black-Caspian sea link, a group on the shores of Iran , a group in the extreme west of central Asia, a group in the western steppe etc. While it was not impossible to follow the shores to connect, the distances involved became vast compared to what they had been in the LGM. That must have had an echo in terms of dna and language development although its not clear what that was. Its timing make it an excellent scenario for the split within R1 if it was based on the Caspian shores and the commencing of its geographical patterning. It would also keep the displaced areas of the R1 groups within a zone where farming arrived late from 5000BC onwards, something that seems to be reflected in the very late phase when strong take offs of R1a and R1b happened. The timing could have involved R1 and early R1a and R1b groups which may have split broadly geographically but also may have been split internally in terms of early clades.

The subsequent shrinking back of the Caspian to its present size would have drawn the populations back to the present shores but by then the different lineages may have established a geographical pattern and the peoples diversified to fit the ecology of whatever side of the Caspian shore they were on. That of course varied from steppe to the north, uplands shores to the west and south and deserts to the east. It should also be remembered that as the sea retreated to its present shores the land left behind would have been changed by deposition of marine deposits. That would have affected most the areas where the difference between the maximum shores and the present ones are greatest, in the north especially. I am not sure what the long term effect of this would have been on settlement but it may have been temporarily a very unpleasant environment of slobland between the maximum and present shores. I am not sure how much that would have put off people from retreating with the shore as it moved towards its historic shoreline. The effect in north Iran, the Caucasus and some parts of the eastern shores was relatively little due to topography meaning there was not that much of a change in shoreline. In those areas displacement by the changing Caspian may have been minor, especially compared to the north and parts of the east side of the Caspian where displacement and marine deposit deposition would haev been on a massive scale.

MJost
07-23-2013, 01:19 PM
Influence on the early man[edit]

Marine basins and spillways of the event influenced on Early Man migrations. P.M. Dolukhanov from School of Historical Studies, Newcastle University, UK concluded that Caspian-Black Sea spillway across the Kumo-Manych Valley, effectively isolated the Caucasian-Central-Asian area. The spread of Upper Palaeolithic technology in that area became possible only after the maximum of the Upper Khvalynian transgression, 12.5-12 ka BP.[17][18] Later was confirmed this conclusion. In Kamennaya Balka [19][20] Late Paleolithic site in Russia within 3 cultural layers lower one and upper one contain microlitique tools of Near-East origin.[21] This indicates cultural connections from southern regions (Caucasus, Iraq). But middle culture layer represents by autochthon Kamennaya Balka culture without microlites. Its age (17-15 ka BP) coincides with Manych-Kerch spillway activity and seams to be a barrier for culture connections with Near East this time.[22] Events of Epoch of Extremal Inundations in general strongly effected on ancient people, but not in sense of destroying of civilizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_of_Extremal_Inundations

Arslanov KA, Dolukhanov PM, Gei NA. Littoral 50,000 - 9,000 BP. Quaternary International 2007; 167

Here is a series of papers contained in 'The East European Plain on the Eve of Agriculture'

http://www.mas.ncl.ac.uk/~nas13/BAR/2009BAR_Int_Ser1964_Dolukhanov_etal.pdf

MJost

alan
07-23-2013, 03:36 PM
Influence on the early man[edit]

Marine basins and spillways of the event influenced on Early Man migrations. P.M. Dolukhanov from School of Historical Studies, Newcastle University, UK concluded that Caspian-Black Sea spillway across the Kumo-Manych Valley, effectively isolated the Caucasian-Central-Asian area. The spread of Upper Palaeolithic technology in that area became possible only after the maximum of the Upper Khvalynian transgression, 12.5-12 ka BP.[17][18] Later was confirmed this conclusion. In Kamennaya Balka [19][20] Late Paleolithic site in Russia within 3 cultural layers lower one and upper one contain microlitique tools of Near-East origin.[21] This indicates cultural connections from southern regions (Caucasus, Iraq). But middle culture layer represents by autochthon Kamennaya Balka culture without microlites. Its age (17-15 ka BP) coincides with Manych-Kerch spillway activity and seams to be a barrier for culture connections with Near East this time.[22] Events of Epoch of Extremal Inundations in general strongly effected on ancient people, but not in sense of destroying of civilizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_of_Extremal_Inundations

