PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

jeanL
11-26-2013, 02:26 PM
Where is R1b-L23(xL11,Z2103/2105) found??


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).

^The Balkans are still in Europe, my point was that you can find all the diversity in Europe. In any case, as it was pointed out before, the Balkans have received numerous migrations from Celts, to Romans, to Slavs, to Ottomans. In Western Europe newer R1b clades likely overran older clades, but the older ones still make their appareance(i.e. R1b-M343 in Germans, R1b-V88 in Frenchs, R1b-L23 in Swiss).

Silesian
11-26-2013, 02:27 PM
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.
You still do not provide any meaningful samples of R1a-Z283 or R1a-Z93 R1a-m458 from ancient Scythian speaking peoples like Digors of Osset. There really is no common R1a thread among ancient Indo-European speaking peoples,unless you want to use Ashkenazi R1a samples or Turkic R1a samples or Brahui R1a samples, or Saudi Arabian R1a samples.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 03:00 PM
Where is R1b-L23(xL11,Z2103/2105) found??



^The Balkans are still in Europe, my point was that you can find all the diversity in Europe. In any case, as it was pointed out before, the Balkans have received numerous migrations from Celts, to Romans, to Slavs, to Ottomans. In Western Europe newer R1b clades likely overran older clades, but the older ones still make their appareance(i.e. R1b-M343 in Germans, R1b-V88 in Frenchs, R1b-L23 in Swiss).

You can find M343, L23, V88, M73 in Asia too. What makes Europe special?

alan
11-26-2013, 03:04 PM
Even if M269* and L23xL51 had come from later movements from Anatolia etc (which is unlikely to explain much of it) that would still place them in Anatolia, not Atlantic Europe. Its incredibly unlikely that those clades selectively went into the Balkans or Anatolia when they are so rare in west of the Adriatic with the except of the bit of Italy just across from Albania (see recent L23 paper). Its almost impossible to imagine that kind of scenario. Seriously, whatever the origin of M269 and downstream one really has to jump through hoops to place its origin west of the Balkans. Not to mention the lack of any known movement in the right sort of period heading deep into the Balkans, Anatolia etc that originated in Atlantic Europe. Throw in the close cousin clade of M269, M73, and it just seems preposterous. M269 is absent in early Neolithic Europe in the ancient DNA so far and too young anyway to have even been in existence then.


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.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 03:07 PM
You still do not provide any meaningful samples of R1a-Z283 or R1a-Z93 R1a-m458 from ancient Scythian speaking peoples like Digors of Osset. There really is no common R1a thread among ancient Indo-European speaking peoples,unless you want to use Ashkenazi R1a samples or Turkic R1a samples or Brahui R1a samples, or Saudi Arabian R1a samples.

Ossetians are not Scythians and likely have close to no ancestry from them.

It has already been posted by Generalissimo before. All from cultures that likely spoke Scythian or were ancestral to them.

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

All those people with the exception of the Brahui you mentioned have R1b btw. Ashkenazi (L23+), Turkic (L23+ and M73+), Levantine Arabs (L23+ and V88+). Africans have R1b too btw. So where is the common R1b among ancient Indo-Europeans unless you want to use Bashkirs, Basques, Turks, Assyrians, Sub-Saharan Africans and Levantines as examples.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 03:20 PM
Even if M269* and L23xL51 had come from later movements from Anatolia etc (which is unlikely to explain much of it) that would still place them in Anatolia, not Atlantic Europe. Its incredibly unlikely that those clades selectively went into the Balkans or Anatolia when they are so rare in west of the Adriatic with the except of the bit of Italy just across from Albania (see recent L23 paper). Its almost impossible to imagine that kind of scenario. Seriously, whatever the origin of M269 and downstream one really has to jump through hoops to place its origin west of the Balkans. Not to mention the lack of any known movement in the right sort of period heading deep into the Balkans, Anatolia etc that originated in Atlantic Europe.

That is an important point. No one has ever been able to name a movement which would explain the distribution of the oldest clades in the Balkans, Anatolia and West Asia. Even the migration of various Balkan and Anatolian languages can't explain the presence of M343, P25+, M269(xL23), L23 and M73 east of Anatolia.

alan
11-26-2013, 03:22 PM
This thread feels like 2007 all over again with people looking at modern frequency of R1b and R1a as a whole and putting one arrow coming our of Iberia and another coming our of the Ukraine. What is the point in all the details people have teased out in the 6 years since then if it comes back to modern unresolved haplogroup headcounts and a couple of arrows.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 03:30 PM
This thread feels like 2007 all over again with people looking at modern frequency of R1b and R1a as a whole and putting one arrow coming our of Iberia and another coming our of the Ukraine. What is the point in all the details people have teased out in the 6 years since then if it comes back to modern unresolved haplogroup headcounts and a couple of arrows.

These theories are about to get more popular. I am sure the Siberian R* is going to lead to an argument that Paleolithic Europeans further west also carried R and R1a and R1b developed in situ from NE and NW European R.

alan
11-26-2013, 03:45 PM
I said there are no movements from Atlantic Europe. I didnt say there is no evidence of movements into that area that could have carried R1b from the Balkans or the western steppes. Its mainstream to place the origins of Anatolian speakers, Armenians etc in the Balkans with some sort of earlier roots in the steppe. Not to mention Greeks etc. A deeper time position in or around the western steppe/north Caucasus interface could easily explain how M269 lineages could pass both west into the Balkans and from there into Anatolia as well as simply passing from the north Caucasus/steppe interface to NW Iran. There is archaeological evidence for the latter in the form of barrows in NW Iran of later Maykop type. NW Iran in turn was connected to Mesopotamia by trade as well as being subsequently swallowed up by the Kura-Araxes culture which spread all over the middle east. So, there are plenty of scenarios. Its actually easy to explain lineages moving about the whole M269* and M269xL23 into the Anatolia and SW Asia area by just looking at the most obvious copper age cultures of the western steppe, north Caucasus and Balkans.

m269* anyway is not well represented in the middle east other than Iran. Just a scatter in western Anatolia, an area that was often closer linked to the Balkans than it was to east Anatolia. It has a dual latitude concentration with one running from Iran/north-west central Asia to the Volga-Urals area and another around the Balkans-east Anatolia area. That could easily be accounted for by a dual route from the western steppes through both the Caucasus to Iran and directly west into the Balkans.


That is an important point. No one has ever been able to name a movement which would explain the distribution of the oldest clades in the Balkans, Anatolia and West Asia. Even the migration of various Balkan and Anatolian languages can't explain the presence of M343, P25+, M269(xL23), L23 and M73 east of Anatolia.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 03:50 PM
I said there are no movements from Atlantic Europe. I didnt say there is no evidence of movements into that area that could have carried R1b from the Balkans or the western steppes. Its mainstream to place the origins of Anatolian speakers, Armenians etc in the Balkans with some sort of earlier roots in the steppe. Not to mention Greeks etc. A deeper time position in or around the western steppe/north Caucasus interface could easily explain how M269 lineages could pass both west into the Balkans and from there into Anatolia as well as simply passing from the north Caucasus/steppe interface to NW Iran. There is archaeological evidence for the latter in the form of barrows in NW Iran of later Maykop type. NW Iran in turn was connected to Mesopotamia by trade as well as being subsequently swallowed up by the Kura-Araxes culture which spread all over the middle east. So, there are plenty of scenarios. Its actually easy to explain lineages moving about the whole M269* and M269xL23 into the Anatolia and SW Asia area by just looking at the most obvious copper age cultures of the western steppe, north Caucasus and Balkans.

m269* anyway is not well represented in the middle east other than Iran. Just a scatter in western Anatolia, an area that was often closer linked to the Balkans than it was to east Anatolia. It has a dual latitude concentration with one running from Iran/north-west central Asia to the Volga-Urals area and another around the Balkans-east Anatolia area. That could easily be accounted for by a dual route from the western steppes through both the Caucasus to Iran and directly west into the Balkans.

I said there is no movement that would explain the presence east of Anatolia as in Iran and Central Asia. The speakers of Balkan and Anatolian languages only gets you to Anatolia and Armenia. Would hardly explain Central Asian M269(xL23) or L23.

alan
11-26-2013, 03:58 PM
There will always be a few hold outs for that. A move across Europe originating from Siberia taking place around the LGM has absolutely no archaeological support. I know because I read heavily into this back 6 years ago to try and make sense of the 2 refuge models of that time. Its far more likely that they didnt get anywhere near western Europe in the LGM. The last possible movement west that made it to the western regugia was the Badegoulian which dated to the time of the Mal'ta boy or just after but it has been thought by some to have originated in central Europe not Siberia. Anyway at that stage we are in the R*, not even the R1* phase so its essentially impossible as such a two refugia model would spit R* into two groups, not R1*.


These theories are about to get more popular. I am sure the Siberian R* is going to lead to an argument that Paleolithic Europeans further west also carried R and R1a and R1b developed in situ from NE and NW European R.

alan
11-26-2013, 04:10 PM
Well that is why I said there could be more than one route and that included one that reached northern Iran. We dont know the exact starting point of M269 so its impossible to tease this all out. I dont expect to be able to explain everything about the distribution of clades today with a single-period copper age spread. Clearly things moved about massively after that too.

I could dig out obscure stuff like the spread of lithic innovations from the farming world through the Sredny Stog group which appear to have spread even further than their Balkans metal trading and reached into north central Asia. I posted this before, probably on this forum, but I just cannot recall the detail of find it again.


I said there is no movement that would explain the presence east of Anatolia as in Iran and Central Asia. The speakers of Balkan and Anatolian languages only gets you to Anatolia and Armenia. Would hardly explain Central Asian M269(xL23) or L23.

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 04:26 PM
You need to follow the L389+ / L389- split, and I'm thinking it's near where we consider Turkmenistan today.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 04:31 PM
You need to follow the L389+ / L389- split, and I'm thinking it's near where we consider Turkmenistan today.

Could you explain your reasoning? I thought Rathna was saying all the Asian R1b1 is L389-.

Silesian
11-26-2013, 04:34 PM
Ossetians are not Scythians and likely have close to no ancestry from them.

It has already been posted by Generalissimo before. All from cultures that likely spoke Scythian or were ancestral to them.

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

All those people with the exception of the Brahui you mentioned have R1b btw. Ashkenazi (L23+), Turkic (L23+ and M73+), Levantine Arabs (L23+ and V88+). Africans have R1b too btw. So where is the common R1b among ancient Indo-Europeans unless you want to use Bashkirs, Basques, Turks, Assyrians, Sub-Saharan Africans and Levantines as examples.
Digor Ossests have very little to none Ashkenazi type R1a. Digor Osset, Jasz Yagnobi are the last remnants of the Scythian eastern Iranian speaking branch.

I keep pointing toward the Grugni et al data set, showing the connection between R1b and Proto-Indoeuropeans. You refuse to believe.

alan
11-26-2013, 04:36 PM
I am open to most possibilities around the entire cirum pontic-caspian zone. I think where exactly, linguistic associations etc is for another thread. What I do not think is rational is dabbling in a west European origin for R1b in general.


You need to follow the L389+ / L389- split, and I'm thinking it's near where we consider Turkmenistan today.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 04:46 PM
You are just saying this because they have no R1a. Digor Osset, Jasz Yagnobi are the last remnants of the Scythian eastern Iranian speaking branch.

I keep pointing toward the Grugni et al data set, showing the connection between R1b and Proto-Indoeuropeans. You refuse to believe.

They are the last linguistic remnants not the last genetic remnants. Do you have evidence the Jasz and Yagnobi don't have R1a? Because they do as do speakers of every other east Iranian language. Jean has corrected you on your mistakes in this matter over and over. Even she believes their Alan ancestry is on the female side. yet you ignore everything that has been said and go back to your one line posts about Grugni et al and R1a Brahui.

I have no idea what the presence of R1b in West Asia has to do with proto Indo-European speakers. If you have access to a paper on R1b samples directly from Yamnaya then you can talk about an established connection between R1b and PIE. Otherwise that was a nonsense statement to make.

Silesian
11-26-2013, 04:50 PM
They are the last linguistic remnants not the last genetic remnants
Exactly my point, thank you.

I have no idea what the presence of R1b in West Asia has to do with proto Indo-European speakers. If you have access to a paper on R1b samples directly from Yamnaya then you can talk about an established connection between R1b and PIE. Otherwise that was a nonsense statement to make.
What Yamnaya Ashkenazi type R1a samples are you referring too?

Silesian
11-26-2013, 04:59 PM
99% of the content in Newtoboard's posts is him speculating. Reading them is like reading a fantasy fiction novel.

Alan is very smart and posts evidence showing his theories. I have to rely on studies like

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041252?imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041252.t001


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.

Ray was wiped out, yet it still has remnants of R1b L23[51] and m269[23] within Zoroastrian community.

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 05:07 PM
Could you explain your reasoning? I thought Rathna was saying all the Asian R1b1 is L389-.

I believe only 1 R1b1 Asian (Indian) kit has been tested successfully L389-. I am not aware of others officially. In fact I can't even see L389 on the R ISOGG tree for 2013. A question to others - does it have an equivalent on other chips such as that used by Geno? Perhaps being a more reliable P25?

ADD: In fact, we have 4 R1b1 Armenians, 1 R1b1 Georgian, and 1 other R1b1 Indian. If the other Indian gentleman tested L389- and the previous 5 were L389+. The Caspian sea would very much look like the dividing line of the branch. I know the R1b1 jewish folks are L389+ as are the tiny handful of European ones, but this doesn't really tell us much quite frankly.

Silesian
11-26-2013, 05:13 PM
There is a lot of speculation in your posts too.
This is fact, Zoroastrians are considered proto-Indo-Iranians within Grugni study.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray,_Iran

Only R1b is found in Zoroastrians from Rey, Yazd and Digors from Osset and Jasz Hungary, all were under Iranian control at one point.

jeanL
11-26-2013, 05:13 PM
You can find M343, L23, V88, M73 in Asia too. What makes Europe special?

What makes Asia special?? My point, it could go both ways. In any case, I am not denying that R in some sort of form must have originally come from Asia, just like I, J, E, or any other did.

Rathna
11-26-2013, 05:18 PM
I believe only 1 R1b1 Asian (Indian) kit has been tested successfully L389-. I am not aware of others officially. In fact I can't even see L389 on the R ISOGG tree for 2013. A question to others - does it have an equivalent on other chips such as that used by Geno? Perhaps being a more reliable P25?

