PDA

View Full Version : Mike Hammer goes for post-Neolithic entry of R into Europe



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Generalissimo
11-16-2013, 01:04 AM
Thats because the Scythians were not R1a-Z93+

So which type of R1a do you think they belonged to?

Tagar Scythian, Iron Age, South Siberia, R1a
Pazyrk Scythian, Iron Age, Alati Republic, R1a
Tachtyk Scythian, Iron Age, South Siberia, R1a

Silesian
11-16-2013, 01:18 AM
We have ancient DNA from Scythians which was not tested for Z93+, but certainly showed them as R1a1. See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

This does not rule out other Y-DNA haplogroups being present at lower levels not detected in the relatively small samples so far obtained. It does not have to be an all-or-nothing situation. We can guess that the R1b-M73 in modern Turkic speakers was absorbed from steppe Iranians speakers, for example. But given that all the aDNA samples were R1a1a, we can guess that this was the dominant Scythian Y-DNA signature.

Okay, I already admitted I'm not the brightest crayon in the pack. Some of the material discussed between yourself Richard/ Alan/Mike and newtoboard is way over my head. However I don't take anything for granted. If Digor are the remnant eastern speaking branch, I would at the very least expect a nice co-relation with R1a* Osset to Eastern Iranian connection. I invited newtoboard to show that relation using Grugni et al. Maybe it does not exist in Iran due to sky burials, I don't know. However it cuts both ways, as for example when you demonstrated/ suggest population replacement and get scorned. If the Brahui have a good chunk you would think some would be found in Digor.

Jean M
11-16-2013, 01:32 AM
No need to run yourself down Silesian. We are stuck with a gaping hole where we would like ancient Y-DNA to be in the North Caucasus.

But Ossets are not the only people speaking languages of the eastern Iranian branch. Other surviving members of that branch are Pashto and Pamir, with many more speakers than Ossetian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian_languages

Plenty of R1a1a-Z93 among Pashtuns. (Runs at about 50%.) That makes the Ossets an anomaly and a puzzle, which I sought to explain.

vettor
11-16-2013, 02:09 AM
No need to run yourself down Silesian. We are stuck with a gaping hole where we would like ancient Y-DNA to be in the North Caucasus.

But Ossets are not the only people speaking languages of the eastern Iranian branch. Other surviving members of that branch are Pashto and Pamir, with many more speakers than Ossetian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian_languages

Plenty of R1a1a-Z93 among Pashtuns. (Runs at about 50%.) That makes the Ossets an anomaly and a puzzle, which I sought to explain.

but north-ossetians are different from south-ossetians

there is no indication in the Y-chromosome of a particularly close genetic relationship between N. Ossetians and S. Ossetians. If they did have a common origin in the past, it has apparently become obscured by subsequent gene flow with their geographic neighbours on the same sides of the Caucasus Mountains.

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/ossetians.html

not much R1a in ossetians.....the bulk 40 to 60 % is G

vettor
11-16-2013, 02:23 AM
. If you combine it all from central Asia to Italy its variance suggests expansion from 2500BC but if you split that into localities and break it down region by region the variance could be very low. There is no such thing as too young. A subset of any clade can move any time with totally different variance effects. It really depends on whether there are people of the same male line present, the distance of 'cousinhood' within a migration and how many of them reproduce in a way that forms lines. An ancient tribe who have lived in the same place for thousands of years could have very little variance if the survivors just so happen to share a closer common ancestor- quite likely if its an elite hogging resources type set up or a close to extinction small scale society.

On the other hand variance can effectively be transferred in a migration if it included very very distant cousins who have left modern descendants. So, variance is problematic especially when used in the highroads of history kind of areas like the steppe and SW Asia. Social structure i.e hierarchical or egalitarian will have a profound effect on variance IMO. A very finely resolved subclade phylogeny, a sample size that allows variance to be calculated more finely geographically and an undestanding of the sort of society that operated there is really need for other than very broad brush use of variance.

Yes, but farming migrations had a tribal social structure and usually a male chief had a choice of multiple wives , with his sons following in this system. Thus an enormous multiplying effect on his marker. A hunter gatherer marker diminishes as he is not part of a social structure. We see this with otzi, a Hunter with G-L91 marker and today only 3.3% of this marker exists, in the broad area where he was found while in the same area and mutated much much later, the marker G-L497 has 80% .

In regards to the areas of migration .........I find it amazing that a majority of people on these forums think the black-sea, aegean, baltic sea etc was a major barrier in the pre bronze-age migration, a lot of people/tribes crossed the black sea and landed in Romania or Bulgaria................anyway, thank-you I am going off track.

parasar
11-16-2013, 04:20 AM
So which type of R1a do you think they belonged to?

Tagar Scythian, Iron Age, South Siberia, R1a
Pazyrk Scythian, Iron Age, Alati Republic, R1a
Tachtyk Scythian, Iron Age, South Siberia, R1a

These Scythians would be Z93. But then Scythians came in a number of varieties - Huns, Alans, Saka, Hefthal, etc. etc.

Generalissimo
11-16-2013, 08:12 AM
These Scythians would be Z93.

Maybe, maybe not.

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/8864/8pwi.jpg

palamede
11-16-2013, 09:00 AM
The Grugni et al R1b* areas co-relate very well in Iran are ancient Mede, to distinguish between Persians. That's beside the point. If the samples in the remote mountainous region of Rhone Switzerland are truly R1b L23x51 and [269xL23] connected to [ancient Italic/Celtic/Germanic] R1b L23x51 samples in the remote Himalayan plateau of Newar people of Nepal your looking at a distance at a minimum of 7000 kilometers. I think it's a bit of a stretch to credit Persians if it turns out the samples are in the same R1b branch.

If it needs to be confirmed, I guess the Newar R1b was re-classified to R2 haplogroup and there is no tested R1b in Nepal and very few in India.

Jean M
11-16-2013, 11:12 AM
but north-ossetians are different from south-ossetians

That is from an old paper which was not able to test down to subclades in the way that Balanovsky 2011 did. There is a clear link between the two in the type of G (P18) that they share, which divided into two haplotypes around the time of the Alan ingress.


not much R1a in ossetians.....the bulk 40 to 60 % is G

Yes that is what makes the Ossets a puzzle, an anomaly - they are different in predominant Y-DNA haplogroup from the other populations which today speak Eastern Iranian languages. Discussion of this has just taken place on another thread. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1588-An-observation-on-Tarim-and-Afanasievo

Jean M
11-16-2013, 11:20 AM
We see this with otzi, a Hunter with G-L91 marker and today only 3.3% of this marker exists.

Otzi may have been hunting when he died, but he was not a pre-farming hunter-gatherer. Far from it! He dates from 3350-3100 BC and was actually carrying a copper axe. Scientists studying him concluded that he was a herder by occupation. Y-DNA G2 has appeared in the DNA of other early European farmers. In fact it seems to be the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup among them. Y-DNA R1a and R1b have not appeared in ancient European DNA so far until the Copper Age.

This does not mean that no R1a or R1b will ever be found anywhere among earlier Europeans, but it appears to have become the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup from the Copper Age onwards.

Jean M
11-16-2013, 12:18 PM
"Bennett asked who built Stonehenge? Mike said he thinks it’s haplogroup G2a. It is not R1b."

G2a is extremely rare in Britain and Ireland. I suspect I2a1-M26 and R1b have an edge as the builders of Stonehenge. It looks like G2a peaks in eastern England, probably entering with the Anglo-Saxons from central Europe.

What Dr Hammer is trying to get across is that present-day levels of this or that haplogroup do not reflect the situation in the Neolithic. Ancient DNA has been showing us that in other parts of Europe, over and over and over again. There is no reason to suppose that Britain and Ireland will turn out to be any different from Germany, France, Spain etc. G2 appears to be the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup of Neolithic Europe. That is why Dr Hammer guessed that people carrying G built Stonehenge. I2a1 has also been found among Neolithic farmers in the South of France, but it looks like it travelled with Cardial Ware, which did not reach Britain.

alan
11-16-2013, 01:49 PM
If you mean maritime travel its poorly understood. I would say most steppe pastoralists would be very poorly developed in terms of boats with perhaps the exception of groups around the Crimea. In later times steppe peoples relied on Greek colonies along the north shore of the Black Sea to do the trade and sea transport for them.

I understand that the vast seas like the Black and Caspian were until fairly late considered as potentially oceans and there was mystery about their far ends. In general my impression is that they were a significant hindrance to cultural flow and there tended to be radical differences between each side of those seas in prehistory and early history - partly because of the huge seas and partly because the environments were so different. So, while theoretically boats could be used to cross the seas, the archaeological evidence for massive cultural differences does show this was limited until later prehistory. Crossing the Black Sea from east to west or the Caspian from north to south directly even with a primitive boat with sails would take several days at sea and without sails (which would have been the case until the late bronze age) would be a serious challenge. Unless it was for trade there is the issue of the locals not exactly welcoming the sailors.


Yes, but farming migrations had a tribal social structure and usually a male chief had a choice of multiple wives , with his sons following in this system. Thus an enormous multiplying effect on his marker. A hunter gatherer marker diminishes as he is not part of a social structure. We see this with otzi, a Hunter with G-L91 marker and today only 3.3% of this marker exists, in the broad area where he was found while in the same area and mutated much much later, the marker G-L497 has 80% .

In regards to the areas of migration .........I find it amazing that a majority of people on these forums think the black-sea, aegean, baltic sea etc was a major barrier in the pre bronze-age migration, a lot of people/tribes crossed the black sea and landed in Romania or Bulgaria................anyway, thank-you I am going off track.

Silesian
11-16-2013, 03:05 PM
No need to run yourself down Silesian. We are stuck with a gaping hole where we would like ancient Y-DNA to be in the North Caucasus.

But Ossets are not the only people speaking languages of the eastern Iranian branch. Other surviving members of that branch are Pashto and Pamir, with many more speakers than Ossetian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian_languages

Plenty of R1a1a-Z93 among Pashtuns. (Runs at about 50%.) That makes the Ossets an anomaly and a puzzle, which I sought to explain.

If the Digor Ossets are Scythian and an anomaly in terms of, no or very little connecting lines of R1a. Would it not be reasonable to then find R1a match with Pashtuns if not with Digor/Scythians than with areas/regions associated with Scythia minor, Romania, Bulgaria? R1b L23x51 is found in and around Scythia minor, Ossets/Digor, and in the India ydna project around the Swat Valley/North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan. If R1b-L23x51 is found in all 3 areas should we at least expect to find R1a M-458 for example?

Silesian
11-16-2013, 03:14 PM
If it needs to be confirmed, I guess the Newar R1b was re-classified to R2 haplogroup and there is no tested R1b in Nepal and very few in India.

My mistake it looked like the chart is R1b R-m269. I did not realize they were R2.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852741/figure/FG2/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852741/figure/FG2/

There are R1b among the Pashtun around Peshawar, and Uttar Pradesh close to Nepal, although in all fairness I don't know if it is the same type the ones found in Iran or the Digor/Ossets. The point is some lines of R1b are found in the East, not just Switzerland.

alan
11-16-2013, 03:27 PM
When it comes to minor lineages its just impossible to know. I think its clear the ancestors of the Asian and Balto-Slavic IEs were largely R1a, certainly in terms of their dominant lineages.

However, if you rewind back in time to the PIE formation period, there was probably an interface zone between where the ancestors of the predominantly R1a IEs and the R1b IEs once lived and there were surely groups that contained both at the interface and perhaps some non R clades. The archaeology of the Ukraine shows enormous complexity dating back to the period probably slightly before PIE's formation and the Ukraine anyway must have had a complex mix. This is demonstrated very well in the Sredny Stog groups close to the Lower Dniester in cultural and craniological data. This craniological variation was especially true among Sredny Stog males showing this was not a case of getting wives from the farmers. It was a mixed population on the male lines within the same culture.

This pre-dates the fall of old Europe and it shows that in the PIE evolution zone there must have been multiple clades and haplogroups participating at the time PIE was in its later stages of evolving. So, you could say archaeology does support that there were a number of male line participants in the broader PIE homeland. IMO there is too much emphasis on trying to portray the western steppes as a uniform backwater when there was a lot of variation and it was pretty dynamic at the west end from at least 4500BC.

I have already posted why I think a broader western steppe zone is more likely as the evolution zone of PIE than a confined one around the Volga. There is at least significant doubt that IE borrowings into Uralic exist until the very end of the PIE period interacing into the period of emergence of separate dialects so this probably is telling us more about contact with Uralic c. 3000BC onwards than in 4500, 4000 or even 3500BC. So the case for a confined PIE homeland in the Volga area is badly weakened IMO as that was its main plank of evidence. Caucasian contacts could relate to Maykop but again small Maykop derived elements in the steppe from the Dnieper to the Don existed by 3500BC and their knowledge probably had some role in the emergence of Kargaly in the Urals too around this time. So, Caucasian linguistic links in the PIE period do not have to mean extreme proximity to the Caucasus after 3500BC.

Another reason for thinking PIE or archaic PIE existed well west of the Volga area is that the early Suvorovo waves of steppe settlers who spilled in c. 4200BC or so were apparently derived from Sredny Stog groups from well west of the Volga. The vast geography of the steppe means to me we cant just look at chronology for the branching of IE as though every group was in sych. There could have been archaic Anatolian branch and less archaic Tocharian and other developed PIE speaking groups living at the same time in different niches across the steppe. After all Anatolians and other groups, including even satem groups lived side by side in Anatolia and probably did so in the Balkans so I do not see why this also could not have been the case in the steppes. Also aerial transmission of linguistic innovations may have varied by geographical nuance. The Anatolians may have just been one slightly archaic, perhaps less connected, element in the first outpourings from the steppe but others who were. It has also been suggested that return trips were made back to the Dnieper etc by these early steppe settlers in Old Europe.

Without getting too complicated about all of this I think there is a good case that R1b existed among PIE speakers around the Dnieper area probably among the Sredny Stog derived groups there. It is not important to me the exact details of this but we do known it appears to have been an area with a complex rather than uniform population. My belief is that c. 4500 R1b must have been positioned mainly in the area between the Dneiper and the steppe around the Caucasus while R1a was probably mainly in the Khvalynsk culture to the east.

However, I doubt there were pure blocks. For example we know that Stredny Stog settlements stretched as far east as the Don and that the Carpatho-Balkans network which they controlled extended from the Dneiper to the Urals. Lithic innovations from the farming world apparently also spread at this time even further east. Other trends spread the other way as can be seen in ritual. I think what that pattern might lead to is area of dominance at one end of the western steppes of one group or another but not a totally clean pattern and probably a mixed interface area in between. I am also sure there were even non-R people among the broad western steppes zone where PIE emerged.

The impact of that sort of a picture would have three implications IMO

1. The waves, probably the earlier waves, from the western end of the steppe probably had more R1b but possible a fair bit of R1a too.

2. The later waves from Yamnaya core area to the east probably had a lot more R1a although there would have been a little R1b and probably further R1b would be picked up as its spread west.

3. The waves east from the the Khvalynsk/Yamnaya core would be overwhelmingly R1a but I believe would have a small R1b element in it too due to earlier contacts with the Dnieper area Sredny Stog cultures, the Carpatho-Balkan network they controlled. It should also be recalled that advanced local mining and metallurgy developed c. 3500BC in the Urals probably owed something to Maykop knowledge and skills entering the steppe at this period. So, that is another element to take into account. Indeed, the odd massive jump of apparent Khvalynsk/Yamnaya derived Afansievo to the Altai area in the mouth of the Dzungarian gate only makes sense if they were interested in trade and metals IMO. Metallurgical knowledge had only previously been known as an end of chain thing in finished ore from the Balkans via the Sredny Stog groups, then through early step groups coming back from Old Europe and finally c. 3500BC from Maykop and the arrival of people with metallurgical knowledge from the same source to the Kargaly Yamnaya groups. So, it is quite likely IMO that Afanasievo although probably mainly R1a contained lineages from areas more experienced in metallurgy too.

4. Later waves that cut across the western steppes from east to west or west to east would likely have complicated the DNA mix. Remember the Kurgans are probably only showing the yDNA of the local elite dynasties.


That is because Central Asia is a crossroads for movements from Siberia, West Asia and Europe. Persians brought in L23(xL51) from the West. Nomadic Turks brought in some M73. And now people are arguing for some ancient presence of R1b in Central Asia based on movements that likely happened in the last 1000 or so years.

Jean M
11-16-2013, 04:34 PM
If the Digor Ossets are Scythian and an anomaly in terms of, no or very little connecting lines of R1a. Would it not be reasonable to then find R1a match with Pashtuns if not with Digor/Scythians than with areas/regions associated with Scythia minor, Romania, Bulgaria? R1b L23x51 is found in and around Scythia minor, Ossets/Digor, and in the India ydna project around the Swat Valley/North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan. If R1b-L23x51 is found in all 3 areas should we at least expect to find R1a M-458 for example?

Colour me clueless, but I'm not entirely following you again. Are you looking for an R1a match between Pashtuns and the modern inhabitants of Romania and Bulgaria, on the grounds that the latter are (you suppose) descendants of Scythians? Does not compute. The Scythians were replaced on the European steppe by Turks and then by Slavs.

R-M458 is so obviously Slavic that I wonder anybody can think otherwise. It defined a cluster previously recognised as such on STRs (Gwodz cluster N.)

There might be a few descendants of Scythians scattered about Europe, wherever the Scythians and their descendants, Alans and Sarmatians, roamed. That's a pretty wide stretch of Europe. The Scythians burst in first in the Iron Age, and continued raiding. Then we have the Sarmatians in the Roman army and the Alans grabbing a bit of the landscape as the Western Roman Empire fell. But there is nowhere that I would expect a strong concentration of R1a-Z93+. There was nowhere in Europe that Scythians settled in numbers enough to retain their language.

parasar
11-16-2013, 05:10 PM
Maybe, maybe not.

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/8864/8pwi.jpg

Yes, I agree until we test we won't know for sure. It appears that from R1a1-M417 the branching dates for Z283, CTS4385, and Z93 are very close - perhaps as little as few hundred years.

IMO, the Andronovo look to be Z93+ and L657-. This is based on the 389I,II 14-32 which makes it more likely Z93+. But it looks L657- as for Z93+, L657-: DYS456=16, DYS458=15; but for L657+: DYS456=15, DYS458=16.

parasar
11-16-2013, 05:31 PM
My mistake it looked like the chart is R1b R-m269. I did not realize they were R2.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852741/figure/FG2/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852741/figure/FG2/

There are R1b among the Pashtun around Peshawar, and Uttar Pradesh close to Nepal, although in all fairness I don't know if it is the same type the ones found in Iran or the Digor/Ossets. The point is some lines of R1b are found in the East, not just Switzerland.

They are R1b-M269 as M269 and P25 were not found to be polymorphic: "The following biallelic markers were genotyped but were not polymorphic in our populations: M3, M7, M8, M25, M37, M38, M39, M56, M65, M67, M68, M77, M93, M97, M99, M117, M121, M128, M137, M143, M153, M157, M160, M164, M167, M179, M197, M201, M204, M210, M222, M259, M267, M282, M289, M300, M318, M319, M322, M323, M339, M340, M354, M378, M407, M419, M427, M428, Apt, PK5, and P43."

Haplogroup R1b1a-M269 is found only in Newar (10.6%), whereas R1a1-M198 is present in all four collections (fig. 2). Similarly, haplogroup R2-M124 occurs in all four Himalayan populations, generally exhibiting frequencies equivalent to R1a1-M198, except for the Kathmandu, where R2-M124 (10.4%) is less frequent than R1a1-M198 (35.1%) (fig. 2).

As to the type of M269, my guess from others in neighboring India is that it is L23. Though India also has some of the other types as well as earlier ones that Rathna has discussed on a number of threads. V88 seems to be completely missing and M73 limited to the Turko-Mughal such as Barulas and Hazara.

R.Rocca
11-16-2013, 05:32 PM
What Dr Hammer is trying to get across is that present-day levels of this or that haplogroup do not reflect the situation in the Neolithic. Ancient DNA has been showing us that in other parts of Europe, over and over and over again. There is no reason to suppose that Britain and Ireland will turn out to be any different from Germany, France, Spain etc. G2 appears to be the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup of Neolithic Europe. That is why Dr Hammer guessed that people carrying G built Stonehenge. I2a1 has also been found among Neolithic farmers in the South of France, but it looks like it travelled with Cardial Ware, which did not reach Britain.

Cardial Ware did meet up with the Danubian Neolithic Cultures in the Paris Basin. The only ancient DNA from a dolmen was I2a1 from right outside of Paris,so I wouldn't rule out I2a1 as a potential Stonehenge clade just yet.

TigerMW
11-16-2013, 05:33 PM
Colour me clueless, but I'm not entirely following you again. Are you looking for an R1a match between Pashtuns and the modern inhabitants of Romania and Bulgaria, on the grounds that the latter are (you suppose) descendants of Scythians? Does not compute. The Scythians were replaced on the European steppe by Turks and then by Slavs....
You make a good point. There probably are cases where we can't use modern populations as proxies for ancient populations. In some cases, the ancient peoples' descendants may be essentially gone (at least from where they were.)

lgmayka
11-16-2013, 05:54 PM
R-M458 is so obviously Slavic that I wonder anybody can think otherwise. It defined a cluster previously recognised as such on STRs (Gwodz cluster N.)
Actually, both N and P Types turned out to be M458+ . P Type (L260+) is highly concentrated in the West Slavic countries. N Type (CTS11962+) has one major subclade (L1029+) that is spread rather widely from Germany to Russia, though still with perhaps highest concentration in the West Slavic countries. N Type also has one minor subclade (L1029-) that is mostly Polish.

Generalissimo
11-16-2013, 11:40 PM
R-M458 is so obviously Slavic that I wonder anybody can think otherwise.

R-M458 L1209+ and L260+ definitely expanded with Slavs, especially West Slavs, although which population they originated in is anyone's guess at the moment. I'm thinking Unetice Culture.

The M458 that doesn't fall into these subclades from Sardinia, and probably the North Caucasus and Kazakhstan, is unlikely to be linked to Slavs in any way.

vettor
11-16-2013, 11:47 PM
Otzi may have been hunting when he died, but he was not a pre-farming hunter-gatherer. Far from it! He dates from 3350-3100 BC and was actually carrying a copper axe. Scientists studying him concluded that he was a herder by occupation. Y-DNA G2 has appeared in the DNA of other early European farmers. In fact it seems to be the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup among them. Y-DNA R1a and R1b have not appeared in ancient European DNA so far until the Copper Age.

This does not mean that no R1a or R1b will ever be found anywhere among earlier Europeans, but it appears to have become the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup from the Copper Age onwards.

according to the 2012 study , he was from the north caucasus, was basically the iron age term of a Raetic person from Vennoses tribe.........but he was way before these "raetic" people stated farming. This otzi migrational group came with many different markers apart from G, there was L, T, E to name a few......all found in Otzi alpine land.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n2/pdf/ncomms1701.pdf

As you are a person of immense knowledge, you would know that NO marker migrated on its own.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 12:24 AM
according to the 2012 study , he was from the north caucasus

No. As the study says, isotopes showed he had lived in the Alps all his life.

As for the origins of his ancestors, I think you may be referring to the fact that the highest level of Y-DNA haplogroup G today is found in the Caucasus. That is because it was settled by farmers from the Near East in the Neolithic and not completely overrun by Indo-European speakers subsequently. Otzi is G2a1b2 (L91), which Keller 2012 (the study you link to) found at the highest frequencies (25 and 9%) in southern Corsica and northern Sardinia, respectively. The conclusion of the paper is:


Although admixture and demographic history cannot be reconstructed from one individual alone, the Iceman’s Y-chromosomal data document the presence of haplogroup G in Italy by the end of the Neolithic and lends further support to the demic diffusion model. The affinity of the Iceman’s genome to modern Sardinian groups may reflect relatively recent common ancestry between the ancient Sardinian and Alpine populations, possibly due to the diffusion of Neolithic peoples.

Sardinia seems closest genetically to Neolithic Europe, prior to the Copper Age incursions of pastoralists originally from the European steppe.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 12:34 AM
.. he was way before these "raetic" people stated farming..

On the contrary, farming entered Central Europe long before Otzi. See New details emerge about Neolithic age in Alps: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/New_details_emerge_about_Neolithic_age_in_Alps.htm l

He lived in the Copper Age. The Museum of the Iceman describes the economy of his society:


During the third and fourth millenia BC, food was procured mainly from farming and animal rearing. Among the plants that were cultivated were naked wheat, einkorn, emmer wheat, barley, poppy, flax and peas. The domesticated animals – cattle, pigs, sheep and goats – were mainly used as sources of meat but also provided leather, sinews, milk and possibly wool. The livestock, especially sheep and goats, were driven to high grazing land in the summer. This form of agriculture is known as transhumance. It nevertheless remains to be proven that in Ötzi’s times animals from the Schnalstal Valley were driven into the high mountains for the summer months

http://www.iceman.it/en/node/303

Jean M
11-17-2013, 12:55 AM
R-M458 L1209+ and L260+ definitely expanded with Slavs, especially West Slavs, although which population they originated in is anyone's guess at the moment.

Not really. Archaeologists and linguists have for years been pointing to the Middle Dnieper Culture and its successors as the Slavic homeland.


The M458 that doesn't fall into these subclades from Sardinia, and probably the North Caucasus and Kazakhstan, is unlikely to be linked to Slavs in any way.

In the real world nothing is as neat and tidy as a one-to-one relationship between a particular Y-DNA haplogroup and a particular language community. You do right to remind us of this. When I said M458 was obviously Slavic, I meant that there is a very strong and obvious correlation. M458 in Sardinia? A surprise to me, so I won't speculate. :)

Generalissimo
11-17-2013, 01:21 AM
In the real world nothing is as neat and tidy as a one-to-one relationship between a particular Y-DNA haplogroup and a particular language community. You do right to remind us of this. When I said M458 was obviously Slavic, I meant that there is a very strong and obvious correlation. M458 in Sardinia? A surprise to me, so I won't speculate. :)

This is actually a very interesting issue, and definitely worth speculating about, because we know there were links between North-Central Europe and the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age. So if there's M458* (L1209- and L260-) in Sardinia that isn't found in Central Europe, possibly because it's now extinct there, then we might see some very interesting results when Unetice and Lusatian Y-DNA is tested.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 02:10 AM
This is actually a very interesting issue, and definitely worth speculating about

OK. I see the 15 R1a1a1 men out of the 1204 Sardinians sampled by Francalacci et al. 2013. I see nothing to indicate that any of them were M458. Table 1 and figure 1 appear to show a post-Neolithic arrival of R1a1a1 on Sardinia i.e. c. 3500-4000 BC. What am I missing?

lgmayka
11-17-2013, 02:35 AM
Archaeologists and linguists have for years been pointing to the Middle Dnieper Culture and its successors as the Slavic homeland.
Some have, some have not. Wikipedia sums it up thus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs#Conclusions):
---
Recent scholarship acknowledges that it may be simplistic to attempt to define a localized Slavic homeland. Although proto-Slavic language may have developed in a localized area, Slavic ethnogenesis occurred in a large area stretching from the Oder in the west to the Dnieper in the east, and south to the Danube river.
---

The implication is that the original owners of the particular dialect that became Common Slavic did not necessarily clone themselves all across half of Europe.

The Encyclopedia Britannica similarly says (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/548156/Slav):
---
The original habitat of the Slavs is still a matter of controversy, but scholars believe they populated parts of eastern Europe.
---

An individual writer is entitled to her opinion, but she certainly should not pretend to speak for the entire scientific community.


M458 in Sardinia?
Very odd--some might even say questionable. But here is a discussion about that alleged finding (http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?p=17300&sid=0b0031db4db44f18e678628c6dd3feaa#p17300).

Generalissimo
11-17-2013, 02:48 AM
OK. I see the 15 R1a1a1 men out of the 1204 Sardinians sampled by Francalacci et al. 2013. I see nothing to indicate that any of them were M458. Table 1 and figure 1 appear to show a post-Neolithic arrival of R1a1a1 on Sardinia i.e. c. 3500-4000 BC. What am I missing?

Apparently, six of the Sardinians are M458+, going by recent online chatter on the topic. Some are also Z280+.

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=719&start=300

And yes, of course, these lineages would have had to arrive in Sardinia after the Neolithic. Like I said above, I'm thinking the Bronze Age, because that's when things really start to move, and then settle down again during the Iron Age until the Migration Period. So I suppose the Vandals might also be an option?

bolek
11-17-2013, 08:37 AM
There is also another possibility which explains the presence of Slavonic haplogroups in Sardinia.
Rome and Sardinia were liberated from Vandals by general Belisarius.