Arslanov KA, Dolukhanov PM, Gei NA. Littoral 50,000 - 9,000 BP. Quaternary International 2007; 167

Here is a series of papers contained in 'The East European Plain on the Eve of Agriculture'

http://www.mas.ncl.ac.uk/~nas13/BAR/2009BAR_Int_Ser1964_Dolukhanov_etal.pdf

MJost

Cheers, I will take a look at those links. I have read another paper that states the same about the isolation of the Caucasus and central asia until 10000BC for upper palaeolithic settlement. However, having looked over it, it is not easy to entirely understand this. I understand the concept of the expansion of the Caspian and the linking of the Black, Caspian and Aral sees as a massive temporary barrier to north south movement accross its entire length once it formed. However, I dont see how that would have created a total isolation of the south Caucasus and central Asia from the rest of the world. It would still be accessible from the south unless of course the mountains are seen as barriers. I Think though the conclusions take no account of the fact the Caspian was probably very attractive to Palaeolithic people and that all the evidence of the LGM period shore dwelling in under the centre of the present Caspian. In addtion all the evidence of dwelling before 10000BC will be under marine deposites but down by the maximum expansion of the Caspian before it shrunk back. So, its essentially impossible to find shoreline archaeological remains around the Caspian pre-10000BC. The only exceptions might be in the few areas where the shore didnt change much due to the land rising stepply but even there the original shore still was probably exceeded and the old surface buried under marine deposits now on dry land. Also, it has to be remembered that the Caspian, even in its very shrunk state in the LGM would have been a plum position for hunters gatherers and as a body of water of not too enormous size at the time, the shores could simply be walked round making any point on the shore accessible from any direction. It seems likely to me that modern humans were densely settled along the shrunken Caspian's shore in the LGM and would have been nudged ever outwards by its temporary massive expansion after that. In some directions the expansion was huge and would have seriously displaced people, particularly to the north and parts of the east. In other areas like parts of northern Iran the displacement would have been modest due to the fact that the landform prevented very wide expansion of the Caspian in that direction.

Because, as I outlined above most if not all of the settlement from the LGM period to 10000BC around the Caspain shore is either under the present Caspian or under marine deposits put down when it expanded massively, it is essentially impossible to locate remains of the Caspian shore dwellers until 10000BC. So, my plan now is to look at the evidence for settlement that appears around 10000BC in the zone between the maximum shores and the present shores to which presumably at least some of the shore dwellers followed again as it retreated. Archaeologically material would survive just above the natural maximum shoreline and also material would be left on the route back to the present day shore if they followed it as it retreated again. So if you plot the present and maximum shores you should have a zone where the archaeology post-dating the maximum can realistically be discovered.

alan
07-23-2013, 04:49 PM
Influence on the early man[edit]

Marine basins and spillways of the event influenced on Early Man migrations. P.M. Dolukhanov from School of Historical Studies, Newcastle University, UK concluded that Caspian-Black Sea spillway across the Kumo-Manych Valley, effectively isolated the Caucasian-Central-Asian area. The spread of Upper Palaeolithic technology in that area became possible only after the maximum of the Upper Khvalynian transgression, 12.5-12 ka BP.[17][18] Later was confirmed this conclusion. In Kamennaya Balka [19][20] Late Paleolithic site in Russia within 3 cultural layers lower one and upper one contain microlitique tools of Near-East origin.[21] This indicates cultural connections from southern regions (Caucasus, Iraq). But middle culture layer represents by autochthon Kamennaya Balka culture without microlites. Its age (17-15 ka BP) coincides with Manych-Kerch spillway activity and seams to be a barrier for culture connections with Near East this time.[22] Events of Epoch of Extremal Inundations in general strongly effected on ancient people, but not in sense of destroying of civilizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_of_Extremal_Inundations