ADD: In fact, we have 4 R1b1 Armenians, 1 R1b1 Georgian, and 1 other R1b1 Indian. If the other Indian gentleman tested L389- and the previous 5 were L389+. The Caspian sea would very much look like the dividing line of the branch. I know the R1b1 jewish folks are L389+ as are the tiny handful of European ones, but this doesn't really tell us much quite frankly.

Actually the Indians tested L389- are two (Raza and Joshi), both for my invite (and contribution, actually not used). I asked that also the others were tested. They are in fact ascribed to L389+ but are tested only for L25+. I make you note they they have YCAII=21-23 or 23-23. Nobody has 18-23 (or 18-22 like the most part of the Italian R1b1).

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 05:22 PM
Actually the Indians tested L389- are two (Raza and Joshi), both for my invite (and contribution, actually not used). I asked that also the others were tested. They are in fact ascribed to L389+ but are tested only for L25+. I make you note they they have YCAII=21-23 or 23-23. Nobody has 18-23 (or 18-22 like the most part of the Italian R1b1).

I didn't realize Varanasi was also tested. What is the Geno 2.0 equivalent of L389? I don't see this SNP called out in his tests.

alan
11-26-2013, 05:24 PM
Lets keep it civil. If R1b is not present in the early Neolithic of Europe and if it is not in any steppe cultures and if it seems to have spread across Europe in the copper age, then what does that actually leave in terms of known movements? That is what is baffling me. I have an open mind about the origins although it has to be east of the Adriatic but I cannot see what you are driving at because I cannot see anything that fits what you seem to be driving at. Are you saying it came out of SW Asia/central Asia in the copper age and spread over Europe? The problem I see is there is no known match to that scenario.


They are the last linguistic remnants not the last genetic remnants. Do you have evidence the Jasz and Yagnobi don't have R1a? Because they do as do speakers of every other east Iranian language. Jean has corrected you on your mistakes in this matter over and over. Even she believes their Alan ancestry is on the female side. yet you ignore everything that has been said and go back to your one line posts about Grugni et al and R1a Brahui.

I have no idea what the presence of R1b in West Asia has to do with proto Indo-European speakers. If you have access to a paper on R1b samples directly from Yamnaya then you can talk about an established connection between R1b and PIE. Otherwise that was a nonsense statement to make.

Silesian
11-26-2013, 05:27 PM
That makes no sense. Zoroastrianism is a religious group, not an ethnic group or race.
Rey= religious elite/clan of Magi. Zoroaster from Magi. Magi = elite clan in Rey Avestan&Sanskrit interchangeable R1a not found among Zoroastrians in Rey.

And overall, R1b is very rare in ALL of Western Asia.
Which makes it more curious why it is very common around the region of the guardians of fire.

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 05:30 PM
That makes no sense. Zoroastrianism is a religious group, not an ethnic group or race. And overall, R1b is very rare in ALL of Western Asia.

I remind you R(xR1, xR2) is also an extinct branch in Siberia, but it *really* did exist and die out there less than 24,000 years ago. Your comment isn't all that useful, but I agree that assigning haplogroups to languages is not the best course of action.

R1b and downstream branches aren't rare in western Asia, in fact L23* was the most frequent haplogroup branch in Iran in a recent study, but it is rare in India I would agree. Nonetheless, the earliest branches do appear there as well as downstream ones.

Joe B
11-26-2013, 05:36 PM
That makes no sense. Zoroastrianism is a religious group, not an ethnic group or race. And overall, R1b is very rare in ALL of Western Asia.
Many religious groups practice Endogamy. Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/endogamy)

the custom of marrying only within the limits of a local community, clan, or tribe. Compare with exogamy. Overtime, endogamy produces a genetic signature. Some West Asian communities will have a higher percentage of R1b than others because of endogamy. It's a tribal thing!

alan
11-26-2013, 05:38 PM
We now have direct evidence that a guy not all that far from the R* node's origin time lived c. 22000BC in Siberia. That appears to have confirmed that the proposed dating for R as a whole of c, 25000BC estimated by Karafet was approximately correct which suggests his date of c. 16-17000BC for R1* is also near the mark. Now that is the end of the LGM and R1a and b appeared somewhat after that. So, it does appear that R1's ancestor, probably largely still a R* line for most of the period, spent the LGM in the same refuge area and that all R1 has moved out from there.




What makes Asia special?? My point, it could go both ways. In any case, I am not denying that R in some sort of form must have originally come from Asia, just like I, J, E, or any other did.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 05:40 PM
There is a lot of speculation in your posts too.

There is a lot of speculation in everyone posts. So what? That is what most of the content on this forum is. At least people aren't posting lies like you. I'm still waiting for you to back up your statement that R1a is more common in Iran than North India.

alan
11-26-2013, 05:41 PM
I think there is no doubt about that at all, especially when they became minorities where they lived. I think the effect of this has been demonstrated multiple times in research. This seems to be a feature of the middle east.


Many religious groups practice Endogamy. Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/endogamy)
Overtime, endogamy produces a genetic signature. Some West Asian communities will have a higher percentage of R1b than others because of endogamy. It's a tribal thing!

Rathna
11-26-2013, 05:41 PM
I didn't realize Varanasi was also tested. What is the Geno 2.0 equivalent of L389? I don't see this SNP called out in his tests.

Of course Raza's (Varanasi is the city: Italian Benares) Geno 2.0 hasn't L389 because he is negative, but Geno 2.0 tests both L389 and L388.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 05:45 PM
That makes no sense. Zoroastrianism is a religious group, not an ethnic group or race. And overall, R1b is very rare in ALL of Western Asia.

R1b is pretty common in Armenia and Turkey. Among Assyrians and Levantines as well.

AJL
11-26-2013, 05:45 PM
There will always be a few hold outs for that. A move across Europe originating from Siberia taking place around the LGM has absolutely no archaeological support.

Yes, but Pre-Pottery Neolithic also explains the movement of early R1b from around Iran westward into the Balkans, while no movement from the Balkans into the Levant does, as far as I can see.

I have stated before what some of you continue to ignore blithlely: the Balkan reuslts are cobbled together from various studies at different resolutions, some quite old, and are not conclusively L23* or Z2103*. You will find these proven subclades in high concentration in FTDNA projects in Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Ashkenazim, etc. If I need to I will start listing kit numbers because several of you still have your blinkers on here. Among the Bulgarian R1b in the FTDNA Bulgarian DNA Project, in fact, a noticeable proportion have Turkish surnames.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 05:47 PM
Rey= religious elite/clan of Magi. Zoroaster from Magi. Magi = elite clan in Rey Avestan&Sanskrit interchangeable R1a not found among Zoroastrians in Rey.

Which makes it more curious why it is very common around the region of the guardians of fire.

Your quote did not say Zorastrians are interchangeable with Proto Indo-Iranians. it said the first followers of Zorastrianism might have been Proto Indo-Iranians. Which is wrong. There is no evidence Indo-Aryan speakers followed Zorastrianism. Nor did steppe Scythians.

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 05:48 PM
Of course Raza's (Varanasi is the city: Italian Benares) Geno 2.0 hasn't L389 because he is negative, but Geno 2.0 tests both L389 and L388.

Could you please link me how you can confirm this though? I checked the R1b1 project SNP page and there is no L389- result anywhere.

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 05:51 PM
It's not frequent in Iranians at all. Regardless of what the study claims. I haven't met a single R1b Iranian. It's even much more common in the Turks of Turkey. R2 is more associated with Zoroastrians and that general region (Central-Southeast Iran.)

Really. I must trust your statement because you, even if Iranian, must represent all of Iran! That's great logic. If you know so many Iranians who have had their YDNA tested, why aren't they in any databases? I should clarify that the R1b is higher among the north than the south. It could be that low samples were skewing the results or were northern biased. However, I think it's foolish to call several studies wrong which were based on hundreds of samples. Yours is based on what?

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 05:52 PM
Yes, but Pre-Pottery Neolithic also explains the movement of early R1b from around Iran westward into the Balkans, while no movement from the Balkans into the Levant does, as far as I can see.

I have stated before what some of you continue to ignore blithlely: the Balkan reuslts are cobbled together from various studies at different resolutions, some quite old, and are not conclusively L23* or Z2103*. You will find these proven subclades in high concentration in FTDNA projects in Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Ashkenazim, etc. If I need to I will start listing kit numbers because several of you still have your blinkers on here. Among the Bulgarian R1b in the FTDNA Bulgarian DNA Project, in fact, a noticeable proportion have Turkish surnames.

Interesting. People here seem to be treating the origin of M269 and L23 in Europe as some sort of accepted fact. And any evidence of older subclades is treated as back migration with Anatolian and Balkan IE speakers.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 05:55 PM
Really. I must trust your statement because you, even if Iranian, must represent all of Iran! That's great logic. If you know so many Iranians who have had their YDNA tested, why aren't they in any databases? I should clarify that the R1b is higher among the north than the south. It could be that low samples were skewing the results or were northern biased. However, I think it's foolish to call several studies wrong which were based on hundreds of samples. Based on what?

I'm not agreeing with either you or him but the Eupedia frequency for R1b is 6.5%. Maybe it might be worth checking out how they obtained that result.

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 06:04 PM
I'm not agreeing with either you or him but the Eupedia frequency for R1b is 6.5%. Maybe it might be worth checking out how they obtained that result.

That is the overall amount in the whole country, north to south, east to west. It's a pretty large country with significant representation of many different haplogroups, J2a being the overall winner. That's fine - I wasn't stating anything other than L23* was the most frequently occurring subclade from that 2013 sample. Perhaps it was northern or north west biased anyhow...I don't remember.

AJL
11-26-2013, 06:06 PM
Interesting. People here seem to be treating the origin of M269 and L23 in Europe as some sort of accepted fact. And any evidence of older subclades is treated as back migration with Anatolian and Balkan IE speakers.

I don't think it's absolutely impossible, but the preponderance of evidence is rather against it because we have fairly good evidence of R2 and R* and various R1a subclades as well as P and Q arising near Central/West Asia, which is also where most scholars put early IE. I think people get rather caught up on the "European" part of "Indo-European," really it's more a west-central Eurasian group. Even people in western China still end up being substantially "European" according to autosomes.

Humanist
11-26-2013, 06:20 PM
Yes, but Pre-Pottery Neolithic also explains the movement of early R1b from around Iran westward into the Balkans, while no movement from the Balkans into the Levant does, as far as I can see.

I have stated before what some of you continue to ignore blithlely: the Balkan reuslts are cobbled together from various studies at different resolutions, some quite old, and are not conclusively L23* or Z2103*. You will find these proven subclades in high concentration in FTDNA projects in Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Ashkenazim, etc. If I need to I will start listing kit numbers because several of you still have your blinkers on here. Among the Bulgarian R1b in the FTDNA Bulgarian DNA Project, in fact, a noticeable proportion have Turkish surnames.

HI AJ. I do agree that certain folks, for whatever reason, disregard certain data, but I just wanted to ask what your source for R1b in Kurds is. According to the KurdishDNA Blogspot (http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2013/10/kurdish-y-dna-part-x.html), R1b in Kurds is 9.8%. Compared to Syrian Alawites (30+%), Armenians (25+%), Assyrians (20+%), and various Iranian minority groups (20-40%), R1b < 10% is not comparable, in my opinion.

alan
11-26-2013, 06:21 PM
Iran is an interesting case. I get the impression north Iran had two phases of involvement in R1b. One very early one probably relating to Palaeolithic groups around the Caspian and another copper age one relating to L23xL51 (concentrated in the north-west of Iran). It didnt seem to be effected by M73 though. Whether this was continuous and it had any role in the Neolithic era, which basically corresponds with the period of P297*, cannot be reconstructed from modern populations as its not been found.


I remind you R(xR1, xR2) is also an extinct branch in Siberia, but it *really* did exist and die out there less than 24,000 years ago. Your comment isn't all that useful, but I agree that assigning haplogroups to languages is not the best course of action.

R1b and downstream branches aren't rare in western Asia, in fact L23* was the most frequent haplogroup branch in Iran in a recent study, but it is rare in India I would agree. Nonetheless, the earliest branches do appear there as well as downstream ones.

alan
11-26-2013, 06:25 PM
The pre-pottery Neolithic of Asia and Anatolia is far far older than any surviving R1b on the P297 line that led to M269 and M73 about 4000 years later. Unless the normal suggested dating is horribly wrong its totally the wrong period.


Yes, but Pre-Pottery Neolithic also explains the movement of early R1b from around Iran westward into the Balkans, while no movement from the Balkans into the Levant does, as far as I can see.

I have stated before what some of you continue to ignore blithlely: the Balkan reuslts are cobbled together from various studies at different resolutions, some quite old, and are not conclusively L23* or Z2103*. You will find these proven subclades in high concentration in FTDNA projects in Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Ashkenazim, etc. If I need to I will start listing kit numbers because several of you still have your blinkers on here. Among the Bulgarian R1b in the FTDNA Bulgarian DNA Project, in fact, a noticeable proportion have Turkish surnames.

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 06:34 PM
The pre-pottery Neolithic of Asia and Anatolia is far far older than any surviving R1b on the P297 line that led to M269 and M73 about 4000 years later. Unless the normal suggested dating is horribly wrong its totally the wrong period.

It would be a R1b1* node which ultimately led to R-V88. Not sure the age estimates currently.

AJL
11-26-2013, 06:45 PM
HI AJ. I do agree that certain folks, for whatever reason, disregard certain data, but I just wanted to ask what your source for R1b in Kurds is. According to the KurdishDNA Blogspot (http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2013/10/kurdish-y-dna-part-x.html), R1b in Kurds is 9.8%. Compared to Syrian Alawites (30+%), Armenians (25+%), Assyrians (20+%), and various Iranian minority groups (20-40%), R1b < 10% is not comparable, in my opinion.

True -- sorry, Kurds were not the best example.

AJL
11-26-2013, 06:48 PM
It's not even a fact that "Indo-Europeans" really existed but here is some of you already trying to link certain haplogroups to them. Too much speculation is all I have to say.

Perhaps there was no uniform group but there were speakers and spreaders of early Indo-European languages, clearly. It is in human nature to speculate and you're not going to stop people from speculating here by wagging your finger: perhaps you have something specific to add to the conversation?