In AD 533 Sardinia returned under the rule of the Eastern Roman Empire (in this period sometimes referred to as the Byzantine Empire) when the Vandals were defeated by the armies of Justinian I under the General Belisarius in the Battle of Tricamarum, in their African kingdom; Belisarius sent his general Cyrillus to Sardinia to retake the island. Sardinia remained in Byzantine hands for the next 300 years.,[14] aside from a short period in which it was invaded by the Ostrogoths in 551.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardinia#Byzantine_era

But we know that in Belisarius army there was huge Slavic contingent mainly cavalry

This siege of Rome, the first of three in the Gothic War, lasted for a year, from March 537 to March 538. It featured several sallies and minor engagements, as well as several large-scale actions, but after reinforcements from Constantinople arrived in April 537 (1,600 Slavs and Huns)[15] and November 537 (5,000 men),[15] the defending Byzantines took the offensive. The Byzantine cavalry took several towns in the Goths' rear, which worsened their already-bad supply situation[16] and threatened Gothic civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_%28535%E2%80%93554%29#Ascension_of_Viti ges.2C_first_siege_of_Rome

http://s22.postimg.org/6rloqs0y9/screenshot_197.png (http://postimage.org/)

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantium-I-The-Early-Centuries/dp/0394537785


I cannot find the original text by Procopius but other sources mention Slavs and Antes (Slavic nomads from the steppe) not Huns.

http://s22.postimg.org/ea4tzesb5/screenshot_199.png (http://postimage.org/)

Procopii,Bella, V27/2,139 13-15 ;zob. Też Plezia (1946); Greckie i łacińskie...,64; Testimonia...,54-80

http://www.polisharms.com/downloads/105-slavspdf


It is possible that Slavic warriors could settle there after liberation o Sardinia from Vandals.

vettor
11-17-2013, 09:55 AM
There is also another possibility which explains the presence of Slavonic haplogroups in Sardinia.
Rome and Sardinia were liberated from Vandals by general Belisarius.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardinia#Byzantine_era

But we know that in Belisarius army there was huge Slavic contingent mainly cavalry


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_%28535%E2%80%93554%29#Ascension_of_Viti ges.2C_first_siege_of_Rome

http://s22.postimg.org/6rloqs0y9/screenshot_197.png (http://postimage.org/)

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantium-I-The-Early-Centuries/dp/0394537785


I cannot find the original text by Procopius but other sources mention Slavs and Antes (Slavic nomads from the steppe) not Huns.

http://s22.postimg.org/ea4tzesb5/screenshot_199.png (http://postimage.org/)

Procopii,Bella, V27/2,139 13-15 ;zob. Też Plezia (1946); Greckie i łacińskie...,64; Testimonia...,54-80

http://www.polisharms.com/downloads/105-slavspdf


It is possible that Slavic warriors could settle there after liberation o Sardinia from Vandals.

Thats fishing to its extreme B)

No marker belongs to no race, why do you assume they are slavic, because they spoke slavic ? ............Makes me laugh when people associate a marker with a nationality. ..........when markers formed thousands of years ago , there was no slavic, germanic, gallic etc.
people spoke many languages in the past, maybe more than today.

with this thinking, in a thousand years from now in Europe, people would be saying that the whole of Europe was English people because people spoke English....makes no sense.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 11:21 AM
An individual writer is entitled to her opinion, but she certainly should not pretend to speak for the entire scientific community.


I was not presenting my personal view. You don't like the standard modern view, which is solidly supported by archaeological findings and place-names from Poland and Classical sources which show absolutely no Slavs in the territory now Poland in the Roman period. You are certainly not alone in that. You are supported to the hilt by David for a start. ;) A few academics are still trying to fight the tide in support of an earlier Slavic history in their particular homeland. They are free to do that. You and David are free to fight right down to ancient DNA. But the Slavic homeland is not really "anybody's guess". It's a topic that has been heavily discussed for decades and there is actually evidence to discuss.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 11:55 AM
Apparently, six of the Sardinians are M458+, going by recent online chatter on the topic. Some are also Z280+.

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=719&start=300

And yes, of course, these lineages would have had to arrive in Sardinia after the Neolithic. Like I said above, I'm thinking the Bronze Age, because that's when things really start to move, and then settle down again during the Iron Age until the Migration Period. So I suppose the Vandals might also be an option?

A bit earlier than Bronze is possible. The Francalacci et al 2013 study says:


clades of E, R, and G that show Sardinian specific variability of 25 to 30 SNPs are consistent with further expansion in the Late Neolithic (~5500 to 6000 years ago)

That would fit with my suggestion that incomers from the Balkans brought copper-working to Sardinia c. 4000 BC. That is when the Ozieri culture appears. It represents the earliest copper and silver smelting in the central Mediterranean (Ancestral Journeys, p. 113).

As for the putative M458+ - I wouldn't argue with Michal. If that is his conclusion, I expect he is right and will leave him and the other R1a1a experts to work out whence it came.

bolek
11-17-2013, 12:20 PM
Thats fishing to its extreme B)

No marker belongs to no race, why do you assume they are slavic, because they spoke slavic ? ............Makes me laugh when people associate a marker with a nationality. ..........when markers formed thousands of years ago , there was no slavic, germanic, gallic etc.
people spoke many languages in the past, maybe more than today.

with this thinking, in a thousand years from now in Europe, people would be saying that the whole of Europe was English people because people spoke English....makes no sense.

I noticed that on this forum the history of Celts and Germans is being discussed in terms of R1b markers. R1b story is very complex but ... nobody is laughing.


R1a story is much simpler because there is clear correlation between languages and haplogroups:


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1519-Languages-and-Y-DNA-lineages




An individual writer is entitled to her opinion, but she certainly should not pretend to speak for the entire scientific community.

You are right there is no agreement on the subject


Abstract: The research on the ethnogenetic processes is still an unresolved problem. Direct observation of objects and phenomena, the unity of time and place, the vicinity of form and secondary features of the recovered material are treated as credible indicators of the community. Such a community could be formed and endured only in the conditions of stable contacts of a communicative character. L. Zabrocki (1963) believed that this concept could act as a bridge between linguistic and historical sciences. M. Parczewski is trying to include it in discussions connected with the ethnic interpretation of archaeological cultures. 1.- The realization of this postulate is problematic. An obstacle consists in the complexity of the relationships between the populations distinguished on the basis of non-uniform and qualitatively different criteria. 2.- L. Leciejewicz doesn't see the need to revise the arguments for the autochthonist theory in the 1970s but it seems that such a need exists. 3.- In a new look at the genesis of early medieval ceramics, Z. Kurnatowska constates that many of settlements in the end of Antiquity from Great Poland and from southern Poland, did not decline suddenly: they still existed till the end of the 5th c., and, may be, continued in the next century. The 'craftsmen-made' ceramics seem to be element of continuity between the Late Antiquity and early Middle Ages. 4.- W. Szymanski gave attention to three fortified settlements in the territory of the East and West Slavs, from the 6th-7th c., connected with the southern territories. One question is whether the preference of hills chosen as places for defense organization at the beginnings of the Middle Ages was the Slavs' traditional manner of proceeding, or, it can be treated as their elastic adapting to a concrete situation existing in the new occupied territories? 5.- J. Nalepa (2007) challenges the scientific basis of the concept of K. Godlowski and M. Parczewski concerning the ancient settlements of the Slavs. He accuses these archaeologists of a 'dismissive, careless treatment of historical written sources and an ignorance of the methods of the scientific analysis, evaluation of their worth and the establishment of facts by their confrontation with other relevant sources of information'. A separate problem is the essence of Slavdom. This comprises primitivism: hand-made pottery, without decoration, is 'Slavic' whereas that more advanced technologically would be of alien origin (Cracow school opinion). This type of reductionist approach borders on the absurd. Could it be that the coincidence of our seminar with the publication in 'Slavia Antiqua', for long associated with Prof. W. Hensel, articles of similar approach - those of J. Nalepa (2007), H. Mamzer (1999), P. Barford (2003), T. Makiewicz (2005) and J. Piontek (2006) - can be seen as a turning point? Perhaps we will see now the beginning of a period of rational progress in the field of investigation concerning the origins of the Slavs, based on clearly defined methodological principles and free from emotion and ideological pressure.

http://cejsh-archive.icm.edu.pl/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?09PLAAAA060910

Ethnic archeology is pseudoscience, pots are not people. For many archeologists what M. Parczewski is doing is absurd. There was crisis and poverty everywhere, archeological cultures changed because of crisis but there is no evidence that there was population replacement in Poland. Anthropologists and genetists deny it:


Indeed, we show here the existence of genetic continuity of several maternal lineages in Central Europe from the times of Bronze and Iron Ages. Thus, the data from complete mitochondrial genomes collected so far seems to indicate that the ancestors of Slavs were autochthonous peoples of Central and Eastern Europe rather than early medieval invaders emerging in restricted areas of the Prut and Dniestr basin and expanding suddenly due to migration, as suggested by some archeologists [9]. In this respect, the complete genome data on several mitochondrial subhaplogroups of probable Central European origin presented in this and previous studies [51,52] are in a perfect agreement with the recent findings of physical anthropology, suggesting continuity of human settlement in central Europe between the Roman period and the early Middle Ages [11] as well as with earlier anthropological data pointing to the central Europe as the ‘‘homeland’’ of Slavs.



Taken together, this data points to a genetic continuity of several maternal lineages in Central Europe from the times of Bronze and Iron Ages. Interestingly, this picture could be also confirmed by expansion time of Y-chromosome subcluster R1a1a1-M458 [51]. Thus, one may exclude the migrationist assumption that Central European territories were populated by the Slavs only at the very beginning of sixth century, following whole scale depopulation of the northern areas of Central Europe [1]. Indeed, the data presented herein indicates that visible changes of material culture of Central Europe in the fifth century did not result from extensive demographic changes, but were rather accompanied by continuity of some maternal and paternal lineages between Bronze and early Middle Ages.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0054360

lgmayka
11-17-2013, 12:58 PM
It's a topic that has been heavily discussed for decades and there is actually evidence to discuss.
But instead of discussing evidence, some people pretend that the debate is already over.

That's my point. It is misleading to pretend to the public that a case is closed when multiple unbiased sources say that experts have not come to a consensus.

There are many ways to express one's view--even if it is perhaps the majority view--without marginalizing those who disagree or doubt.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 01:12 PM
pots are not people.

OK. Let's talk people. The mutation M458 first occurred in one man. We cannot be certain exactly where that happened, and we never will be. However there is an obvious correlation between M458 today and Slavic languages. So we can deduce that men carrying M458 spread Slavic languages. These languages derive from Proto-Slavic, which linguists date to c. 500 AD. Proto-Slavic is defined as the language spoken immediately prior to daughter languages splitting from it. Prior to modern communications, a language developed within a regularly communicating group living within easy touch of each other. So early, non-literate languages always spring from a fairly small territory. If groups from that homeland move so far away that communication is less regular, then their speech starts to change from that of the parent tongue, and eventually you end up with separate languages, though their common ancestry can be seen.

So we arrive at the deduction that Proto-Slavic speakers included quite a lot of men carrying M458, since they seem to have spread Proto-Slavic in all directions after 500 AD (and in the process the language split into daughter languages). Slavs have far more common ancestry across the Slavic-speaking block than most other Europeans. This appears in their greater number of recent common ancestors as shown in Identity by Descent. This common ancestry dates to the migration period. See Ralph and Coop 2013 (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555).

Yes some Polish geneticists are fighting patriotically to deny all of this, but the study you cite is on mtDNA. Their note 51 is to an mtDNA study too. They really mean Underhill 2010, which is their note 53. The Underhill study failed to recognise that M458 is Slavic, because they used the "evolutionary effective" dating method, which has produced a lot of strange results.

There is no shortcut to ancient DNA.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 01:24 PM
But instead of discussing evidence, some people pretend that the debate is already over.

You know very well that you and I personally have repeatedly thrashed out the evidence at some length. I recall at least one thread on Molgen that seemed to go on forever. I have come under regular, predictable attack from a small but vociferous coterie of migration-deniers ever since I put up my online page on the Slavs, which discussed the evidence with full citations. It is not lack of evidence that is the problem here. It is not lack of discussion either between you and I, or in academia. There has been plenty of discussion.

And yes there are still some Poles out there publishing in hope that the majority view can be overturned. It is all very understandable, given the history. But I have to pursue logical deduction from the evidence. That's my job.

Silesian
11-17-2013, 01:35 PM
Colour me clueless, but I'm not entirely following you again.
Thanx for your patience.


Are you looking for an R1a match between Pashtuns and the modern inhabitants of Romania and Bulgaria, on the grounds that the latter are (you suppose) descendants of Scythians?
Are the Scythians, Jasz Ossets-Digor, Alans, Yagnobi, all related in Eastern Iranian language grouping?
,

Does not compute. The Scythians were replaced on the European steppe by Turks and then by Slavs.
If the Scythians were replaced in the European steppe by Turks and Slavs, were they also replaced further east by Brahui?




R-M458 is so obviously Slavic that I wonder anybody can think otherwise. It defined a cluster previously recognised as such on STRs (Gwodz cluster N.) To your knowledge in studies like Grugni et al has there been any m458 found in Iran?



But there is nowhere that I would expect a strong concentration of R1a-Z93+. There was nowhere in Europe that Scythians settled in numbers enough to retain their language.

Is it possible that the" Scythians" were not only comprised of R1a-Z93+?


The thread has a direction set by Dr. Hammer R comming from east to west and multiplying quickly in Europe.

If you were to guess within a 1000 mile radius and 1000 year time frame +/- could you give a rough location of P.I.E.?

Jean M
11-17-2013, 02:02 PM
Are the Scythians, Jasz Ossets-Digor, Alans, Yagnobi, all related in Eastern Iranian language grouping?


As you can see on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian_languages . The eastern branch is actually the first attested in writing in the form of Avestan, the language of the Avesta. The date of it is hotly contested, but estimates of its earliest elements tend to fall around 1000 BC. The Scythians were not literate, but some personal names were recorded in Classical sources. In the Middle Iranian period (from about the 4th century BC) successor languages were spoken in Central Asia and recorded to some degree: Bactrian, Sogdian and Choresmian. Further east, where the Scythians were known as Saka, documents survive along the Silk Road in Saka and Khotanese. The Turkish conquest of the steppes mainly destroyed/displaced these language communities, but some East Iranian speakers survived in mountainous regions. Sogdian has a descendant in Yagnobi. Alanic is the presumed ancestor of Ossetic. Remnants of the Saka languages survive in the Pamirs. But the most important modern East Iranian language in numbers of speakers is Pashto, the state language of Afghanistan. See Mallory and Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (Oxford University Press 2006), pp. 33-4.

Silesian
11-17-2013, 02:13 PM
As you can see on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian_languages . The eastern branch is actually the first attested in writing in the form of Avestan, the language of the Avesta. The date of it is hotly contested, but estimates of its earliest elements tend to fall around 1000 BC. ........

Thank you again for your insight.

What is your take on this statement made in the Grugni et al study as well as the quality in terms of it's findings?

Zoroastrians are the oldest religious community in Iran; in fact the first followers have been the proto-Indo-Iranians. With the Islamic invasions they were persecuted and now exist as a minority in Iran.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041252?imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041252.t001

Jean M
11-17-2013, 02:13 PM
If the Scythians were replaced in the European steppe by Turks and Slavs, were they also replaced further east by Brahui?


The origins of the Brahui are contested. As Dravidian-speakers they seem out of place so far NW, but I'm not sure that I have the absolute latest on the topic. Blench 2008* argues that the Brahui represents a westward migration, not a relic population, especially as the Brahui are pastoral nomads.

* Re-evaluating the linguistic prehistory of South Asia

Jean M
11-17-2013, 02:28 PM
Is it possible that the" Scythians" were not only comprised of R1a-Z93+?


It is not only possible, but I would say virtually certain that the Scythians amassed more Y-DNA haplogroups than just the one that leaps out at us as the most likely one to be dominant among them. Any group that gets beyond the size of an extended family of a few generations is unlikely to be composed of just one Y-DNA haplogroup. Even in patrilocal societies, where wives are taken into the husband's home, you are going to get a few males who are absorbed from outside the group one way or another. Tribes can merge and split and merge again in a confusing mix. That's life.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 02:54 PM
What is your take on this statement made in the Grugni et al study as well as the quality in terms of it's findings??


Zoroastrians are the oldest religious community in Iran; in fact the first followers have been the proto-Indo-Iranians. With the Islamic invasions they were persecuted and now exist as a minority in Iran.


Zoroastrianism was once the state religion of Persia, and is now a minority religion in Iran. So far I'd say that is completely non-controversial. How far back we can date it is where things get more problematic. But it can be and has been argued that it evolved from the world-view within Andronovo. For one thing the Avesta reflects an archaic pastoral economy, which it seems Zarathuštra urged his followers to abandon in favour of settled farming.


The material culture of the Avesta is very archaic; there are no mentions of temples and large irrigation systems and specialized crafts; iron is defined by the same word as bronze; and the main unit of the society is the vis - clan...

Kuzmina, The Origin of the Indo-Iranians (2007), p. 449.

lgmayka
11-17-2013, 03:01 PM
I have come under regular, predictable attack from a small but vociferous coterie of migration-deniers
I cited Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you are now going to aggressively attack both of those mainstream sources, please admit that it is you who are on the margins.

And yes there are still some Poles out there publishing in hope that the majority view can be overturned.
Anyone who seriously believes that both Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica are run by fanatical nationalistic Poles is downright delusional.

Mainstream sources agree only that the experts have not come to a consensus on this issue. I do not contest your right to have an opinion, only your pretense that the entire scientific community agrees with you.

Silesian
11-17-2013, 03:20 PM
I I do not contest your right to have an opinion, only your pretense that the entire scientific community agrees with you.
Igmayka you have a good knowledge also and help with the Polish project, thank for this. I have a question with regards the Grugni et al . Does it do a half decent job of covering Iran?

Jean has already shown how old it is, it must be important.

The eastern branch is actually the first attested in writing in the form of Avestan, the language of the Avesta. ]

Are you familiar with the Avesta?

Jean M
11-17-2013, 03:26 PM
I cited Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you are now going to aggressively attack both of those mainstream sources...


I'm not attacking the Encyclopedia Britannica. I said nothing about it. It used to be a good general reference I believe, back in the days before it changed ownership, but I have never relied on it or any other similar work as a source for my published work. No scholar worthy of the name would just cull stuff from a general encyclopaedia. My sources have been recent works by archaeologists and linguists who are experts on the topic.

Silesian
11-17-2013, 03:30 PM
Zoroastrianism was once the state religion of Persia, and is now a minority religion in Iran. So far I'd say that is completely non-controversial. How far back we can date it is where things get more problematic. But it can be and has been argued that it evolved from the world-view within Andronovo. For one thing the Avesta reflects an archaic pastoral economy, which it seems Zarathuštra urged his followers to abandon in favour of settled farming.


Kuzmina, The Origin of the Indo-Iranians (2007), p. 449.


Sorry Jean I don't even have a copy of this book. Is their a written connection showing Andronovo in the Avesta? Or is this anecdotal evidence based on other material like farming?

R.Rocca
11-17-2013, 03:33 PM
I don't really have an opinion regarding Slavic migrations, but I should point out that in the East Tyrol, Austria, R-M17 is present in pasture areas with Slavic etymons and completely lacking in pasture areas with Romance etymons. Also, the amount of R1b in the former Slavic areas is half that of the Romance area (Niederstatter 2012).

Jean M
11-17-2013, 03:39 PM
Is their a written connection showing Andronovo in the Avesta?

There is no writing surviving from Andronovo. How we wish there were! What survives in writing is only the Avesta itself. Many scholars have tried to date and place the Avesta. So there are many opinions. Some have placed it in the BMAC, but as Kuzmina points out, the society it implies was pastoral and not urban. That suggests Andronovo.

lgmayka
11-17-2013, 03:40 PM
So early, non-literate languages always spring from a fairly small territory.
An excellent point! Let us examine the logical implications of that notion as well as some related facts:

- If, prior to expansion, that non-literate tribe continuously occupied that small territory for a considerable length of time without rapid population growth and without much immigration, the tribe would have converged to a single majority Y-DNA clade. This genetic drift is typical of a small, confined, non-literate, numerically stable tribe.

- There is no single R1a1a clade that commands a majority, or anywhere near a majority, of any Slavic country today. The most prominent age-appropriate clade both in geography and numbers is probably R1a-L1029. But its concentration does not rise above 15% anywhere. (Michał can modify this figure if he sees a slightly higher percentage in a particular country.)

- Many different clades, of several different haplogroups, have an age roughly fitting the Slavic expansion, and show some degree of spread across Central-Eastern Europe.

- mtDNA is a completely different case. There is no evidence, nor reason to believe, that a single mtDNA clade swept across half the continent 1500 years ago at all, not even to a 15% concentration. What little evidence of expansion we see seems to be more ancient, and spread more widely across Northern Europe.

The basic conclusion: One small tribe speaking Proto-Slavic did not clone itself across half of Europe. Rather, one small tribe's dialect apparently became the lingua franca across many related tribes occupying a much wider region; these cooperating or perhaps loosely confederated tribes then expanded further--south, east, and west. This is essentially the view presented by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs#Conclusions):
---
Recent scholarship acknowledges that it may be simplistic to attempt to define a localized Slavic homeland. Although proto-Slavic language may have developed in a localized area, Slavic ethnogenesis occurred in a large area stretching from the Oder in the west to the Dnieper in the east, and south to the Danube river.[86][87] It was a complex process fueled by changes within barbaricum as well as within the Roman Empire. Despite the remarkable cultural uniformity, Slavic development appears to have been less politically consolidated compared to the Germani.

Patrick Geary points out that the Slavic expansion was a decentralized, yet often forceful process resulting in the assimilation of great numbers of people. The assimilating power was carried by small groups of "soldier-farmers" who carried common traditions and language. "Without kings or large–scale chieftains to bribe or defeat, the Byzantine Empire had little hope of either destroying them or coopting them into the imperial system".[88] Pohl agrees: “Avars and Bulgars conformed to the rules of the game established by the Romans. They built up a concentration of military power that was paid, in the last resort, from Roman tax revenues. Therefore they paradoxically depended on the functioning of the Byzantine state. The Slavs managed to keep up their agriculture (and a rather efficient kind of agriculture, by the standards of the time), even in times when they took their part in plundering Roman provinces. The booty they won apparently did not (at least initially) create a new military class with the greed for more and a contempt for peasant's work, as it did with the Germans. Thus the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative . . . which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion."[89]
---

Silesian
11-17-2013, 03:52 PM
There is no writing surviving from Andronovo. How we wish there were! What survives in writing is only the Avesta itself. Many scholars have tried to date and place the Avesta. So there are many opinions. Some have placed it in the BMAC, but as Kuzmina points out, the society it implies was pastoral and not urban. That suggests Andronovo.
I don't know any Zoarostians in person. The only information I can get is through people I know from Gujarit, India; about the Parsi. Did Andronovo pratice sky burials?

Jean M
11-17-2013, 03:59 PM
- If, prior to expansion, that non-literate tribe continuously occupied that small territory for a considerable length of time without rapid population growth and without much immigration, the tribe would have converged to a single majority Y-DNA clade.


Genetic drift certainly can happen in those circumstances, but there is no need to envisage quite that degree of genetic drift. The extreme of reduction to one haplogroup becoming fixed in the language population has only been seen in a very few cases, such as one in the Caucasus, where the terrain restricts the size of the communicating group much more than we would envisage in the Middle Dnieper.



- There is no single R1a1a clade that commands a majority, or anywhere near a majority, of any Slavic country today. The most prominent age-appropriate clade both in geography and numbers is probably R1a-L1029. But its concentration does not rise above 15% anywhere. (Michał can modify this figure if he sees a slightly higher percentage in a particular country.)

- Many different clades, of several different haplogroups, have an age roughly fitting the Slavic expansion, and show some degree of spread across Central-Eastern Europe.


Yes indeed. I commented to that effect in Ancestral Journeys. My posts above might have conveyed the impression that there is only one Slavic haplogroup, so this comes as a timely reminder that such one-to-one relationships between language and Y-DNA haplogroup hardly ever occur.

lgmayka
11-17-2013, 04:07 PM
Igmayka you have a good knowledge also and help with the Polish project, thank for this. I have a question with regards the Grugni et al . Does it do a half decent job of covering Iran?
I assume you mean this research paper (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252). Sorry, I really don't know--that's out of my geographic range. :)

bolek
11-17-2013, 04:23 PM
These languages derive from Proto-Slavic, which linguists date to c. 500 AD. Proto-Slavic is defined as the language spoken immediately prior to daughter languages splitting from it.
This is nonsense.
Who says so? And what is the evidence?

Jean M
11-17-2013, 04:34 PM
This is nonsense. Who says so? And what is the evidence?

Are you saying that the Slavic languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages) are not in your view a family which descend from a common parent?

It is linguists who say so. The evidence lies in the relationships between these languages. Did you really not know this? Good gracious.

You might like to start here: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/general/ie-lg/Balto-Slavic.html

Jean M
11-17-2013, 04:44 PM
I have a question with regards the Grugni et al . Does it do a half decent job of covering Iran?


It was reviewed by someone of Iranian descent when it came out. http://vaedhya.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/interpreting-new-iranian-y-chromosomal.html


A new study on Iranian Y-Chromosomes released just yesterday has, to my satisfaction, adequately sampled every major ethno-linguistic group as well as determining inter-provincial variation between them. Grugni et al. sampled 938 unrelated Iranian men from 15 ethnic groups (including Assyrians, Zoroastrians and Turkmen) in 14 provinces across the country.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 04:53 PM
@ Silesian We have at least one Zoroastrian on this forum, but he is pretty busy at the moment I understand.


Did Andronovo practice sky burials?

Not as far as I know, though it is difficult to find evidence of that. As Kuzmina says:


Andronovo was a biritual culture. An inhumed body was placed in a flexed position on the left side with the head to the west. But the main custom was cremation: the ashes were brought in a vessel (or on a plate as in the Urals) and poured out onto the bottom of a grave.

vettor
11-17-2013, 04:53 PM
I noticed that on this forum the history of Celts and Germans is being discussed in terms of R1b markers. R1b story is very complex but ... nobody is laughing.



If they are talking about M.Hammer's map, then U152 nor U106 is not in ancient Celtic or German areas.

There are tribes/ethnicities that have disappeared in history, swallowed up by other ethnicities over time .....as an example, look at Austria, first mentioned the term Austrian as in people was 998AD, they are old bavarians,
before this go to the Roman empire, there was no germans in Austria,
go further back who where they ?............a people that got absorbed over many centuries by germans, italians, swiss, and some slavs as well.......and the other cultures I did not mention

vettor
11-17-2013, 04:58 PM
Zoroastrianism was once the state religion of Persia, and is now a minority religion in Iran. So far I'd say that is completely non-controversial. How far back we can date it is where things get more problematic. But it can be and has been argued that it evolved from the world-view within Andronovo. For one thing the Avesta reflects an archaic pastoral economy, which it seems Zarathuštra urged his followers to abandon in favour of settled farming.

.

was it Persia, or as discovered via archeology the areas of Parthia, Bactria and Turkmenistan ( yes ancient northern Persian empire area)

vettor
11-17-2013, 05:06 PM
I don't really have an opinion regarding Slavic migrations, but I should point out that in the East Tyrol, Austria, R-M17 is present in pasture areas with Slavic etymons and completely lacking in pasture areas with Romance etymons. Also, the amount of R1b in the former Slavic areas is half that of the Romance area (Niederstatter 2012).

considering that there was no Austrians there before 998AD, the eastern lands of Austria was an area where incoming germans from the north met, "slavic" people from the east. Ancient times it was called Noricum, a land of mixed people who where Raetic, Venetic, Liburnian, Pannonian and Illyrian, It was an important junction in trade and migration .
In the iron-age the celts came from the west in the form of the Taurisic and carni people ( some say gallic )

GailT
11-17-2013, 05:07 PM
Ethnic archeology is pseudoscience, pots are not people. For many archeologists what M. Parczewski is doing is absurd. There was crisis and poverty everywhere, archeological cultures changed because of crisis but there is no evidence that there was population replacement in Poland. Anthropologists and genetists deny it:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0054360

There was a vigorous discussion of "The History of Slavs Inferred from Complete Mitochondrial Genome Sequences" at molgen, and I argued that this paper represents the most unreliable form of naive phylogeographic analysis. There are several problems with their analysis of mtDNA, which I won't repeat in a topic on yDNA R, but they provide no evidence of genetic continuity in Europe, and their conclusion that "one may exclude the migrationist assumption" is entirely unsupported by the genetic evidence. If anyone wants to discuss the multiple flaws in this paper, which is really a case study in how NOT to do phylogeographic analysis, I'll start a topic in the mtDNA forum.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 05:11 PM
was it Persia, or as discovered via archeology

The record of it as a state religion starts with the Archaemenians. Here's snippet from the BBC:


In 549 BCE, the Persians, led by Cyrus the Great of the Archaemenian family, overthrew the Median court of Western Iran. Cyrus thus founded the first Persian Empire. The Archaemenian kings are known to have been very pious Zoroastrians, trying to rule justly and in accordance with the Zoroastrian law of asha (truth and righteousness). Cyrus the Great was relatively liberal. While he himself ruled according to Zoroastrian beliefs, he made no attempt to impose Zoroastrianism on the people of his subject territories. The Jews most famously benefited from this; Cyrus permitted them to return to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon, and rebuild their temple. This act of kindness made a huge impact on Judaism. Zoroastrian philosophy powerfully influenced post-Exilic Judaism.