Arslanov KA, Dolukhanov PM, Gei NA. Littoral 50,000 - 9,000 BP. Quaternary International 2007; 167

Here is a series of papers contained in 'The East European Plain on the Eve of Agriculture'

http://www.mas.ncl.ac.uk/~nas13/BAR/2009BAR_Int_Ser1964_Dolukhanov_etal.pdf

MJost

The two main papers linked to the Wiki page are one I have posted above and the Caucauses one behind a paywall

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618207000651

The last one is a great find. Cheers.

what puzzles me is the statement that the linking of the Black, Caspian, Aral etc seas isolated the caucasus and central Asia. Maybe its just bad choice of language but surely it should say the northernmost part of the Caucasus and western steppe were isolated by the this, especially by the Kumo-Manych spillway.

In terms of central Asia, I usually take this to men west of Iran on the same latitude as Iran. The west end of north central Asia would have been blocked by the Aral Sea connection to the Caspian.

alan
07-23-2013, 09:18 PM
Influence on the early man[edit]

Marine basins and spillways of the event influenced on Early Man migrations. P.M. Dolukhanov from School of Historical Studies, Newcastle University, UK concluded that Caspian-Black Sea spillway across the Kumo-Manych Valley, effectively isolated the Caucasian-Central-Asian area. The spread of Upper Palaeolithic technology in that area became possible only after the maximum of the Upper Khvalynian transgression, 12.5-12 ka BP.[17][18] Later was confirmed this conclusion. In Kamennaya Balka [19][20] Late Paleolithic site in Russia within 3 cultural layers lower one and upper one contain microlitique tools of Near-East origin.[21] This indicates cultural connections from southern regions (Caucasus, Iraq). But middle culture layer represents by autochthon Kamennaya Balka culture without microlites. Its age (17-15 ka BP) coincides with Manych-Kerch spillway activity and seams to be a barrier for culture connections with Near East this time.[22] Events of Epoch of Extremal Inundations in general strongly effected on ancient people, but not in sense of destroying of civilizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_of_Extremal_Inundations

Arslanov KA, Dolukhanov PM, Gei NA. Littoral 50,000 - 9,000 BP. Quaternary International 2007; 167

Here is a series of papers contained in 'The East European Plain on the Eve of Agriculture'

http://www.mas.ncl.ac.uk/~nas13/BAR/2009BAR_Int_Ser1964_Dolukhanov_etal.pdf

MJost

The last book is a lengthy and dissapointing read for anyone interested in human movements. Just thought I would warn anyone to save them time. It is mainly dry and when it branches into languages at one point it is a bit lunatic fringe in tone. Has a genetics chapter but its old hat. The one interesting suggestion in the book was that there was an very early pottery using farming wave from Russia across Europe ahead of the main near-eastern wave. They like La hoguette and other remains in western Europe to it. Pretty dubious though.

Good wiki page link

alan
07-24-2013, 04:44 PM
Interesting summary of the period of interest for R1 and early R1a and b.

1. There is a gap in settlement north of the pontic Caspian between 25000-20000BC

2. Then there is a period of epi-Aurignacian settlement in the extremely cold period c. 20000-16000BC

3. Finally the absence of gravettian cultures in the steppe area is late ended by the appearance of epigravettian groups across the steppes, crimea and north Caucasus area c. 16-17000bc. This seems to become ancestral to many Mesolithic groups in the area.

Obviously the only potentially R1 related group would be the latter on date alone although that doesnt mean there is a relationship. The timing suggests that groups if they had a southern origin they would have had to have moved in a little ahead of the water barriers that developed. However the paper doesnt discuss origin and the area would be accessible from the west too.

http://www.quartaer.eu/pdfs/2008/2008_demidenko.pdf

alan
07-24-2013, 08:29 PM
I think I have reached the end of my digging about in the period of R1. The data is just too uncertain and too many possibilities are there. However, I think the radical changes to the Caspian between the small sea of the high LGM, the huge cascade of seas after and the subsequent shrinking back to historic size must have some dramatic effects of human settlement as well as making much of the settlement around the sea before 10000BC extremely unlikely to ever be recovered by archaeologists. Its mind boggling what effect the LGM, the changes in level of these huge inland seas and oscillations in climate level would have caused to human settlement all around the Caspian in the period 20-10 thousand BC. There is no all encompasing papers that takes into account all of this, sets it against phased maps of shores, climate charts etc. There are areas where the impact of the level changes on the shore positions were smaller like north Iran, the Caucasus, some higher land on the east shore etc and other areas like the steppe and lowland Turkmenistan where it was radical and must have had incredible effects on humans around the shores.