Silesian
11-26-2013, 06:48 PM
Your quote did not say Zorastrians are interchangeable with Proto Indo-Iranians. it said the first followers of Zorastrianism might have been Proto Indo-Iranians. Which is wrong.
Well it does not really matter, does it. The same study shows Assyrians having the same branch of Ashkenazi R1a and they do not really speak any Indo European language unless you factor in the they are mixed with Sumerian which might have originated with Iranians. . In fact the Assyrians, look like quite a mish mash of various clades besides R1a, Grugni study Q1*?Perhaps that is why more research is needed as to the ones which derive from ancient Indo- Iranians and those from Afro-asiatic speaking regions where R1a is found?


There is no evidence Indo-Aryan speakers followed Zorastrianism.

Agni (Sanskrit: अग्नि) is a Hindu deity,one of the most important of the Vedic gods. He is the god of fire [1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni

Guardians of fire, God of fire, compare the rituals of Hindu wedding, and the sacred Agni, the Brahmans use, of ritual fire, used by Parsi in Gujarit, they still boast it is original flame from their home, in Iran.



Nor did steppe Scythians.

R1b* in Grugni was found in the region known as Guardians of fire in other words it was found in a region known for having Kurds and Medes. R1b* is also found among Kurds in Kazakstan.

AJL
11-26-2013, 06:53 PM
The pre-pottery Neolithic of Asia and Anatolia is far far older than any surviving R1b on the P297 line that led to M269 and M73 about 4000 years later. Unless the normal suggested dating is horribly wrong its totally the wrong period.

Do you expect every haplogroup's guesstimated TMRCA to line up exactly with a culture?

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 06:58 PM
Well it does not really matter, does it. The same study shows Assyrians having the same branch of Ashkenazi R1a and they do not really speak any Indo European language unless you factor in the they are mixed with Sumerian which might have originated with Iranians. . In fact the Assyrians, look like quite a mish mash of various clades besides R1a, Grugni study Q1*?Perhaps that is why more research is needed as to the ones which derive from ancient Indo- Iranians and those from Afro-asiatic speaking regions where R1a is found?



Agni (Sanskrit: अग्नि) is a Hindu deity,one of the most important of the Vedic gods. He is the god of fire [1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni

Guardians of fire, God of fire, compare the rituals of Hindu wedding, and the sacred Agni, the Brahmans use, of ritual fire, used by Parsi in Gujarit, they still boast it is original flame from their home, in Iran.




R1b* in Grugni was found in the region known as Guardians of fire in other words it was found in a region known for having Kurds and Medes. R1b* is also found among Kurds in Kazakstan.

The Assyrian R1a frequency is under 2%. How do you know they belong to the same branch as the Ashkenazi R1a clades? Most of the Ashkenazi R1a is Z2122+. That hasn't been found in Assyrians as far as I know. How is this relevant? People mix with their neighbors. The R1a among Ashkenazi was most likely speaking some Iranian language originally.

I could care less about Hindu wedding rituals and the sacred Agni. There is no evidence of Proto Indo-Iranians following Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism didn't even exist when Proto Indo-Iranian was spoken.

J2a was also found in those regions wasn't it? But nobody would link J2a to Indo-European speakers.

Also the upstream R1b in Kurds of Kazakhstan keeps on being brought up as if they are some sort of proof for R1b in steppe Proto Indo-Iranians or Scythians. They are just West Asians who only ended up in Kazakhstan during Soviet times. By no means do they represent the ancient people of Kazakhstan any more than the wide variety of ethnic groups that ended up in that country.

alan
11-26-2013, 07:08 PM
No but if we cannot tell the difference between 3500BC and 8500BC then we are in trouble.

One thing I would add in general to all those on this thread is there is no point in treating R1b as a single entity. There is no single R1b story. You have to go back to P25* perhaps 16000 years ago to get a shared SNP between M269/M73 on the one hand and V88 on the other. So talking generically about R1b or coming up with R1b totals is meaningless really. Its only one step off treating all R1 as a single whole.


Do you expect every haplogroup's guesstimated TMRCA to line up exactly with a culture?

Silesian
11-26-2013, 07:10 PM
The Assyrian R1a frequency is under 2%. .
Exactly Grugni has it at 8% it still is more than what is found in Rey Zoroastrians and Digor Ossets.


How do you know they belong to the same branch as the Ashkenazi R1a clades? Most of the Ashkenazi R1a is Z2122+.

It's R1a-z93, is it not? Z2122 is irrelevant. It is the same branch of R1a Assyrians and Ashkenazi and Arabians you are pinning your hopes of spreading PIE R1a Z93.



J2a was also found in those regions wasn't it? But nobody would link J2a to Indo-European speakers.

R1b M269 shows star burst patterns of 110 million in Europe. IJ R-m429 does not.


Also the upstream R1b in Kurds of Kazakhstan keeps on being brought up as if they are some sort of proof for R1b in steppe Proto Indo-Iranians or Scythians. They are just West Asians who only ended up in Kazakhstan during Soviet times. By no means do they represent the ancient people of Kazakhstan any more than the wide variety of ethnic groups that ended up in that country.
You mean like Dravidian Brahui ending up with R1a.

Humanist
11-26-2013, 07:11 PM
http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/MMap_Middle_East_R1b_Tats__.jpg


Without aDNA, this is obviously speculation. But, to give an idea of what peoples lived in the area during the 2nd millennium BCE, and the languages they may have spoken:

SEMITIC
Ugaritic - NW Semitic
Assyrian-Akkadian - East Semitic

UNKNOWN
Hurrian - Hurro-Urartian

INDO-EUROPEAN
Mitanni (elite ?) - Indo-Aryan (?)
Hittite and other Anatolian Indo-European


http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/R1b_ancient_world.png

Silesian
11-26-2013, 07:17 PM
http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/R1b_ancient_world.png
Your map is lacking Mede, substrate of Western Iranian. That puts Hittite, Mitanni, Mede in a band where R1b is found with the highest frequencies in West Asia.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 07:19 PM
Exactly Grugni has it at 8% it still is more than what is found in Rey Zoroastrians and Digor Ossets.



It's R1a-z93, is it not? Z2122 is irrelevant. It is the same branch of R1a Assyrians and Ashkenazi and Arabians you are pinning your hopes of spreading PIE R1a Z93.




R1b M269 shows star burst patterns of 110 million in Europe. IJ R-m429 does not.


You mean like Dravidian Brahui ending up with R1a.

You are putting your heart on trying to disassociate R1a from PIE and IE languages based on Assyrian and Ashkenazi R1a yet they have more R1b than R1a. In fact so do Levantine Arabs. R1a in Assyrians makes R1a a lineage not associated with PIE/IE but the R1b in Assyrians is irrelevant. What great logic. Because R1b has to be the PIE lineage and be associated with every IE branch in your picture perfect R1b world despite the fact that there are no ancient remains linking R1b with the Indo-Iranian branch of IE languages and they exist for R1a. But since modern Ossetians have no R1a they are more important than ancient DNA and what the experts in Indo-European studies think. When is your journal article on R1b Scythians coming out?

Your last comparison has nothing to do with anything. You are comparing a group admixed with their neighbors to a group who has moved to another region in the past 100 years.

AJL
11-26-2013, 07:20 PM
The Assyrian R1a frequency is under 2%. How do you know they belong to the same branch as the Ashkenazi R1a clades?

We have one Assyrian example that is Z93+, not tested beyond that.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 07:23 PM
We have one Assyrian example that is Z93+, not tested beyond that.

Yea that is pretty telling though. R1a in Assyrians is pretty much non existent and certainly not some sort of proof that R1a in West Asia is not related to IE languages (and possibly Turks who absorbed IE speakers in Central Asia).

AJL
11-26-2013, 07:26 PM
No but if we cannot tell the difference between 3500BC and 8500BC then we are in trouble.

I get what you're saying: at the same time you are making all kinds of inferences about R1b spreading from the Balkans based on what is in essence a complex of R1b subclades, most of which have not been proven to occur in the Balkans but which have been proven to occur in West/Central Asia.

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 07:27 PM
J2a was also found in those regions wasn't it? But nobody would link J2a to Indo-European speakers.



Why not? Certainly Dienekes among others do.

Silesian
11-26-2013, 07:27 PM
You are putting your heart on trying to disassociate R1a from PIE and IE languages based on Assyrian and Ashkenazi R1a yet they have more R1b than R1a....

Okay we are making some headway, at least you are admitting Assyrians and Ashkenazi carry R1a although you deny the scientific numbers. That's okay. As for R1a and PIE, R1a Dravidian Brahui and Dravidian loanwords in Sanskrit.

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 07:28 PM
We have one Assyrian example that is Z93+, not tested beyond that.

What is the latest on Ashkenazi R1a1a anyhow? Does it appear to be descended from the Russian branches or the Arab/Iranian/Indian ones? Or are these one and the same?

Silesian
11-26-2013, 07:29 PM
Yea that is pretty telling though. R1a in Assyrians is pretty much non existent and certainly not some sort of proof that R1a in West Asia is not related to IE languages (and possibly Turks who absorbed IE speakers in Central Asia).

Come on who are you kidding, you mean absorbed by R1b Turks non existant in Grugni et al Turkmen section??

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 07:30 PM
Okay we are making some headway, at least you are admitting Assyrians and Ashkenazi carry R1a although you deny the scientific numbers. That's okay. As for R1a and PIE, R1a Dravidian Brahui and Dravidian loanwords in Sanskrit.

The Brahui are migrants to the area from Central India. So no it is not surprising that they absorbed the native population of the region they made into. As for R1b and PIE, R1b Basque and Bashkirs.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 07:32 PM
Why not? Certainly Dienekes among others do.

It doesn't make much sense to. I knew Dienekes used to associate J2a with IE but I thought he had changed his mind. Either way if we view Ossetians as perfect representations of Scythians and Alans then Silesian should be arguing for G2a1 Scythians (as people actually used to do just a few years ago).

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 07:32 PM
The Brahui are migrants to the area from Central India. So no it is not surprising that they absorbed the native population of the region they made into. As for R1b and PIE, R1b Basque and Bashkirs.

Who said Bashkirs?

Oh right...R1a, R1a, R1a...oh guess what, MORE R1a.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/suyun/default.aspx?section=yresults

The R1b = Bashkir myth needs to die, hard.

Silesian
11-26-2013, 07:33 PM
The Brahui are migrants to the area from Central India. So no it is not surprising that they absorbed the native population of the region they made into. As for R1b and PIE, R1b Basque and Bashkirs.

I dont know about the Basque, they have no real L23[51]. As for Bashkirs I have no clue, I offered to test Nazarov, he is so distant [31 out of 67]from L23[51] in Poland, I do not know what to think, some say it is a very old split.


View Post
With only two haplotypes, I can only calcuate IntraClade Coalescence (n-1) Age of using Bird's q STRs (twenty five of 67 markers) results in a

7,761 +/-1,568 year before present with a max of 9,329 years for you two guys with SNP L150? But listed as R1b1a2a1.

223828 Nazarov Piotr Nazarov, b.1886, d.1932, Yaik Cossack clan Kazakhstan R1b1a2a1 12 21 14 11 11-15 12 12 12 13 14 28 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 28 15-15-16-18 11 11 19-23 16 16 17 17 37-42 12 12 11 9 15-16 8 10 10 8 10 11 12 21-22 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12
176123 A.K. Silesia/ Poland/Germany/Czech[ Shlesien,Śląsk1750] Poland R1b1a2a1 12 24 14 10 11-14 12 12 11 14 13 31 16 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 33 14-15-16-19 10 10 19-23 16 16 19 19 37-40 12 12 11 9 15-16 8 10 10 8 10 11 12 23-23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 23 20 14 12 11 13 11 10 12 12

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 07:40 PM
Who said Bashkirs?

Oh right...R1a, R1a, R1a...oh guess what, MORE R1a.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/suyun/default.aspx?section=yresults

The R1b = Bashkir myth needs to die, hard.

Silesian has. He has constantly used the presence of R1a in Turks to disassociate R1a from Eastern IE languages. Its an argument that makes no sense. BOTH R1a and R1b exist in non IE speakers. Either way the Bashkirs do have R1b. As you can see there is of R1b on the top of the page. Previous studies have shown their R1b frequency is very regional and their frequency is lower here than in the studies due to the under representation of U152+.

AJL
11-26-2013, 07:41 PM
What is the latest on Ashkenazi R1a1a anyhow? Does it appear to be descended from the Russian branches or the Arab/Iranian/Indian ones? Or are these one and the same?

Not a precisely Slavic branch but not exactly Indian or Arabian -- it seems to come from the Eurasian Steppe, probably associated with the area of nomadic Iranian speakers who were later Turkicized (like Saka, Sarmatians, or similar).

AJL
11-26-2013, 07:44 PM
Yes, this is what I will add. Haplogroups =/= language groups =/= race.

Thanks for clarifying your position. I don't think anyone is equating races to haplogroups here. There may be a better case for linking haplogroups and language groups, though, since it's hard to argue against the strong correlations between R1b-U106 and Germanic languages, N1c and Uralic languages, or J1 and Semitic languages, to quote a few examples.

jeanL
11-26-2013, 07:56 PM
I dont know about the Basque, they have no real L23[51]. As for Bashkirs I have no clue, I offered to test Nazarov, he is so distant [31 out of 67]from L23[51] in Poland, I do not know what to think, some say it is a very old split.

Basque do have L23, albeit in low frequencies:

According to Busby.et.al.2011 Supplementary Table-S1 (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044/suppl/DC1) 2/6 French Basques used from HGDP are R-M269(xS127).

DYS19 DYS389I DYS389b DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS437 DYS438 DYS439

HGDP00511 BAS M269(xS127) 14 12 16 24 11 13 12 15 12 13
HGDP00515 BAS M269(xS127) 14 13 17 25 11 13 12 15 12 12

alan
11-26-2013, 08:00 PM
Practically no language group is located similarly to where it was centred in prehistoric times, most recorded even 2000 years or so back have died out. Given that PIE was as much as 6000 years ago there is a heck of a lot of tea leaf reading when trying to talk about yDNA and language branches of that period. Apparent cultural continuity in archaeology can be just apparent. Only a few years ago a great deal of continuity was inferred from archaeology that probably was wrong. Who knows how many tribal languages rose and fell even within the IE group.