Darius the Great was famously pious and showed the same general tolerance for other faiths as his predecessor Cyrus. His piety is expressed in religious inscriptions left on his tomb.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian/history/persia_1.shtml

vettor
11-17-2013, 05:30 PM
The record of it as a state religion starts with the Archaemenians. Here's snippet from the BBC:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian/history/persia_1.shtml

I was referring to this area

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/tajikistan/page5.htm

also mentioned in the wonderful 2013 series......Alexander's Lost World ..................gives interesting snippets of migrational routes from the pamir region into europe and the middle-east

Jean M
11-17-2013, 05:34 PM
@ Vettor - Lovely photos: stunning scenery.

alan
11-17-2013, 05:43 PM
Interesting that a marked peark of P343*/P25* was found among them.


Zoroastrianism was once the state religion of Persia, and is now a minority religion in Iran. So far I'd say that is completely non-controversial. How far back we can date it is where things get more problematic. But it can be and has been argued that it evolved from the world-view within Andronovo. For one thing the Avesta reflects an archaic pastoral economy, which it seems Zarathuštra urged his followers to abandon in favour of settled farming.



Kuzmina, The Origin of the Indo-Iranians (2007), p. 449.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 05:48 PM
Here's Mallory's view from EIE 1997, p. 311:


As the Avesta reflects an increasingly more sedentized society, the likely candidate for it in the archaeological record is the Iron Age Yaz I culture (c 1500-1100 BC) which occupies the regions most closely assigned to the Avesta at a time roughly coincident with its earliest creation. Early farming citadels, steppe-derived metallurgy and ceramics, and the conspicuous absence of burials, which possibly reflects the Zoroastrian norms for disposing of the dead by exposure rather than burial, fit in well with the textual evidence for Avestan society. Later cultural continuity in Central Asia may then reflect the ancestors of the later East Iranian communities that emerged in the later historical period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaz_culture

Jean M
11-17-2013, 06:48 PM
There might be a few descendants of Scythians scattered about Europe, wherever the Scythians and their descendants, Alans and Sarmatians, roamed. That's a pretty wide stretch of Europe. The Scythians burst in first in the Iron Age, and continued raiding. Then we have the Sarmatians in the Roman army and the Alans grabbing a bit of the landscape as the Western Roman Empire fell. But there is nowhere that I would expect a strong concentration of R1a-Z93+. There was nowhere in Europe that Scythians settled in numbers enough to retain their language.



Are the Scythians, Jasz Ossets-Digor, Alans, Yagnobi, all related in Eastern Iranian language grouping?


I am now seeing the point of your question! I had forgotten the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1sz_people

Mea Culpa! Of course the language is gone now, but it was Ossetic.

Humanist
11-17-2013, 07:08 PM
The record of it as a state religion starts with the Archaemenians. Here's snippet from the BBC:


In 549 BCE, the Persians, led by Cyrus the Great of the Archaemenian family, overthrew the Median court of Western Iran. Cyrus thus founded the first Persian Empire. The Archaemenian kings are known to have been very pious Zoroastrians, trying to rule justly and in accordance with the Zoroastrian law of asha (truth and righteousness). Cyrus the Great was relatively liberal. While he himself ruled according to Zoroastrian beliefs, he made no attempt to impose Zoroastrianism on the people of his subject territories. The Jews most famously benefited from this; Cyrus permitted them to return to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon, and rebuild their temple. This act of kindness made a huge impact on Judaism. Zoroastrian philosophy powerfully influenced post-Exilic Judaism.

Darius the Great was famously pious and showed the same general tolerance for other faiths as his predecessor Cyrus. His piety is expressed in religious inscriptions left on his tomb.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian/history/persia_1.shtml

Reading the bit about the Jews of Babylon reminded me of a recent paper I came across. If anyone is interested in giving it a read:Cyrus the Great, Exiles and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations. (https://www.academia.edu/3753890/Cyrus_the_Great_Exiles_and_Foreign_Gods_A_Comparis on_of_Assyrian_and_Persian_Policies_on_Subject_Nat ions)

by R.J. (Bert) van der Spek

Wouter Henkelman, Charles Jones, Michael Kozuh and Christopher Woods (eds.), Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper.
Oriental Institute Publications. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.


This article discusses Cyrus' policy in conquered territories as regards religion, deportation policy and local autonomy in the light of Ancient Near Eastern history. Cyrus' policy appears to be in the footsteps of Mesopotamian traditions. The characterization of the Cyrus cylinder as first declaration of human rights is anachronistic and thus not justified (which does not mean that Cyrus couldn't show mercy on occasion. The position of the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, and the conquest of Lydia gain new treatment. Finally a translation of the Cyrus Cylinder is presented with the new fragments discovered in the British Museum by the late W.G. Lambert and Irving Finkel. See for this first of all: I. Finkel (ed.) The Cyrus Cylinder. The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon (London: I.B. Tauris, 2013).

bolek
11-17-2013, 08:39 PM
Are you saying that the Slavic languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages) are not in your view a family which descend from a common parent?

It is linguists who say so. The evidence lies in the relationships between these languages. Did you really not know this? Good gracious.

You might like to start here: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/general/ie-lg/Balto-Slavic.html

I suggest that you better read books written by professors of linguistics who know Slavic languages and have researched them than base your opinion on internet info written by computer scientists and students.
What I objected to is your suggestion that Slavic languages originated 500 AD from Proto-Slavic and expanded from some small area of Middle Dnieper. It is nonsense.

We know that Proto-Slavic originated three to four thousand years earlier, had many dialects, and was spread over large areas of Eastern Europe much earlier than 500 AD.

First some opinions of linguists on the nature of Slavic languages. According to one of the most important French linguists Antoine Meillet:


“[..] Baltic and Slavic show the common trait of never having undergone in the course of their development any sudden systemic upheaval. [...] there is no indication of a serious dislocation of any part of the linguistic system at any time. The sound structure has in general remained intact to the present. [...] Baltic and Slavic are consequently the only languages in which certain modern word-forms resemble those reconstructed for Common Indo-European.” ( The Indo-European Dialects [Eng. translation of Les dialectes indo-européens (1908)], University of Alabama Press, 1967, pp. 59-60).

http://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/1967/


According to one of the most important Russian linguists Oleg Nikolayevich Trubachyov:


“Presently, there is an objective tendency to push back the dating of the history of ancient Indo-European dialects. This also applies to Slavonic as one of the Indo-European dialects. However, the question now is not that the history of Slavonic may be measured by the scale of the II to III millenniums B.C. but that we can hardly date the ‘emergence’ or ‘separation’ of pra-Slavonic or proto-Slavonic dialects from Indo-European dialects because of the proper uninterrupted Indo-European origin of Slavonic.” (Трубачев, О. Н., Этногенез и культура древнейших славян: Лингвистические исследования (Москва: Наука, 2003, p.25).

Now some opinions from “A Prehistory of Slavic: the Historical Phonology of Common Slavic” George Yurii Shevelov (Schneider), Ukrainian of German decent:

Thousands of years after separation from PIE Common Slavic (CS) existed and was not uniform:

http://s22.postimg.org/aqgp1rdxt/shevelov1.png (http://postimage.org/)


Shevelov (Schneider) dated the inception of Common Slavic at 2000 BC:

http://s22.postimg.org/l4cxh99ap/shevelov2.png (http://postimage.org/)

He also stresses the fact that Slavic language was the direct continuation of PIE and is a form of PIE and also that its history begins with the history of PIE.
http://s22.postimg.org/g4fh9b3o1/shevelov3.png (http://postimage.org/)


http://www.amazon.com/Prehistory-Slavic-Historical-Phonology-Common/dp/B000KJ9TC6/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384714617&sr=1-4

I am not sure if you are able to grasp it but there is linguistic and genetic evidence that Slavs never left PIE homeland. The development of Slavonic languages was continuous and not shaped by not-IE substratum as in case of Indo-Iranian, Greek, Germanic or Celtic.

Many Slavonic words still resemble PIE forms and the grammar is in many cases, as for example verb conjugation, as it was in PIE.

It all becomes more easy to comprehend when we look at linguistics and genetics:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1519-Languages-and-Y-DNA-lineages&p=19568#post19568

Proto-Slavic originated 3000-2000 BC. It corresponds to the split of R1a-Z645 into R1a-Z283 and R1a-Z93. R1a-Z283 remained in Europe and correlates with Slavic languages or with Slavic influences in other IE languages. R1a-Z93 correlates with Indo-Iranian languages which expanded in Asia.
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w443/priwas/R1a_migration_map.jpg
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w443/priwas/Haplogroup-R1a.gif

Slavic and Indo-Iranian are closely related and one cannot put any other IE language between them, so the correlation of Slavic languages with R1a-Z283 and Indo-Iranian with R1a-Z93 is not accidental but can be explained by historical process which took place in Eastern Europe around 3000-2000 BC.

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w443/priwas/wynh-1.png
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w443/priwas/4qkq.png

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6155/257.abstract

Humanist
11-17-2013, 09:13 PM
"Cyrus' policy appears to be in the footsteps of Mesopotamian traditions." Well, we can say for certain he did not follow the footsteps of the Assyrians. And thank God he didn't.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, did you read the paper?

OT


The idea of Cyrus as the champion of religious tolerance rests on three fundamentally erroneous assumptions. In the first place, it rests on an anachronistic perception of ancient political discourse. In antiquity, no discourse on religious tolerance existed. Religion was deeply embedded in society, in political structures, in daily life. This is true for the ancient Sumerian city-states, for the Athenian city-state and for the Roman Republic. Especially for expanding empires, authorities had to face the problem of encompassing a variety of political constructs with their religious concepts embedded in them. Sometimes this led to harsh treatment of subdued people and destructions of temples, but empires typically accepted a certain amount of multiformity in order not to provoke rebellion. In addition, polytheism was the normal type of religion in antiquity, which made it easier to accept the existence and also to respect the power of foreign gods. It is not a coincidence that suppression of religion often had something to do with monotheistic religions (persecution of Jews and Christians, who refused to accept gods other than their own; persecution of pagans under Christian emperors). Persecution of religious beliefs and practices were usually related to would-be disturbances of order (as in the case of the suppression of the Bacchanalia in Rome in 186 BC or, possibly, the prohibition of the Jewish cult in the temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV in 168 BC).

Secondly, it is too facile to characterize Cyrus’ rule as one that had ‘tolerance’ as its starting point. Although it is indeed possible to describe his policy as positively pragmatic or even mild in some respects, it is also clear that Cyrus was a normal conqueror with the usual policy of brutal warfare and harsh measures. The will of the Persian king was law, and no principal right of participation in government was allowed.

Thirdly, the comparison with Assyrian policy is mistaken in its portrayal of that policy as principally different from Cyrus’. As we shall see, the ‘Assyrian attitude’ did not only consist of cruelty and intolerance, and the cult of Assyrian gods was not imposed on subdued peoples.

This article tries to place Cyrus’ policy in its ancient Near Eastern historical context. I maintain that for centuries the principles of government remained essentially the same: the Assyrian Empire (745-612), the Babylonian Empire (612-539), the Persian Empire (539-331), the Graeco-Macedonian Empires of Alexander the Great, the Diadochi and the Seleucids (331-64) were not fundamentally different. Assyria did not all of a sudden vanish from the earth in 614-609 BC, but its place was taken over by later dynasties and rulers. Of course these had to adapt themselves to different circumstances, but the similarities are striking. Although I will concentrate on a comparison of Assyrian and Persian policies, because these are generally seen as opposites, I will occasionally digress on the other empires, to show that many Assyrian and Persian policies were common in the ancient Near East. I shall deal with three subjects: religious policy; the stance towards Babylon; and the treatment of new subjects (especially as regards deportation).

Jean M
11-17-2013, 09:21 PM
I suggest that you better read books written by professors of linguistics who know Slavic languages and have researched them than base your opinion on internet info written by computer scientists and students.


Naturally I have read the work of linguists and I cite them in my book. I simply linked to the Texas University pages on Indo-European languages as a beginner's guide, with a handy bibliography of further reading.


We know that Proto-Slavic originated three to four thousand years earlier, had many dialects, and was spread over large areas of Eastern Europe much earlier than 500 AD.

You are thinking of Proto-Balto-Slavic. Some authors seem to want to class that as Common Slavic, which conveniently allows them to stake a Slavic claim to the territory of the Balts. But serious linguists not handicapped by political concerns recognise the Baltic family as separate from, though so closely related to the Slavic family that they shared a homeland. They recognise that it was the ancestors of the Balts who left the middle Dnieper first and spread over a far wider territory than that which they presently inhabit. Then the Slavs followed them in the Migration Period. You will find the two language families so described in any current Anglophone textbook for students of Indo-European languages. The idea of subsuming the Balts into the Slavs does not seem to have won over world linguists.

It makes about as much sense as labelling all the Slavic languages as Baltic. In a sense Proto-Slavic was one dialect of Baltic, or one language within the Baltic family. But once its speakers spread out, Proto-Slavic split into a familiy of its own. So it makes sense to give it a separate name - the Slavic family. Evidently the Faculty of Polish Studies at University of Warsaw follows this thinking i.e. Slavic and Baltic are considered separately.
http://www.polon.uw.edu.pl/eng/

Humanist
11-17-2013, 09:46 PM
I disagree with that paper. Cyrus' policy was positive for the region while Assyrians policy was negative. That itself is a big enough difference. Secondly, majority of the "Mesopotamian elements" borrowed came from the Susians/Elamites and not the Assyrians/Babylonians.

OK. Thank you for your reply.

Silesian
11-17-2013, 10:27 PM
I am now seeing the point of your question! I had forgotten the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1sz_people

Mea Culpa! Of course the language is gone now, but it was Ossetic.
I don't know enough about languages to really make any comments. Is Yagnobi an important Eastern Iranian language[in the sense it is removed by a time frame of 1 or 2 millenia from actual PIE] and closely related to ancient Digor Osset?
If so then ancient Avesta is important as the first written attestation of this Eastern branch.

The flip side would be the ancient Western branch. Mallory must view the ancient Medes as true Iranian tribe and important piece of the puzzle if he is trying to prove a connection to Andronovo and Indo-Iranians.


Mallory (as cited in Bryant 2001:216) admits the extraordinary difficulty of making a case for expansions from Andronovo to northern India, and that attempts to link the Indo-Aryans to such sites as the Beshkent and Vakhsh cultures "only gets the Indo-Iranians to Central Asia, but not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans".

The Median triangle lies 500+/- below North Ossetia Digors and Azeri.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 10:30 PM
First some opinions of linguists on the nature of Slavic languages. According to one of the most important French linguists Antoine Meillet .. According to one of the most important Russian linguists Oleg Nikolayevich Trubachyov ... Now some opinions from “A Prehistory of Slavic: the Historical Phonology of Common Slavic” George Yurii Shevelov (Schneider), Ukrainian of German decent:


This all seems to be ancient stuff. I have ferreted around for reviews of Shevelov's book, which came out in 1965. It was absolutely trashed by Horace G. Lunt of Harvard University in The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1966), pp. 85-92. Though Lunt does speak favourably of Meillet, Le slave commun (1924), I scarcely think this work is in frequent use these days.

Jean M
11-17-2013, 10:59 PM
I don't know enough about languages to really make any comments. Is Yagnobi an important Eastern Iranian language [in the sense it is removed by a time frame of 1 or 2 millenia from actual PIE] and closely related to ancient Digor Osset?

All languages are important to linguists, as they give information on linguistic relationships and the way in which languages develop. What linguists really, really like is lots and lots of lovely data to play with. Living languages come top of the heap in that respect. Next are languages that were actually written down copiously by their speakers, preferably on stone or vellum or some other less perishable medium than paper and then carefully conserved for scholars to decipher and write dictionaries of, and compare to other languages and generally have the kind of fun only available to linguists.


Mallory must view the ancient Medes as true Iranian tribe and important piece of the puzzle if he is trying to prove a connection to Andronovo and Indo-Iranians.

Everyone views the Medes as Iranian, to the best of my knowledge. Mallory doesn't bother to try to prove anything. He lays out the data and lets you do the work. ;) But yes Andronovo is the favourite culture for those specialists looking for the Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland. Kuzmina goes for it. Other Russian archaeologists go for it. David Anthony goes for it. Philip Kohl gives a critical, rounded review of the pros and cons at the end of Chapter 5 of The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia (2007).

Both Kohl and Anthony stress that cultures do not move, people do. People do not necessarily transport with them to place B the entire cultural trappings that they had at place A. This gives archaeologists problems. It would be so easy to trace a migration if only migrants would take everything with them including the kitchen sink - all the way from Oldhome to Newhome reached centuries later by their descendants. But human beings are much too sensible to lumber themselves with cultural stasis just to make life easy for archaeologists of the future. As Mallory also points out, by the time IE speech reached India, its carriers had been culturally transformed by contact with the BMAC. Or so we deduce from a match between linguistic and archaeological data.

bolek
11-17-2013, 11:26 PM
You are thinking of Proto-Balto-Slavic.

No I am thinking about Proto-Slavic. I don’t believe in Proto-Balto-Slavic. The relations between Slavic and Baltic languages are the most contentious issues in linguistics.

“THE SLAVIC LANGUAGES” ROLAND SUSSEX PAUL CUBBERLEY Cambridge University Press 2006 page 22
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w443/priwas/balts_zpsbe83a7b8.png
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Slavic-Languages-Roland-Sussex/dp/0521223156

Recently Henning Andersen in his article “The Satem Languages of the Indo- European Northwest. First Contacts?” 2009 wrote:


The Slavic and Baltic languages are characterized by obvious similarities conjoined with significant irregularities in phonological correspondences , striking divergences in morphology, and deep differences in vocabulary. It is a real problem how to construct a narrative that accounts for their prehistorical relationships, as was recognized, among others, by Meillet (1908), Rozwadowski (1912), Endzelin (1923), Stang (1966). More recently, comparativists, whether Indo -Europeanists or specialists in Slavic or Baltic, have preferred to turn their backs on these complicated matters and concentrate on the regular correspondences, as anyone can see who opens one of the recent introductions to Indo - European linguistics.
How can languages come from common proto-language with such striking divergences in morphology, and deep differences in vocabulary?
There is also no doubt that Slavic verb conjugation is more archaic then Baltic, Slavic is more conservative in morphology, has many more cognates with Indo-Iranian and Greek than Lithuanian. One should read O. Trubachyov, A. Bruckner, W. Mańczak and many others.

prof. Witold Mańczak wrote about it:

Balto-Slavic unity didn’t exist. The difference between Balts and Slavs is such that Slavs are descendants of that part of PIE population which remained in PIE homeland whereas Balts are descendants of that part of PIE population which – like descendants of Germanic, Italic, Celtic etc. – left the PIE homeland and settled in areas initially occupied by non-IE population and therefore Slavic lexicon is more archaic than Baltic not only in quantity but also in every particular case. Various evidence show that Baltic languages evolved on Finno-Ugric substratum.
Prof. Mańczak wrote it long before genetics and didn’t know that N1c is the dominant Y-chromosome haplogroup among Lithuanians.

The similarities between Slavonic and Baltic are best explained by parallel developments, linguistic borrowing and convergence.

Borissoff wrote comments about the myth of Lithuanian language:

You seem to uphold the widespread “myth” about the “exceptional affinity of Lithuanian and Sanskrit”. The origin of this myth lies in the 19th century Lithuanian romantic nationalism or “the cult of antiquity“ (https://app.box.com/s/73r918np6mwpg7rt32o9)
I do not have time to discuss it here in detail but I plan a special post on this soon. All I can say is that the presumed similarity between Lithuanian and Sanskrit is greatly exaggerated. Believe me, I studied Lithuanian and know it well enough to compare with Sanskrit. Also I do not support the “Proto-Balto-Slavonic”. It is one more myth.
http://borissoff.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/russian-sanskrit-verbs-3/


I have some doubts about current language tree model, it does not agree with genetics.
Y-chromosome haplogroups R1a and R1b broke away from R1 about 14.8K years ago somewhere in West Central Asia. If both were PIE than Paleolithic origin of PIE must be true, but I think it is impossible.

Maybe we should look closer at the wave theory:

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w443/priwas/file.jpg

It fits genetics better:
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w443/priwas/R1a_migration_map.jpg

Silesian
11-17-2013, 11:48 PM
Everyone views the Medes as Iranian, to the best of my knowledge. Mallory doesn't bother to try to prove anything.

I dug this up on youtube at 19:30, are there any older temples around the path that was taken from Andronovo to Iran?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPLXnteRDO4

Jean M
11-18-2013, 12:05 AM
I don’t believe in Proto-Balto-Slavic.

So I gathered. But it is encouraging that you agree with me that Baltic languages exist. :) Yes there is argument over whether the Baltic and Slavic families had a common ancestor, but that is more or less a technicality. There isn't a huge difference between


Balto-Slavic unity didn’t exist. The difference between Balts and Slavs is such that Slavs are descendants of that part of PIE population which remained in PIE homeland whereas Balts are descendants of that part of PIE population which – like descendants of Germanic, Italic, Celtic etc. – left the PIE homeland and settled in areas initially occupied by non-IE population and therefore Slavic lexicon is more archaic than Baltic not only in quantity but also in every particular case. Various evidence show that Baltic languages evolved on Finno-Ugric substratum.

and the more common position as I stated it above. It is deduced from hydronyms married to archaeology that in the Bronze Age the ancestors of the Balts left the Middle Dnieper to create the Fatyanovo culture, which gradually crept towards the Baltic. There they would have encountered the speakers of Uralic languages. They clearly mixed with them, as we see from genetic and linguistic evidence. (But alongside Y-DNA N1, Baltic speakers carry types of R1a shared with some Slavs.)

The Middle Dnieper Culture represents those who stayed at home, as part of the satemised rump of PIE. The Middle Dnieper Culture has a series of successors and the final one is the origin of the culture (Prague, Korchak, Penkovka, etc) which appears in the Post-Roman period in all the areas that the Slavs settled.

Humanist
11-18-2013, 12:12 AM
I dug this up on youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPLXnteRDO4

Nice clip.

Jean M
11-18-2013, 12:23 AM
I have some doubts about current language tree model, it does not agree with genetics. Y-chromosome haplogroups R1a and R1b broke away from R1 about 14.8K years ago somewhere in West Central Asia. If both were PIE than Paleolithic origin of PIE must be true, but I think it is impossible.


No the Paleolithic origin of PIE does not have to be true because of the date of the R1 split. Biology has its own pace, that has nothing to do with linguistics. Biology does not throw up a mutation to conveniently coincide with every linguistic isogloss or whatever. PIE is dated on its vocabulary. It seems that both R1a and R1b carriers were involved in its spread. The simplest explanation of that would be that R1a and R1b people never parted, travelled together as a tribe, and were still together when they evolved PIE between 4000 and 3500 BC. But that would not explain certain aspects of the R1a and R1b spread. I therefore devised a model which has R1a and R1b going separate ways in the Mesolithic, but most of R1b rejoining R1a as neighbours in the Late Neolithic. There are various alternatives. We await ancient DNA.

lgmayka
11-18-2013, 01:04 AM
In a sense Proto-Slavic was one dialect of Baltic, or one language within the Baltic family.
This is the single most important recent insight into Balto-Slavic. As Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_languages#Relationship_with_other_Indo-European_languages):
---
However, more recent scholarship has suggested that there was no Proto-Baltic stage distinct from Proto-Balto-Slavic, but that the Slavic, Eastern Baltic, and Western Baltic languages branched off from Balto-Slavic directly.[10][11] Under this view, the Baltic family is paraphyletic, and consists of all Balto-Slavic languages that are not Slavic.
---

The two references are to works by Frederik Kortlandt and Rick Derksen.

parasar
11-18-2013, 02:19 AM
But instead of discussing evidence, some people pretend that the debate is already over. ...

That is feeling I get whenever an alternative to the Out of Africa is debated.


I dug this up on youtube at 19:30, are there any older temples around the path that was taken from Andronovo to Iran?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPLXnteRDO4

Why are we connecting Andronovo to Iran? If Andronovo has any chance on an input it would be Andronovo to India to Iran. But there is no evidence of Andronovo to India either.

Mallory: "not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans"

A far as Zoroastrian exposure funeral methods are concerned, please also see:

In that place [Vaishali, eastern India] the corpses of men are exposed to be devoured by the birds" http://archive.org/stream/someksatriyatrib035136mbp/someksatriyatrib035136mbp_djvu.txt

Silesian
11-18-2013, 02:59 AM
Why are we connecting Andronovo to Iran? If Andronovo has any chance on an input it would be Andronovo to India to Iran. But there is no evidence of Andronovo to India either.

Mallory: "not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans"

A far as Zoroastrian exposure funeral methods are concerned, please also see:
http://archive.org/stream/someksatriyatrib035136mbp/someksatriyatrib035136mbp_djvu.txt

I was just curious because in the Grugni et al it shows both R1b and R1a as Zoroastrian and shows Zoroastrian as proto Iranians. If the Avesta is rely dated 2nd millennium BCE. or near that time, maybe there is more of a connection with Northwestern Iran like the temple shown. Fire was important part of ceremonies and the burials are unique like you show,they also had a priesthood, Magi. I thought there would be evidence of this in aged temples, Avesta seems to be important in terms of the age of the first attested language in the Eastern branch.
So I was wondering which is older Brahmin class or Magi class?

The Avestan word 'magâunô', i.e. the religious caste of the Medes into which Zoroaster was born, (see Yasna 33.7:' ýâ sruyę parę magâunô ' = ' so I can be heard beyond Magi '), seems to be the origin of the term.


Because the priest / Acharya is knowledgeable about Brahma (the God), and is responsible for religious rituals in temples ....


Nice clip.

Did you ever have a chance to see the area, it does not look to far from Assyria.?

AJL
11-18-2013, 03:14 AM
I was just curious because in the Grugni et al it shows both R1b and R1a as Zoroastrian and shows Zoroastrian as proto Iranians.

I am not sure I understand your logic here.

Jean M
11-18-2013, 11:32 AM
This is the single most important recent insight into Balto-Slavic. As Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_languages#Relationship_with_other_Indo-European_languages):
---
However, more recent scholarship has suggested that there was no Proto-Baltic stage distinct from Proto-Balto-Slavic, but that the Slavic, Eastern Baltic, and Western Baltic languages branched off from Balto-Slavic directly. Under this view, the Baltic family is paraphyletic, and consists of all Balto-Slavic languages that are not Slavic.


I think we discussed this before on the thread that went on interminably. It is in accord with the archaeology i.e. that the Baltic and Slavic families had the same homeland in the Middle Dnieper, which the ancestors of the Balts left first. Though the archaeology leaves open the possibility of a Proto-Baltic dialect in Fatyanovo prior to the further wanderings of the Balts, I leave the arguments over that to the linguists. There is a good series of maps in Paul M. Barford, The Early Slavs : Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe (2001).

bolek
11-18-2013, 12:18 PM
It is in accord with the archaeology i.e. that the Baltic and Slavic families had the same homeland in the Middle Dnieper




Ethnic archeology is pseudoscience, pots are not people
OK. Let's talk people.


I can only add that David W. Anthony is completely wrong in his speculations on the Celtic and Germanic homeland in Eastern Europe. You are making a mistake following him. Germans and Celts didn’t arrive from Eastern Europe. R1b-M269 didn’t arrive from Eastern Europe mixed with R1a, it is nonsense and you have no evidence for this. There is a very strong negative correlation between R1a and R1b in Europe.
And because of this your archeological arguments are false. Let's talk people, not pots.

Jean M
11-18-2013, 12:42 PM
R1b-M269 didn’t arrive from Eastern Europe mixed with R1a, it is nonsense and you have no evidence for this. There is a very strong negative correlation between R1a and R1b in Europe.

Finally we arrive back at what this thread was created for! :) Yes we all know that R1a pools in the east and R1b pools in the west i.e. those are the territories of their heaviest density. But the point of heaviest density is not necessarily the point of origin. I refer you back to post 42 on this thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1577-Mike-Hammer-goes-for-post-Neolithic-entry-of-R-into-Europe&p=19147&viewfull=1#post19147


David W. Anthony is completely wrong in his speculations on the Celtic and Germanic homeland in Eastern Europe. You are making a mistake following him. Germans and Celts didn’t arrive from Eastern Europe.

No David Anthony is saying that the PIE homeland was on the European steppe. From PIE descend all the IE language families. When groups left the PIE homeland, they were speaking PIE. Only as groups were removed so far from the homeland that inter-communication was more difficult and no doubt rare, would the daughter groups diverge linguistically. This is a difficult concept for many people to grasp.