A working theory for R1 would be that once similar settlers around the very small Caspian at the height of the LGM were separated temporarily by huge distance for a time as things warmed up and the huge cascade of the great inland seas happened for some millenia somewhere in the period 15000-10000BC. That sort of model would see the separation of R1 groups into distinctive groups with different geographies and diverging languages. The phasing and duration is rather vague but it falls into the early R1 period suggested by Karafet and also the early periods of R1a and R1b. I am not ignoring other haplogroups possible role but simply focussing on R1. The temporary mega expansion and cascading would have moved shoreline groups into a number of zones;

1. The north Caucasus south of the spillway and west of the Caspian.

2. Iran south of the Caspian in an area much less effected

3. The steppe west of the Volga/extended north Caspian

4. The south Urals

5. The west end of north central Asia north of the Azov-Caspian link

6. The west end of north central Asia south of the Azov-Caspian link


Only perhaps the first two could realistically still access each other in anything remotely like they could before the 6.5 fold increase in the Caspian for some time in the period 15000-10000BC. This simply must have had a major impact on genes, languages, cultures etc. If I had to guess I would say this not only effected R1 but may also have pushed segments of early R1a and R1b in various directions.

I could guess further and try and put flesh on the bones of those divisions of those groups and guess which clades and paragroups etc went where. The problem is few clades are that sort of age. One thing in terms of R1b that strikes me is that the more ancestral, probably P25 or even further upstream forms, are found in Iran where the innundation had least impact. So, it is possible, that there was more geographical continuity of R1b populations in northern Iran which if dispaced by the Caspian expansion were only displaced to a relatively modest degree. In comparison the displacement in other areas was much more massive. If other P25 groups were located a little further north on the shores of the small LGM Caspian then they may have been displaced and isolated to the north where P297 could have occurred towards the end of this phase c. 10000BC. Depending on the detail of the timing P297 itself could have been split into pre-M73 eastern and pre-M269 western lines. A very similar pattern could have happened to R1a, again leaving ancestral forms around Iran and other forms ending up pushed into the steppe.

The waters again retreated to something closer to historic levels after this phase. People may have retreated back with it but the deposits laid down in the innundation would have transformed the land between its highest levels and its present levels forever and that might have discouraged this. I am not clear on the details of the latter but I assume salt deserts, wetlands etc around the Caspian are linked to this.

alan
07-25-2013, 09:54 AM
The shoreline settlement of the Caspian of say 20000-10000BC is now impossible, or ridicolously hard, to recover due to it being under the present sea or under the deep now-landlocked deposits of the periods of its massive expansion. This essentially all but rules out archaeology ever finding it bar improbably deep excavations on land or underwater exploration. So its a theory near beyond proof unfortunately although I am very very taken by how its timing and geography fits so well. It also provides a single-period explanation of R1 patterning without looking for later Neolithic and post-Neolithic movements north which are hazy at best and almost absent of evidence at worse.

Anyway I was think about even further upstream to the P-R*/Q split there. Now it seems from estimates that this happened in the period between 35 and 20 thousand years and it seems north central Asia is a favourate guess. It strikes me that that this split could also have a climatic expanation. Prior to the LGM north central Asia probably had a relatively OK environment but during the LGM it became a massive band of desert and was almost entirely abandoned. Although the first thing that springs to mind is a simple north-south retreat, and certainly that happened, one other obvious possibility for lineages to escape to is the Caspian shores, probably a very atractive area regardless of the hinterland. Indeed, at the LGM the shores of the Caspian and perhaps the Aral were probably the only attractive place for settlers at that latitude in terms of the land between the Caspian and China.