AJL
11-26-2013, 08:08 PM
Basque do have L23, albeit in low frequencies:

According to Busby.et.al.2011 Supplementary Table-S1 (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044/suppl/DC1) 2/6 French Basques used from HGDP are R-M269(xS127).

DYS19 DYS389I DYS389b DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS437 DYS438 DYS439

HGDP00511 BAS M269(xS127) 14 12 16 24 11 13 12 15 12 13
HGDP00515 BAS M269(xS127) 14 13 17 25 11 13 12 15 12 12

We do not know this is L23 -- it could be M269*.

This is the problem with interpreting things without looking at actual tested haplogroups that I have just highlighted above.

Unfortunately, the Basque DNA Project is not displaying SNPs.

alan
11-26-2013, 08:09 PM
I realise its speculation and am making no claims to know more than anyone else. All I am working with is the copper age dates most now claim for M269 and downstream, looking at a distribution that includes the Balkans and parts of SW Asia, Caucasus, some steppe groups etc and looking at the archaeology record for what options there are in that timeframe. In that timeframe there is a lot more mainstream theories of Balkans to Anatolian spread involving many groups rather than the reverse. If the date of M269 was found to be earlier, say 6000BC I would say the reverse is true. However, I feel I can only work with what the majority are saying about the dating so I have to proceed with that for now.


I get what you're saying: at the same time you are making all kinds of inferences about R1b spreading from the Balkans based on what is in essence a complex of R1b subclades, most of which have not been proven to occur in the Balkans but which have been proven to occur in West/Central Asia.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 08:10 PM
Practically no language group is located similarly to where it was centred in prehistoric times, most recorded even 2000 years or so back have died out. Given that PIE was as much as 6000 years ago there is a heck of a lot of tea leaf reading when trying to talk about yDNA and language branches of that period. Apparent cultural continuity in archaeology can be just apparent. Only a few years ago a great deal of continuity was inferred from archaeology that probably was wrong. Who knows how many tribal languages rose and fell even within the IE group.

It isclear that modern IE languages are connected to both R1a and R1b. PIE might have been a mixture of both as well. However, if only one of the two was originally speaking PIE there is really no scenario that can exist without the other lineage being its direct neighbor in Eastern Europe. So the people arguing for R1b being in Western Europe or Central Europe or R1a being in Central Europe or Asia during the time of PIE are quite wrong.

alan
11-26-2013, 08:12 PM
You asked earlier about studies etc. What I would say is I never draw conclusions on what is M269* or any clade unless it is from an academic study with adequate resolution. I generally dont take any stats from hobbiest testing due to well known issues with being representative and massively skewed to various groups.


We do not know this is L23 -- it could be M269*.

This is the problem with interpreting things without looking at actual tested haplogroups that I have just highlighted above.

Unfortunately, the Basque DNA Project is not displaying SNPs.

AJL
11-26-2013, 08:16 PM
Apparent cultural continuity in archaeology can be just apparent. Only a few years ago a great deal of continuity was inferred from archaeology that probably was wrong. Who knows how many tribal languages rose and fell even within the IE group.

That's something of a tautology, but even if we agree on that there is no reason to assume there is complete genetic continuity of a culture.

Joe B
11-26-2013, 08:17 PM
I realise its speculation and am making no claims to know more than anyone else. All I am working with is the copper age dates most now claim for M269 and downstream, looking at a distribution that includes the Balkans and parts of SW Asia, Caucasus, some steppe groups etc and looking at the archaeology record for what options there are in that timeframe. In that timeframe there is a lot more mainstream theories of Balkans to Anatolian spread involving many groups rather than the reverse. If the date of M269 was found to be earlier, say 6000BC I would say the reverse is true. However, I feel I can only work with what the majority are saying about the dating so I have to proceed with that for now. I rue the day that the Balkans or Anatolia debate goes away. I learn something new everytime it comes up.

AJL
11-26-2013, 08:17 PM
You asked earlier about studies etc. What I would say is I never draw conclusions on what is M269* or any clade unless it is from an academic study with adequate resolution. I generally dont take any stats from hobbiest testing due to well known issues with being representative and massively skewed to various groups.

Well, then I am afraid you are hooped, because "hobbiest" testing is typically the only one that has compelete subclade information.

{EDIT}
Academic studies still languish way behind FTDNA project testing in their resolution and, sometimes, screening.

AJL
11-26-2013, 08:19 PM
I realise its speculation and am making no claims to know more than anyone else. All I am working with is the copper age dates most now claim for M269 and downstream, looking at a distribution that includes the Balkans and parts of SW Asia, Caucasus, some steppe groups etc and looking at the archaeology record for what options there are in that timeframe. In that timeframe there is a lot more mainstream theories of Balkans to Anatolian spread involving many groups rather than the reverse. If the date of M269 was found to be earlier, say 6000BC I would say the reverse is true. However, I feel I can only work with what the majority are saying about the dating so I have to proceed with that for now.

I can't entirely dismiss the copper influence coming from the Balkans but I would suggest E-V13 is a better indicator of this, since it's found in very low amounts in West Asia and great concentration in the Balkans. Its spread in Western European areas known to be associated with mining also favours this.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 08:23 PM
I can't entirely dismiss the copper influence coming from the Balkans but I would suggest E-V13 is a better indicator of this, since it's found in very low amounts in West Asia and great concentration in the Balkans. Its spread in Western European areas known to be associated with mining also favours this.

Groups could also learn about mining and metallurgy from their neighbors so there might not even be a need to associate these things with a single lineage.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 08:24 PM
Well, then I am afraid you are hooped, because "hobbiest" testing is typically the only one that has compelete subclade information.

{EDIT}
Academic studies still languish way behind FTDNA project testing in their resolution and, sometimes, screening.

I agree. Academic studies might be good for establishing general haplogroup frequencies but not information about subclades.

parasar
11-26-2013, 08:28 PM
Not a precisely Slavic branch but not exactly Indian or Arabian -- it seems to come from the Eurasian Steppe, probably associated with the area of nomadic Iranian speakers who were later Turkicized (like Saka, Sarmatians, or similar).

Ashkenaz was in the neighborhood of modern southwestern Armenia, northeastern Turkey, northwestern Iraq.
"Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz"
And, they were related to the Khazars.
"Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah."

While within the broad definition of today's middle-east, they were not considered middle-eastern. Perhaps the Gimiri/Sak of the Behistun inscription.

AJL
11-26-2013, 08:29 PM
I rue the day that the Balkans or Anatolia debate goes away. I learn something new everytime it comes up.

Yes it is interesting, and there was probably both-way movement over a prolonged time which makes it harder to be conclusive. On the one had there was a Balkan LGM refugium, on the other older archaeology in West Asia. I think there's a good case for some of the I2-subclades and E-V13 coming to West Asia from the Balkans, along with possibly some R1a-Z283, but I can't now R1b coming eastward in any number, for now, when we have no evidence of the basal subclades in the Balkans yet and ample evidence for West Asia.

TigerMW
11-26-2013, 08:30 PM
Lets keep it civil.

I am writing as a moderator, but yes let's keep it civil. Stay on the content and supporting logic and data. Let's stay off of personal criticism, insinuations and general inflammatory/sarcastic remarks. Some will relate to this, but when basketball game starts getting too rough sometimes the only way to bring civility back is for the referee to start calling out everything that looks like a foul. By that, I mean issuing bans. I apologize for being off topic

AJL
11-26-2013, 08:33 PM
Ashkenaz was in the neighborhood of modern southwestern Armenia, northeastern Turkey, northwestern Iraq.
"Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz"
And, they were related to the Khazars.
"Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah."

While within the broad definition of today's middle-east, they were not considered middle-eastern. Perhaps the Gimiri/Sak of the Behistun inscription.

One theory, I think Isaac Asimov's, was that the Hebrew letter nun (N), which resembles in form the Hebrew letter waw (V/W), was erroneously substitued in the word and that "Ashkenaz" should actually be "Ashkuz," Scyths.

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 08:36 PM
I can't entirely dismiss the copper influence coming from the Balkans but I would suggest E-V13 is a better indicator of this, since it's found in very low amounts in West Asia and great concentration in the Balkans. Its spread in Western European areas known to be associated with mining also favours this.

If I'm not mistaken, the Balkans was depopulated around 4000 BC, and even today they host a small population. The haplogroup distribution there would appear to be a complex series of different populations filling in those gaps again. Let's not forget that E-V13 is also found in neolithic Spain and today could be a relic from old farming communities. The higher concentration in N.Wales (the mining argument) could relate to some older communities being pushed out and isolated.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 08:37 PM
Yes it is interesting, and there was probably both-way movement over a prolonged time which makes it harder to be conclusive. On the one had there was a Balkan LGM refugium, on the other older archaeology in West Asia. I think there's a good case for some of the I2-subclades and E-V13 coming to West Asia from the Balkans, along with possibly some R1a-Z283, but I can't now R1b coming eastward in any number, for now, when we have no evidence of the basal subclades in the Balkans yet and ample evidence for West Asia.

Those R1a-Z283+ and I2-subclades came with steppe nomads (the Cimmerians seem like a great candidate) imo.

ADW_1981
11-26-2013, 08:39 PM
Ashkenaz was in the neighborhood of modern southwestern Armenia, northeastern Turkey, northwestern Iraq.
"Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz"
And, they were related to the Khazars.
"Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah."

While within the broad definition of today's middle-east, they were not considered middle-eastern. Perhaps the Gimiri/Sak of the Behistun inscription.

Got that :) I guess my question is if we are closer to determining if the Levite cluster, or broadly Ashkenazi cluster relates closer to the Arabs, or these generic R1a1a Central Asians? I would expect there should be deeper SNPs linking one group to the other.

Jean M
11-26-2013, 08:42 PM
It is clear that modern IE languages are connected to both R1a and R1b. PIE might have been a mixture of both as well. However, if only one of the two was originally speaking PIE there is really no scenario that can exist without the other lineage being its direct neighbor in Eastern Europe. So the people arguing for R1b being in Western Europe or Central Europe or R1a being in Central Europe or Asia during the time of PIE are quite wrong.

This is the logic I have followed from the start. I would only add one qualification. To end up with R1b and R1a correlating with the spread of IE languages only requires some R1b and R1a in the PIE-speaking community. R1a and R1b do not need to be exclusively there. I think it is pretty clear that some R1b (V88) was elsewhere at the time, and I would not be all that surprised to find that some R1a was elsewhere, given the movements up the Volga.

AJL
11-26-2013, 08:45 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the Balkans was depopulated around 4000 BC, and even today they host a small population. The haplogroup distribution there would appear to be a complex series of different populations filling in those gaps again. Let's not forget that E-V13 is also found in neolithic Spain and today could be a relic from old farming communities. The higher concentration in N.Wales (the mining argument) could relate to some older communities being pushed out and isolated.

Yes, that's entirely possible.

AJL
11-26-2013, 08:51 PM
Got that :) I guess my question is if we are closer to determining if the Levite cluster, or broadly Ashkenazi cluster relates closer to the Arabs, or these generic R1a1a Central Asians? I would expect there should be deeper SNPs linking one group to the other.

F1345, a little above the Ashkenazi-specific markers, has been found in one Mamluk-descended Palestinian (with probable Kipchak or Cuman origins) and in one Turk with Steppe (Ukraine or nearby) ancestry. Z2122, above, has a broader distribution including Central Asia and Britain, in the latter case possibly linked to Roman auxiliary presence there.

newtoboard
11-26-2013, 08:58 PM
F1345, a little above the Ashkenazi-specific markers, has been found in one Mamluk-descended Palestinian (with probable Kipchak or Cuman origins) and in one Turk with Steppe (Ukraine or nearby) ancestry. Z2122, above, has a broader distribution including Central Asia and Britain, in the latter case possibly linked to Roman auxiliary presence there.

Which Central Asian ethnicity?

AJL
11-26-2013, 09:31 PM
Which Central Asian ethnicity?

Tatars, though there are also Z2123 Tatars.

Nirvana
11-26-2013, 09:45 PM
Interesting, I didn't know that about the Balkans, but historic texts also tell us that the Caucasus was sparsely populated at the time of the Scythians' arrival. So it's very likely that the so called "indigenous languages of the Caucasus" arrived later from the Near East.



Are you suggesting 50+ languages arrived after the Scythians?

You probably mean North Caucasus valleys were underpopulated at the time of the Scythians.

It was always sparsely populated as it is suppose to, and is relatively underpopulated even now, as mountain populations do not use extensive farming methods.

alan
11-26-2013, 10:03 PM
We have previously disagreed about the idea of single lineage groups and I want to elaborate on my reasoning. In the very simplest societies you might essentially be looking at clan lineages, which could lead to single lineage dominance. In slightly more complex societies clientship and other institutions would allow for a wider mixture of y lines. In a complex chiefdom with all sorts of hierarchy and devolution of power regionally further complexity of y male lines could ensue. In a full on state society the inhabitants would be more complex still. The more complex the society the more likely that one male lineage will only be the top echelons. I would also add that there is probably a profound difference in genetic impact on groups heading into areas with little population or entirely mobile populations compared to long settled areas. That replacement of population is simply not possible even by enormous steppe hoards as can be seen in Bulgaria, Turkey, Hungary etc where national names, languages etc changed but the genetic impact was very limited. I personally doubt that linguistic groupings except the most simple clan based societies passing into low populated areas would be mono-lineage. Anthony discusses clientship and nested clientships when he is discussing how Corded Ware became IE. Clientship of several levels - base, free and between kings existed even in the relatively archaic lineages and clan based society in Ireland. I think too the IE institution of the war band to some extent may have been on merit rather than lineage.


It isclear that modern IE languages are connected to both R1a and R1b. PIE might have been a mixture of both as well. However, if only one of the two was originally speaking PIE there is really no scenario that can exist without the other lineage being its direct neighbor in Eastern Europe. So the people arguing for R1b being in Western Europe or Central Europe or R1a being in Central Europe or Asia during the time of PIE are quite wrong.

lgmayka
11-26-2013, 10:06 PM
F1345, a little above the Ashkenazi-specific markers, has been found in one Mamluk-descended Palestinian (with probable Kipchak or Cuman origins) and in one Turk with Steppe (Ukraine or nearby) ancestry.
Besides the CTS6 (Ashkenazi Levite) subclade, and the couple of singletons AJL mentioned, F1345 has another subclade marked by F2935. Among FTDNA customers, F2935 has been observed in a Pole and in a Scottish family; but F2935 was also reported elsewhere in a Chinese.

alan
11-26-2013, 10:19 PM
The situation in terms of cultural sequences across the entire Balkans is incredibly complex c. 4500-3000BC with all sorts of blends of farming and steppe elements. It makes your eyes bleed trying to get to grips with it. I think a lot of IE languages arose in that complex mix as did the transformations needed in order to spread the language through the farming world.