David Anthony really tried hard to make it clear that the people moving north from the Usatavo Culture were not speaking any variety of Germanic. They were speaking a variety of PIE. He deduces that after millennia and many travels, some descendants of this group eventually developed Proto-Germanic in northern Europe. Proto-Germanic is dated c. 500 BC. That is a long, long time after Usatovo. By then the group that had moved north east of the Carpathians would have mixed with many other people along the way, had language contact with people speaking not only other IE languages, but non-IE languages as well. The non-IE substrate in Germanic is considerable. It is a very complex story.

Similarly the stream of people up the Danube would have started out speaking some dialect of PIE. We would not expect them to suddenly change to a separate daughter language the minute they entered the Danube valley. The most likely place for Proto-Celtic to develop is the region around the heads of the Danube and Rhine.

Generalissimo
11-18-2013, 12:47 PM
I think we discussed this before on the thread that went on interminably. It is in accord with the archaeology i.e. that the Baltic and Slavic families had the same homeland in the Middle Dnieper, which the ancestors of the Balts left first. Though the archaeology leaves open the possibility of a Proto-Baltic dialect in Fatyanovo prior to the further wanderings of the Balts, I leave the arguments over that to the linguists. There is a good series of maps in Paul M. Barford, The Early Slavs : Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe (2001).

Jean, can you explain to me how your theory that the Polish mtDNA gene pool came from the Middle Dnieper is in any way plausible, when in fact the Polish mtDNA gene pool is more western than the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age mtDNA from Germany?

In fact, as Brandt et al. have noted, there appears to have been a genetic shift after the early Bronze Age in Central Europe, and we can extend that to Eastern Europe, including Russia, because modern Russians don't really differ much from other Europeans in terms of mtDNA. Here's the quote from Brandt et al.


Notably, the CEM clusters with the Late Neolithic cultures and individuals of the BBC in particular, suggesting that the Western European mtDNA variability had a stronger influence than the contemporaneous eastern CWC/EBA complex, implying yet another shift after the EBA.

CEM = Central European metapopulation (Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Poland), BBC = Bell Beaker culture, CWC = Corded Ware culture, EBA = early Bronze Age.

And here are some interesting stats. UC/CWC are the likely candidates for the early Indo-Europeans from Eastern Europe. Urnfield are basically the late Indo-Europeans of Germany who are supposed to have eventually given rise to the Celts. And Bell Beakers are the real mystery, but based on full mtDNA H sequences, they're probably in large part Vasconic speaking migrants from Iberia.

Guess which of these groups are the best fit for present day Poles, and in fact most major ethnic groups in Europe?

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/8574/ht2r.png

I think that at some point all those people advocating that the Celts and Germanics came from Eastern Europe, and that the Bell Beakers were early Indo-Europeans, and also that R1b was in the Proto-Indo-European gene pool, will finally have to accept that none of this is true.

The Proto-Indo-European gene pool of Chalcolithic Eastern Europe doesn't exist anymore in its pure form, and the reason it doesn't exist is because of the (most likely Vasconic) Bell Beaker expansion from Western Europe, which eventually resulted in Western European gene flow up to the Volga, but in the guise of late Indo-Europeans from Central Europe, like Slavs and possibly eastern Germanics, (if they actually existed).

Jean M
11-18-2013, 12:49 PM
Why are we connecting Andronovo to Iran? If Andronovo has any chance on an input it would be Andronovo to India to Iran. But there is no evidence of Andronovo to India either.

The general view now, which includes Mallory, is that Andronovo did not enter India direct. It was filtered via the the declining BMAC. This is what I meant earlier when I said above post 329:


Both Kohl and Anthony stress that cultures do not move, people do. People do not necessarily transport with them to place B the entire cultural trappings that they had at place A. This gives archaeologists problems. It would be so easy to trace a migration if only migrants would take everything with them including the kitchen sink - all the way from Oldhome to Newhome reached centuries later by their descendants. But human beings are much too sensible to lumber themselves with cultural stasis just to make life easy for archaeologists of the future. As Mallory also points out, by the time IE speech reached India, its carriers had been culturally transformed by contact with the BMAC. Or so we deduce from a match between linguistic and archaeological data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria%E2%80%93Margiana_Archaeological_Complex .


There is evidence of sustained contact between the BMAC and the Eurasian steppes to the north, intensifying c. 2000 BCE. In the delta of the River Amu Darya where it reaches the Aral Sea, its waters were channeled for irrigation agriculture by people whose remains resemble those of the nomads of the Andronovo Culture. This is interpreted as nomads settling down to agriculture, after contact with the BMAC. The culture they created is known as Tazabag'yad.[13] About 1800 BCE the walled BMAC centres decreased sharply in size. Each oasis developed its own types of pottery and other objects. Also pottery of the Andronovo-Tazabag'yab culture to the north appeared widely in the Bactrian and Margian countryside. Many BMAC strongholds continued to be occupied and Andronovo-Tazabagyab coarse incised pottery occurs within them (along with the previous BMAC pottery) as well as in pastoral camps outside the mudbrick walls. In the highlands above the Bactrian oases in Tajikistan, kurgan cemeteries of the Vaksh and Bishkent type appeared with pottery that mixed elements of the late BMAC and Andronovo-Tazabagyab traditions.

As argued by Michael Witzel[15][16] and Alexander Lubotsky,[17] there is a proposed substratum in Proto-Indo-Iranian which can be plausibly identified with the original language of the BMAC. Moreover, Lubotsky points out a larger number of words apparently borrowed from the same language, which are only attested in Indo-Aryan and therefore evidence of a substratum in Vedic Sanskrit. Some BMAC words have now also been found in Tocharian.[18] Michael Witzel points out that the borrowed vocabulary includes words from agriculture, village and town life, flora and fauna, ritual and religion, so providing evidence for the acculturation of Indo-Iranian speakers into the world of urban civilization.[19]

Jean M
11-18-2013, 01:09 PM
Jean, can you explain to me how your theory that the Polish mtDNA gene pool came from the Middle Dnieper is in any way plausible, when in fact the Polish mtDNA gene pool is more western than the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age mtDNA from Germany?


Do I have a theory about the Polish mtDNA gene pool? I didn't know that. :biggrin1: Let me state very clearly then. I have no theory whatsoever about Polish mtDNA, unless you count the comments I made on Slav mtDNA as a whole (AJ p. 234, which I will fish out for you*). Frankly I was struggling to find anything at all to mark Slav mtDNA out from the rest of European mtDNA.

*
Slavic speakers carry a wide range of mtDNA haplogroups typical of Western Eurasians. Almost half carry H, as is usual in Europe, with J at around 10% and U5a the next most common, at around 6%. The subclade H1a is both densest and most diverse in Eastern Europe. U5a is ancient in Europe. It has been found in the DNA of hunter-gatherers in Germany, Poland, Russia and Sweden. Since the distribution of U5a is weighted towards Eastern Europe, it may have evolved in an Ice Age refuge in south-eastern Europe. The rarer haplogroups U4a1 and U4a2 are found at less than 2% among Slavs, which is still higher than in western Europeans (0.5%). U4a1 is at its densest in the Volga-Ural region, while U4a2 leans slightly towards central eastern Europe.

Obviously the U4 and U5 are not Slavic in origin, but hunter-gatherer. Since the Slavs spread over so much territory in which they were in contact with and absorbing Uralic speakers, it is possible that the rare U4 haplogroups were picked up that way rather than carried from the Middle Dnieper. Hard to say without aDNA exactly what mixture of mtDNA was actually in the Middle Dnieper, as opposed to acquired by intermarriage en route or in what is now Poland. Some mix of hunter-gatherer and farmer haplogroups no doubt, just as we find in all IE speakers.

Jean M
11-18-2013, 02:08 PM
I was just curious because in the Grugni et al it shows both R1b and R1a as Zoroastrian and shows Zoroastrian as proto Iranians.

Sort of. Grugni et al found both R1b-M269 and R1a-M198 among present-day Zoroastrians - 13 in Tehran (with R1b in the mix) and 34 from Yazd (with both R1b and R1a in the mix). Zoroastrians have hung onto the religion that it appears that early Iranian speakers adopted from a centre on the north-eastern border of present day Iran. The Avesta seems to be in the language ancestral to Eastern Iranian, the language branch spoken by those Iranians who remained on the steppe.

R.Rocca
11-18-2013, 02:23 PM
The Proto-Indo-European gene pool of Chalcolithic Eastern Europe doesn't exist anymore in its pure form, and the reason it doesn't exist is because of the (most likely Vasconic) Bell Beaker expansion from Western Europe, which eventually resulted in Western European gene flow up to the Volga, but in the guise of late Indo-Europeans from Central Europe, like Slavs and possibly eastern Germanics, (if they actually existed).

Vasconic is the most un-likely language of R1b. The modern day frequency peaks of almost all major R1b subclades (U152, L21, U106, etc.) spoke IE languages at the dawn of written history except for Basque Country were DF27 dominates. Even in the case of DF27, it is also the common subclade in all of Iberia and most of France, including IE speaking areas.

As several publications have pointed out in the last few years, Paleo-Sardinian and Proto-Basque split from a common Pre-Proto-Basque common ancestor. I2a1 is by far the most frequent Y-DNA group in Sardinia (40%+) and is only found in any important frequency in the western Pyrenees. I'd say it is much more likely that the earliest Pre-Proto-Basques were I2a1 and not R1b.

ADW_1981
11-18-2013, 02:33 PM
I can only add that David W. Anthony is completely wrong in his speculations on the Celtic and Germanic homeland in Eastern Europe. You are making a mistake following him. Germans and Celts didn’t arrive from Eastern Europe. R1b-M269 didn’t arrive from Eastern Europe mixed with R1a, it is nonsense and you have no evidence for this. There is a very strong negative correlation between R1a and R1b in Europe.
And because of this your archeological arguments are false. Let's talk people, not pots.

Depending on where you put a dividing line it looks like R1b and R1a shared central-east Europe in varying degrees. I don't consider countries like Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Ukraine..etc as proposals for Celtic/Germanic Europe. Placing Celts in and around Germany lines up R1b with their account in pre-history, as does north-Central Germany for the Germanic speaking tribes. The placement of L23*, L51*, L11*, U106*, P312*, U152* among modern Germans leads me to believe this was a major staging ground in R1b's prehistory, and they were probably floating around the region for awhile.

I'm certain some Celtic groups moved into territory in Hungary, Ukraine, and Poland, but there were obviously other tribes there at the time. Same could be said of Germanic tribes.

Almost all of Iberian R1b is below DF27+ or L21, so I don't believe anything can be linked to a single expansion coming out of Spain/Portugal, or at least this is an oversimplification.

parasar
11-18-2013, 03:23 PM
The general view now, which includes Mallory, is that Andronovo did not enter India direct. It was filtered via the the declining BMAC.
...


That is why I had mentioned - "this spoils the time-lines somewhat, but I think there are older written attestations of IE forms in middle eastern texts." http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1577-Mike-Hammer-goes-for-post-Neolithic-entry-of-R-into-Europe&p=19413&viewfull=1#post19413
As those notices put Indic IE words in middle-eastern texts prior to Andronovo.

Jean M
11-18-2013, 03:42 PM
That is why I had mentioned - "this spoils the time-lines somewhat, but I think there are older written attestations of IE forms in middle eastern texts." As those notices put Indic IE words in middle-eastern texts prior to Andronovo.

After I had a closer look at the references you gave, I understood what you meant on the timelines, but in fact the Indian words for cotton etc that appear in the texts from Ur appear not to be Indic, but (later) borrowed into Indic. If we take Meluhha to be India (which makes total sense to me), the contact was between Sumer and the IVC, and ceased when the IVC ceased (as your source makes clear.) This was not contact with Indic speakers. Cotton was grown in the IVC and the incoming Proto-Indic speakers would have first encountered it there. Witzel 2009 thinks the word for it is Austroasiatic.

I was uncertain on the two names proposed to be Indic.

Silesian
11-18-2013, 03:51 PM
Sort of. Grugni et al found both R1b-M269 and R1a-M198 among present-day Zoroastrians - 13 in Tehran (with R1b in the mix) and 34 from Yazd (with both R1b and R1a in the mix). Zoroastrians have hung onto the religion that it appears that early Iranian speakers adopted from a centre on the north-eastern border of present day Iran. The Avesta seems to be in the language ancestral to Eastern Iranian, the language branch spoken by those Iranians who remained on the steppe.

I have not been able to have a chance to go to our main reference library and do proper research, so I apologize if these questions seem a little off key.
If Avesta is known by the works of Zoroaster:

he was a native speaker of Old Avestan and lived in the eastern part of the Iranian Plateau, his birthplace is uncertain... and he lived in the East but his lineage was from a group called magauno ,was this adopted by the proto-Indo Europeans or made by them?

The Avestan word 'magâunô', i.e. the religious caste of the Medes into which Zoroaster was born, (see Yasna 33.7:' ýâ sruyę parę magâunô ' = ' so I can be heard beyond Magi '), seems to be the origin of the term.How far away in time is Avesta related to the Western branches of Iranian?
..... and within this framework Avestan is classified as eastern. But this distinction is of limited meaning for Avestan, as the linguistic developments that later distinguish Eastern from Western Iranian had not yet occurred...

parasar
11-18-2013, 04:36 PM
I have not been able to have a chance to go to our main reference library and do proper research, so I apologize if these questions seem a little off key.
If Avesta is known by the works of Zoroaster:
[SIZE=1] and he lived in the East but his lineage was from a group called magauno ,was this adopted by the proto-Indo Europeans or made by them?
How far away in time is Avesta related to the Western branches of Iranian?

You may find this interesting about maga, but there is a group of Maga brahmans still living in India. Their place of origin is debated but in Indic mythology it is from Shakadvipa.
That is the reason Maga brahmans are still called Shakadvipi. http://vibhanshu.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/history-of-sakaldwipiya-brahmins-or-bhojaka-brahmins/
The term dvip means island but in Indic cosmic geography it just means land. So Shakadvipa would be the land of the Shaka tree as Jambudvipa would be land of the Jambu tree.

The Maga brahmans were reputed to be excellent astrologers (diviners) and medicine men (potions, spells, etc.). So while the prophet Zarathustra was initially from this group, he was very much against Maga practices.

The Magas were the religious caste of Shakadvipa. There warrior class was called Magadha, which is the name of a region in eastern India, where the Magas are still found. http://books.google.com/books?id=OK15YW6BplwC&pg=PA234

alan
11-18-2013, 05:00 PM
The concept of a greater Vasconic really has not reliable support. I agree with others that its not R1b that is probably linked to the root of Basque-Sardinian. They are more linked by I and also autosomal DNA. There is no pan European culture I have ever heard of spread out of the pre-proto Basque area anyway even if this is expanded to include the whole Basque area, Aquitania, the Iberian area and Sardinia. Certainly not since the upper Palaeolithic. Basque R1b looks like an interface between the area high in DF27 in Iberia and the area high in L21 in Atlantic France and as far as I understand neither looks that old in the area. The rest of Iberia looks to be DF27 indicating a fission of P312 rather than an origin point.

Also, I think the issues of being too literal about linking beaker pots with the spread of beaker people should be borne in mind. Early beaker elements probably attached (I think initially female-driven) to several different genetic groups and I doubt its entirely unified. Even craniology shows multiple different groups in the beaker era. I doubt that the vaguely Neolithic types in the earliest beaker culture on the Med. were the same people as later pan European beaker groups. The phylogeny of M269 compared to the radiocarbon dates for earliest beaker pot makes it pretty clear that the pots probably moved the opposite direction from the y lines i.e. pots (usually made by women) moved one west to east then north while the y lines must have moved rather differently.

If there is one thing that R1b phylogeny makes clear is that M269 displays older branching the further east we go with its oldest sector in the zone from the NW corner of Iran through to the Balkans, P297 as a whole (including M73) collectively seem likely to be oldest from the Urals to the Adriatic with an overlap zone probably again running roughly from the Urals to the Dnieper bar for a tiny scatter. So, its clear what general zone it must have existed in before its spread west, even if it is frustratingly vague.

The timescale also seems broadly clear as the variance and ancient DNA presence (and more often absence) places it as a newbee of the very end of the Neolithic/copper age. So, it sees pretty clear that in European terms it spread into the farming zone some time c. 4000BC or so and probably didnt reach west of the Alps until after 3000BC. So, without messing about with dates to fit a particular model, it seems pretty clear to me that M269 wouldnt have reached west of the Alps until around the period the first beakers were being made in the south-west.

In fact R1b (in its L11/P312 phase) has behavour that differs from earlier M269 in its sudden very big geogaphical expansion and prolific branching in a way that closely echoes the beaker network which appears to contrast with the pre-beaker phase both in terms of culture and the behaviour of R1b such as mobility and expansion. So the match is very good and there is no doubt that something quite new happened in both terms of M269 branching and cultural spread in the beaker period. Whatever that was was not apparently present prior to the beaker phase.

So, I would tend to see the L11 and downstream in R1b and the beaker culture after 2600BC as something radical and new to what went before. That is really why I am getting less into the idea that P312 was spread any further west than Italy/the Alps in pre-beaker times and perhaps it was still even further east than that. I actually see more of a parallel of the full developed classic central European beaker type behavours in pre-beaker cultures like Rememedello, the Balkans and corded ware than I see in the earliest beaker phase in SW Europe in Iberia and Languedoc (also tested non R1b). Indeed, it seems possible given the Ice Man that not even Remedello was R1b. That does make me think that P312 was something new in terms of culture rather than a continuation of the pre-beaker copper age cultures of Portugal, Languedoc etc. That in turn makes me feel that P312 was not present in Iberia until the start of the beaker phase or even a little into the beaker period.

Silesian
11-18-2013, 05:07 PM
You may find this interesting about maga, but there is a group of Maga brahmans still living in India. Their place of origin is debated but in Indic mythology it is from Shakadvipa. That is the reason Maga brahmans are still called Shakadvipi. http://vibhanshu.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/history-of-sakaldwipiya-brahmins-or-bhojaka-brahmins/
[/url]

It would be interesting to see their ydna results, along with the Parsi from Gujurat and Sindh.


The Sakaldwipiya Brahmin community of India identify themselves as having Iranian roots

alan
11-18-2013, 05:16 PM
I also think L21 is so concentrated among the Basques that, given that many scholars do not see them even entering most of the Basque country until post-Roman times. I doubt its presence there is even very ancient. That would make Iberia very extreme in its mono-clade DF27 frequency that I seriously think the idea of P312 speading out of Iberia can be put to bed.

I think DF27 in Iberia's dominance is, rather like L21 in the west of the isles, so extreme that it is suggestive that a very small number of settlers and founder effectt may have been responsible for R1b in Iberia and much of its expansion happened within the confines of Iberia. The first generation or so of that kind of movement can be very very low in archaeological visibility so it may not be obvious how this came about. There is of course the somewhat mysterious and often non-mortuary associated all over corded pottery around the coasts of Iberia. It also has some very early dates but an only partly overlapping distribution with maritime pot. I do wonder if this could have been the earliest 'into Iberia' aspect of beaker and perhaps (given uncertainty about dates) a model for beaker there. On the other hand R1b in Iberia could relate to later beaker groups coming from the east. It has always been noticeable that R1b is signficantly stronger in the eastern part of Iberia rather than Portugal where the early matitime types with early dates are located. There are all sorts of possible explanations for this but I dont think it can be ruled out that R1b entered Iberia from the east.


Depending on where you put a dividing line it looks like R1b and R1a shared central-east Europe in varying degrees. I don't consider countries like Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Ukraine..etc as proposals for Celtic/Germanic Europe. Placing Celts in and around Germany lines up R1b with their account in pre-history, as does north-Central Germany for the Germanic speaking tribes. The placement of L23*, L51*, L11*, U106*, P312*, U152* among modern Germans leads me to believe this was a major staging ground in R1b's prehistory, and they were probably floating around the region for awhile.

I'm certain some Celtic groups moved into territory in Hungary, Ukraine, and Poland, but there were obviously other tribes there at the time. Same could be said of Germanic tribes.

Almost all of Iberian R1b is below DF27+ or L21, so I don't believe anything can be linked to a single expansion coming out of Spain/Portugal, or at least this is an oversimplification.

parasar
11-18-2013, 07:14 PM
It would be interesting to see their ydna results, along with the Parsi from Gujurat and Sindh.

Yes, I agree. I would guess that much like other Brahmans in that geographic region the Maga would be predominantly R, H, J. The Parsi should have elevated J2a.

The Maga brahmans prior to the English had not heard of the word Iranian - that quote is modern thinking. Persian (parasika or parsi) they had heard of but they did not associate themselves with the Persians.

If you are interested in early English notices of these Maga brahmans, please read Wilford. http://books.google.com/books?id=hNdMAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA9
He makes the Hindus originate in the British Isles, so comparatively a posited Iranian origin is not a stretch! :)

Silesian
11-18-2013, 07:34 PM
Yes, I agree. I would guess that much like other Brahmans in that geographic region the Maga would be predominantly R, H, J. The Parsi should have elevated J2a.

The Maga brahmans prior to the English had not heard of the word Iranian - that quote is modern thinking. Persian (parasika or parsi) they had heard of but they did not associate themselves with the Persians.

If you are interested in early English notices of these Maga brahmans, please read Wilford. http://books.google.com/books?id=hNdMAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA9
He makes the Hindus originate in the British Isles, so comparatively a posited Iranian origin is not a stretch! :)

We are going in the direction timeline, in the actual split between Mede and Avesta.

Unless you can show Indian sources, I would favour Behistun Inscription connecting Zoroaster Medes and Avesta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behistun_inscription


The term only appears twice in Iranian texts from before the 6th century BC, and only one of these can be dated with precision. This one instance occurs in the trilingual Behistun inscription of Darius the Great


The Avestan word 'magâunô', i.e. the religious caste of the Medes into which Zoroaster was born, (see Yasna 33.7:' ýâ sruyę parę magâunô ' = ' so I can be heard beyond Magi '), seems to be the origin of the term.


But it "may be, however," that Avestan moghu (which is not the same as Avestan maga-) "and Medean magu were the same word in origin, a common Iranian term for 'member of the tribe' having developed among the Medes the special sense of 'member of the (priestly) tribe', hence a priest."[1]cf[2]

parasar
11-18-2013, 09:48 PM
We are going in the direction timeline, in the actual split between Mede and Avesta.

Unless you can show Indian sources, I would favour Behistun Inscription connecting Zoroaster Medes and Avesta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behistun_inscription

The Behistun inscription is quite unkind to the Magian Gaumat.

Why the Medes?
Due to Herodotus' account?

On the times of Zarathustra, the best option, IMO, would be the Gathas (accounts) - http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/gatha/dji/The%20Gathas%20-%20DJI.pdf

No more shall the wicked Kavis [poet-kings], and the Karpans[priests], rule over the lives of the righteous ... The Karpans and the Kavis have tyrannized over humanity... The evil Karpans do not preach the laws of settled and peaceful life

In the Gathas, Zarathustra is referred to as Zarathushtra Spitama. Spitama was the clan of Zarathustra.

Jean M
11-19-2013, 02:52 PM
If Avesta is known by the works of Zoroaster: How far away in time is Avesta related to the Western branches of Iranian?

The Avesta is the early body of religious writing of Zoroastrianism. It was written in a language that scholars have named Avestan, after the Avesta. Traditionally the early parts of the Avesta are supposed to have been written by Zoroaster (Zarathustra). Avestan is seen as the parent of the eastern Iranian language family. As I mentioned earlier the Yaz Culture (ca. 1500-1100 BC) is regarded as a likely archaeological reflection of early East Iranian culture as described in the Avesta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaz_culture

The earliest attestation of the western Iranian family is much later, but presumably its parent began to develop among the groups that left the steppe to filter into what is now Iran from the north-east about 1700 BC. The Medes arrived in the Zagros valleys c. 1000 BC. The Parsua are mentioned in north-eastern Iran in 843 BC. Later they made their way south to the former Kingdom of Anshan, where they became known as the Persians. Our first record of Old Persian is the inscription of Darius the Great (521-486 BC) at Behistun that you mentioned earlier.

newtoboard
11-19-2013, 04:03 PM
Jean, Going back to the topic of M73 what makes you think Turks absorbed it from IE steppe nomads?

Also I still think there is a chance the Scythio-Scythian R1a might be Z280. Maybe those Scythio-Siberians preserved ancestry from Abashevo?

TigerMW
11-19-2013, 04:04 PM
This is true and a valid point. Dr Hammer has access to much more information than we have, and it's clear he is showing a basic [invasion] movement from the East. ...

Sorry, guys, I'm just catching up on this thread a bit.

I saw Hammer's chart that I believe he created himself from the National Geno & FTDNA data on R1b-L11 expanding. I noticed he didn't have DF27, but had Z195 which make sense if you were looking at Geno 2 resutls. I heard about another chart he and some reference to Eupedia. Someone took a photo, but apparently the first chart in the sequence he used is Maciamo Hay's speculative migration map. Here is the actual map from Eupedia.

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

ADW_1981
11-19-2013, 04:10 PM
Sorry, guys, I'm just catching up on this thread a bit.

I saw Hammer's chart that I believe he created himself from the National Geno & FTDNA data on R1b-L11 expanding. I noticed he didn't have DF27, but had Z195 which make sense if you were looking at Geno 2 resutls. I heard about another chart he and some reference to Eupedia. Someone took a photo, but apparently the first chart in the sequence he used is Maciamo Hay's speculative migration map. Here is the actual map from Eupedia.

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

Is anyone aware of when this data will be released, in what form, or even if the slides are up? It seems to me a lot of this information goes the way of the dodo... sorta like the Geno 1.0 haplotype data which I thought was going to be publicly available at some point.

Silesian
11-19-2013, 04:54 PM
The Avesta is the early body of religious writing of Zoroastrianism. It was written in a language that scholars have named Avestan, after the Avesta. Traditionally the early parts of the Avesta are supposed to have been written by Zoroaster (Zarathustra). Avestan is seen as the parent of the eastern Iranian language family. As I mentioned earlier the Yaz Culture (ca. 1500-1100 BC) is regarded as a likely archaeological reflection of early East Iranian culture as described in the Avesta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaz_culture

The earliest attestation of the western Iranian family is much later, but presumably its parent began to develop among the groups that left the steppe to filter into what is now Iran from the north-east about 1700 BC. The Medes arrived in the Zagros valleys c. 1000 BC. The Parsua are mentioned in north-eastern Iran in 843 BC. Later they made their way south to the former Kingdom of Anshan, where they became known as the Persians. Our first record of Old Persian is the inscription of Darius the Great (521-486 BC) at Behistun that you mentioned earlier.

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


With regard to the map posted.Is the area around (R1b1-P25) & (R1b-343)the only place in the Indo-Iranian sphere where both Mede and Avestan/Sanskrit was used? Is this the only region we find large Dakhmas used for "sky buria,l" and Zoroastrian Fire Temples? Was this the area of the Magi ?

Jean M
11-19-2013, 05:39 PM
Was this the area of the Magi ?

I think I may have missed a bit of this discussion. The Medes were a people. They had an empire which was eventually overthrown by the Persians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Median_Empire.jpg

The words magi and magician are probably derived from the reconstructed PIE root *magh-, meaning 'be able', by way of a meaning 'one who has power'. The old Indic and Iranian forms are Avestan: moyu- (magician), Old Persian: magu- (magician), Old Indic maga- (magician).

Jean M
11-19-2013, 05:57 PM
@ Silesian Herodotus 1.101 lists the Magi as a tribe of the Medes. Is that what you are thinking of?

Silesian
11-19-2013, 06:06 PM
@ Silesian Herodotus 1.101 lists the Magi as a tribe of the Medes. Is that what you are thinking of?

My friend from the gurdwara was quite adamant when I asked him for the third time. He said their traditional lands extended to Iraq.That would place Media proper roughly in the center. Or perhaps Ragha in the middle. Do you think it was possible if any of the Magi from Rahga were R1b 343 or R1b 25?

Jean M
11-19-2013, 06:20 PM
My friend from the gurdwara was quite adamant when I asked him for the third time. He said their traditional lands extended to Iraq.

He may be thinking of the Persian Empire, which absorbed that of the Medes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire . That covered almost the whole Near/Middle East. The Magi continued to function in the Persian Empire. In fact we first meet the term in the inscription of Darius the Great.

Back to your question on the funeral practices. I have a bit more from Kuzmina:


Unfortunately we have no .. reliable and early evidence about the Iranian practice. Strict regulation of burial rites is preserved only in later parts of the Avesta, which were strongly revised by priest-magicians, and which obviously did not correspond to the ancient practice. It is possible only to state on the basis of some passages and evidence that Iranians, just as the Indians, initially buried their dead in the earth or cremated them; orthodox Zarathustrians regarded the customs of the Arachosians to bury or burn bodies as ‘foul’ (Vidēvdāt 1) and ordered that corpses be placed in the open air to be devoured by birds of prey (Vidēvdāt 5.7, 45, 46). Herodotus described this practice in Achaemenid Iran, but he stressed that “however, the Persians in general cover the body with wax and then bury it.”