If some groups withdrew from inland north central Asia to the shores of the Caspian, itself shrinking in that period to less than half its present size, anyone on the eastern shores of the shrunken sea would later after the worst of the LGM have been driven east some distance into what is now western central Asia by the moving of that shore east and the flooding of the lowlands there. That could have potentially been responsible for some of the R paragroups ending up there. The details would depend on who was on the eastern shores and moved with the shore eastwards in the period 15000-10000BC. The interesting thing is this period saw a warming which is of course the cause of flood and the improvement in conditions may have meant that it was no longer crucial to be on the shore of the sea and no absolute need to follow the shore back west as it retreated again towards its present levels. So, again this is a strong scenario for the patterning of R1 early paragroups in central Asia. The date of R1 would fit a coming into existence around the Caspian shores after a subset of R* retreated to its shores from the desertification of north central Asia during the LGM. That sort of scenario would fit a split in R* from north central Asia with some heading west to the Caspian and others heading south in south-central Asia etc. It would fit a scenario of R* coming to existence during the LGM in north central Asia.

alan
07-26-2013, 06:27 PM
Just thought I would post this as its a rare general outline of the Palaeolithic in Iran in English. However, its far from cutting edge.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/paleolithic-age

This led me to these papers on the earlier upper palaeolithic Baradostian culture in Iran


http://www.academia.edu/2380062/The_Baradostian_sequence_of_Yafteh_cave._A_typo-technological_lithic_analysis_based_on_the_Hole_an d_Flannery_collection

http://www2.ulg.ac.be/prehist/colloque/Resume/Shidrang.pdf

This paper links the Barasostian with the Aurignacian of the Levant and Europe but concludes the Aurignacian didnt originate in Iran due to lack of the earliest phases. However it may date to as early as 35000BC and may have been terminated by the LGM. So, too early for R1.

I will dig about for papers on the late upper palaeolithic zarzian culture of Iran which succeeded it more in the sort of timeframe for R1 to have potentially had a role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarzian_culture

The bit in the wiki page that says Zarzian'was related to the Imereti culture of the Caucasus' is very interesting given what was going on with the Caspian Sea in this period.

I found a very recent paper on the Zarzian

http://humanities.journals.modares.ac.ir/?_action=articleInfo&article=255&vol=68

alan
07-26-2013, 10:06 PM
Having considered those papers on the wider Palaeolithic in Iran I am unconvinced they are telling us much about the R1 story. I am more convinced by the, ultimately now almost impossible to prove, idea of an R1 homeland around the Caspian c. 16500BC and linking them to epipalaeolithic groups which appear around the edges of the expansion of the Caspain around 10000BC. I like the way a model like that can explain the origin of patterning of R1, early R1a and early R1B as starting in that period with the role being played by pre-Neolithic groups. This fits well the apparent lack of role of early farming c. 9000-5000BC in R1a and R1b. R1 clades being left all around the Caspian in the end of the Palaeolithic does seem to explain a lot. The detail may not be clear but I think it a realistic model for a starting point. This book has a chapter on the archaeology of the flood

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sDYXosqZpegC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=Imeretian+Culture&source=bl&ots=rw8AMF-t7e&sig=OXS-vxUtmxWKWTwp7sP3iGvSqQY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uvbyUbfJOsPDPJbggMAL&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Imeretian%20Culture&f=false

This makes the interesting observation that at the Kamennaya Balka site in south Russia the cultures before c. 18000-15000BC and after the flood c. 10000BC resembled those of the Caucasus to the south but in between there was a different local culture. This is attributed to a cultural barrier caused in the period 15000-10000BC by Manych-Kerch spillway that linked the Black and Caspian Seas. However I would also add that the driving of shore populations apart from each other by the Khvalynian phase of the Caspian could also be responsible. It does create a scenario for the break up and dispersal of early R1, R1a and R1b populations that put down the seeds of their current distributional differences.