If I'm not mistaken, the Balkans was depopulated around 4000 BC, and even today they host a small population. The haplogroup distribution there would appear to be a complex series of different populations filling in those gaps again. Let's not forget that E-V13 is also found in neolithic Spain and today could be a relic from old farming communities. The higher concentration in N.Wales (the mining argument) could relate to some older communities being pushed out and isolated.

parasar
11-26-2013, 10:26 PM
Got that :) I guess my question is if we are closer to determining if the Levite cluster, or broadly Ashkenazi cluster relates closer to the Arabs, or these generic R1a1a Central Asians? I would expect there should be deeper SNPs linking one group to the other.

Their main R1a1 branch was likely from one person a few hundred years back. Some think it may have been a Khazar living in Spain.
I think this quite plausible, much like that one (to three as suggested Sikora et al.) R1b person's descendants expanding quickly prior to 12000ybp (or maybe prior to 6000ybp) in Europe.

AJL
11-26-2013, 10:30 PM
Their main R1a1 branch was likely from one person a few hundred years back. Some think it may have been a Khazar living in Spain.
I think this quite plausible, much like that one (to three as suggested Sikora et al.) R1b person's descendants expanding quickly prior to 12000ybp (or maybe prior to 6000ybp) in Europe.

Yes the MRCA seems to be not much more than 1,000 years, and a plausible candidate for the ancestor of the bulk of this cluster is a single Levite male from Hořovice, southwest of Prague in the the Czech Republic, in the 13th century. There is some oral history that that lineage was previously in Spain. The little documentation we have on Khazars does suggest a few made it to the rabbinical schools of Spain.

alan
11-26-2013, 11:07 PM
I dont know if by basal you mean very basal. Certainly there are very basal R1b clades, especially in Iran and just east where their peaks have been noted. However, between P25* in the Palaeolithic and the copper age clades of m269, M73 and V88 there is essentially no clades. That is a 10 thousand year period. So, there is a gap in our knowledge that will never be closed except for Ancient DNA. Ten thousand years from say 14000-4000BC is such deep time that it is fairly probably that R1b was spread over a wide geography in barely surviving situations. However when it comes to P297 which led ultimately to M269 and M73 the relationship is a little closer. However, M73 is much more common in central Asia, the Urals etc and in academic studies is virtually absent in Iran, the south Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Balkans. It does appear in hobbiest testing in some areas where it doesnt in academic testing but that is due to overwhelming bias to the west and what amounts to an enormous sample that ill pick up well below noise traces in some areas - something that is essentially meaningless. M73 I think is a very underestimated part of the jigsaw. Its by far M269's closest relative. So, any theory on M269 has to take into account M73 IMO. We also need to explain the basically straight line lasting 10000 years between P297 on the one hand and M269 and M73 on the other.

You could say that a position somewhere around the Caspian is probably the best bet for where P297 was located based on current distributions. However, I wouldnt want to bet much on being more specific than that. All the area around the Caspian was late to farming, including Caspian Iran, despite very early farming in the Zagros nearby. I like some of Michal's suggestions of penetration of the north Caspian from the south in the Pluvial, I think drawing on Zvelebil's work. Its interesting although I am not sure that its still supported as I have heard very little about this in recent work.


Yes it is interesting, and there was probably both-way movement over a prolonged time which makes it harder to be conclusive. On the one had there was a Balkan LGM refugium, on the other older archaeology in West Asia. I think there's a good case for some of the I2-subclades and E-V13 coming to West Asia from the Balkans, along with possibly some R1a-Z283, but I can't now R1b coming eastward in any number, for now, when we have no evidence of the basal subclades in the Balkans yet and ample evidence for West Asia.

AJL
11-26-2013, 11:11 PM
M73 is much more common in central Asia, the Urals etc and in academic studies is virtually absent in Iran, the south Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Balkans. It does appear in hobbiest testing in some areas where it doesnt in academic testing but that is due to overwhelming bias to the west

Bias to the west? Do you think this area is overtested?

http://vizachero.com/R1b1/R1b1Distribution.png

jeanL
11-26-2013, 11:24 PM
We do not know this is L23 -- it could be M269*.

This is the problem with interpreting things without looking at actual tested haplogroups that I have just highlighted above.

Unfortunately, the Basque DNA Project is not displaying SNPs.

Well those two haplotypes come from 2 samples of French Basques from the HGDP.

But if you are still wondering, here are clear cut R1b-L23 samples from the Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 study Table-S3 (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/12/molbev.mss091/suppl/DC1)

974

jeanL
11-27-2013, 12:05 AM
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

A couple of caveats:

1-This study you are quoting didn't analyze R1b-L11 directly:




R1b (especially the sublineage defined by the SNP M269, rs9786153) in Western Europe [12,13] and E1b1a (defined by the SNP known variously as M2, sY81, DYS271 or rs9785941) in sub-Saharan Africa

2-The sample size used was very small:




Data

The samples consisted of 21 high-coverage Y-chromosomal sequences downloaded from the Complete Genomics website [19], eight from the E1b1a haplogroup and 13 from the R1b haplogroup. Filtering of the data and generation of a phylogenetic tree from them have been described previously [18]. Eight individuals within the R1b haplogroup were from a three generation pedigree, so in the current work where the simulations assume individuals are unrelated, this pedigree was combined to make a single branch by averaging the number of distinct SNPs in each family member and adding this value to the number of SNPs shared by all of the individuals.

So all the data is coming from 13 individuals, granted the pool of individuals is widely varied from CEU to TSI(Tuscans), to PUR(Puerto Ricans) to MXL(Mexicans), nonetheless, that is a very limited pool of lineages.

3- The authors assumed the following a priori:


In the current study, we accept R1b and E1b1a as lineages that expanded during the Neolithic, and set out to explore, using coalescent simulations, the demographic conditions under which their different phylogenetic structures might be expected to arise.

Bases on this:



aDNA has not yet been very informative for the Y chromosome, although the limited data available show no evidence of pre-Neolithic R1b lineages

Well the limited data shows no evidence for nothing pre-Neolithic in Europe, since not a single lineage has been tested thus far. The only thing the aDNA data shows is that farmings communities in Southern Europe were largely derived from G2a, and to a lesser extent I2, but this data itself is very limited.

4- Their own findings go against a Neolithic expansion of R1b in Europe, instead the expansion appears to be pre-Neolithic.




With these caveats, we can consider how the Y-chromosome-based genetic findings fit with other genetic and archaeological evidence. The Neolithic transition in Europe has been studied extensively by archaeologists. It appeared in Greece approximately 9 KYA and reached the extreme west by approximately 4 KYA [1,2]. The demographic model suggests that the R1b expansion most likely ended before this time, at approximately 12 KYA (Figures 4 and 5), which appears inconsistent with a Neolithic expansion of this lineage, although the lower limit does extend to approximately 6 KYA. We interpret the discrepancy, however, as a limitation of the model. We constrained the parameter values so that R1b could not expand before the estimated TMRCA of the sampled R1b chromosomes [18], and the model favored an immediate expansion of the lineage, hence the expansion at approximately 12 KYA. If we had used the more likely 4 to 5 KYA estimate of the R1b TMRCA from the rho statistic [18], the expansion in the current model would have been placed close to this time, well within the Neolithic and, interestingly, also close to the time of establishment of the major European mtDNA haplogroup, H, approximately 6 KYA [7,8]. The rapidity of the R1b expansion and the large increase in population size are most consistent with migration and population replacement, issues debated by archaeologists but favored by the aDNA data [5-9].

So it seems the only way to make it Neolithic is to put the TMRCA of R1b-M269 at 4 to 5 kya bases on their previous study of 13-R1b lineagea all derived from CEU, ignore the older TMRCA they got on this still small but more varied pool of R1b of 12 KYA. So once more, a priori assumption+circular logic+ignoring.unwanted.TMRCA+small.sample.size+le ap.of.faith==Western Europeans R1b descending from 1-3 men who lived in 4-5 kya, but for the sake of a good Ad Hoc study lets take the rho estimates(Sardinian study +newer slower SNP mutation rates anyone!!!) and make R1b-M269 4000-5000 ybp, and call it a day!!!:D

Generalissimo
11-27-2013, 12:21 AM
It isclear that modern IE languages are connected to both R1a and R1b. PIE might have been a mixture of both as well. However, if only one of the two was originally speaking PIE there is really no scenario that can exist without the other lineage being its direct neighbor in Eastern Europe. So the people arguing for R1b being in Western Europe or Central Europe or R1a being in Central Europe or Asia during the time of PIE are quite wrong.

R1a and R1b didn't have to be neighbors at the PIE timeframe. They could have met up during the Copper Age in Central Europe, possibly after a separation that lasted a few thousand years, and then R1b might have re-expanded again to Western Europe. This scenario does have some support from archeology, dental traits, ancient mtDNA and modern autosomal DNA.

There's some more info on Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic Portuguese mtDNA online, and again it's turned out mostly H and U. These haplogroups seem like a good match for Western European R1b.

https://estudogeral.sib.uc.pt/bitstream/10316/23563/1/I%20BIOANTHROPOLOGICAL%20MEETING.pdf

And keep in mind that Iberia was colonized by maritime groups from the East Mediterranean during early history, so who's to say that the same thing didn't happen during the late Neolithic? All it needed was for one to three men to make it over on a boat (see Sikora et al. 2013).

Humanist
11-27-2013, 01:17 AM
Okay we are making some headway, at least you are admitting Assyrians and Ashkenazi carry R1a although you deny the scientific numbers. That's okay. As for R1a and PIE, R1a Dravidian Brahui and Dravidian loanwords in Sanskrit.

One sample of Assyrians from Iran does not necessarily represent all Assyrians. The Grugni et al. Assyrian data was atypical in some respects. Compare it to the data I have gathered on Assyrian Y-DNA, below:

N=117 (11/12/13)
25.6%-R1b
17.9%-J1
15.4%-T
14.5%-J2
7.7%-E1b1b1
7.7%-G
4.3%-R2a
2.6%-Q1b
1.7%-R1a
0.9%-F
0.9%-L
0.9%-I2

Humanist
11-27-2013, 03:28 AM
http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/MMap_Middle_East_R1b_Tats__.jpg


Without aDNA, this is obviously speculation. But, to give an idea of what peoples lived in the area during the 2nd millennium BCE, and the languages they may have spoken:

SEMITIC
Ugaritic - NW Semitic
Assyrian-Akkadian - East Semitic

UNKNOWN
Hurrian - Hurro-Urartian

INDO-EUROPEAN
Mitanni (elite ?) - Indo-Aryan (?)
Hittite and other Anatolian Indo-European


http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/R1b_ancient_world.png

A related map that I created a few years ago.

AMH = Atlantic Modal Haplotype

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/MapMesopotamia2_mapopb41c.jpg

Táltos
11-27-2013, 05:20 AM
Thanks Humanist, nice to see some Q1b represented.

"One sample of Assyrians from Iran does not necessarily represent all Assyrians. The Grugni et al. Assyrian data was atypical in some respects. Compare it to the data I have gathered on Assyrian Y-DNA, below:

N=117 (11/12/13)
25.6%-R1b
17.9%-J1
15.4%-T
14.5%-J2
7.7%-E1b1b1
7.7%-G
4.3%-R2a
2.6%-Q1b
1.7%-R1a
0.9%-F
0.9%-L
0.9%-I2"

parasar
11-27-2013, 05:34 AM
R1a and R1b didn't have to be neighbors at the PIE timeframe. ...

I find this highly doubtful, if not impossible. R1b had to be among PIE along with R1a. In the past similar Y types stuck together, and there was a time, IMO, that R1b and R1a were similar Y types, both direct SNP and 'background' STR information is telling us that.

Generalissimo
11-27-2013, 06:26 AM
I find this highly doubtful, if not impossible. R1b had to be among PIE along with R1a. In the past similar Y types stuck together, and there was a time, IMO, that R1b and R1a were similar Y types, both direct SNP and 'background' STR information is telling us that.

R1a and R1b are indeed closely related, but there's no reason I can think of that would make them stick together after becoming separate subclaces of R1.

Indeed, the opposite is probably true, because it seems to me that many closely related Y-DNA subclades have clearly disparate geographical ranges, and I think the reason for this is that the populations in which they're found had a hard time competing against each other when expanding, because they were so similar, so they pushed out in different directions.

ADW_1981
11-27-2013, 02:21 PM
A related map that I created a few years ago.

AMH = Atlantic Modal Haplotype



AMH is the original form. If you examine the earliest branching of R1b1* and R1a* you will see it's AMH like. What I find interesting is that both M269* and L23* were both quite successful after having independent mutations which gave DYS393 = 12. However, the former seems much more rare. If that's the case, one could consider that in a migrationist point of view, all of west European R1b *might* have come from a branch similar to Assyrians and Alawites.... The only L23* folks are typically Greeks and Albanians who seem to have DYS393 = 13, but of course they have the DYS385 = 11, 11 motif.

parasar
11-27-2013, 03:04 PM
R1a and R1b are indeed closely related, but there's no reason I can think of that would make them stick together after becoming separate subclaces of R1.

Indeed, the opposite is probably true, because it seems to me that many closely related Y-DNA subclades have clearly disparate geographical ranges, and I think the reason for this is that the populations in which they're found had a hard time competing against each other when expanding, because they were so similar, so they pushed out in different directions.

Well yes, D and E separated and are now found at quite a distance. But that is not the case with R1b and R1a, both are intermingled in Europe and all for the most part speak closely related languages. So we have to assume that they split and then came back together, and perhaps one adopted a language group from the other. I would rather go with the simpler scenario of no separation. Furthermore some of the more divergent types of each is found where the frequency of the other peaks, eg Z93+Z94- and CTS4385 in R1b rich areas.

alan
11-27-2013, 03:16 PM
Then why is R1b today associated more with western IE languages which, other than Tocharian, are normally thought of as the earlier IE branchings? That doesnt fit a late contact theory, a model which probably would have to make it not much earlier than 2600BC when beaker people intruded into central Europe.