The peoples of Central Asia and neighboring regions: Bactrians, Sogdians, Parthians, Caspians, Derbics, Hircanians (Strabo 11.2.9-13) knew the custom of displaying the corpse. But this custom was never spread among the Saka nor Scythians, nor their descendants, the modern Ossetes, nor the Iranian-speaking peoples of mountainous Tadzhikistan and the Hindukush and the nomads of Iran.

Silesian
11-19-2013, 06:20 PM
Jean, Going back to the topic of M73 what makes you think Turks absorbed it from IE steppe nomads?

Also I still think there is a chance the Scythio-Scythian R1a might be Z280. Maybe those Scythio-Siberians preserved ancestry from Abashevo?

Jean already said Grugni et al was not a fake. Turkmen,Golestan 0% R1b M73, 14.5% R1a M198.

newtoboard
11-19-2013, 06:26 PM
Jean already said Grugni et al was not a fake. Turkmen,Golestan 0% R1b M73, 14.5% R1a M198.

What is the relevance of your response when we are discussing R1b-M73 on the steppe?

Jean M
11-19-2013, 06:27 PM
Do you think it was possible if any of the Magi from Rahga were R1b 343 or R1b 25?

I knew that you must be heading in that direction. :) We don't know, but anyone is free to speculate.

Silesian
11-19-2013, 06:28 PM
I have a bit more from Kuzmina:

Well that would make sense, since they were controlled by an elite, Magi and dominated and spread the practice to the Persis.

Silesian
11-19-2013, 06:30 PM
I knew that you must be heading in that direction. :) We don't know, but anyone is free to speculate.

Sorry that was meant for newtoboard. I really do accept your explanation that both R1a and R1b had a function in the spread.

alan
11-19-2013, 10:22 PM
I thiink the recent Altai and Hindu Kush papers rather weakened the idea of M73 among eastern Turkics and in the southern part of east central Asia. They imply to me that the Turks did not initially contain M73 and absorbed it further west. However, when you add the fact that it is practically absent in Iran, the south Caucasus, the near east or the Balkans and it seems very unlikely we can look there for a source. It seems to me M73 must have been present somewhere between Kazakhstan, extreme western Siberia, the extreme east end of the Pontic steppes or Urals before the Turks arrived. It really doesnt seem to have been connected into the advanced cultures of the near east or south central Asia. It also has a very different distribution to L23 which contrasts with M73 in that the former does seem to have been able to penetrate into NW Iran, into the Balkans etc.


Jean already said Grugni et al was not a fake. Turkmen,Golestan 0% R1b M73, 14.5% R1a M198.

newtoboard
11-19-2013, 10:37 PM
I thiink the recent Altai and Hindu Kush papers rather weakened the idea of M73 among eastern Turkics and in the southern part of east central Asia. They imply to me that the Turks did not initially contain M73 and absorbed it further west. However, when you add the fact that it is practically absent in Iran, the south Caucasus, the near east or the Balkans and it seems very unlikely we can look there for a source. It seems to me M73 must have been present somewhere between Kazakhstan, extreme western Siberia, the extreme east end of the Pontic steppes or Urals before the Turks arrived. It really doesnt seem to have been connected into the advanced cultures of the near east or south central Asia. It also has a very different distribution to L23 which contrasts with M73 in that the former does seem to have been able to penetrate into NW Iran, into the Balkans etc.

By the time Turks expanded all those areas were occupied by R1a tribes. So that is very unlikely unless we we start believing the idea of R1b-M73 Scythians.

Jean M
11-20-2013, 11:43 AM
By the time Turks expanded all those areas were occupied by R1a tribes. So that is very unlikely unless we we start believing the idea of R1b-M73 Scythians.

Scythians did not all have to belong to the same haplogroup. It is likely on the data we have from ancient DNA that they were predominantly R1a.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 12:03 PM
Scythians did not all have to belong to the same haplogroup. It is likely on the data we have from ancient DNA that they were predominantly R1a.

Says who? Almost all Scythians likely were R1a. If they belonged to other haplogroups then R1a-Z283+ subclades and G and I are more likely.

We've seen C* and K (might be L or T) in ancient IE samples from the region. But no R1b? Yet those two exotic lineages somehow managed to pop up in ancient samples. Sorry but I am not buying the line about the samples so far have only been from the elite and there was hidden R1b in Eastern IE nomads (I'm not buying the hidden R1b-U106+ in Corded Ware argument either).

alan
11-20-2013, 12:45 PM
Well they had to be somewhere and had to have some sort of connection with M269 at one time. Study after study shows the clade is virtually unknown in the Balkans, the south Caucasus, Iran, Altai, Mongolia, the Hindu Kush (Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan area etc and that the Turks and Mongols in the far eastern part of the range lack it although it had to have at some stage ended up in the Turks path. It did not expand until the start of the copper age. So, our options are running thin.

The FTDNA project is totally skewed as its so western biased and most are from the west even though its incredibly rare there. The most believable concentrations are in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and parts of Russia in the Ural-Volga area. I also believe its common in Turkmenistan. So, it does look like it was absorbed at the western end of central Asia and possibly as far west as the Volga-Urals.

If I had to put a centrepoint for its distribution as a handy mental marker I would say the Aral Sea with most of its distribution within an 800 mile radius of that with very little indicated beyond there. That is my best shot at understanding its probably hotspot area.

The Turks pretty well had to have absorbed it in that zone and spread it around from there. The Turkmen for instance originated as Oguz Turks around Altai where M73 is rare except among one group who returned from the west to north Altai c. 1600. The Turkmen of today are believed to descend from the Turks who settled in the west end of Turkmenistan who arrived there via the Siberian steppe to the north.



By the time Turks expanded all those areas were occupied by R1a tribes. So that is very unlikely unless we we start believing the idea of R1b-M73 Scythians.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 01:07 PM
Well they had to be somewhere and had to have some sort of connection with M269 at one time. Study after study shows the clade is virtually unknown in the Balkans, the south Caucasus, Iran, Altai, Mongolia, the Hindu Kush (Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan area etc and that the Turks and Mongols in the far eastern part of the range lack it although it had to have at some stage ended up in the Turks path. It did not expand until the start of the copper age. So, our options are running thin. The FTDNA project is totally skewed as its so western biased and most are from the west even though its incredibly rare there. The most believable concentrations are in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and parts of Russia in the Ural-Volga area. I also believe its common in Turkmenistan. So, it does look like it was absorbed at the western end of central Asia as far west as the Volga-Urals. If I had to put a centrepoint for its distribution as a handy mental marker I would say the Aral Sea with most of its distribution within an 800 mile radius of that with very little indicated beyond there. That is my best shot at understanding its probably hotspot area. The Turks pretty well had to have absorbed it in that zone and spread it around from there. The Turkmen for instance originated as Oguz Turks around Altai where M73 is rare except among one group who returned from the west to north Altai c. 1600. The Turkmen of today are believed to descend from the Turks who settled in the west end of Turkmenistan who arrived there via the Siberian steppe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Pontic_steppe_region_around_650_AD.png

It could have easily been somewhere east or north of the Altai or in the Dzungarian basin.

Just because it had a connection with M269+ at one time doesn't mean it stayed near it forever. If it was around the Aral Sea till such a late date then there is no doubt it would have expanded with Andronovo groups to the south as well as with Scythian and other East Iranian nomads into Europe. Not to mention into South Siberia as well. Yet no significant amounts of M73 in any of those regions. Not today and not in ancient samples. And somehow this M73 escaped showing up in ancient DNA samples but C or K didn't. And it is unlikely it was speaking IE as well since eastern IE groups descend from Yamnaya groups which were almost entirely R1a.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 01:26 PM
R-M458 L1209+ and L260+ definitely expanded with Slavs, especially West Slavs, although which population they originated in is anyone's guess at the moment. I'm thinking Unetice Culture.

The M458 that doesn't fall into these subclades from Sardinia, and probably the North Caucasus and Kazakhstan, is unlikely to be linked to Slavs in any way.

Then what is it linked to?

alan
11-20-2013, 01:38 PM
How can you possibly know what the total population of that area was when the Turks arrived? Establishing presence is one thing and only needs one sample in theory but establishing absence to a reasonable level of doubt would need many dozens of samples from seperate cemeteries and a variety of status groups in the area. The area has so many different strata between 5000BC when M73 seems to have suddenly sprung up and the historic period that its impossible to work out how many times strata were absorbed and moved on. The Turks clearly did absorb people and there is no reason to think that the various IE groups were into total genocide of whoever they met.

The fact is M73 is the oldest clade of any type in the zone we are discussing and is very rare outside that zone so probably originated somewhere in that east or north Caspian/Volga-Urals area where it is best known today or at least somewhere not greatly distant. So, the odds are its a very ancient local layer pre-dating any historically nameable group. All we have is the distribution and the age of c. 5000BC. It is with this date, that zone and the archaeology of the area c. 5000BC and after that we should approach working out a cultural origin. Its the way we deal with all the other yDNA lines in trying to work out their history so I dont think we should get into the mistake of back-projecting from many thousands of years later because its not rational to do so.

So, what was going on in the area c. 800 miles radius of the Aral Sea c. 5000BC that might also make sense when tying it into the similarly early farming avoiding M269 clade which also shared a common origin 4000 years earlier. I need to read into that a bit before giving an opinion although I do recall someone suggested a link between Botai culturae and M73. I dont know if that is crazy or not.


By the time Turks expanded all those areas were occupied by R1a tribes. So that is very unlikely unless we we start believing the idea of R1b-M73 Scythians.

Generalissimo
11-20-2013, 01:55 PM
Then what is it linked to?

Bronze Age trade networks between Central (Unetice Culture) Europe and the Mediterranean?


The fact is M73 is the oldest clade of any type in the zone we are discussing and is very rare outside that zone so probably originated somewhere in that east or north Caspian/Volga-Urals area where it is best known today or at least somewhere not greatly distant.

I think the problem with R1b is that its major expansions were a lot more recent than anyone has imagined. Expansion dates from modern samples are not a precise science at the best of times, especially when dealing with ancient highways like the steppes and the former Silk Road. The modern equivalent of that is like basing the expansion age of R1b in North America on a sample from New York. I wonder what we'd get? Probably older than Western Europe I'd say.

If R1b was all over the steppes like a rash during the Copper and/or Bronze Age, or even Iron Age, then it should have turned up in aDNA by now, because apart from the Kurgan and Tarim Basin remains, the Chinese have tested quite a few steppe samples as well. We've seen all the expected haplogroups from along the old barbarian/Chinese border areas, including R1a, Q, N and C, and even some really far out results like K*, so this paucity of R1b has to mean something.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 01:58 PM
How can you possibly know what the total population of that area was when the Turks arrived? Establishing presence is one thing and only needs one sample in theory but establishing absence to a reasonable level of doubt would need many dozens of samples from seperate cemeteries and a variety of status groups in the area. The area has so many different strata between 5000BC when M73 seems to have suddenly sprung up and the historic period that its impossible to work out how many times strata were absorbed and moved on. The Turks clearly did absorb people and there is no reason to think that the various IE groups were into total genocide of whoever they met.

The fact is M73 is the oldest clade of any type in the zone we are discussing and is very rare outside that zone so probably originated somewhere in that east or north Caspian/Volga-Urals area where it is best known today or at least somewhere not greatly distant. So, the odds are its a very ancient local layer pre-dating any historically nameable group. All we have is the distribution and the age of c. 5000BC. It is with this date, that zone and the archaeology of the area c. 5000BC and after that we should approach working out a cultural origin. Its the way we deal with all the other yDNA lines in trying to work out their history so I dont think we should get into the mistake of back-projecting from many thousands of years later because its not rational to do so.

So, what was going on in the area c. 800 miles radius of the Aral Sea c. 5000BC that might also make sense when tying it into the similarly early farming avoiding M269 clade which also shared a common origin 4000 years earlier. I need to read into that a bit before giving an opinion although I do recall someone suggested a link between Botai culturae and M73. I dont know if that is crazy or not.

It didn't expand with groups from that region to even a minor degree. . And I sincerely doubt M73 will ever pop up in an ancient sample from that region. Even C* and K have popped up but no R1b of any type. We will see soon once the Yamnaya study as well as the study that should be testing Andronovo, Scythio-Siberian and Afanasievo comes out.


Botai and M73 might make sense. It was suggested or brought up here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1016-Thoughts-on-what-autosomal-component-was-originally-linked-with-R1b-%28M269-and-down%29&p=11291&viewfull=1#post11291). But that would confirm my idea that M73 has nothing to do with proto Indo-Iranian or Tocharian speakers (I don't think Botai was speaking Tocharian), and did not originate in the in the North Caspian or Urals area. Botai is East-Central Kazakhstan is it not? Seems like it would be a short journey from there into the Dzungarian Basin where Afanasievo might have pushed it into. If Tocharians do end up showing minor amounts R1b-M73+ that scenario would provide two opportunities for R1b-M73+ to have been absorbed into the Afanasievo gene pool (1. directly on the Kazakh steppe, 2.during their travel from Siberia to the Tarim Basin via the Dzungarian basin).

M73 might actually be a good bet for the lineage of the pre IE Kazakh steppe hunter-gatherers. I believe those hunter gatherers did show affinities to Europe.

ADW_1981
11-20-2013, 02:00 PM
We've seen C* and K (might be L or T) in ancient IE samples from the region.

Who said these were IE speakers? Did the remains carry literature or something?

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 02:03 PM
Bronze Age trade networks between Central (Unetice Culture) Europe and the Mediterranean?


I was more interested in its presence in the North Caucasus and Kazakhstan. I it possible there was some M458+ in Abashevo? I think the logic suggests Z280+ in Abashevo and Tagar is more likely.

Also the K is more likely an L or T right since both of those especially L exists at a pretty significant frequency in nearby regions like the Pamirs?

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 02:04 PM
Who said these were IE speakers? Did the remains carry literature or something?

Maybe it is because they were found alongside lineages associated with Eastern IE speakers or in cultures associated with IE language? The C* is from Andronovo which was clearly IE speaking.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 02:14 PM
Ancient DNA is really needed. I think Michal's theory has R1a being west of R1b (in the area north of the Black Sea) in Dnieper-Donets and R1b in the North Caspian region.

Jean M
11-20-2013, 02:32 PM
Almost all Scythians likely were R1a.

That's pretty much what I said. :) So far we have limited samples of Scythian aDNA, in which R1a easily predominates. And R1a predominates in the Pashtuns today, running at just over 50% in the Haber 2012 study (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034288). So it is easy to guess that R1a was the dominant marker in Scythians. It really takes no great powers of deduction.

But any idea that there can only be one haplogroup in any given ethnic group is not dealing with reality. The speculation here is over minor haplogroups, some of which might have been less than 1% of the Scythian population taken overall. The Scythians were not a nation, but a lot of different tribes spread over a huge tract of territory, who no doubt mixed with different peoples in different places. The Pashtuns include a range of minor haplogroups, including C3, G2c, H, J2a, L1c, Q and R2a. But they don't necessarily harbour descendants of every single non-R1a man who wandered into a Scythian or Saka encampment over the millennia and was absorbed by that particular tribe.

From aDNA we have Y-DNA CxC3 in a Scythian where we would expect it - in Central Asia - to be exact Tatarka cemetery, burial 64 Charypovsky region, sample SO7. The site is just north of the Minusinck depression. I don't know about the possible K. Where is that?

ADW_1981
11-20-2013, 02:40 PM
Why are we talking about R1a anyways? The title is misleading, Hammer is actually discussing downstream clades of M269+ in a European perspective. Who cares about Andronovo, who cares about Iranians, who cares about the Steppe. This is irrelevent to the conclusions of their study. If anything, it relates to the research done in Ireland does it not?

Mods? Can we please get this back on track?

alan
11-20-2013, 02:57 PM
Atbasar culture?

Silesian
11-20-2013, 03:04 PM
Hammer is actually discussing downstream clades of M269+ in a European perspective. Who cares about Andronovo, who cares about Iranians, who cares about the Steppe. This is irrelevent to the conclusions of their study. If anything, it relates to the research done in Ireland does it not?

It relates with the older areas of R1b. The "writing is on the wall" literally, there is nothing tying in R1a samples found around Andronovo or anywhere else to to the oldest known dialects. Pashtun language is a dialect of the ancient Medes, Median language. They are if fact speaking a dialect of the Median language. Quite the opposite if we were to deduce that they are ancient Scythian speaking Proto Iranians from Andronovo, migrated south eventually ending up in southern regions of Iran and India.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 03:14 PM
Why are we talking about R1a anyways? The title is misleading, Hammer is actually discussing downstream clades of M269+ in a European perspective. Who cares about Andronovo, who cares about Iranians, who cares about the Steppe. This is irrelevent to the conclusions of their study. If anything, it relates to the research done in Ireland does it not?

Mods? Can we please get this back on track?

Are you having some more trouble reading? Who cares if the title is misleading? The thread is in the General R section. If it was supposed to be about nothing but precious European R1b it should have been made in that section. If you have anything valuable to contribute about what YOU deem is acceptable to be discussed feel free to do so. If you think the above discussions are not valid what was the point in you continuing to talk about those topics in post 382. Either way it is related because the R1a topic is related to R1b-M73 which plenty of people seem to care about on this forum.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 03:17 PM
It relates with the older areas of R1b. The "writing is on the wall" literally, there is nothing tying in R1a Andronovo to to the oldest known dialects. Pashtun language is a dialect of the ancient Medes, Median language. They are if fact speaking a dialect of the Median language. Quite the opposite if we were to deduce that they are ancient Scythians speaking Proto Iranian from Andronovo, and end up in southern regions in Iran.

No it isn't. Their language is East Iranian. The language of the Medes is West Iranian. Nor is Pashto natively spoken in the Southern regions of Iran. I believe there are Iranian scholars who don't even consider Kurdish to be a dialect of Median much less Pashto.

Jean M
11-20-2013, 03:26 PM
Why are we talking about R1a anyways? The title is misleading..

Dr Hammer discussed both the origins of the R haplogroup as a whole, and the process of R1b specifically across Europe. That is why I placed this thread directly under R.

Silesian
11-20-2013, 03:27 PM
No it isn't. Their language is East Iranian. The language of the Medes is West Iranian. Nor is Pashto natively spoken in the Southern regions of Iran. I believe there are Iranian scholars who don't even consider Kurdish to be a dialect of Median much less Pashto.

You can believe that, however it will not reconcile the dilema z93-283 "R1a" Mallory map distribution he used in his PIE lecture , or that you need Sanskrit to help decipher Avestan not Pashto, and that no dated ancient samples or modern m458/z283 or older clades are proven from Andronovo, or the Magi performed sky burials with no possessians, Brahmin in India burn with no possessians and Andronovo buried with possessians.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 03:33 PM
You can believe that, however it will not reconcile the dilema z93-283 "R1a" Mallory map distribution he used in his PIE lecture , or that you need Sanskrit to help decipher Avestan not Pashto, and that no dated ancient samples m458/z283 or older, clades proven Andronovo.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What does Mallory's map of R1a have to do with anything? You don't need Sanskrit to decipher Avestan. Who said that? Why would anybody use Pashto to decipher Avestan? What does M458+ or Z283+ have to do with anything? Nobody said they had anything to do with Andronovo.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 03:34 PM
Dr Hammer discussed both the origins of the R haplogroup as a whole, and the process of R1b specifically across Europe. That is why I placed this thread directly under R.

Didn't he also discuss K and P? I see no reason why this thread should have been limited to discussion about European M269+.

Jean M
11-20-2013, 03:35 PM
You can believe that but it will not reconcile .. that you need Sanskrit to help decipher Avestan not Pashto ..

I think there may be some confusion here. Avestan and Sanskrit are both so ancient that they are quite close to each other, being both close their joint parent Proto-Indo-Iranian. Sanskrit is the formal version of Old Indic, the parent of the Indic language family, such as Hindustani etc. It is not relevant as far as I know to the differences between the Iranian branches.

The Medes did not speak Avestan. Avestan was retained as the language of scripture, just as Latin was the language of the Catholic Church. It does not mean that the Medes spoke it day to day. Western Iranian developed in Iran.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 03:36 PM
You can believe that, however it will not reconcile the dilema z93-283 "R1a" Mallory map distribution he used in his PIE lecture , or that you need Sanskrit to help decipher Avestan not Pashto, and that no dated ancient samples or modern m458/z283 or older clades are proven from Andronovo.

I agree with you though that Pashto is not related to Scythian languages(NE Iranian) but rather Saka/Pamiri languages (SE Iranian). The Median branch is West Iranian though.

alan
11-20-2013, 03:36 PM
I do not think M269 really had much of a role beyond the Urals although some may have moved with other groups. M73 does genuinely look north-west central Asia/Urals in distribution and there is really no case at all for it arriving from the farming world. However, its a story all to itself and possibly rather different to M269.

However, the steppes was a vast place of many different strata and cultures and I dont believe each new culture genocided everyone they met. The reason why M269 didnt take a big role in the eastward thrust of IEs could be chance or more likely it lies in some sort of difference of position and cultural phase in the period 4500-3000BC.

From what we can make out much of IE r1a can be traced back to movements that go back to khvalynsk roots around the Voga-Urals. That would apply to Afanasievo, Yamnaya, Andronovo etc as well as the steppe-corded ware hybrid cultures and likely corded ware itself. I have suggested before that the common root in all of these is derivation or hybriding that ultimately goes back to khvalynsk culture.

This was a very different culture in terms of way of life compared to western Stedny Stog cultures, especially those around the Dniester who were face to face with farmers, mixed with them and who controlled the flow of Balkans metal into the steppe. I have already mentioned that roots in Khvalynsk culture may have pre-adapted some steppe cultures as well as Corded Ware cultures for expansion through the forrest steppe belt, possibly explaining the huge thrust some cultures made through the forrest steppe zone. It is possible that R1b originally was located further west and south on the dry steppe. That might explain not only a more southerly trajectory west but also some adaption to that sort of territory might explain M73's distribution in west central Asia.

I would say there were advantages and disadvantages of both variations of steppe. At intervals they were pushed together or apart as in arid times the forrest steppe shrunk and the dry steppe became hard to live on. At other times the climate became damper and the dry steppe became more attractive and the forrest steppe shrunk. I have posted before a paper on the sheer complexity of this.

One advantage in living on the dry steppe near the Dniester (and as far as the Don) that Sredny Stog people would have had is much closer interaction with the farming world which was literally on the opposite river bank. Another thing to note is the extreme aridity that hit the steppe c. 4000BC would have effected the dry steppe much harder than the forrest steppe. Around that time it is the Sredny Stog groups of southern Ukraine that took part in the first set of steppe waves west. These were probably people who were well aquainted with farmers, had long traded with them, had mixed with them (Craniology) and were environmentally the most desperately effected by the arid phase.

So, in essence you had two main early phases relating to steppe expansion

1. An early entirely westward wave C. 4200bc onwards of Sredny Stog derived pastoralist-primative farmer-trader people from around the Dniester area off the dry steppe. They had horses but not wagons. Some small elements remained behind.

2. A later wave of Yamnaya people c. 3200BC whose roots lay in the Volga-Ural forrest steppe-steppe interface and who had little contact with the farming world and were full on mobile wagon pastoralists. They and their derivatives moved both east and west.

That to me is a very plausible explanation for the different choices and impacts of R1b and R1a respectively. NB- I am not trying to say that this corresponds to centum and satem entirely in case I am accused of that.


Bronze Age trade networks between Central (Unetice Culture) Europe and the Mediterranean?



I think the problem with R1b is that its major expansions were a lot more recent than anyone has imagined. Expansion dates from modern samples are not a precise science at the best of times, especially when dealing with ancient highways like the steppes and the former Silk Road. The modern equivalent of that is like basing the expansion age of R1b in North America on a sample from New York. I wonder what we'd get? Probably older than Western Europe I'd say.

If R1b was all over the steppes like a rash during the Copper and/or Bronze Age, or even Iron Age, then it should have turned up in aDNA by now, because apart from the Kurgan and Tarim Basin remains, the Chinese have tested quite a few steppe samples as well. We've seen all the expected haplogroups from along the old barbarian/Chinese border areas, including R1a, Q, N and C, and even some really far out results like K*, so this paucity of R1b has to mean something.

Silesian
11-20-2013, 03:40 PM
I think there may be some confusion here. Avestan and Sanskrit are both so ancient that they are quite close to each other, being both close their joint parent Proto-Indo-Iranian. Sanskrit is the formal version of Old Indic, the parent of the Indic language family, such as Hindustani etc. It is not relevant as far as I know to the differences between the Iranian branches.

The Medes did not speak Avestan. Avestan was retained as the language of scripture, just as Latin was the language of the Catholic Church. It does not mean that the Medes spoke it day to day. Western Iranian developed in Iran.

Everyone is free to put forth what he or she believes. The writer of one of the oldest attested eastern branch Iranian Avestan was Magi. Oldest dated attestation Magi is in Media Proper.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 03:42 PM
The Kazakh steppe and Dzungaran basin are not the farming world either. This is actually interesting because I have wondered what the pre IE hunter gatherers of the Kazakh steppe carried since close to 100% of Central Asian R1a is Z93+ and there are pretty much no other lineages that can't be traced back to West Asia, South Asia or East Asia. So M73+ actually seems like a good candidate (along with some R2-I recall DMXX looking at some R2 north of Kazakhstan and I think he found it wasn't very related to the South Asian R2).

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 03:47 PM
Everyone is free to put forth what he or she believes. The writer of Avestan was Magi.

Except Jean is putting forth information that various linguists would agree up and you are just making up statements. Unless you can find me a source by a reputable linguist that says Sanskrit is needed to decipher Avestan. Iranian is its own branch. Why would any Indo-Aryan language be needed to understand the relationship between West and East Iranian languages. Or you have made some sort of discovery that would make Pashto a West Iranian language. They don't really have any R1b btw. As was discussed in thread about the Hindu Kush paper the frequency is less than 2%. R1a frequency at 50%. A ratio > 25:1 but here you are connecting them to R1b Medes and ignoring all ancient DNA, modern DNA as well as a large body of archeological, cultural and linguistic evidence.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 03:50 PM
Everyone is free to put forth what he or she believes. The writer of one of the oldest attested eastern branch Iranian Avestan was Magi. Oldest dated attestation Magi is in Media Proper.

And even if that was true what does that imply? Languages exist before they are written down. This wouldn't even be surprising because the writing systems of Asia are mostly Aramaic based. So all you are doing is arguing came to Central Asia from the West.

ADW_1981
11-20-2013, 03:57 PM
Dr Hammer discussed both the origins of the R haplogroup as a whole, and the process of R1b specifically across Europe. That is why I placed this thread directly under R.

It's pretty clear the focus or his focus is on R1b, despite a couple sentences you're snapshotting regarding palaeolithic R (who really knows at this point), and the cross-referencing of neolithic and post-neolithic samples within a west European perspective. I see your reasoning, but I have trouble seeing any European link, or post-neolithic influence from Iranians, Andronovo...etc I don't think anyone has argued that, but I can see how some areas of the Steppe might be linked. I think it's important not to digress too much, because it's apparent that far eastern cultures have had little impact on the zones we're talking about.
If there is any discussion regarding R1a within a neolithic/post-neolithic context, it should be regarding the growth of the M458 subclade, or one of the European R1a1 branches.

Jean M
11-20-2013, 03:57 PM
The writer of one of the oldest attested eastern branch Iranian Avestan was Magi. Oldest dated attestation Magi is in Media Proper.

That still doesn't have the Medes speaking either Avestan or an Eastern Iranian language. According to Wikipedia, Median was one of the northwestern group of Iranian languages, which includes Azari, Zazaki, Gorani, Gilaki, Mazandarani, Kurdish, and Baluchi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_language

However:


Median is only attested by numerous loanwords in Old Persian. Nothing is known of its grammar, "but it shares important phonological isoglosses with Avestan, rather than Old Persian." "Under the Median rule [...] Median must to some extent have been the official Iranian language in western Iran.

So I think you win. :)

alan
11-20-2013, 03:58 PM
Most of what Michal says impresses me hugely with his knowledge and balance but I do find it hard to get my head around the idea that R1a was west of R1b unless he means very very deep time. It seems a lot easier to me to place R1a in and R1b in Sredny Stog.

I think a steppe model can include both R1a and R1b as part of rather contrasting groups at the extreme opposite ends of the western steppe that had:

1. different longitudes (Sredny Stog around the Dnieper, Khvalysnk/Yamnaya/Afanasievo around the Volga-Urals)

2. different ecozones (Sredny Stog on the dry step, Khvalysnk/Yamnaya around the Volga-Urals on the forrest steppe-dry steppe interface)

3. different levels of contact and development with the farming world (Sredny Stog was much more with one foot in the farming world, Khvalysnk/Yamnaya undeveloped in that sense but the core of the mobile pastoralism on wheels way of life)

4. different chronology of expansion (Sredny Stog around 4000BC, Yamnaya/Afanasievo around 3400-3000BC),

5. different directions of expansion (Sredny Stog evacuated almost entirely west, Yamnaya/Afanasievo collectively moved both east and west collectively).