That doesnt mean that this was the end of the story. Several cultures all around the Caspian zone could have later driven R1 clades on after that including steppe cultures, Maykop and Kura-Araxes. However, these are copper age cultures and it seems to me that the Neolithic had only a very late effect on the main R1 areas and that the latter tended to be areas where the Neolithic only arrived just before the copper age.

alan
07-27-2013, 10:11 AM
I think though a picture is better than 1000 words to show the possible displacement that a hypothetical R1* and early R1a and b group of hunter-gatherer-fishers on the Caspian shores c. 15000BC would have suffered in their first several millenia of existence as well as the patterning it may have commenced in terms of R1a and b.

http://www.lswn.it/files/fig_3_pre_and_post_flood_size_black_caspian_seas.j pg

This is a modern map

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/The_Caucasus_and_Central_Asia_-_Political_Map.jpg

The details of who ended up where would be a good debate. However, it was capable of causing considerable effects cultrually, lingustically and in terms of geography of haplogroups and their subclades which I would like to expand on. The following assumes that the LGM populations on the Caspian shore wanted to stay on the shores and followed it out as it expanded:

1. One subset would have been bottled up in what is now the north Caucasus and adjacent areas of south Russia. They would have had a mountain barrier to their south, the Manych-Kerch spillway to their north and the Black Sea to their west. It would have blocked them in with their main possible outlet being following the Black Sea shores from the NE corner clockwise.

2. Another subset would see to have ended up along the narrow shore of Iran, the south Caucasus and Turkmenistan between the expanded Caspian and high mountains.

3. Another subset would seems to have had a peninsular location now in the NW corner of Turkmenistan, the SW corner of Kazakstan and the west of Turkmenistan.

4.Another subset would have been pushed into the Volga-Ural area at about the latitude of Samara.

5. Another subset may have been pushed into an area between the Volga and the Manych-Kerch spillway. That would put them west of a shore that ran rougly from Volgagrad to Samara. The only barrier west across the steppes for them would have been the various north-south rivers flowing into the Black Sea which would have been in spate at this time of warming. The part of Russia south of Samara and east of Volgagrad was flooded along with large chunks of western Kazakstan.

6. Another group may have ended up on the east side of the link between the Aral and Caspian sea which would placed them towards the central areas of Turkmenistan, Kazakstan and Uzbekstan.

I do not think this is to be interpreted in a simple R1a-R1b split. At the time of the commencing of this flooding c. 15000BC there may have been a situation where there was already early R1a and R1b clades around the LGM shores of the small Caspian. In terms of R1b I imagine there were P25* groups which could have been scattered in multiple directions by the expansion of the Caspian leading to that paragroup being in many places.

However it is also true that towards the end of this phase P297* had occurred and that line is of course the main Eurasian story of R1b although really mainly because it got lucky in the period after 5000BC. That would mean the distant ancestors of M269 and M73 had to be in the same spot at c. 9000BC which is a challenge to work out given their later distributions. M73 dates to around 5000BC and has a date and present distribution which would make it very unlikely to have originated in the early farming zone of Europe or SW Asia or indeed even in the westernmost parts of the steppe. On the other hand placing it too far east also doesnt make sense as P297 seems too late for the flood to have widely separated them. However, one scenario for the seperation of P297 into two geographically separated lineages would have been in the period when the Caspian was shrinking back to its modern level and the rivers were establishing new paths throught the drying up former lands of the sea. Those alterations are pretty mind boggling and together with the end of the Manych-Kerch spillway give all sort of scenarios where P297 could have separated somewhat.

That is not to rule out the possibility of later movements after this period. There may have been all sorts of scenarios where lineages were now free to move around along shores and into river valleys etc just after 10000BC and of course later with the Neolithic and copper age.

I would really appreciate it if someone knowledgible in terms of R1a would speculate how early R1a paragroups etc could have been geographically displaced around the expanding Caspian. I am not knowledgible enough on this to do that although, like R1b it could have been split into a number of lineages displaced to different areas all around the maximum expansion area of the Caspian such as I am picturing for P25.