Also its not just P312 or L11 as a whole that is associated with IE languages. The Balkans-Armenian grouping is also much better represented by R1b (in the form of L23xL51 and M269* clades) than R1a. You could speculatively say the same about the extinct Anatolian branch. Albanian is most plausibly reconstructed as a displaced Dacian group and they also have a very special position in terms of R1b as the population with the strongest mix of L23xL51 and M269*.

So modern IE associations with R1b doesnt commence with P312. I also think the branching date of pre-proto Celtic and Italic would be too early to associate with P312 beaker people meeting others in central Europe c. 2600BC. Why would this early branch be important enough for some central Europe group to pass on their dialect to beaker people then just disappear? The cultural shift in central Europe c. 2600BC is one of the rise of beaker culture and the decline of corded ware culture so why would the language of the declining culture succeed and the language of the dominant beaker culture disappear. Its not normal for a new dominant group eclipsing an older culture who were actually less advanced to drop their language and adopt that of the natives they were eclipsing. Its all very well Franks, Visigoths etc doing that when they encountered Roman civilisation when they entered Gaul, Spain etc but that is not the scenario when beaker met corded ware. They were on a very similar level and if anything you get the impression that the beaker people were rather more sophisticated operators capable of penetrating societies despite small numbers and able to dictate prestige fashions etc while Corded Ware culture appears more the sort of culture where you only entered new areas by bashing the previous inhabitants in the head with a stone battle axe.


R1a and R1b didn't have to be neighbors at the PIE timeframe. They could have met up during the Copper Age in Central Europe, possibly after a separation that lasted a few thousand years, and then R1b might have re-expanded again to Western Europe. This scenario does have some support from archeology, dental traits, ancient mtDNA and modern autosomal DNA.

There's some more info on Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic Portuguese mtDNA online, and again it's turned out mostly H and U. These haplogroups seem like a good match for Western European R1b.

https://estudogeral.sib.uc.pt/bitstream/10316/23563/1/I%20BIOANTHROPOLOGICAL%20MEETING.pdf

And keep in mind that Iberia was colonized by maritime groups from the East Mediterranean during early history, so who's to say that the same thing didn't happen during the late Neolithic? All it needed was for one to three men to make it over on a boat (see Sikora et al. 2013).

alan
11-27-2013, 03:44 PM
Well I think we need to put it into context. Karet dates R1 to the end of the LGM while Michal pretty convincingly dates it to the start of the LGM. If they didnt immediately split after the R1 defining SNP, certainly within a few centuries they were probably compelled by the formation of the LGM central Asian deserts to live together in roughly the same area until the end of the LGM, either north of south of the desert band which ran from the east Caspian to China.

In such a scenario, LGM conditions would limit their options or motive to move much apart from each other. I would guess from the high amount of very early R1b in north Iran and just east at the same latitude that R1 was located around the Caspian in the LGM. They simply may have adopted different positions along its shore in the LGM and/or been pushed geographically apart by the immediate post-LGM huge expansion of the Caspian which could have pushed people living around its LGM shores somewhere under the present sea into positions deep into west Central Asia and deep into Russia north of the Caspian with others around the south Caspian little effected due to the steep rise of the land there.

Certainly given the lack of expansion of any R1a or b clades during the Neolithic c. 9000-5000BC currently being suggested, and for now accepting the usual dates given to R1, R1a and R1b formation I would put the scenario of the development of marked geographical separation between R1a and b in a pre-farming but post-LGM context, c. 15000-10000BC, a period which also contains the major Caspian expansion when it became several times the size of the present sea.

If that scenario was correct, the LGM home of R1 is under the centre of the Caspian sea today while the positions of those driven out by the post-LGM Caspian expansion at its maxi.um should be indicated by epipalaeolithic/early Mesolithic groups traces on the Caspian maximum shores.


Well yes, D and E separated and are now found at quite a distance. But that is not the case with R1b and R1a, both are intermingled in Europe and all for the most part speak closely related languages. So we have to assume that they split and then came back together, and perhaps one adopted a language group from the other. I would rather go with the simpler scenario of no separation. Furthermore some of the more divergent types of each is found where the frequency of the other peaks, eg Z93+Z94- and CTS4385 in R1b rich areas.

alan
11-27-2013, 03:53 PM
I meant bias to the west of Europe in general.

We now have much better data for maps of P25* or above thanks to the surveys of Iran, the Caucasus, the Kindu Kush etc. The clade has a far higher showing in the north of Iran and to the east than a few below-noise individual points across a wider area from hobbiest testing once suggested. It does now look like the south Caspian area is its peak. As far as I am aware most former R1b1 of old studies in the Levant has now been shown to be V88.


Bias to the west? Do you think this area is overtested?

http://vizachero.com/R1b1/R1b1Distribution.png

alan
11-27-2013, 04:03 PM
I do not see any value at all in these R1b 'all' maps. R1b may date back to the LGM so throwing clades together than branched at various times from 17000BC to 3000BC or after is not a lot better than just creating an R all map and trying to deduce from it. V88 in particular does not share an known SNP with M269 and M73 until you go all the way back to P25 near the beginning for the R1b story, probably back in the late upper Palaeolithic. In all probability P25*, M269/L23* and V88 relate to entirely different phases and radically different peoples who shared little other than Mr P25 perhaps 16000 years ago. They could have come from all sorts of different directions at radically different times to any given spot. That is very deep time- nostratic time in terms of linguistics, so I really think its crazy in this day and age to look at R1b 'all' frequency and try and read its cultural associations.

alan
11-27-2013, 04:07 PM
Unless they are P297 positive then resemblance to AMH would be chance and meaningless as P297 is perhaps 12000 years old while M269 is only 6000. I cannot see a scenario where there are AMH type P25* lines but no P297* lines filling the 6000 years between P297 and M269.


A related map that I created a few years ago.

AMH = Atlantic Modal Haplotype

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/MapMesopotamia2_mapopb41c.jpg

alan
11-27-2013, 04:10 PM
Also, does the AMH actually apply above L51? Genuine question - I am not sure. I thought even L23 was once considered ht35 and something different from AMH.


A related map that I created a few years ago.

AMH = Atlantic Modal Haplotype

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/MapMesopotamia2_mapopb41c.jpg

parasar
11-27-2013, 06:08 PM
Also, does the AMH actually apply above L51? Genuine question - I am not sure. I thought even L23 was once considered ht35 and something different from AMH.


A related map that I created a few years ago.

AMH = Atlantic Modal Haplotype

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/MapMesopotamia2_mapopb41c.jpg



That is my understanding too. The AMH-like map that Humanist posted comports well with the Roman provinces Syria and Armenia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/RomanEmpire_117.svg/800px-RomanEmpire_117.svg.png

AJL
11-27-2013, 06:57 PM
I meant bias to the west of Europe in general.

We now have much better data for maps of P25* or above thanks to the surveys of Iran, the Caucasus, the Kindu Kush etc. The clade has a far higher showing in the north of Iran and to the east than a few below-noise individual points across a wider area from hobbiest testing once suggested. It does now look like the south Caspian area is its peak. As far as I am aware most former R1b1 of old studies in the Levant has now been shown to be V88.

Nope. Some is V88, some is M269, some is L23, some is L51.

alan
11-27-2013, 07:07 PM
Well the V88 being AMH-like must be chance as it doesnt really make phylogenic sense. Maybe someone else can comment on AMH-like in M269 and L23 as STRs are not really my thing. I am better with SNPs.


Nope. Some is V88, some is M269, some is L23, some is L51.

ADW_1981
11-27-2013, 07:40 PM
Well the V88 being AMH-like must be chance as it doesnt really make phylogenic sense. Maybe someone else can comment on AMH-like in M269 and L23 as STRs are not really my thing. I am better with SNPs.

A sample Assyrian haplotype, it is L51-. One could hypothesize that a man carrying a similar genetic signature may have developed the L51+ mutation. That's all I am really arguing. Obviously this man would have been on a different node from the one who carried subsequent mutations such as L277 or L584 which we know exist in west Asian people.

13 24 14 10 11-14 12 12 12 14 13 30


I have seen L51+ in a Palestinian and a Yemenite Arab. They have similar signatures to the L51+ in Europe.

Humanist
11-27-2013, 08:16 PM
Well the V88 being AMH-like must be chance as it doesnt really make phylogenic sense. Maybe someone else can comment on AMH-like in M269 and L23 as STRs are not really my thing. I am better with SNPs.

Who said it is V88?

From a previous post of mine:


Atlantic Modal Haplotype
13-24-14-11-11-14-12-12-12-13-13-29

Druze modal and secondary haplotype (Shlush et al.)
13-24-14-11-xx-xx-12-12-xx-13-13-29
12-24-14-11-xx-xx-12-12-xx-13-13-29

Alawite modal and secondary haplotype (Dönbak et al.)
13-24-14-11-11-15-xx-xx-xx-14-13-30
13-24-14-11-11-15-xx-xx-xx-13-13-29

Assyrian modal haplotype (FTDNA)
13-24-14-10-11-14-12-12-12-14-13-30


What do Assyrians, Alawites, some Druze, and Indo-Europeans have in common, going back, say, 2500-3500 years? Perhaps NW Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranean coast of N Syria and S Turkey.

It is possible that the modal (and secondary) haplotypes observed in Assyrians, Druze, and Alawites, were at one time the paternal lines of Aramaic-speaking Luwians, Hittites, and/or other former IE-speaking peoples.

AJL
11-27-2013, 11:03 PM
There is no "Indo-Europeans", I don't get why you think they are a group of people.

You deny that there were former Indo-European speaking people?

GTC
11-27-2013, 11:06 PM
There is no "Indo-Europeans", I don't get why you think they are a group of people.

It's like the term Anglo-Saxon. It refers to language origin.

Wing Genealogist
11-27-2013, 11:25 PM
Anglo-Saxons exist, they are called the English. Indo-Europeans do not lol

Anglo-Saxon is basically an oxymoron in they were different Germanic tribes who fought one another as much as they fought the native Britons (once they reached the British Isles). It took a few hundred years (as well as the Viking Invasion) for the various factions to unite into what we know of today as England.

GTC
11-28-2013, 01:44 AM
Anglo-Saxons exist, they are called the English. Indo-Europeans do not lol

Read what Wing Genealogist wrote.

Again, Indo-European is a linguistic term. Understand?

GTC
11-28-2013, 01:59 AM
Seems like you need to do some reading, actually. My comment was directed at the application of Indo-European as a people.

You claimed that Anglo-Saxons exist. You were corrected.

Who is claiming that Indo-Eurpoenas existed as a people?

GTC
11-28-2013, 02:12 AM
Modern "English" is derived from Anglo-Saxon.

That's why I said in post #635 that it's a linguistic term.

ADW_1981
11-28-2013, 02:30 PM
Modern "English" is derived from Anglo-Saxon. Go learn history please.

You were correct in your first assertion that Anglo-Saxons were people, just like the earlier people who lived in England who were Britons. English people are inherently these two people. By the time of Alfred these groups were ultimately unified except for the outlier regions. There is no Anglo-Saxon language. Those people would have spoken west Germanic dialects which eventually formed a single language and borrowed a lot of Norman French vocabulary hundreds of years later.

Silesian
11-28-2013, 04:08 PM
One sample of Assyrians from Iran does not necessarily represent all Assyrians. The Grugni et al. Assyrian data was atypical in some respects. Compare it to the data I have gathered on Assyrian Y-DNA, below:

N=117 (11/12/13)
25.6%-R1b
17.9%-J1
15.4%-T
14.5%-J2
7.7%-E1b1b1
7.7%-G
4.3%-R2a
2.6%-Q1b
1.7%-R1a
0.9%-F
0.9%-L
0.9%-I2
Quite the contrary Grugni et al shows the connection between Assyrians and Iran.The data from Assyrian project could be split between ancient Akadian/Aram, and Iranian speaking areas of R1b. The Alwaites, Alevi's are considered as Shia, and by some borderline heretics[Yazdânism- "Kurdish Alawites" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazd%C3%A2nism. They are connected with Iran. The Druze are also not a typical mainstream group, both are sects. The area in your map by the Caspian is an area associated with an elite religious group.Zoroaster- Zaotar-Hotar-Ashvalayana[Indra and the “sons of Brahma.”]

ADW_1981
11-28-2013, 04:18 PM
Quite the contrary Grugni et al shows the connection between Assyrians and Iran.The data from Assyrian project could be split between ancient Akadian/Aram, and Iranian speaking areas of R1b. The Alwaites, Alevi's are considered as Shia, and by some borderline heretics[Yazdânism- "Kurdish Alawites" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazd%C3%A2nism. They are connected with Iran. The Druze are also not a typical mainstream group, both are sects. The area in your map by the Caspian is an area associated with an elite religious group.Zoroaster- Zaotar-Hotar-Ashvalayana[Indra and the “sons of Brahma.”]

Well, R1b is very high among Assyrians anyway you look at it. It's difficult to not see R1b as part of the original group. Consider that the diaspora group in Iran is 40% from a recent study, and to then corroborate it with Humanist's public samples which are a bit lower, but still very frequent.

It seems to be a west to east movement, rather than the reverse.

Silesian
11-28-2013, 05:00 PM
Well, R1b is very high among Assyrians anyway you look at it. It's difficult to not see R1b as part of the original group. Consider that the diaspora group in Iran is 40% from a recent study, and to then corroborate it with Humanist's public samples which are a bit lower, but still very frequent.

It seems to be a west to east movement, rather than the reverse.

Then we would expect this map to be in reverse, R1b [L23x51]high in Phoenician and other diaspora colonies from Levant. Philistines and
f Beit She'an under the new name Scythopolis (Ancient Greek: Σκυθόπολις), possibly named after the Scythian mercenaries were, Indo-European colonies.

http://www.ancient.eu.com/uploads/images/108.jpg

Silesian
11-28-2013, 05:20 PM
It seems to be a west to east movement, rather than the reverse.
It's not the first to postulate R1b west to east movement, we also have the Portugal/Spain/Iberia, Italy refuge.