Those two groups to me have enough of a distinction between them to represents the roots of the R1a/R1b distributional differences we see today and provide them both with a context that explains how IE cannot be explained without both groups.

Ancient DNA is really needed. I think Michal's theory has R1a being west of R1b (in the area north of the Black Sea) in Dnieper-Donets and R1b in the North Caspian region.

Jean M
11-20-2013, 04:04 PM
It's pretty clear the focus or his focus is on R1b, despite a couple sentences you're snapshotting regarding palaeolithic R.

It certainly looks as though the bulk of his talk was on R1b, and I did think of posting it in the R1b forum, but the fact that he seemed to be saying something unfamiliar and significant about the origin of R (however little time he devoted to that) swayed me. Curse me if you like. ;) It certainly has resulted in many different conversations going on here.

Palisto
11-20-2013, 04:11 PM
The Avesta is the early body of religious writing of Zoroastrianism. It was written in a language that scholars have named Avestan, after the Avesta. Traditionally the early parts of the Avesta are supposed to have been written by Zoroaster (Zarathustra). Avestan is seen as the parent of the eastern Iranian language family. As I mentioned earlier the Yaz Culture (ca. 1500-1100 BC) is regarded as a likely archaeological reflection of early East Iranian culture as described in the Avesta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaz_culture

The earliest attestation of the western Iranian family is much later, but presumably its parent began to develop among the groups that left the steppe to filter into what is now Iran from the north-east about 1700 BC. The Medes arrived in the Zagros valleys c. 1000 BC. The Parsua are mentioned in north-eastern Iran in 843 BC. Later they made their way south to the former Kingdom of Anshan, where they became known as the Persians. Our first record of Old Persian is the inscription of Darius the Great (521-486 BC) at Behistun that you mentioned earlier.

Sorry, but this not correct. I read this incorrect thought elsewhere, not sure who spread this. The earliest attestation of Iranians were not in Northeast-Iran but in West-Iran along the modern Iran-Iraq border (=Kurdistan) made by Assyrians. When, how and if the Iranians migrated into Iran is an open question.

"The first reference in Assyrian sources to the Persians also relates to the ninth century B.C. An inscription of King Shalmaneser III., written around 843 B.C., mentions the province of Parsua; in 834 the Assyrians levied taxes from 27 'kings' of that province. Until recently it was widely assumed that Parsua was near Lake Urmia, but Levine has recenty demonstrated that it was most probably in the central Zagros mountains. At that time Persians were not yet united but were led by many separate chieftains. Assyrian texts of the late eighth century B.C. speak of the land Parsumas to the east of the modern Sulaymaniyah, that is, north-west of Elam. The Persians are thought to have parted from the Median tribes around 800 B.C., and gradually to have moved south-eastwards. In 714 B.C. they are mentioned as subjects of the Assyrians monarch Sargon II. With the passage of time they came to occupy the ancient land of Elam in south-west Iran, which was named Parsa after the new arrivals. (http://books.google.de/books?id=DguGWP0vGY8C&pg=PA36&dq=sargon+assyrian+urmia+Parsua&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ytaMUvusCoXFswbBrYH4DA&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sargon%20assyrian%20urmia%20Parsua&f=false)"


My friend from the gurdwara was quite adamant when I asked him for the third time. He said their traditional lands extended to Iraq.That would place Media proper roughly in the center. Or perhaps Ragha in the middle. Do you think it was possible if any of the Magi from Rahga were R1b 343 or R1b 25?

The Biblical Magi started their journey from Amadiya in Kurdistan-Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amedy.jpg). Assyrians call the three Biblical Magi: Larvandad, Gushnasaph, and Hormisdas, these names are most likely Iranian.

alan
11-20-2013, 04:14 PM
The split of M73 and M269 seems to have happened fairly deep in their combined P297 story given their radically different distributions. It could go right back to 10000BC when assorted groups of hunters were being shifted about by climate changes before, during and after that phase. That would date back to a period long before the emergence of the major language groups when each area was probably developing localised languages from some sort of common root dating to the end of the Palaeolithic. In all probability most of the languages of local Mesolithic groups didnt lead to modern languages and they are more the result of later expansions. It is possible that M73 people spoke a distant cousin language of the same root that led to IE. I do not think that this language survived. It has always been an oddity and some sort of distant cousinly relationship to IE of a more than 10000 year time depth seems possible.

However, M269 is a very different story and its correlation with many IE languages is cast iron. A heck of a lot about it would nicely fit being linked to the pre-Yamnaya flow west from the steppe c. 4000BC onwards. I dont see PIE as coming our of a localised point though. There was an extensive settlement network of Sredny Stog related groups from the Dnieper to the Don and their trading reached the Volga. If any group would have been in a position to spread a prestige dialect through a myriad of distant cousin languages in the pre-Yamnaya period it was them.




The Kazakh steppe and Dzungaran basin are not the farming world either. This is actually interesting because I have wondered what the pre IE hunter gatherers of the Kazakh steppe carried since close to 100% of Central Asian R1a is Z93+ and there are pretty much no other lineages that can't be traced back to West Asia, South Asia or East Asia. So M73+ actually seems like a good candidate (along with some R2-I recall DMXX looking at some R2 north of Kazakhstan and I think he found it wasn't very related to the South Asian R2).

Silesian
11-20-2013, 04:22 PM
And even if that was true what does that imply? Languages exist before they are written down. This wouldn't even be surprising because the writing systems of Asia are mostly Aramaic based. So all you are doing is arguing came to Central Asia from the West.
True we can only try and deduce history from what we know. However ancient Median and Avestan in my view are the same. Yagnobi is an important eastern branch Iranian language poorly attested in written attestation, however relevant since they would presumably close to "Scythian" speaking tribes. In order for Andonovo to be viable their language should predate or at lest be very similar but not be downstream of Mede-Avesta . The same with Brahui we should see some exchange of ancient PIE from Andronovo within their language, since they are in the same region. Can you prove this?

Silesian
11-20-2013, 04:29 PM
Sorry, but this not correct. I read this incorrect thought elsewhere, not sure who spread this. The earliest attestation of Iranians were not in Northeast-Iran but in West-Iran along the modern Iran-Iraq border (=Kurdistan) made by Assyrians. When, how and if the Iranians migrated into Iran is an open question.

"The first reference in Assyrian sources to the Persians also relates to the ninth century B.C. An inscription of King Shalmaneser III., written around 843 B.C., mentions the province of Parsua; in 834 the Assyrians levied taxes from 27 'kings' of that province. Until recently it was widely assumed that Parsua was near Lake Urmia, but Levine has recenty demonstrated that it was most probably in the central Zagros mountains. At that time Persians were not yet united but were led by many separate chieftains. Assyrian texts of the late eighth century B.C. speak of the land Parsumas to the east of the modern Sulaymaniyah, that is, north-west of Elam. The Persians are thought to have parted from the Median tribes around 800 B.C., and gradually to have moved south-eastwards. In 714 B.C. they are mentioned as subjects of the Assyrians monarch Sargon II. With the passage of time they came to occupy the ancient land of Elam in south-west Iran, which was named Parsa after the new arrivals. (http://books.google.de/books?id=DguGWP0vGY8C&pg=PA36&dq=sargon+assyrian+urmia+Parsua&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ytaMUvusCoXFswbBrYH4DA&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sargon%20assyrian%20urmia%20Parsua&f=false)"






The Biblical Magi started their journey from Amadiya in Kurdistan-Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amedy.jpg). Assyrians call the three Biblical Magi: Larvandad, Gushnasaph, and Hormisdas, these names are most likely Iranian.

Either way as an elite Iranian tribe or and elite group/cast, it would be additional confirmation of earliest physical attestation is in Media proper inscriptions, and connected with the earliest physical attestation of a connection between Median-Avestan Zoroastian text. This would make sense in light of the ancient Historians of the ancient time period linking him with this region.

Jean M
11-20-2013, 04:30 PM
The earliest attestation of Iranians

I was talking of the earliest attestation of West Iranian language - i.e. an inscription or other writing in that language, not the first mention by others of Medes or Persians, which of course is earlier.

Silesian
11-20-2013, 04:32 PM
I was talking of the earliest attestation of West Iranian language - i.e. an inscription or other writing in that language, not the first mention by others of Medes or Persians, which of course is earlier.

None the less it would be confirmation of some of the oldest information the ancient historians had.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 04:33 PM
True we can only try and deduce history from what we know. However ancient Median and Avestan in my view are the same. Yagnobi is an important eastern branch Iranian language poorly attested in written attestation, however relevant since they would presumably close to "Scythian" speaking tribes. In order for Andonovo to be viable their language should predate or at lest be very similar but not be downstream of Mede-Avesta . The same with Brahui we should see some exchange of ancient PIE from Andronovo within their language, since they are in the same region. Can you prove this?

What are you talking about? The Brahui live in South Asia. PIE was never spoken there? But yes they do have plenty of IE loan words.

newtoboard
11-20-2013, 04:35 PM
The split of M73 and M269 seems to have happened fairly deep in their combined P297 story given their radically different distributions. It could go right back to 10000BC when assorted groups of hunters were being shifted about by climate changes before, during and after that phase. That would date back to a period long before the emergence of the major language groups when each area was probably developing localised languages from some sort of common root dating to the end of the Palaeolithic. In all probability most of the languages of local Mesolithic groups didnt lead to modern languages and they are more the result of later expansions. It is possible that M73 people spoke a distant cousin language of the same root that led to IE. I do not think that this language survived. It has always been an oddity and some sort of distant cousinly relationship to IE of a more than 10000 year time depth seems possible.

However, M269 is a very different story and its correlation with many IE languages is cast iron. A heck of a lot about it would nicely fit being linked to the pre-Yamnaya flow west from the steppe c. 4000BC onwards. I dont see PIE as coming our of a localised point though. There was an extensive settlement network of Sredny Stog related groups from the Dnieper to the Don and their trading reached the Volga. If any group would have been in a position to spread a prestige dialect through a myriad of distant cousin languages in the pre-Yamnaya period it was them.

Its unlikely Sredny Stog was a homogenous R1b culture. More like it is the best candidate to be a mixed culcutre of any steppe culture.

Silesian
11-20-2013, 04:46 PM
What are you talking about? The Brahui live in South Asia. PIE was never spoken there? But yes they do have plenty of IE loan words.

I'm talking about physical attestation, or what evidence you can show the Yagnob-Brahuii, 2 completely separate groups within the sphere of PIE dispersal are linked closer to PIE than Avesta-Mede ? In other words show the link with Andorono.

parasar
11-20-2013, 04:50 PM
You can believe that, however it will not reconcile the dilema z93-283 "R1a" Mallory map distribution he used in his PIE lecture , or that you need Sanskrit to help decipher Avestan not Pashto, and that no dated ancient samples or modern m458/z283 or older clades are proven from Andronovo, or the Magi performed sky burials with no possessians, Brahmin in India burn with no possessians and Andronovo buried with possessians.

That is true in general today, but that was not the case until even very recently. Children in our area were directly buried and quite often the ash of the cremated was placed in an urn and buried with some special possession and a tree planted over or a pillar placed (called laTh in our area). There are ancient burial mounds all over and later took the elaborate form of the Stupa.
https://www.shambhalamountain.org/great-stupa/history-of-stupas/

Prior to the monumental Stupas, the mounds were of this form:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kCUf5J4zvjI/UYZR9TvgFMI/AAAAAAAACP4/j1GIulmhTp0/s640/IMGP1055.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZZ8dJ2fI6ps/UYZRarFjd2I/AAAAAAAACOU/GBEX9fy5E4Y/s640/1.jpg
http://silentpagesindia.blogspot.com/2013/05/lauriya-nandangarh-champaran-bihar-site.html

alan
11-20-2013, 04:54 PM
Its definately possible. A geographical split between the M73 and M269 lines did clearly happen and apparently in a non-farming context. The split by definition had to have happened somewhere between 9000BC and 5000BC. Its a fairly striking split with only a significant overlap around the Urals. M269 only had limited impact east of Urals but a major impact in Europe, the Caucasus, Anatolia and NW Iran while M73 only had pretty well no impact in Europe or SW Asia or the mountain fringe of central Asia or the extreme east of central Asia. I think we can probably assume that considerable distance had been put between them in the period 9000-6000BC in the hunter gathering period.

M269 may well have spoken a different language from M73 or perhaps rather they had diverged into entirely different languages by long separation. It remains very hard to not see M269 as part of a broad PIE or archaic PIE zone and it is likely to me that it ended up positioned between the Don and Dniester and north Caucasus zone by 4500BC where it was in an ideal position to spread to NW Iran as well as the Balkans and finally Anatolia. That sort of position and the date of the clade make a link to Sredny Stog elements very possible. The dating of the clade, the archaelogical culture, distribution and the mono-directional spread of most of the pre-Yamnaya steppe movements into farming Europe would make a good fit for Sredny Stog.

Also it may be that the mystery of why M73 branched the earliest is that it was positioned in such a way that it received farming influences from the first farming groups who entered west central Asia c. 6000BC.


The Kazakh steppe and Dzungaran basin are not the farming world either. This is actually interesting because I have wondered what the pre IE hunter gatherers of the Kazakh steppe carried since close to 100% of Central Asian R1a is Z93+ and there are pretty much no other lineages that can't be traced back to West Asia, South Asia or East Asia. So M73+ actually seems like a good candidate (along with some R2-I recall DMXX looking at some R2 north of Kazakhstan and I think he found it wasn't very related to the South Asian R2).

Silesian
11-20-2013, 04:56 PM
That is true in general today, but that was not the case until even very recently. Children in our area were directly buried and quite often the ash of the cremated was placed in an urn and buried with some special possession and a tree planted over or a pillar placed (called laTh in our area). There are ancient burial mounds all over and later took the elaborate form of the Stupa.

I'm talking about elite cast group within the sphere of PIE dispersal Median-Avestan-Sanskrit. Braham-creamated no possesians. Magi-sky burial no possesians. Andronovo closer to ancient Sumarian?

Jean M
11-20-2013, 05:09 PM
However ancient Median and Avestan in my view are the same.
Not the same. Language changes. Avestan is an ancient form, close to Proto-Indo-Iranian.


In order for Andronovo ... their language should predate or at least be very similar but not be downstream of Mede-Avesta .

Indeed. Andronovo is presumed to be the homeland of Proto-Indo-Iranian, the ancestor of all the Iranian and Indic languages.

Jean M
11-20-2013, 05:12 PM
Andronovo closer to ancient Sumerian?

No. The Andronovo burials under mounds (kurgans) are a clear descendant of Yamnaya burials under mounds (kurgans). The whole sky-burial thing starts with Zoroastrianism in the Iron Age - thought to be reflected in the Yaz Culture. It did not start in the Copper-Bronze Age. It is not part of funeral practice among the European speakers of Indo-European languages. So we can deduce that it did not start with PIE.

Silesian
11-20-2013, 05:40 PM
No. The Andronovo burials under mounds (kurgans) are a clear descendant of Yamnaya burials under mounds (kurgans). The whole sky-burial thing starts with Zoroastrianism in the Iron Age - thought to be reflected in the Yaz Culture. It did not start in the Copper-Bronze Age. It is not part of funeral practice among the European speakers of Indo-European languages. So we can deduce that it did not start with PIE.

All I have ever asked was to bring physical evidence to the table/discussion. Brahmins do not take their physical possessions with them. Maybe Zoroaster was a vegetarian and did not take any possessions to his final resting spot either. It does not matter because he is one of the oldest links we have in Median-Avestan sphere of influence, his writings used as physical proof of tangible Indo-Iranian connection, this is one step away from Indo-European, not Yagnobi.

parasar
11-20-2013, 05:40 PM
I'm talking about elite cast group within the sphere of PIE dispersal Median-Avestan-Sanskrit. Braham-creamated no possesians. Magi-sky burial no possesians. Andronovo closer to ancient Sumarian?
What you say is correct at the present time. But that was not always the case in the past.

As I had mentioned, all three types were seen - burial, urn burial of cremated remains with possessions, as well exposure of the body (of this last, while it is mentioned in the Atharva Veda, and was reported by Chinese, I have not seen any evidence).

Please see how the brahman trend changed:

in the Aranyakas that the burial of incinerated bones and ashes was an important and elaborate ceremony. By the Grhya and Puranic periods, however, burial and post cremation burial are hardly mentioned. Cremation had become the only orthodox method for the disposal of the dead
http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Rites%20of%20Passage/ancestors2.html

So while there were many forms were accepted in the past, the trend was towards cremation only, so much so that burial mounds are later called demonic.

Many of these tribes, including the Sakya to whom the Buddha belonged, are called asurya in SB. For it is the Sakya and their neighbors, the Malla, Vajji, etc. who are reported in the Pali texts as builders of high grave mounds, such as the one built for the Buddha. According to SB 12.8.1.5 the “easterners and others” are reported to have round “demonic” graves, some of which may have been excavated at Lauriya in E. Nepal. These graves are similar to the kurgan type grave mounds of S. Russia and Central Asia.”
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/canon.pdf

In parts of India it was still prevalent until very recently:

When the Raja of that country or a great zamindar dies, they dig a large tomb or apartment in the earth, and in it they place his wives and concubines, as also his horses and equipage, carpets, vessels of gold and silver, grain, etc., all such things as are used in that country, the jewels worn by wives and nobles, perfumes and fruit, sufficient to last for several days. These they call the provisions for his journey to the next world, and when they are all collected the door is closed upon them.”
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?url=pf%3Ffile%3D80201017%26ct%3D74%26rqs%3D29 %26rqs%3D36%26rqs%3D65%26rqs%3D73%26rqs%3D179%26rq s%3D265%26rqs%3D273%26rqs%3D762%26rqs%3D772

Silesian
11-20-2013, 05:48 PM
What you say is correct at the present time. But that was not always the case in the past.

What I'm basically saying is that the Farsi of India and Brahmin of taking no possessions with them originated in Indo-Iranian sphere, not in an Andronovo setting, and might have the same root.

parasar
11-20-2013, 05:54 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about. What does Mallory's map of R1a have to do with anything? You don't need Sanskrit to decipher Avestan. Who said that? Why would anybody use Pashto to decipher Avestan? What does M458+ or Z283+ have to do with anything? Nobody said they had anything to do with Andronovo.

Maybe not now, but that is how the Gathas were often interpreted. After all Gathic and Vedic are almost like dialects of the same language.

In fact that is one of the knocks on the interpretation of the Gathas, as it was done through the medium of Sanskrit.

The dependency on Vedic Sanskrit is a significant weakness in the interpretation of the Gathas, as the two languages, though from a common origin, had developed independently ... There are four monumental translations of the Gathas worth noting: The earlier James Darmesteter version (Le Zend-Avesta, 1892-1893) which is based on a translation "from below", that is, based on the later middle Persian commentaries and translations. The other three are Christian Bartholomae's Die Gathas des Awesta (1905, Strassburg: Trübner), Helmut Humbach's The Gathas of Zarathushtra (1959, Heidelberg: Winter), and Stanley Isler's The Gathas of Zarathustra (1975, Acta Iranica IV, Leiden: Brill). These three texts exploit the "Vedic" approach, and Bartholomae's was the first of its kind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gathas

Jean M
11-20-2013, 06:07 PM
All I have ever asked was to bring physical evidence to the table/discussion. Brahmins do not take their physical possessions with them. Maybe Zoroaster was a vegetarian and did not take any possessions to his final resting spot either. It does not matter because he is one of the oldest links we have in Median-Avestan sphere of influence, his writings used as physical proof of tangible Indo-Iranian connection, this is one step away from Indo-European, not Yagnobi.

Silesian, I'm getting so lost here I can barely see daylight. I can see that there is something in all this that is important to you, but I can't see exactly what it is. Zoroaster (if indeed it was he who wrote the oldest part of the Avesta) did not want to be buried at all.

What is the significance of Yagnobi here? You asked about its importance before. It is a descendant of Sogdian. So it is Eastern Iranian. So it is a member of the Indo-European family, just like English, Polish etc etc. Avestan is closer in time to PIE than any currently spoken language certainly.

Silesian
11-20-2013, 06:13 PM
Silesian, I'm getting so lost here I can barely see daylight. I can see that there is something in all this that is important to you, but I can't see exactly what it is. Zoroaster (if indeed it was he who wrote the oldest part of the Avesta) did not want to be buried at all.

What is the significance of Yagnobi here? You asked about its importance before. It is a descendant of Sogdian. So it is Eastern Iranian. So it is a member of the Indo-European family, just like English, Polish etc etc. Avestan is closer in time to PIE than any currently spoken language certainly.
It is in the chain starting with Jasz+North Osset/Digor+Yagnobi= Ancient Mede- Avestan-Sanskrit it does not predate this cluster, there is no tangible attestation linguistically linking it to Androvnovo. If there is can you show it?

Jean M
11-20-2013, 06:32 PM
It is in the chain starting with Jasz+North Osset/Digor+Yagnobi= Ancient Mede- Avestan-Sanskrit it does not predate this cluster, there is no tangible attestation linguistically linking it to Andronovo. If there is can you show it?

I'm still not entirely clear, but it looks as though you would like Andronovo to have nothing to do with Ossetian and other languages of the Eastern Iranian branch, descendants of the Scythian language(s). :)

As I said earlier there is no writing from Andronovo. We just see the cultural progression on the steppe from Andronovo to later cultures which we can identify as Scythian. Keyser 2009 demonstrated that this cultural progression was genetic too. Y-DNA R1a loomed large. You can see the sequence in the Central Asian area she studied. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

Silesian
11-20-2013, 07:32 PM
I'm still not entirely clear, but it looks as though you.....

oh my.



As I said earlier there is no writing from Andronovo.

thank-you


We just see the cultural progression on the steppe from Andronovo to later cultures which we can identify as Scythian. Keyser 2009 demonstrated that this cultural progression was genetic too. Y-DNA R1a loomed large. You can see the sequence in the Central Asian area she studied. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

I already stated at the outset I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, and that both R1a and R1b had a role in this interesting subject. The cultural progression is way over my head and something in the upper realm of academics. Anyway I don't think Brahui fit this model, and there is a logical reason why. If you can show something tangible in the form of written attestation or other proof linking Androvono with Mede-Avesta-Sanskrit language cluster/region, if something like that even exists, that would be great

Jean M
11-20-2013, 07:54 PM
Anyway I don't think Brahui fit this model

They have nothing to do with it. They are a Dravidian-speaking people. Dravidian is a completely different language family from Indo-European. The Dravidian family is exclusively South Asian and found in South India, except for the Brahui. That is why the location of the Brahui has been such a puzzle. Take a look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_people .


If you can show something tangible in the form of written attestation or other proof linking Androvono with Mede-Avesta-Sanskrit language cluster/region, if something like that even exists, that would be great

Wouldn't it just! We'd love it to be really, really easy - the type of thing that anyone could sort out in a single forum post, but it isn't. You need to read whole books to get a grip on the complications of the evidence. That includes the use of "soma". Just take a look at Wikipedia on that, and you will get an idea of how the evidence wriggles around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma

It is not one thing - it is everything added up that has left the majority of archaeologists convinced that Andronovo was the home of Proto-Indo-Iranian.

[Corrected after error pointed out by post below.]

parasar
11-20-2013, 08:47 PM
They have nothing to do with it. They are a Dravidian-speaking people. Dravidian is a completely different language family from Indo-European. The Dravidian family is exclusively South Asian and found in South India, except for the Brahui. That is why the location of the Brahui has been such a puzzle. Take a look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_people .



Wouldn't it just! We'd love it to be really, really easy - the type of thing that anyone could sort out in a single forum post, but it isn't. You need to read whole books to get a grip on the complications of the evidence. That includes the use of "soma". Just take a look at Wikipedia on that, and you will get an idea of how the evidence wriggles around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma

It is not one thing - it is everything added up that has left the majority of archaeologists convinced that Andronovo was the home of Proto-Indo-European.

All or just the Aryan (also termed Iranian, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan) branch.

Generalissimo
11-20-2013, 11:32 PM
You can believe that, however it will not reconcile the dilema z93-283 "R1a" Mallory map distribution he used in his PIE lecture , or that you need Sanskrit to help decipher Avestan not Pashto, and that no dated ancient samples or modern m458/z283 or older clades are proven from Andronovo, or the Magi performed sky burials with no possessians, Brahmin in India burn with no possessians and Andronovo buried with possessians.

Do you have a copy of Mallory's R1a map? And is the lecture online?

Silesian
11-21-2013, 06:00 PM
They have nothing to do with it. They are a Dravidian-speaking people. Dravidian is a completely different language family from Indo-European. The Dravidian family is exclusively South Asian and found in South India, except for the Brahui. That is why the location of the Brahui has been such a puzzle. Take a look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_people .

Thanks again for providing valuable insight on the subject. I had thought there might be some words of a relic Northern Dravidian people mixed within Sanskrit. However if there is no Dravidian in Sanskrit language, then we can rule out the sea god originating from them. Where did the Sanskrit Rigvedic deity god of oceans/sea Varuna come from, the Hittites, Mitani, Munda,,Burushaski, or Finno-Ugric?

Silesian
11-21-2013, 06:10 PM
Do you have a copy of Mallory's R1a map? And is the lecture online?

At the outset he states he
has total distrust for modern DNA. The map is shown in the online lecture on youtube, @ 3minutes 33 seconds into video. The Irish end of the line looks like total R1b region.

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

The dna distrust reminds me of the quoted caveat:

Mallory (as cited in Bryant 2001:216) admits the extraordinary difficulty of making a case for expansions from Andronovo to northern India, and that attempts to link the Indo-Aryans to such sites as the Beshkent and Vakhsh cultures "only gets the Indo-Iranians to Central Asia, but not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans".

However as JeanM demonstrates it is well documented,connection Sintashta ,Andronovo Northern India. Yagnobi are somewhere in between the region.

Jean M
11-21-2013, 06:24 PM
.. if there is no Dravidian in Sanskrit language

I did not say that. When Proto-Indic entered South Asia, it encountered language families already there. It absorbed vocabulary from pre-existing languages, both Dravidian and Munda. It had already absorbed vocabulary from an otherwise unrecorded language assumed to be that of the BMAC, along with technology and presumably religious ideas, since the name for the god Iṇdra is imported from this language. See substratum in Vedic Sanskrit : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit

Jean M
11-21-2013, 06:44 PM
For Indo-European priesthoods and priest function see Mallory 1997, p. 452. I can't copy and paste here without a lot of corruption of the text (all those special characters), but here's snippet:


The name Varuna derives from the root vr- 'enclose, confine' and Varuna exercises his magic powers through the use of spells and snares. He is charged with the maintenance of rta- '(divine) order' which underlies the forces of the cosmos. He has an association with water (he later becomes a sea god and the motif of swearing by water is perhaps related to the Greek tradition of swearing by the river Styx), and this association is reflected in his specific punishment of inflicting 'water belly disease', i.e. dropsy.

Silesian
11-21-2013, 06:51 PM
For Indo-European priesthoods and priest function see Mallory 1997, p. 452. I can't copy and paste here without a lot of corruption of the text (all those special characters), but here's snippet:
Thank you that is interesting. It's not found in Avestan I thought it might have a closer meaning in ancient Neša or Mitani to the sea or ocean.

Jean M
11-21-2013, 07:12 PM
It's not found in Avestan I thought it might have a closer meaning in ancient Neša or Mitani to the sea or ocean.

There are counterparts in the Avesta and the deities of the Mitanni.


In Iranian tradition, where the Indo-Iranian deities were reconstituted as abstractions in the reforms of Zarathustra, the magico-religious figure is seen to lie behind Ahura Mazdah: 'Lord Wise', who, like Varuna, possessed the element *Asura (in Iranian we find the compound Mithra-Ahura, compare with Mitra-Varuna ) and Varuna is also described as [I]medhira- 'wise', where Vedic medha is cognate with Avestan mazda- 'wise'.

Mi-it-ra and Aru-na are the equivalent deities of the Mitanni. Mallory 1997, p. 119.

PS That really should be the last from me on comparative religion. It is not my field and there is an enormous amount written on it.

Silesian
11-21-2013, 07:22 PM
There are counterparts in the Avesta and the deities of the Mitanni.



Mi-it-ra and Aru-na are the equivalent deities of the Mitanni. Mallory 1997, p. 119.

PS That really should be the last from me on comparative religion. It is not my field and there is an enormous amount written on it.