Also keep in mind, the difference between the distribution between different branches of language.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/holmstedt/Welcome_files/tree.jpg


http://withfriendship.com/images/g/33723/tree-of-semitic-languages.png


Some sources use the term "language isolate" to indicate a branch of a larger family with only one surviving daughter. For instance, Albanian, Armenian and Greek are commonly called Indo-European isolates. While part of the Indo-European family


Albanians (Kosovar) IE (Albanian) 114 _21.1%[7]

Armenians IE (Armenian) 734_32.4%[26]

Greeks (South) IE (Greek) 46 _19.6%[43]

alan
11-28-2013, 06:51 PM
One thing is for sure, R1b had no problems crossing many language barriers.

alan
11-29-2013, 10:08 PM
I totally agree that those in the hobby are well ahead in terms of resolution and also dating but it is of limited use for frequency and often extraordinarily misleading. That is where academic studies are crucial.


Well, then I am afraid you are hooped, because "hobbiest" testing is typically the only one that has compelete subclade information.

{EDIT}
Academic studies still languish way behind FTDNA project testing in their resolution and, sometimes, screening.

parasar
12-06-2013, 02:09 AM
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 .

What is Indo-Aryan about BMAC, that we should consider BMAC as an intermediary, to overcome the fact that Andronovo cannot be connected directly to India? Would it not be better to abandon the Andronovo-Indo connection altogether and go to the Mitanni-Indo one?

Jean M
12-06-2013, 11:44 AM
What is Indo-Aryan about BMAC, that we should consider BMAC as an intermediary..

Have we not discussed this before? Both Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indic borrowed words from an otherwise unattested language. If we look at the vocabulary in question, we see that it includes words which relate to the kind of culture that the BMAC had. It is deduced that the BMAC language was the source. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit

I wonder if the language of the BMAC was related to that of the IVC.

Jean M
12-06-2013, 12:18 PM
Would it not be better to abandon the Andronovo-Indo connection altogether and go to the Mitanni-Indo one?

There is no need to choose between the two. They are entirely compatible. It is generally accepted that the leaders of the Mitanni sprang from a group of Indic-speaking charioteers who took over an existing Hurrian state in the Near East. The earliest chariots are found in Sintashta (2800–1600 BC - the earliest form of Andronovo), which seems to be therefore the source of the invention. Knowledge of chariot-making and the rearing of chariot horses would therefore give an advantage to the people of the Andronovo culture.

However Andronovo is seen as the home of Proto-Indo-Iranian. We need a further step to get to the homeland of Proto-Indic. That step appears to be the move of Andronovo-origin groups into the dying remains of the BMAC c. 1800 BC, where specific vocabulary was absorbed, it seems including the name of the god Indra. That god is among those worshipped by the Mitanni leaders. So picture a war-band from the Proto-Indic homeland in the former BMAC moving westwards, south of the Caspian, into Hurrian territory and taking over from the previous Hurrian leadership c. 1500 BC.

Cross-posted http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1519-Languages-and-Y-DNA-lineages&p=22275&viewfull=1#post22275

parasar
12-06-2013, 03:08 PM
Have we not discussed this before? Both Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indic borrowed words from an otherwise unattested language. If we look at the vocabulary in question, we see that it includes words which relate to the kind of culture that the BMAC had. It is deduced that the BMAC language was the source. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit

I wonder if the language of the BMAC was related to that of the IVC.

It was my thinking that Andronovo and BMAC were quite different with respect to Kurgans , Horses, etc. which were the disconnect between Andronovo and the Indus.

Also at the wikipedia link Indra is listed - "BMAC *indra theonym → Skt. Índra; LAv. Iṇdra daeva's name" when a (supposedly later) 'prakrit' form Indar is seen at Mitanni.

Jean M
12-06-2013, 03:38 PM
It was my thinking that Andronovo and BMAC were quite different...

Yes indeed. You are absolutely right. The BMAC (2300–1700 BC) was an urban society subsisting on irrigation agriculture. That is why the vocabulary borrowed into Proto-Indic is so significant. It includes terms relating to that life-style. When the BMAC proper came to an end, the remnants of its communities were taken over about 1800 BC by a culture known as Tazabag'yad, which had been created around the delta of the River Amu Darya where it reaches the Aral Sea. People who look like Andronovo types had adapted there to irrigation agriculture, learning from the BMAC. Then they took over the remnants of the BMAC itself. This is the mixed culture proposed to be the homeland of Proto-Indic.

newtoboard
12-06-2013, 06:50 PM
Yes indeed. You are absolutely right. The BMAC (2300–1700 BC) was an urban society subsisting on irrigation agriculture. That is why the vocabulary borrowed into Proto-Indic is so significant. It includes terms relating to that life-style. The BMAC proper then came to an end. The remnants of its communities were taken over about 1800 BC by a culture known as Tazabag'yad, which had been created around the delta of the River Amu Darya where it reaches the Aral Sea. People who look like Andronovo types had adapted there to irrigation agriculture, learning from the BMAC. Then they took over the remnants of the BMAC itself. This is the mixed culture proposed to be the homeland of Proto-Indic.

What do you speculate their Y-DNA composition would have looked like by the time they reached South Asia?

Btw is there anything to suggest all of Andronovo is associated with Proto Indic like Michal says?

Jean M
12-06-2013, 07:08 PM
What do you speculate their Y-DNA composition would have looked like by the time they reached South Asia?

I suspect that they acquired some Y-DNA J2 from the BMAC, since this is found in Brahmins together with R1a. http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2005/11/more-on-r1a1-age-and-haplogroup-j2-in.html


is there anything to suggest all of Andronovo is associated with Proto Indic like Michal says?

Not that I am aware of. But why not ask him?

razyn
02-17-2014, 04:26 PM
Unaccustomed as I am to attending workshops in England, I noticed that there's one this week in London at which Mike Hammer is presenting (Thursday and Saturday), pretty much on the topic of this thread. And if you attend Thursday, 12:15 - 13:00, the next hour's workshop is led by Jean Manco. Should be lively:

http://www.whodoyouthinkyouarelive.com/workshop/men-metal-and-recent-re-peopling-western-europe-0

Could somebody please tweet, or whatever, from that conference?

Jean M
02-17-2014, 10:29 PM
... Mike Hammer is presenting .. Could somebody please tweet, or whatever, from that conference?

I want to get there in time to hear the Mike Hammer presentation on Thursday, but can't promise, as we have had flooding affecting the rail line I will be using. Keeping fingers crossed.

greystones22
02-17-2014, 11:12 PM
I want to get there in time to hear the Mike Hammer presentation on Thursday, but can't promise, as we have had flooding affecting the rail line I will be using. Keeping fingers crossed.

Same here, but....
http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/information/media/Disruption-Information/Emergency-Engineering-Works-between-Chesterfield-and-Sheffield/

Generalissimo
02-17-2014, 11:21 PM
I want to get there in time to hear the Mike Hammer presentation on Thursday, but can't promise, as we have had flooding affecting the rail line I will be using. Keeping fingers crossed.

Take some pics if you're allowed to. Although let's hope he doesn't use the Eupedia maps again.

Jean M
02-17-2014, 11:26 PM
Same here, but....

Oh no! Looks bad.

Jean M
02-20-2014, 09:55 PM
Unaccustomed as I am to attending workshops in England, I noticed that there's one this week in London at which Mike Hammer is presenting

Mike Hammer's presentation seemed very similar as the one he gave last year which started this thread. He did pin the R1b influx into/across Europe to the Indo-Europeans. I felt redundant, as I followed him, saying pretty much the same thing, with added archaeology.

alan
02-20-2014, 11:25 PM
Kudos to him for moving his views as evidence emerges instead of feeling like he has to stand by guesses made years ago with little data (as some academics seem to do). I have never understood people who find it really painful to evolve their views as new data emerges. Just seems like megalomania to me.


Mike Hammer's presentation seemed very similar as the one he gave last year which started this thread. He did pin the R1b influx into/across Europe to the Indo-Europeans. I felt redundant, as I followed him, saying pretty much the same thing, with added archaeology.

parasar
02-21-2014, 04:40 PM
Mike Hammer's presentation seemed very similar as the one he gave last year which started this thread. He did pin the R1b influx into/across Europe to the Indo-Europeans. I felt redundant, as I followed him, saying pretty much the same thing, with added archaeology.

Thanks Jean.
Did he give his thoughts as to why R1b (the same logic probably applies for R1a too) is Indo-European?
Also did he revisit differentiation of K in SE Asia and the origin of P?

Jean M
02-21-2014, 09:42 PM
Did he give his thoughts as to why R1b (the same logic probably applies for R1a too) is Indo-European?
Also did he revisit differentiation of K in SE Asia and the origin of P?

He did not have time for either of those things in any detail. On the first point he ran through the reasoning for thinking that the explosion of R is post-Neolithic and talked very briefly about Indo-Europeans and their advantages - horses, swords - in explaining how R came to overwhelm the previous farming haplogroups. After my lecture he raised the point that there seemed some evidence that P was in/from SE Asia (I showed it taking the northern route). We did not have time to thrash this out, I'm afraid.

rms2
02-22-2014, 06:47 PM
How the world turns! Things are sure different today from what they were in 2006, when I got my first 37-marker y-dna test results. I am glad I have lived to see it.

alan
02-22-2014, 09:11 PM
I would caution about seeing language spread as literally emerging at one point with one lineage and the language expanding literally as the lineage expands. I am not saying that didnt happen too but it was no longer like a Neolithic wave of advance into a lightly settled area by the time we reach the late Neolithic/copper/Bronze Age. Society had evolved a long way since the early Neolithic and by then there were elites, trade and networks which operated in a very different wave from a colonising wave of advance. The need to trade and network for metals was likely in many ways as important in terms of social impact as the practical advantage of the metal itself - especially initially. It was also probably the door in for specialist elites and was the initial scenario how small groups could spread so wide into so many diverse territories, apparently without opposition, before massively expanding in new localities.

Outward looking approaches, trade, travel etc must have become a real contrast between the new elites and the ordinary folks who tilled the land. This IMO also totally changed the dynamic in which languages could arrive and evolve. These elites also changed the way yDNA lines expanded from a wave of farmers to a top-down squeeze from elite lineages. These elites are IMO is how yDNA came to have a major east-west divide which do not correlate with the predominantly north-south divide in autosomal DNA which is probably older.

I think languages and dialects evolved partly down to spheres of interaction and networks. Ultimately these would have a geographical aspect and peoples who found themselves within a particular geography would come to speak the language regardless of DNA.


Thanks Jean.
Did he give his thoughts as to why R1b (the same logic probably applies for R1a too) is Indo-European?
Also did he revisit differentiation of K in SE Asia and the origin of P?

Heber
02-22-2014, 09:52 PM
1479
1481
1483
1482

alan
02-23-2014, 12:21 AM
He is using Eupedia maps again. Eupedia may produce OK genetic maps but those are horrible archaeology maps.


1479
1481
1483
1482

Jean M
02-23-2014, 02:12 PM
Mike Hammer is fully employed as the Director of the University of Arizona Genetics Core. Creating presentations from scratch is a time-consuming business. He borrowed some images that came to hand. I'm not surprised.

Tomasso29
02-25-2014, 03:47 AM
Mike Hammer is fully employed as the Director of the University of Arizona Genetics Core. Creating presentations from scratch is a time-consuming business. He borrowed some images that came to hand. I'm not surprised.

Just because creating presentations from scratch is "time-consuming" it does not mean you should go ahead and use maps based on "personal" opinions. A lot of those maps from Eupedia are horrendous when it comes to facts. It just kills the credibility of his presentation imo.

Jean M
02-25-2014, 01:24 PM
It just kills the credibility of his presentation

I suppose it might do, if he had used these maps as anything more than wallpaper, conveying a general impression of a shifting kaleidoscope of cultures. I don't recall his presentation verbatim, but I'm sure I would have noticed had he been led into error by the use of maps with things like "megalithic culture" on them. In the event, I scarcely noticed them. His talk was on genetics, not archaeology. The key point was that R1b and R1a have not been found in ancient DNA before the Copper Age.

alan
02-25-2014, 04:24 PM
To be honest only one map bothered me - that horrible one with beaker, megaliths etc. I have just always disliked the awkward composite nature of it. Its no be deal although I am pretty sure there are a lot better non-amateur maps of copper age Europe he could have taken. Still, its nothing really and isnt really the main point of what he was doing.

Tomasso29
02-25-2014, 06:04 PM
To be honest only one map bothered me - that horrible one with beaker, megaliths etc. I have just always disliked the awkward composite nature of it. Its no be deal although I am pretty sure there are a lot better non-amateur maps of copper age Europe he could have taken. Still, its nothing really and isnt really the main point of what he was doing.

For credibility's sake it is a big deal. For example I noticed this is one of the maps in there:

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

What is it based on exactly? Surely not ancient DNA that's for sure (There's some old R1b found but at least not in that context).

Kopfjäger
02-25-2014, 06:29 PM
For credibility's sake it is a big deal. For example I noticed this is one of the maps in there:

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

What is it based on exactly? Surely not ancient DNA that's for sure (There's some old R1b found but at least not in that context).

It doesn't matter, Tomassino; Mike Hammer is the scientist, not you. I'll listen to what he has to say.

Tomasso29
02-25-2014, 07:37 PM
It doesn't matter, Tomassino; Mike Hammer is the scientist, not you. I'll listen to what he has to say.

I don't care what you listen to, you're entitled to your own opinion just as much as I am.

For the record, scientists can have agendas too, and if some people are too naive to question anything then it's not my problem. I raised an important point about the credibility of the presentation. If he can use maps made up based on some random opinion, what's stopping other people from using the same flawed strategy? I would like to believe that scientists would use material based on actual evidence, but this is obviously not one of those cases.

newtoboard
02-25-2014, 07:46 PM
For credibility's sake it is a big deal. For example I noticed this is one of the maps in there:

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

What is it based on exactly? Surely not ancient DNA that's for sure (There's some old R1b found but at least not in that context).

Eupedia's maps are overly detailed. Its one thing to make a map showing the general migration of a clade but I've seen maps that work out the details, which often disagree with archeology and have no way of being verified due to the paucity of ancient DNA.

rms2
02-25-2014, 07:56 PM
It seems to me Maciamo Hay's maps are based upon his assessment of the evidence of numerous scientific papers with some added speculation of his own. Maybe Dr. Hammer generally agrees with them. One could always go over to Eupedia and ask Maciamo about his maps.