I was thinking a something a little more simple connected to magic, oceans and Hittites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aruna_%28Hittite_mythology%29


Aruna is a sea god in Hittite mythology, a son of the healing and magic goddess Kamrusepa.[1] Aruna is also the Hittite word for "sea", and like Kamrusepa may also refer to the god of the sea.

newtoboard
11-22-2013, 02:52 PM
I did not say that. When Proto-Indic entered South Asia, it encountered language families already there. It absorbed vocabulary from pre-existing languages, both Dravidian and Munda. It had already absorbed vocabulary from an otherwise unrecorded language assumed to be that of the BMAC, along with technology and presumably religious ideas, since the name for the god Iṇdra is imported from this language. See substratum in Vedic Sanskrit : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit

Everything I have read indicates Austoasiatic languages are very recent to South Asia. Plus there is almost no Y-DNA O in most of South Asia and certainly not in the Indus Valley regions. So why do people keep on saying the Neolithic arrived with Austroasiatic speakers (who also apparently brought eastern crops/animals such as rice/mangos/red junglefowl/water buffalo) or giving the Indic word for cotton a Austroasiatic origin?

parasar
11-22-2013, 10:12 PM
Everything I have read indicates Austoasiatic languages are very recent to South Asia. Plus there is almost no Y-DNA O in most of South Asia and certainly not in the Indus Valley regions. So why do people keep on saying the Neolithic arrived with Austroasiatic speakers (who also apparently brought eastern crops/animals such as rice/mangos/red junglefowl/water buffalo) or giving the Indic word for cotton a Austroasiatic origin?

Let me guess - it would otherwise derails the accepted time-lines, an put the scenarios constructed from many years of hard work in jeopardy.
There is no other other reason I can think of for Dr. Witzel to put Kikat in western India south of the Punjab when all Indic materials show that Kikat is the name of the South Gaya region. How otherwise can he justify his own contention that the oldest influence on Vedic is from Munda, and not Dravidian?

jeanL
11-23-2013, 04:51 PM
The concept of a greater Vasconic really has not reliable support. I agree with others that its not R1b that is probably linked to the root of Basque-Sardinian. They are more linked by I and also autosomal DNA. There is no pan European culture I have ever heard of spread out of the pre-proto Basque area anyway even if this is expanded to include the whole Basque area, Aquitania, the Iberian area and Sardinia. Certainly not since the upper Palaeolithic. Basque R1b looks like an interface between the area high in DF27 in Iberia and the area high in L21 in Atlantic France and as far as I understand neither looks that old in the area. The rest of Iberia looks to be DF27 indicating a fission of P312 rather than an origin point.

Could you find me a single study that shows that Basque are high in R1b-DF27?? Do you also know that R1b-P312 is the oldest haplogroup in the Basque region, older than I-M26 as per Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 study. Once more, where do you get the sources to make such claims???

959

Now to save time and energy:

1- Yes they use the evolutionary rate(which by the way has never been proven wrong, yet to be fair I have to acknowledge that it provides nothing but an estimate, however for all we know, it could provide a realible approximation to an otherwise nonlinear, repeat-number dependant mutation rate). The logic stills stands though, in terms of variance in the Basque region it goes R1b-M269+>>R1b-P312*>>R1b-SRY2627>>I-M26>>R1b-L21.

2-R1b-P312 in this study means R1b-P312(xL21,U152,SRY2627,M153,etc), so pretty much every R1b-P312+ subclade tested in this study. It also reaches it highest frequency in two of the Spanish Basque provinces Guipuzcoa (n=47) with 26/47 or 55.32%, Guipuzcoa-Southwest(n=57) with 32/57 or 56.14%, which gives a combined frequency of Guipuzcoa-C(104) with 58/104 or 55.77%, and Vizcaya(57) with 35/57 or 61.4%.

alan
11-23-2013, 05:45 PM
Could you find me a single study that shows that Basque are high in R1b-DF27?? Do you also know that R1b-P312 is the oldest haplogroup in the Basque region, older than I-M26 as per Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 study. Once more, where do you get the sources to make such claims???

local intraclades dates are of little use. They are very determined by who was producing more children and who was not and had most of their lines dying out. They are only interesting on a broad scale. Interclades are much more useful
959

Now to save time and energy:

1- Yes they use the evolutionary rate(which by the way has never been proven wrong, yet to be fair I have to acknowledge that it provides nothing but an estimate, however for all we know, it could provide a realible approximation to an otherwise nonlinear, repeat-number dependant mutation rate). The logic stills stands though, in terms of variance in the Basque region it goes R1b-M269+>>R1b-P312*>>R1b-SRY2627>>I-M26>>R1b-L21.

The evolutionary rate doesnt make sense when applied wider. If R1b was as old as it would indicate it would make I older than the human settlement of Europe.

Besides, multiplying P312 clades by three still only takes us to 11500BC. That makes no sense in terms of a western refuge.
2-R1b-P312 in this study means R1b-P312(xL21,U152,SRY2627,M153,etc), so pretty much every R1b-P312+ subclade tested in this study. It also reaches it highest frequency in two of the Spanish Basque provinces Guipuzcoa (n=47) with 26/47 or 55.32%, Guipuzcoa-Southwest(n=57) with 32/57 or 56.14%, which gives a combined frequency of Guipuzcoa-C(104) with 58/104 or 55.77%, and Vizcaya(57) with 35/57 or 61.4%.

It is clear that the upstream branching of R1b are located at far more frequency well to the east. The really early clades are around north Iran and just to the east. Its just really counterintuative to look west. The intermediate clades on the P297 line like L23xL52, M269* and M73 are also placed predominantly from the Balkans to central Asia. Even L51* looks north Italian and Alpine/SE French and even applying the evolutionary 3 times fudge to them would come in at about 12000BC. The same fudge would make L23xL51 about 145000BC and M269 about 16000BC. All of that is post-LGM anyway not to mention the eastern distribution.

The Basques are automally linked to Sardinians who are usually thought to be the closest to undiluted Cardial Neolithic population. It is IMO much easier to consider the Basques as having an autosomal link to a root in outlying the Cardial group in Aquitania who may have got there from the French Med. area. It easier to link the Sardinian similarities in autosomal DNA with haplogroup I than R1b.

jeanL
11-23-2013, 07:16 PM
local intraclades dates are of little use. They are very determined by who was producing more children and who was not and had most of their lines dying out. They are only interesting on a broad scale. Interclades are much more useful.

You did not answer my original question!! Could you kindly provide any scientific data as to why you would make the assertion that Basque R1b-P312 is mostly R1b-DF27. As for the local intraclades ages, of course they are useful, namely because even highly derived clades such as R1b-SRY2627 which is as scarce in the Basque Country as I-M26, if not more scarce, appear to be older than I-M26.




The evolutionary rate doesnt make sense when applied wider. If R1b was as old as it would indicate it would make I older than the human settlement of Europe.


Could you please provide actual data that supports such statement?? As per the latest SNPs studies(Using Francalacci.et.al.2013_rate) it would seem that if R1b-M269 clades in Sardinia are 7626 ybp +- 1860 ybp, it would make I(all) 47048 ybp +- 11475 ybp, this is well within the confidence interval of the settlement of Europe. BTW, here is a little something your are missing, STRs mutation rates are a function of the repeat number, R1b-M269 derived clades have different repeat numbers for different STR sites than I-M170 derived clades in Europe, so assuming that a single constant mutation rate could be applied would be erroneous, hence my comment that the evolutionary rate would provide a rough estimate.




Besides, multiplying P312 clades by three still only takes us to 11500BC. That makes no sense in terms of a western refuge.

Well, what ages are you talking about?? Because according to the Martinez-et.al.2012 paper the age of R1b-P312 in Basques is 10.4 kya+-1.8 kya, that is 8400 BC(6600 BC- 10200 BC). In any case, Basques aren't a refuge for anything (they are more of sink than a source), if you want to find the real Western Refuge you gotta look at a wider area, include South Western France, and other parts of Spain.



It is clear that the upstream branching of R1b are located at far more frequency well to the east. The really early clades are around north Iran and just to the east. Its just really counterintuative to look west. The intermediate clades on the P297 line like L23xL52, M269* and M73 are also placed predominantly from the Balkans to central Asia. Even L51* looks north Italian and Alpine/SE French and even applying the evolutionary 3 times fudge to them would come in at about 12000BC. The same fudge would make L23xL51 about 145000BC and M269 about 16000BC. All of that is post-LGM anyway not to mention the eastern distribution.

The upstream branching is nothing but an Illusion created by the lack of SNPs discovered, the eastern clades are equally as derived as the Western clades, if they hadn't found the M269 defining SNPs, and had found M73 first, all the Western clades would appear ancestral as they would be R1b-P297(xM73*). BTW, as per Myres.et.al.2011 R1b-M343(xV88,M269,M73), R1b-V88, R1b-M269*, R1b-L23*, all make appareances in Europe, and they are pretty darn widespread(From Germany to Russia), they are just more frequent(just slightly) in West Asia, but given that frequency doesn't determine origin;) the argument could go both ways. Also Cruciani.et.al.2010 study on African R1b-V88 found that 3/5 R1b-P25* haplogroups were found in Europe. So let's tone down the rhetoric that all older clades are found East, when quick search of the literature shows that Europe R1b-P25(xV88,P297)(Cruciani.et.al.2010), R1b-M343*(xV88,M269,M73), R1b-V88*, R1b-M269*, and R1b-L23*(Myres.et.al.2011).

In order to no repeat myself(once more!!) here are some numbers: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1577-Mike-Hammer-goes-for-post-Neolithic-entry-of-R-into-Europe&p=19169&viewfull=1#post19169



The Basques are automally linked to Sardinians who are usually thought to be the closest to undiluted Cardial Neolithic population. It is IMO much easier to consider the Basques as having an autosomal link to a root in outlying the Cardial group in Aquitania who may have got there from the French Med. area. It easier to link the Sardinian similarities in autosomal DNA with haplogroup I than R1b.

The Basques aren't Autosomally linked to Sardinians, depending of which calculator you look at, they might seem like they are, however Sardinians are high in a West-Med component whereas Basques are high in the Atlantic Component. Here is where you are seeing a linkage:

Dodecad K12b calculator (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedEY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEY lE)

French Basques(n=21)

Atlantic_Med: 73.1%
North_European: 17.1%
Gredosia: 9.8%

Pais_Vasco (n=7)

Atlantic_Med: 73.1%
North_European: 22.4%
Gredosia: 9.1%
South_West Asian: 1.2%

Sardinians(n=24)

Atlantic_Med: 70.5%
North_European: 0%
Gredosia: 0%
South_West Asian: 5.8%
Northwest_African: 2.6%
Caucasus: 20.9%

Now let's look at Dodecad Globe13 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGR2ZWRoQ0VaWTc0dlV1cHh4ZUNJR UE&pli=1#gid=24) calculator:

French Basques(n=24)

Mediterranean: 59.5%
North_European: 39.0%
South_Asian: 1.1%
West_Asian: 0.2%

Pais_Vasco (n=7)

Mediterranean: 56.1%
North_European: 41.0%
South_Asian: 1.1%
West_Asian: 1.5%


Sardinians(n=25)

Mediterranean: 71.0%
North_European: 16.1%
Southwest_Asian: 8.7%
West_Asian: 4.1%

Again, not quite different yet, but you see the trend, now let's take a look at Euro7 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadGd1UEFIbzVlUEtpbTd0S0RLcnVYT EE&hl=en_US)

French Basques(n=24)

Northwestern: 53.5%
Southwestern: 35.9%
Southeastern: 10.2%
Northeastern: 0.4%

Sardinians(n=28)

Northwestern: 28.9%
Southwestern: 36.6%
Southeastern: 34.4%

Again, let's look at ADMIXTURE table of latest study done on Siberian individual:

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2810/hhx4.png

Basques(~70% Dark Blue,30% Light Blue)
Sardinians (~49% Dark Blue, 51% Light Blue)

Jean M
11-24-2013, 02:48 PM
I saw Hammer's chart that I believe he created himself from the National Geno & FTDNA data on R1b-L11 expanding. I noticed he didn't have DF27, but had Z195 which make sense if you were looking at Geno 2 results. I heard about another chart he and some reference to Eupedia. Someone took a photo, but apparently the first chart in the sequence he used is Maciamo Hay's speculative migration map.


Thanks for clearing up which map was from Eupedia. You refer to Hammer's own map. Do you have a photo of that? Or have his slides been posted somewhere? [Added] OK I now understand from private communication.

I have one of a map he showed in 2009 (below). At that point he was already thinking in terms of R1b arriving from the east, but pinning it to the Neolithic I think.

967

ArmandoR1b
11-24-2013, 03:46 PM
I believe he is referring to the map labeled Post-Neolithic Centers of Renewed Expansion -

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/8037.jpg

It's from the following site - http://www.ancestorcentral.com/archives/821

It's the same one from dna-explained -

http://dnaexplained.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/hammer-haplogroup-dispersion-map.jpg

Boromir
11-24-2013, 10:20 PM
The R1b-from-the-east-later-than-palaeolithic thesis has been around on various Internet forums for years. I don't know who should get the credit for the first suspicion that R1b did not appear old enough to have spread from Iberia in the Mesolithic and that its earliest subclades appear more common today in the Near East than Europe.
It may have been A.A. Klyosov in "Вестник Российской Академии ДНК-генеалогии" (Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy). Article "Загадки «западноевропейской» гаплогруппы R1b" (Mysteries of "Western European" haplogroup R1b) (in Russian) (2008) v1, No4, pp 568-630. Link (http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/1_4_2008.pdf.) for free download.

You will find the calculated (based on 12- and 25–marker haplotypes) TMRCAs of R1b populations in the different world regions in the Table at the end of the article (p. 626)

From the introduction:
"Вопреки ранним, и фактически необоснованным утверждениям, что R1b является «западноевропейской» гаплогруппой, предки которой жили в Европе 30 тысяч лет назад, и определенно были кроманьонцами, на самом деле европейский вариант R1b является относительно молодой гаплогруппой (в основном R1b1b2/M269), предок которой пришел в Европу из Азии не более 4500-5000 лет назад."

Earlier there were unfounded allegations that R1b is a "western european" haplogroup, whose ancestors lived in Europe 30,000 years ago and were Pro-Magnons. In fact, the European version of the R1b clade is a relatively young one (mostly R1b1b2/M269), with its ancestor arriving in Europe from Asia not more than 4500-5000 years ago.

Here (http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_71/10723000/10723072/2/print/10723072.pdf) is the more recent article (in English) "Haplotypes of R1b1a2-P312 and related subclades: origin and “ages” of most recent common ancestors". Proc. Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy (2011) vol. 4, No. 6, 1127-1195. In the introduction of this article you will find a list of about 25 of Klyosov's publications covering the history of R1b movement from Asia to Europe.

AJL
11-24-2013, 10:49 PM
The really early clades are around north Iran and just to the east. Its just really counterintuative to look west.

Not only "just to the east," also just to the west (e.g. Iraqi Kurds, Syrians, Armenians, Assyrians, Jews). It is however counterintuitive to look much farther west than that.

GailT
11-24-2013, 10:50 PM
The earliest academic publication to follow Vince V.'s thinking was Arredi, Poloni and Tyler-Smith 2007, but this was a book chapter that did not make much impact on academia or the public. It did not come out with a press release to get it noticed. They dated R1b1a2 (M269) as 5000-8000 ya, very close to V.V.'s dating. Karafet 2008 dated R1 (M173) as c. 18,500 years old, which made it unlikely that R arrived in Europe with the first Homo Sapiens 46,000 years ago.


As Jean noted, Arredi et al (link) (http://books.google.ca/books?id=tlSspaBLkhoC&pg=PA380&lpg=PA394#v=onepage&q&f=false) had already published this theory in 2007, and it was widely discussed and debated on dna-forums before this book chapter.

lgmayka
11-24-2013, 11:07 PM
Or have his slides been posted somewhere?
On FTDNA's web site (https://gap.familytreedna.com/media/docs/2013/Hammer_M269_Diversity_in_Europe.pdf).

Jean M
11-24-2013, 11:27 PM
As Jean noted, Arredi et al (link) (http://books.google.ca/books?id=tlSspaBLkhoC&pg=PA380&lpg=PA394#v=onepage&q&f=false) had already published this theory in 2007, and it was widely discussed and debated on dna-forums before this book chapter.

Richard S. posted yesterday on Facebook:


You know, I and a few others were questioning the whole "Paleolithic R1b" thing seven years ago. Back then, we were ridiculed. Now things are going our way. People thought I was nuts when I posted my theory that back in the Bronze Age R1b was responsible for the spread of the centum branch of Indo-European. And at a very early stage, shortly after L21 was discovered, Rick Arnold (who is DF27+) said he believed L21 was probably brought to the Isles by the Beaker Folk. That was a pretty radical idea then. Now it looks like Rick was way ahead of his time.

I tracked down some of his surviving posts on it in September and October 2006, in order to give a date in AJ chapter 9, note 2. Michał M. subsequently pointed that he had the idea earlier, even before R1b was known by that name.


Jean, I agree that the moment when Stevo (Richard Stevens) presented his hypothesis on several online forums was a turning point, as it was the first time when this idea caught the attention of most "online specialists". However, my impression was that the data provided by the early Y-DNA papers (by Semino and Underhill, respectively) were suggesting this correlation between R1a/R1b and IE so strongly, that only because the "official" commentaries did not mention it (suggesting a "Paleolithic" European origin for R1b instead), people seemed to avoid expressing it publically. Also, I recall mentioning this correlation myself as early as in April 2002 on the "cybalist" forum devoted to the Indo-European linguistics:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/13567
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1064-DNA-will-not-resolve-the-issue-of-PIE&p=9279&viewfull=1#post9279

alan
11-25-2013, 12:46 AM
I certainly wasnt the first to suggest beaker. I was looking out of morbid curiosity at my old rootsweb posts and I was one of the Ice Age refugia gang in 2007 when I first started posting in that year. I at the time thought the geneticists would simply supply dates to work with and could just look at the archaeology of the given period. I remember there was a big period of soul searching about the dating which must have been around late 2007 going into early 2008.

I had a lot of off-thread emails with Ken around early 2008 when he privately sent me calculations on a number of I clades to see what archaeological sense could be made of them and somewhere in that period he convinced me that the yDNA dating previously suggested had been horrible wrong. I started jumping ship from the western refugia gang in the first half of 2008. I can vividly remember a few weeks of disbelief (probably because I had spent a heck of a lot of time reading up on the European upper Palaeolithic) then I jumped because the logic was compelling for a Neolithic or later date when I ran the scenarios through. I cannot remember who the prime movers on redating were but Ken was the one who convinced me. I do recall though that some of Ken's P312 and major subclade division calculations at the time were just coming in a bit too young to make any sense of - more like 1600BC or the like. I said to him that 2500BC is the very latest date I could see any pan European spread such as implied by P312. I think he then told me to take a hike lol as I dont think he liked archaeology tail wagging the DNA dog (Ken is an irascible chap)

I realised that if P312 was as old as was being once suggested like 30000 years then haplogroup I 'all' has an impossible amount of variance as it had about five time as much variance and that would make it several times as old as the first human settlement of Europe. One early thing that made me feel uneasy with the dating was the Anatolian group then known as hg35? which was considered to be only modestly different. I couldnt understand how that could be if the idea was that one group had settled in Iberia 30000 years ago and the other had stayed in Anatolia.

I think it was also around the time P312 at end of 2007/early 2008 was found which confounded the old idea of M269 (which included everything other than U152, U106, M222 and SRY 2627) as really old and U152, U106 etc as really young which was heavily pushed by some posters, one of whom was especially virulent on the glory of the younger clades. It showed in early 2008 that western and central European R1b was a far younger subset of the whole and IMO that killed the western refugia model. I am baffled that it still has a small group of hold outs even today.

alan
11-25-2013, 01:01 AM
2002 - and I thought I had let this obsession go on too long! I only really started using the internet around 1999 and I think I got my first PC just a couple of years earlier

Generalissimo
11-25-2013, 02:47 AM
I like this pie chart map. So looking at this, is there anything preventing the vast majority of Western European R1b from being a subset of the R1b in Copper Age Portugal?

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3555/i6np.png

R.Rocca
11-25-2013, 03:35 AM
I like this pie chart map. So looking at this, is there anything preventing the vast majority of Western European R1b from being a subset of the R1b in Copper Age Portugal?

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3555/i6np.png

Or the Alps? Or France? The Low Countries? The Rhine? Since it is a frequency map, it doesn't prevent R1b from coming from anywhere in Europe.

Generalissimo
11-25-2013, 04:00 AM
Or the Alps? Or France? The Low Countries? The Rhine? Since it is a frequency map, it doesn't prevent R1b from coming from anywhere in Europe.

Yes, but we have mtDNA, autosomal DNA and archeological evidence backing the Portuguese option.

P.S. And definitely not the Low Countries. No grey stuff there.

Jean M
11-25-2013, 12:08 PM
I cannot remember who the prime movers on redating were but Ken was the one who convinced me.


Ken N. and Vince V. can take a lot of credit on that front. Vince V.'s dating was used by Michael Hammer in his FTDNA lecture of 2009, as I recall.

Jean M
11-25-2013, 12:33 PM
Yes, but we have mtDNA, autosomal DNA and archeological evidence backing the Portuguese option.

No we don't. Attempts to argue from other types of evidence don't make any sense. Even if a mtDNA haplogroup could be shown to have spread from Iberia (and there is a good case for U5b1) that does not mean that a particular Y-DNA haplogroup spread from there. Each case needs to be argued on its own merits.

Secondly the mtDNA and autosomal DNA of living people has arrived where it now is after a multitude of journeys by our ancestors. It is exactly the same as Y-DNA in that respect. Just as the highest density today of this or that Y-DNA haplogroup is not necessarily the place of origin, so the same is true of mtDNA haplogroups and the autosomal "components" that you enjoy detecting. This is the big problem of using only modern DNA. The present patterns are the result of migrations, expansions and genetic drift.

As for the archaeology, it shows that the people who made BB pottery had arrived in Portugal from the European steppe. This has come as a BIG surprise to most archaeologists. The story was first put together in a very technical and detailed paper in 2007, which is not easy reading. My book I hope explains it in a more accessible way. See chapter 10. If you want to argue there are threads available though: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1489-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-in-Britain-and-R1b-DNA-quot-from-the-West-quot

R.Rocca
11-25-2013, 01:29 PM
Yes, but we have mtDNA, autosomal DNA and archeological evidence backing the Portuguese option.

P.S. And definitely not the Low Countries. No grey stuff there.

The Low Countries has the most diversity of L11 subclades in Western Europe, so there is really no way you can rule it out. I don't know where you got this map from, but according to Myres 2010, L11(xP312U106) is more common around the North Sea than in Southern Europe. Either way, it doesn't matter as some of this L11 likely belongs to a brother clade called DF100 and we don't know if it is younger or older than P312 and/or U106.

IMO, an expansion of a specific branch of R1b called DF27 from both sides of the Pyrenese is highly likely, but only after an east to west movement of earlier L51 and L11 lineages.

Jean M
11-25-2013, 02:11 PM
I don't know where you got this map from, but according to Myres 2010, L11(xP312U106) is more common around the North Sea than in Southern Europe.

The map with pie charts is one of the slides used by Dr Hammer.

R.Rocca
11-25-2013, 02:21 PM
The map with pie charts is one of the slides used by Dr Hammer.

From what I understand, he was not presenting new data, just re-hashing academic data, correct?

Jean M
11-25-2013, 02:27 PM
From what I understand, he was not presenting new data, just re-hashing academic data, correct?

Presumably. Where else would the data come from?

GTC
11-25-2013, 02:50 PM
From what I understand, he was not presenting new data, just re-hashing academic data, correct?

Attributions to various authors appear on some of his slides, a link to which has been posted earlier.

AJL
11-25-2013, 07:03 PM
Rathna we have tried to give you your own thread but if you continually derail other subforums by posting monomanically on your theory of the Italian origin of everything we will have to ban you.

I will move a number of posts to the relevant thread.

Michał
11-25-2013, 10:27 PM
As for the putative M458+ - I wouldn't argue with Michal. If that is his conclusion, I expect he is right and will leave him and the other R1a1a experts to work out whence it came.
Jean, this does not seem to be a proper thread for discussing the R1a presence in Sardinia, so let me only explain that it is not only my own conclusion that there have been six M458 members among the 15 R1a people found in the sample of 1200 Sardinians analyzed by Francalacci et al. In the supplementary material, those six men were actually marked by the authors as the members of the R1a-M458 branch, though instead of using the M458 name they used the ISOGG-based full alphanumeric designation for that purpose. The most intriguing thing is that although one of those six men was a member of a typical Slavic clade L1029, the five remaining M458 members seemed to belong to a completely unknown subclade, as they all shared a series of SNPs downstream of M458 that were not found in any of the three M458+ samples from the 1KG and PGP projects (including two CTS11962/L1029 samples and one L260 sample).

However, we cannot rule out that all those Sardinian Z282+ samples (six M458+ and five Z280+ cases) were of Slavic origin, as the Z280+ group included one Z92 member (who was positive for CTS4648, a marker suspected of defining a relatively large subclade present in Eastern Europe), while three out of the four remaining Z280 members have been identified by our admin team as members of CTS8816, a novel subclade of CTS3402 that is likely to correspond to a relatively young Volga-Carpathian STR-based cluster (and we hope that we will soon be able to verify this presumption, as many members of this cluster have ordered FGC or Big Y).

Michał
11-25-2013, 10:51 PM
Most of what Michal says impresses me hugely with his knowledge and balance but I do find it hard to get my head around the idea that R1a was west of R1b unless he means very very deep time. It seems a lot easier to me to place R1a in and R1b in Sredny Stog.

Alan, newtoboard has correctly interpreted my view on this subject, but you are also right that my theory assumes that it was only in the very early period (before 4500 BC) when the R1b-M269 people were neighboring the early R1a(xM417) population from east (while neighboring the R1a-M417 population from south-east). Furthermore, my scenario assumes that Dnieper-Donets was represented mostly by the R1a(xM417) people who became nearly extinct after being overrun by the R1b-M269 newcomers from the East (a process that likely transformed the R1a-dominated Dnieper-Donets culture into the R1b-dominated Sredny Stog culture), which completely reversed the East-West orientation of R1b vs R1a (as I assume that the Samara/Khvalynsk R1a-M417-rich population became the Eastern neighbors of the R1b-M269-dominated Sredny Stog population).

Generalissimo
11-25-2013, 11:31 PM
Attempts to argue from other types of evidence don't make any sense.

Each piece of evidence is like a sheet of paper. It's easy to tear apart. But all of the relevant evidence put together is like a book, and much harder to tear apart.

The totality of evidence in this case shows very clearly that there was a large scale expansion of a genetically western (Atlantic Fringe) not eastern people during the Copper Age from Portugal. This is very likely where the vast majority of Western European R1b comes from, and looking at the mix of R1b subclades in Portugal today doesn't in any way contradict that theory. Those pie charts again...

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3555/i6np.png

And here's the main figure from the recent Brandt et al. article. NPO = Neolithic Portuguese, BBC = Bell Beaker. No close relationship to Kurgan-derived groups; CWC = Corded Ware, UN = Unetice, and BAK = Bronze Age Kazakhstan.

http://imageshack.us/a/img12/4497/r4sf.png

R1b from the Eastern European steppe looks like pure sci-fi. What's the point?

alan
11-25-2013, 11:50 PM
A case for R1b only meeting beakers somewhere into the beaker period is not disproved. I dont believe in the Dutch model, not because of dating so much, but because as in the big picture it is hard to made any sense of (no metalwork traditions or sources etc). I do think though that the torch of beaker cultural traits could have been lifted by other male lineages than those who initially carried the earliest proto-beaker cutural traits. I know there are arguements that this is difficult to to work through in terms of modern r1b distributions but there are issues with this in all models.

You could argue that some of the craniological/dental work implies at least three groups involved in beaker - those in Iberia, the apparent continuity at Sion and a group with the classic later beaker plano-occipital skulls who are already prefigured in Italian pre-beaker groups and perhaps others in the Balkans. If an mt DNA movement is seen as a potentially unifying genetic aspect in the beaker world then that only leaves the male lines as a possible origin for the variation in beaker physical traits.

This combination of some kind of uniformity in female groups contrasts with the great variability in how the beaker culture was expressed or adopted in different areas. I suspect in a patrilocal world that this might be the result of networking moving women around, spreading lineages and proto-beaker traits far and wide but generally also reflecting local traditions in the way beaker culture was expressed. So, IMO the beaker could have come to have been used fairly early on by unrelated groups especially around 2600BC when beaker seems to have undergone a rapid expansion as well as a great diversification. All we know is that M269xU106 was present in Thurungia in the centre-east of the southern part of Germany (not for from the Czech Republic) around 2600BC.


I like this pie chart map. So looking at this, is there anythin
g preventing the vast majority of Western European R1b from being a subset of the R1b in Copper Age Portugal?

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3555/i6np.png

Generalissimo
11-26-2013, 12:18 AM
If an mt DNA movement is seen as a potentially unifying genetic aspect in the beaker world then that only leaves the male lines as a possible origin for the variation in beaker physical traits.

There are actually three very likely unifying genetic aspects to the Bell Beakers: Atlantic Fringe mtDNA (seen in both modern and ancient data), Atlantic Fringe Y-DNA (seen in the modern structure and frequencies of R1b in Western Europe), and Atlantic Fringe autosomal DNA (seen in the relatively high frequencies of Basque and Sardinian-centered genetic components in areas of high R1b frequency in Western Europe).

So the obvious question is, what comparable evidence do you have an any sort of direct Eastern European influence in Western Europe? Why does it all stop in eastern Germany/Scandinavia? And why does West Mediterranean influence rise sharply just west of this area? This is unlikely to be something that goes back to the Neolithic, it must be tied to the archeologically well defined movements from the east and west of the continent into Central Europe.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2310/wynh.png

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/1306/4qkq.png

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/5733/em1e.png

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2241/skoalleles.png

R.Rocca
11-26-2013, 12:20 AM
Each piece of evidence is like a sheet of paper. It's easy to tear apart. But all of the relevant evidence put together is like a book, and much harder to tear apart.

The totality of evidence in this case shows very clearly that there was a large scale expansion of a genetically western (Atlantic Fringe) not eastern people during the Copper Age from Portugal. This is very likely where the vast majority of Western European R1b comes from, and looking at the mix of R1b subclades in Portugal today doesn't in any way contradict that theory. Those pie charts again...

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3555/i6np.png

And here's the main figure from the recent Brandt et al. article. NPO = Neolithic Portuguese, BBC = Bell Beaker. No close relationship to Kurgan-derived groups; CWC = Corded Ware, UN = Unetice, and BAK = Bronze Age Kazakhstan.

R1b from the Eastern European steppe looks like pure sci-fi. What's the point?

I ask again...what exactly do you see in that specific map that makes you think it supports an out-of-Iberia expansion for R1b??? Please explain.

alan
11-26-2013, 12:21 AM
Thank you for explaining. I have slowly come to think that by far the most likely R1b home on the steppes (if there was one - I have an open mind on this) c. 4500BC was sredny stog. That is simply down to the age and distribution of M269 and L23 branchings in the Balkans. I believe today that there is good evidence that the original situation in the Balkans has been shaken up with displacement to the south, west and also into Anatolia. The roots of Suvorovo type groups who entered the Balkans in the centuries around 4000BC was apparently with the Sredny Stog elite. I posted before that this group had a crucial role in cultural and technological transmission from the farming world as they sat on the boundary at the Dnieper and acted as the middlemen who distributed the Balkans metal as far as the Urals. They also seem to have transmitted new lithic ideas from the farming world across the whole western steppe. Their settlements stretched to the Don but their influence and trading tied them in as far as the Volga-Urals. There is craniological evidence that they even had a male farming element among them along with local types. I dont worry too much about the fact Anthony links these groups with the Anatolian branch I think there would have been well connected groups who experienced various shifts and archaic groups who were a little out of the loop who retained old forms. So, as far as I am concerned both types could have entered the Balkans at a similar time - not to mention that the Suvorovo groups are believe to have made return journey at times back into the steppe, something that may have effected language.

So, I would probably say that when dabbling in a steppe-R1b link, I see the Sredny Stog and their offshoot Suvorovo group as having a large R1b element. I would say I think that some of them could have been the root of the early splits west - and this is complex due to the way they kept contact and movement between their new Balkan homes and their old stomping ground. I dont think a simple branching model for PIE entirely can be relied on when you have that sort of factor.


Alan, newtoboard has correctly interpreted my view on this subject, but you are also right that my theory assumes that it was only in the very early period (before 4500 BC) when the R1b-M269 people were neighboring the early R1a(xM417) population from east (while neighboring the R1a-M417 population from south-east). Furthermore, my scenario assumes that Dnieper-Donets was represented mostly by the R1a(xM417) people who became nearly extinct after being overrun by the R1b-M269 newcomers from the East (a process that likely transformed the R1a-dominated Dnieper-Donets culture into the R1b-dominated Sredny Stog culture), which completely reversed the East-West orientation of R1b vs R1a (as I assume that the Samara/Khvalynsk R1a-M417-rich population became the Eastern neighbors of the R1b-M269-dominated Sredny Stog population).

Generalissimo
11-26-2013, 12:28 AM
I ask again...what exactly do you see in that specific map that makes you think it supports an out-of-Iberia expansion for R1b??? Please explain.

The presence of basal subclades and high diversity of subclades in Portugal.

Low diversity of subclades in Southeastern Europe (although this might be due to the fact that several key downstream Southeast European-specific subclades are yet to be discovered, but this would only back up my argument even more).

Let's also throw in the extremely low frequency in Ukraine and Russia, which is actually part of a European-wide trend, and obviously not something that can be simply explained by a late Slavic expansion.

alan
11-26-2013, 12:39 AM
There are actually three very likely unifying genetic aspects to the Bell Beakers: Atlantic Fringe mtDNA (seen in both modern and ancient data), Atlantic Fringe Y-DNA (seen in the modern structure and frequencies of R1b in Western Europe), and Atlantic Fringe autosomal DNA (seen in the relatively high frequencies of Basque and Sardinian-centered genetic components in areas of high R1b frequency in Western Europe).

So the obvious question is, what comparable evidence do you have an any sort of direct Eastern European influence in Western Europe? Why does it all stop in eastern Germany/Scandinavia? And why does West Mediterranean influence rise sharply just west of this area? This is unlikely to be something that goes back to the Neolithic, it must be tied to the archeologically well defined movements from the east and west of the continent into Central Europe.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2310/wynh.png

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/1306/4qkq.png

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/5733/em1e.png

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2241/skoalleles.png

You are ignoring that all the branching of R1b that survive in modern populations before L11 are not found in Atlantic Europe predominantly. M269 c. 4000BC (main concentration today inwest Balkans), L23 c. 3500BC (main concentration today Balkans, north Caucasus, NW Iran, Armenians etc), M73 c. 5000BC (main concentration today Urals, west central Asia). That pretty well covers all the shedding of branches surviving today that the P297 line made between 9000BC and 3500BC. Even if the latitude remains unclear, there are few people who would argue against the conclusion that they all appear to have happened east of the Adriatic. You cannot just ignore this all and jump to the late Atlantic area clades of c. 2500BC and ignore the trail of upstream branchings leading way to the east.

You could add that L51* is largely around north Italy/SE France which is in an intermediate position between the Balkans and western Europe.

alan
11-26-2013, 12:41 AM
Have you read the modern history of the Ukraine steppe over the last 300 years? The population was replaced almost entirely so the lack in the Ukraine steppe means nothing.


The presence of basal subclades and high diversity of subclades in Portugal.

Low diversity of subclades in Southeastern Europe (although this might be due to the fact that several key downstream Southeast European-specific subclades are yet to be discovered, but this would only back up my argument even more).

Let's also throw in the extremely low frequency in Ukraine and Russia, which is actually part of a European-wide trend, and obviously not something that can be simply explained by a late Slavic expansion.

Generalissimo
11-26-2013, 12:51 AM
Have you read the modern history of the Ukraine steppe over the last 300 years? The population was replaced almost entirely so the lack in the Ukraine steppe means nothing.

So what? There's no evidence of population replacement in northern Ukraine nor southwestern Russia, which were part of the same Copper Age and Bronze Age cultural sphere as the nearby steppe. Where do you think the steppe populations came from at the time? You think there was a split between the steppe and forest steppe? Why?

R.Rocca
11-26-2013, 01:00 AM
The presence of basal subclades and high diversity of subclades in Portugal.

Low diversity of subclades in Southeastern Europe (although this might be due to the fact that several key downstream Southeast European-specific subclades are yet to be discovered, but this would only back up my argument even more).

Let's also throw in the extremely low frequency in Ukraine and Russia, which is actually part of a European-wide trend, and obviously not something that can be simply explained by a late Slavic expansion.

It seems like you know very little about the different subclades of R1b and you are using a map that is based on old data and the lumping of different types that simply don't exist in Iberia (M269xL23 for example). The highest diversity of R1b clades exist if you draw a line from Belgium to Italy. Iberia is notorious for not having high subclade diversity. I am not a big fan of a steppe origin for R1b (unless it happened a few thousand years before Bell Beaker), but trying to explain it from that map is a non-starter.

alan
11-26-2013, 01:06 AM
I dont think the kind of pattern of an explosion from one man spreading across much of Europe in the space of a few generations looks compatible with a large autosomal impact. That would have spread them so thin that they either had to inbreed with very little choice of mates from their own group or they had to breed with local women, apparently on a massive scale! The growth level combined with sudden massive geographical spread is impossible in an in-group scenario. I assume small beaker lines separated across Europe would not be able to marry among their own for a number of generations to avoid dangerous in-breeding. By the time they started to marry in with distant cousins their autosomal impact could have been reduced to well under 10%. I really do not expect any significant autosomal impact from the L11 lineages. Or to put it another way, there nature may have changed every time they upped sticks again. The nature of the R1b spread with its penetration of many existing societies and well settled areas at incredible speed is simply a very different fish to what seems to be the R1a story which looks more wave-like to me and in many cases involved penetration of lightly populated areas.

lgmayka
11-26-2013, 01:11 AM
There are actually three very likely unifying genetic aspects to the Bell Beakers: Atlantic Fringe mtDNA (seen in both modern and ancient data), Atlantic Fringe Y-DNA (seen in the modern structure and frequencies of R1b in Western Europe), and Atlantic Fringe autosomal DNA (seen in the relatively high frequencies of Basque and Sardinian-centered genetic components in areas of high R1b frequency in Western Europe).
Actually, those three tell three different stories.

- mtDNA is oddly similar (40% or more H) across most of Europe, although actual matches seem to have a north-south cline. Polish mtDNA often matches Fenno-Scandian or British Isles individuals, but hardly ever Southern Europeans.

- yDNA has a clear east-west split between R1b and R1a, as we all know.

- Autosomal DNA shows both north-south and east-west clines. FTDNA's Population Finder displays this in a very clumsy way by labeling most Poles as almost 100% "Orcadian." Dodecad shows the clines much more clearly.

Generalissimo
11-26-2013, 01:37 AM
Actually, those three tell three different stories.

- mtDNA is oddly similar (40% or more H) across most of Europe, although actual matches seem to have a north-south cline. Polish mtDNA often matches Fenno-Scandian or British Isles individuals, but hardly ever Southern Europeans.

- yDNA has a clear east-west split between R1b and R1a, as we all know.

- Autosomal DNA shows both north-south and east-west clines. FTDNA's Population Finder displays this in a very clumsy way by labeling most Poles as almost 100% "Orcadian." Dodecad shows the clines much more clearly.

They tell the same story of a specific expansion from west to east during the Copper Age when analyzed in detail. But with different consequences for mtDNA, Y-DNA and autosomal DNA depending on the region in Europe.

If you don't understand what I'm talking about, and unwilling or unable to do so, then please don't comment.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9937/g9sn.png

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3213/opv1.png

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3555/i6np.png

Generalissimo
11-26-2013, 02:08 AM
It seems like you know very little about the different subclades of R1b and you are using a map that is based on old data and the lumping of different types that simply don't exist in Iberia (M269xL23 for example).

Yes, but I have access to Google. Isn't M269xL23 most common among Ashkenazi Jews? It's probably a very rare subclade everywhere, but exists in certain parts of the Mediterranean as a minor ancient element and/or among people of paternal Ashkenazi descent.

Why should it be seen in surveys of ethnic Iberians than, and how does its paucity in Iberia prevent the vast majority of Western European R1b from being of Copper Age Portuguese origin? These aren't rhetorical questions. I'd like answers to both from you.

alan
11-26-2013, 02:16 AM
L11 established a network which may well have predominantly linked west and central European areas in interaction networks. That zone would presumably have become their breeding group, mainly local but with high level more distant marriages. The mt DNA is just an artefact of the fact that beaker people predominantly settled western Europe and married local women IMO. That tells us nothing about the actual origin of the y line. Its all very well thinking that a few men could have a few thousand male descendants in a century but that only works if they are breeding out of group with large amounts of women.

alan
11-26-2013, 02:25 AM
You just cannot believe the angle you are pushing. You are ignoring most of the points put and I think you are playing the wind up game.



Yes, but I have access to Google. Isn't M269xL23 most common among Ashkenazi Jews? It's probably a very rare subclade everywhere, but exists in certain parts of the Mediterranean as a minor ancient element and/or among people of paternal Ashkenazi descent.

Why should it be seen in surveys of ethnic Iberians than, and how does its paucity in Iberia prevent the vast majority of Western European R1b from being of Copper Age Portuguese origin? These aren't rhetorical questions. I'd like answers to both from you.

Joe B
11-26-2013, 02:26 AM
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, and unwilling or unable to do so, then please don't comment.

You follow that post with these uninformed comments on M269XL23! Really?


Yes, but I have access to Google. Isn't M269xL23 most common among Ashkenazi Jews? It's probably a very rare subclade everywhere, but exists in certain parts of the Mediterranean as a minor ancient element and/or among people of paternal Ashkenazi descent.

Why should it be seen in surveys of ethnic Iberians than, and how does its paucity in Iberia prevent the vast majority of Western European R1b from being of Copper Age Portuguese origin? These aren't rhetorical questions. I'd like answers on both from you.
R1b1a2 (P312- U106-) DNA Project
(http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=ycolorized)
Don't forget your Phylogenetics https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b_Descendency_Tree.jpg
You can brush up on stuff here. Forum: R1b Early Subclades http://www.anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?51-R1b-Early-Subclades Don't forget Google too.

alan
11-26-2013, 02:48 AM
I think the most the idea that the branch shedding is an illusion can be pushed is that there is a broad division between east and west R1b around the Adriatic. The division happens below L23. So the age of such a division cannot pre-date 3500BC and looks unrealistic to place the origin point of such a division any great distance from the Adriatic.

Generalissimo
11-26-2013, 02:50 AM
You follow that post with these uninformed comments on M269XL23! Really?

He simply ignored the fact that there's a very clear correlation between Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA in regards to an archeological model of a large scale migration from Portugal to Central Europe during the Copper Age.

Why shouldn't have I pointed this out? It only confuses the issue when someone posts irrelevant points like he did.


R1b1a2 (P312- U106-) DNA Project
(http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=ycolorized)
Don't forget your Phylogenetics https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b_Descendency_Tree.jpg
You can brush up on stuff here. Forum: R1b Early Subclades http://www.anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?51-R1b-Early-Subclades Don't forget Google too.

Well, this is more on topic, but again, what does it have to do with the origins of Western European R1b?

For instance, do Mediterranean/West Asian/Ashkenazi subclades like R-M269 XL23 say anything at all about the spread of R1b across Western Europe? If so, what?

alan
11-26-2013, 02:57 AM
There were a myriad of cultures between the Dniester and the Urals across the Neolithic and copper age. Its absurd to think they were all one haplogroup.


So what? There's no evidence of population replacement in northern Ukraine nor southwestern Russia, which were part of the same Copper Age and Bronze Age cultural sphere as the nearby steppe. Where do you think the steppe populations came from at the time? You think there was a split between the steppe and forest steppe? Why?

Generalissimo
11-26-2013, 03:10 AM
There were a myriad of cultures between the Dniester and the Urals across the Neolithic and copper age. Its absurd to think they were all one haplogroup.

Even if M269 was present in one or more of these cultures, and it might have been as a minority lineage, then I'd say it's absurd to think that it migrated from this area of Europe to Western Europe.

I can see two major issues being confused here; the origins of M269, and the origins of Western European M269. You might never be able to pin down the former event and the associated archeological culture, because the space and time you're dealing with is too vast. The latter, however, should be fairly easy, and there's no need to bring in red herrings like xL23 into the discussion.

There was obviously a late and great expansion of M269 across Western Europe. What I'm saying is that the evidence points to the archeologically attested migration of the Bell Beakers from Portugal during the Copper Age as the cause, and I see no evidence to debunk this theory at present.

Joe B
11-26-2013, 03:30 AM
Well, this is more on topic, but again, what does it have to do with the origins of Western European R1b?

For instance, do Mediterranean/West Asian/Ashkenazi subclades like R-M269 XL23 say anything at all about the spread of R1b across Western Europe? If so, what?
The preponderance of evidence shows that those W. European clades are downstream of R1b-L23(L51-) which would indicate a general east to west migration.
Are you suggesting spontaneous generation of R1b in the Iberian Peninsula? Bring on the Sangria!

jeanL
11-26-2013, 03:44 AM
You are ignoring that all the branching of R1b that survive in modern populations before L11 are not found in Atlantic Europe predominantly. M269 c. 4000BC (main concentration today inwest Balkans), L23 c. 3500BC (main concentration today Balkans, north Caucasus, NW Iran, Armenians etc), M73 c. 5000BC (main concentration today Urals, west central Asia). That pretty well covers all the shedding of branches surviving today that the P297 line made between 9000BC and 3500BC. Even if the latitude remains unclear, there are few people who would argue against the conclusion that they all appear to have happened east of the Adriatic. You cannot just ignore this all and jump to the late Atlantic area clades of c. 2500BC and ignore the trail of upstream branchings leading way to the east.

You could add that L51* is largely around north Italy/SE France which is in an intermediate position between the Balkans and western Europe.

Again, you keep missing the point, there aren't any L23 clades in the Balkans, all of them have proven to be derived, so they aren't ancestral, the M269 found in the west Balkans is likely a sibling clade of L23, nothing more nothing less. The only outlier would be M73, but who is to say that one of the sons of P297 didn't go East. We find P297, V88, M343 and even P25 in Europe, so what do you say about that?? Also you keep bringing up the dating, where do you get M269 to be 4000 BC, interclade or intraclade variance??? Because that isn't very reliable, and even if taken at facevalue only tells us where the last common ancestor of a certain group lived, however it creates illusions and biases, for example, a group that is heavily L21 dominated, the TMRCA would be biased towards that of L21. So the short time spans found between L11+, and P312 or U106 is nothing but an illusion created from the datasets being heavily dominated by P312+ or U106+ clades.

Generalissimo
11-26-2013, 03:50 AM
The preponderance of evidence shows that those W. European clades are downstream of R1b-L23(L51-) which would indicate a general east to west migration.

There's nothing general about the way R1b expanded across Europe. First it found its way to the far west of Europe, and this didn't have to be any major migration that anyone will ever pick up archeologically, then it expanded back east again in a spectacular fashion, with some back migrations, and this clearly shows in modern European DNA today. Indeed, the west to east expansion will be easy to pick up with final Neolithic and later Y-DNA from the Atlantic Fringe, once that starts rolling in, so we're in luck.


Are you suggesting spontaneous generation of R1b in the Iberian Peninsula? Bring on the Sangria!

No, what I'm saying is that most people interested in this topic are so extremely biased that they're unable to see the forest for the trees.

[[[Mikewww/moderator on 26Nov2013: Let's focus on content on the topic. Personal criticisms and assigning motives or types of thinking to others is by nature devoid of content to the topic. ]]]

Joe B
11-26-2013, 04:35 AM
There's nothing general about the way R1b expanded across Europe. First it found its way to the far west of Europe, and this didn't have to be any major migration that anyone will ever pick up archeologically, then it expanded back east again in a spectacular fashion, with some back migrations, and this clearly shows in modern European DNA today. Indeed, the west to east expansion will be easy to pick up with final Neolithic and later Y-DNA from the Atlantic Fringe, once that starts rolling in, so we're in luck.

At least that is something that can be visualized. The question is where did the first small migrations of R-M269 (U106, L21 etc.) to the Atlantic come from?
Sorry about the "spontaneous generation" question.

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 04:44 AM
I presume the R1b1 origin, and effectively the M343 origin is closer to the Caspian sea. I noted just recently a R1b1a1 Azerbaijani sample just joined the R1b1a1 project. That puts R1b1*, R1b1a1, R1b1a2, R1b1a2a..etc in that area. Is there any culture 12,000 years or younger from northern Iran, or near the Caspian sea which could be related to pre-Mesopotamian expansion Levant and early Mediterranean Europe?

GailT
11-26-2013, 04:44 AM
Also you keep bringing up the dating, where do you get M269 to be 4000 BC, interclade or intraclade variance??? Because that isn't very reliable, and even if taken at facevalue only tells us where the last common ancestor of a certain group lived, however it creates illusions and biases, for example, a group that is heavily L21 dominated, the TMRCA would be biased towards that of L21. So the short time spans found between L11+, and P312 or U106 is nothing but an illusion created from the datasets being heavily dominated by P312+ or U106+ clades.

This seems like a hypothesis that we can test using the FGC test results that are available now. P312 ad U106 are each defined by a single additional SNP, and apparently that's consistent with the new FGC results that have not found additional SNPs at these branch points. So this seems to indicate that there was a very short time span between L11 and P312 & U106, perhaps just a few generations.

GailT
11-26-2013, 04:59 AM
Again, you keep missing the point, there aren't any L23 clades in the Balkans, all of them have proven to be derived, so they aren't ancestral, the M269 found in the west Balkans is likely a sibling clade of L23, nothing more nothing less. The only outlier would be M73, but who is to say that one of the sons of P297 didn't go East.

I've just started looking at the Y phylotree (until we had FGC results it seemed too uncertain and speculative to spend much effort on it). But I think this is the point: If you have greater diversity of M269 subclades in the Balkans, that suggests an eastern rather than western European origin for M269. If M73 is also found in eastern rather than western Europe, this also suggests an eastern origins for P297 (aka R1b1a).

Silesian
11-26-2013, 06:37 AM
I presume the R1b1 origin, and effectively the M343 origin is closer to the Caspian sea. I noted just recently a R1b1a1 Azerbaijani sample just joined the R1b1a1 project. That puts R1b1*, R1b1a1, R1b1a2, R1b1a2a..etc in that area. Is there any culture 12,000 years or younger from northern Iran, or near the Caspian sea which could be related to pre-Mesopotamian expansion Levant and early Mediterranean Europe?

This would make sense, as you go towards the possible source of a large cluster of Ashkenazi R1a, which may also be linked with the R1a found in Assyrians in Grugni et al.

It is also the boundry between Hamito-Semitic languages and Indo-European languages.
Nešili/Armenian/Mede/Aveston/Sanskrit


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Hamito-Semitic_languages.jpg

AJL
11-26-2013, 06:48 AM
Is there any culture 12,000 years or younger from northern Iran, or near the Caspian sea which could be related to pre-Mesopotamian expansion Levant and early Mediterranean Europe?

Pre-Pottery Neolithic? Arising in that area at that time, right where sheep, goats, and pigs were domesticated?

bolek
11-26-2013, 10:28 AM
There's actually no archeological evidence of a migration that would back a purported movement of M269 from Anatolia to the Balkans after the Neolithic. R1b had to have been in Bulgaria by the end of the Neolithic, and if not, then it arrived there from the northeast, around the northern edge of the Black Sea, possibly from just north of the Caucasus (ie. Daghestan) . But I think it was already in Bulgaria and also the Carpathian Basin well before the Bronze Age.

Again, you keep missing the point, there aren't any L23 clades in the Balkans, all of them have proven to be derived, so they aren't ancestral, the M269 found in the west Balkans is likely a sibling clade of L23, nothing more nothing less.

There were many migrations of R1b rich populations from Anatolia and Western Europe to the Balkans after the Neolithic. Some of them quite recent.

The main source of R1b in Eastern Europe was Roman Empire. Roman military campaigns in the region caused native Dacians and Thracians to be partially exterminated or enslaved and deported. This resulted in depopulation. The Roman authorities then undertook a massive and organized colonization. The colonists in large numbers were imported from all over the empire to settle there.

Also later there were massive migrations of R1b rich populations from Anatolia. For example:


In 970 the emperor John I Tzimiskes transplanted no less than 200,000 Armenian Paulicians to Europe and settled them in the neighbourhood of Philippopolis (today's Plovdiv in Thrace).

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


There were movements from Anatolia to the Balkans during Ottoman Empire too.

Balkans were the sink, not the source for R1b in Europe.

Jean M
11-26-2013, 12:28 PM
P312 ad U106 are each defined by a single additional SNP, and apparently that's consistent with the new FGC results that have not found additional SNPs at these branch points. So this seems to indicate that there was a very short time span between L11 and P312 & U106, perhaps just a few generations.

The rapid expansion of R1b after L11 has been noted in several studies, most recently Michael J Sikora, Vincenza Colonna, Yali Xue, Chris Tyler-Smith, Modeling the contrasting Neolithic male lineage expansions in Europe and Africa, Investigative Genetics, 2013, 4:25. See http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1622-Another-R1b-model-Sikora-et-al-2013

R.Rocca
11-26-2013, 12:51 PM
Yes, but I have access to Google. Isn't M269xL23 most common among Ashkenazi Jews? It's probably a very rare subclade everywhere, but exists in certain parts of the Mediterranean as a minor ancient element and/or among people of paternal Ashkenazi descent.

Why should it be seen in surveys of ethnic Iberians than, and how does its paucity in Iberia prevent the vast majority of Western European R1b from being of Copper Age Portuguese origin? These aren't rhetorical questions. I'd like answers to both from you.

Not even close. M269(xL23) is most common in the Serbian-Macedonian regions of the Balkans, with secondary frequency spikes in central Italy, Anatolia and further east around the Caspian Sea.

You've been at this game for quite a while, so I am a little surprised that you would use Ashkenazi as a frequency basis for any discussion, especially given their impact on frequency discussions in R1a+ groups.

973

Generalissimo
11-26-2013, 01:04 PM
Not even close. M269(xL23) is most common in the Serbian-Macedonian regions of the Balkans, central Italy and Anatolia.

OK, so it's not found in Western or Central Europe? Then why should we expect to see it in any potential source population of Western European R1b, like Iberian?

xL23 looks like a West Asian marker to me, and its occasional presence in the Balkans and central Italy might be linked to gene flow from Anatolia which didn't affect other parts of Europe. Actually, I'd say it probably represents relatively recent introgression via different events.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5260/ssananeibdmapsfig2.png

R.Rocca
11-26-2013, 01:30 PM
OK, so it's not found in Western or Central Europe? Then why should we expect to see it in any potential source population of Western European R1b, like Iberian?

I don't know, why don't you tell me? You were the one that said that basal lineages are found in Iberia as proof of an out-of-Iberia expansion and I simply pointed out that M269xL23 is not there and that L11xL51 is many times more frequent in northern Europe. Oh, and you can add L51xL11 in there as well as it is very rare in Iberia too.


xL23 looks like a West Asian marker to me, and its occasional presence in the Balkans and central Italy might be linked to gene flow from Anatolia which didn't affect other parts of Europe. Actually, I'd say it probably represents relatively recent introgression via different events.

Well, I just showed you a map that clearly has the Balkans as the center of M269xL23 frequency and you are telling me that it is "occasional" there? No, it is not occasional there, its the other way around, it is occasional in Anatolia and the Caspian. Recent introgression from West Asia has been influencing Europe for thousands of years and can be easily attributed to haplogroups like J, G2 and E-V13 .

Lumping in all R1b into one single migration is like lumping all R1a into one single migration. It just doesn't work. Now, if you want to argue for a P312+ or DF27+ lead expansion out of Iberia after an initial east-to-west movement by earlier clades, then you will likely be starting an interesting discussion.

Jean M
11-26-2013, 02:01 PM
Now, if you want to argue for a ... DF27+ lead expansion out of Iberia after an initial east-to-west movement by earlier clades, then you will likely be starting an interesting discussion.

I don't know about starting it. Some of us have already been guessing at this. :)

Silesian
11-26-2013, 02:04 PM
There were many migrations of R1b rich populations from Anatolia and Western Europe to the Balkans after the Neolithic. Some of them quite recent.

The main source of R1b in Eastern Europe was Roman Empire. Roman military campaigns in the region caused native Dacians and Thracians to be partially exterminated or enslaved and deported. This resulted in depopulation. The Roman authorities then undertook a massive and organized colonization. The colonists in large numbers were imported from all over the empire to settle there.

Also later there were massive migrations of R1b rich populations from Anatolia. For example:



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


There were movements from Anatolia to the Balkans during Ottoman Empire too.

Balkans were the sink, not the source for R1b in Europe.

Since this thread, http://t.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=11469.0

we now have a string of various basal R1b clusters in and around the region of the oldest attested Indo-Eurpean language branches. We also have Dr. Hammers lecture, and Mal' ta boy, results. Much more likely that Kromsdorf will be related to the R1b Indo-European speakers of the oldest R1b branches than originate from; Roman army transplant theory, Armenian transplant theory, Portugal, Spain, Levant, Africa, theory.

That is why regions like former territories of Dacians and Thracians both R1a M458 and R1b L23x51 are found. Only R1b* and R1b L23[51] are found among Kurds in Khazakstan and Azeri not R1a-M458.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 02:13 PM
So what? There's no evidence of population replacement in northern Ukraine nor southwestern Russia, which were part of the same Copper Age and Bronze Age cultural sphere as the nearby steppe. Where do you think the steppe populations came from at the time? You think there was a split between the steppe and forest steppe? Why?

There likely was a split between the steppe and the forest steppe but more like R1a-Z283+ in the forest steppe and R1a-Z93+ in the steppe.