I think this map (http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-migration-map.jpg) (mentioned and linked above) isn't too bad, although one might find fault with some particulars (e.g., I don't think U106 got to the Lower Rhine before the 8th century BC at the very earliest).

vettor
02-26-2014, 09:25 AM
confused

Isn't this what Mr. hammer is talking about?

http://dna-explained.com/2013/11/12/2013-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2/

R-U106 origins in Eastern Germany etc ?


R-U152 origins is modern alsace bordering france and germany areas??

ArmandoR1b
02-26-2014, 11:13 AM
confused

Isn't this what Mr. hammer is talking about?

http://dna-explained.com/2013/11/12/2013-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2/

R-U106 origins in Eastern Germany etc ?


R-U152 origins is modern alsace bordering france and germany areas??

Yes. Why are you confused about that?

alan
02-26-2014, 02:30 PM
I think several things of interest have emerged in recent times


1. SNP counting dating M269 and L23 to c. 6500BC suggests these SNPs are probably just about old enough in theory to have been at least some of the farming waves into Europe.

2. Despite that there is no evidence of M269 among Neolithic farmers in ancient DNA.

3. That this is not just chance of the limited amount of ancient DNA testing seems confirmed by the fact that despite the age of the M269 and L23 SNPs, these lines didnt leave any surviving identifiable clades for 1000 years or ore after the SNPs came into existence. Michal came up with the following age for the surviving clades;

7.6 R1b-L51
7.4 R1b-Z2105
7.2 R1b-M269(xL23)


The SNP counting ages Michal came up for its earlier clade like M269*, Z2105 and L51* seems to centre around c. 5600-5200BC as the time when economic development of the sort that allowed the initial expansion of these lineages beyond mere survival took place.

4. So, it seems that it is not so much the age of M269 and L23 per se that precluded its involvement farming waves but something to do with the subsistence development and geography that meant they were genuinely barely surviving from c. 6500BC-c. 5500BC.

5. Something, at least on a modest level happened around 5500BC to allow the lineage to expand.

6. What is interesting and somewhat surprising is that not only did the two lineage most associated with SE Europe/SW Asia take off at the same time but so did L51*. Why did all these lineage take off at the same time despite their modern major differences in distribution? OK I understand L51* is a very small lineage so its maybe best not to push that angle too much. However, it remains that M269 and derived clades seem to have taken off in the same broad period of c. 5500-5200BC after perhaps 1000 years of not much happening between the SNPs and the modern surviving clades.

7. The geography of the older M269 clades points towards the Balkans, SW Asia etc today. However, the delayed expansion of 1000 years into existing clades after the main Neolithic pulse into Europe, archaeological knowledge of the very early take up of farming in SW Asia, Anatolia etc and the lack of M269 in European Neolithic ancient DNA combine to make SW Asia/Anatolia a very poor fit and unlikely as the original position of M269 and L23.

8. The only other area with a significant amount of these early clades today is the Balkans (and Armenians). Now I do not for one moment think that modern distribution is anything like that of 5500-5000BC when M269 and L23 seem to have reached some level of expansion beyond survival. I especially feel that using modern populations as proxies are hopeless in formerly nomadic areas.

9. However, as the major modern concentration of the oldest M269 clades, the Balkans is worth looking at. It of course has a very complex history and displacement must have been rife there since the Neolithic so modern distributions should not be taken too literally. OK, the Balkans recieved farming in various stages. They are mainly too old to be associated with R1b and the fact the Balkans was a major stepping stone in the farming settlement of most of Europe means that the lack of R1b in ancient DNA is probably telling us that the SW Asians who settled the Balkans probably did not carry M269.

10. So, to me, the only Balkans-origin model for M269 would be if there was a group of late hunters there carrying that line who were absorbed by farming at ones stage. It seems to have happened with I so it doesnt seem impossible for M269. The early dates for Cardial in the Adriatic Balkans also makes it seem very unlikely that M269 was involved. On the surface it also looks unlikely to have happened in the Koros culture of Hungary (variants of which are Cris of Romania and Starcevo of the west-central Balkans) because that is thought to be ancestral to Lineabandkeramik which looks to be R1b-free judging by ancient DNA. However, drift etc means it cannot be totally ruled out. The Starcevo variant is thought to be oldest with expansion east from the west-central Balkans eventually reaching Moldova as the most easterly expansion of Cris. The so-called Balkans-Anatolian cultures also seem unlikely because Anatolia seems an unlikely place for M269 and its ancestors to have delayed expanding so late. In general it is difficult on archaeological and DNA grounds to see a scenario for M269 to have expanded from hunters absorbed into farming in the Balkans although it cannot be ruled out entirely.

11. I think this little review ultimately makes me feel that R1b in a Balkans context is unlikely to have been absorbed into farming in the Cardial, Cris-Koros-Starcevo or the Anatolian-linked cultures there. If it was absorbed into farming, I would feel it tends to point to a late absorbtion from local hunters perhaps with Cuc-Trypole phase when it met western end steppe groups. The Bug-Dniester culture is thought by some to have roots in the Kukrek-Grebeniki-cultures (who I have identified as the most westerly pressure microblade groups at that sort of latitude) as is the
Surskaja culture. I would feel at present that M269's origins are best sought in that area where hunters were interacting with farming around the Dniester, Dnieper etc around 5000BCish. Ultimately the Sredny Stog culture had roots in these west end steppe cultures owed something to these interactions. Just how complex the cultural mix and evolution in these sort of zones (very much complicated by the fluctuating viability of the environment) can be seen in this paper on Surskaja culture

http://www.academia.edu/1538135/Kotova_N._Chronology_and_Periodization_of_the_Surs kaja_Neolithic_Culture._Studia_Archaeologica_et_Me diaevalia_-T.X.-_Bratislava_2011

I should probably add for more R1a interested people that I tend to see R1a as being at the eastern end of the western steppes and that their apparently significantly later expansion is due to slower take up of farming and ultimately their take off was especially driven by the arrival of the wheel and mobile pastoralism, Yamnaya etc c. 3300BC.

newtoboard
02-26-2014, 03:05 PM
I think several things of interest have emerged in recent times


1. SNP counting dating M269 and L23 to c. 6500BC suggests these SNPs are probably just about old enough in theory to have been at least some of the farming waves into Europe.

2. Despite that there is no evidence of M269 among Neolithic farmers in ancient DNA.

3. That this is not just chance of the limited amount of ancient DNA testing seems confirmed by the fact that despite the age of the M269 and L23 SNPs, these lines didnt leave any surviving identifiable clades for 1000 years or ore after the SNPs came into existence. Michal came up with the following age for the surviving clades;

7.6 R1b-L51
7.4 R1b-Z2105
7.2 R1b-M269(xL23)


The SNP counting ages Michal came up for its earlier clade like M269*, Z2105 and L51* seems to centre around c. 5600-5200BC as the time when economic development of the sort that allowed the initial expansion of these lineages beyond mere survival took place.

4. So, it seems that it is not so much the age of M269 and L23 per se that precluded its involvement farming waves but something to do with the subsistence development and geography that meant they were genuinely barely surviving from c. 6500BC-c. 5500BC.

5. Something, at least on a modest level happened around 5500BC to allow the lineage to expand.

6. What is interesting and somewhat surprising is that not only did the two lineage most associated with SE Europe/SW Asia take off at the same time but so did L51*. Why did all these lineage take off at the same time despite their modern major differences in distribution? OK I understand L51* is a very small lineage so its maybe best not to push that angle too much. However, it remains that M269 and derived clades seem to have taken off in the same broad period of c. 5500-5200BC after perhaps 1000 years of not much happening between the SNPs and the modern surviving clades.

7. The geography of the older M269 clades points towards the Balkans, SW Asia etc today. However, the delayed expansion of 1000 years into existing clades after the main Neolithic pulse into Europe, archaeological knowledge of the very early take up of farming in SW Asia, Anatolia etc and the lack of M269 in European Neolithic ancient DNA combine to make SW Asia/Anatolia a very poor fit and unlikely as the original position of M269 and L23.

8. The only other area with a significant amount of these early clades today is the Balkans (and Armenians). Now I do not for one moment think that modern distribution is anything like that of 5500-5000BC when M269 and L23 seem to have reached some level of expansion beyond survival. I especially feel that using modern populations as proxies are hopeless in formerly nomadic areas.

9. However, as the major modern concentration of the oldest M269 clades, the Balkans is worth looking at. It of course has a very complex history and displacement must have been rife there since the Neolithic so modern distributions should not be taken too literally. OK, the Balkans recieved farming in various stages. They are mainly too old to be associated with R1b and the fact the Balkans was a major stepping stone in the farming settlement of most of Europe means that the lack of R1b in ancient DNA is probably telling us that the SW Asians who settled the Balkans probably did not carry M269.

10. So, to me, the only Balkans-origin model for M269 would be if there was a group of late hunters there carrying that line who were absorbed by farming at ones stage. It seems to have happened with I so it doesnt seem impossible for M269. The early dates for Cardial in the Adriatic Balkans also makes it seem very unlikely that M269 was involved. On the surface it also looks unlikely to have happened in the Koros culture of Hungary (variants of which are Cris of Romania and Starcevo of the west-central Balkans) because that is thought to be ancestral to Lineabandkeramik which looks to be R1b-free judging by ancient DNA. However, drift etc means it cannot be totally ruled out. The Starcevo variant is thought to be oldest with expansion east from the west-central Balkans eventually reaching Moldova as the most easterly expansion of Cris. The so-called Balkans-Anatolian cultures also seem unlikely because Anatolia seems an unlikely place for M269 and its ancestors to have delayed expanding so late. In general it is difficult on archaeological and DNA grounds to see a scenario for M269 to have expanded from hunters absorbed into farming in the Balkans although it cannot be ruled out entirely.

11. I think this little review ultimately makes me feel that R1b in a Balkans context is unlikely to have been absorbed into farming in the Cardial, Cris-Koros-Starcevo or the Anatolian-linked cultures there. If it was absorbed into farming, I would feel it tends to point to a late absorbtion from local hunters perhaps with Cuc-Trypole phase when it met western end steppe groups. The Bug-Dniester culture is thought by some to have roots in the Kukrek-Grebeniki-cultures (who I have identified as the most westerly pressure microblade groups at that sort of latitude) as is the
Surskaja culture. I would feel at present that M269's origins are best sought in that area where hunters were interacting with farming around the Dniester, Dnieper etc around 5000BCish. Ultimately the Sredny Stog culture had roots in these west end steppe cultures owed something to these interactions. Just how complex the cultural mix and evolution in these sort of zones (very much complicated by the fluctuating viability of the environment) can be seen in this paper on Surskaja culture

http://www.academia.edu/1538135/Kotova_N._Chronology_and_Periodization_of_the_Surs kaja_Neolithic_Culture._Studia_Archaeologica_et_Me diaevalia_-T.X.-_Bratislava_2011

I should probably add for more R1a interested people that I tend to see R1a as being at the eastern end of the western steppes and that their apparently significantly later expansion is due to slower take up of farming and ultimately their take off was especially driven by the arrival of the wheel and mobile pastoralism, Yamnaya etc c. 3300BC.

Very well thought out post but I can't wrap my head around the idea that Iranian/Central Asian M269(xL23) and L23 is derived from the steppe or Balkans. That seems very unlikely to me but Armenian, Anatolian, Mesopotamian, Levantine R1b being derived from the Balkans and steppe seems likely.

parasar
02-26-2014, 03:20 PM
...

3. That this is not just chance of the limited amount of ancient DNA testing seems confirmed by the fact that despite the age of the M269 and L23 SNPs, these lines didnt leave any surviving identifiable clades for 1000 years or ore after the SNPs came into existence. Michal came up with the following age for the surviving clades;

7.6 R1b-L51
7.4 R1b-Z2105
7.2 R1b-M269(xL23)

...

Where is the evidence from Italy, Greece, the Balkans? The people living in these regions were distinctly different from the La Brana/Motala type.
We need that to confirm absence of R1b from South-SW* Europe in the period at issue.

*Edit: SE

Tomasso29
02-26-2014, 03:38 PM
Very well thought out post but I can't wrap my head around the idea that Iranian/Central Asian M269(xL23) and L23 is derived from the steppe or Balkans. That seems very unlikely to me but Armenian, Anatolian, Mesopotamian, Levantine R1b being derived from the Balkans and steppe seems likely.

R-L23 around the steppe area is quite uncommon so unless ancient DNA reveals something, I think it's either Anatolia or Balkans where it started. From there the obvious and probable easier expansion was to head out west or for some deeper into West Asia rather than deal with the undesirable environment in the steppes.

ADW_1981
02-26-2014, 03:39 PM
Where is the evidence from Italy, Greece, the Balkans? The people living in these regions were distinctly different from the La Brana/Motala type.
We need that to confirm absence of R1b from South-SW Europe in the period at issue.

Certainly, and I think on the discussion of EEF a lot is wrapped into this component. When it's split 3 ways, all non-African ancestry - which is not north European hunter gatherer and not 24,000 year old Siberian seems to fit into this component. It's possible that R1b may have been lingering in southern Europe and not spread north of the Alps until the population grew, or, this R1b population may have been a foreign element to Europe since after the neolithic expansions of the Middle East.

newtoboard
02-26-2014, 03:50 PM
R-L23 around the steppe area is quite uncommon so unless ancient DNA reveals something, I think it's either Anatolia or Balkans where it started. From there the obvious and probable easier expansion was to head out west or for some deeper into West Asia rather than deal with the undesirable environment in the steppes.

So what? Are Ukranians the best representations of ancient steppe inhabitants? They are a mixture of Central/Northeast European and Balkan elements imo. By your logic the steppe was abundant in M458, I2a-DIN and E-V13. Unlikely.

Tomasso29
02-26-2014, 04:01 PM
So what? Are Ukranians the best representations of ancient steppe inhabitants? They are a mixture of Central/Northeast European and Balkan elements imo. By your logic the steppe was abundant in M458, I2a-DIN and E-V13. Unlikely.

All I'm saying is if R-L23 was the norm around the steppe area like M17 for example, it would have traveled all across the Asian steppes and be present in regular numbers among the modern populations living around Central Asia, but this is not the case.

It's actually quite easy to speculate that L23 among modern Ukrainians is a gene wave from the Balkans, after all the same can be said for haplogroup I2a found in those regions.

newtoboard
02-26-2014, 04:11 PM
All I'm saying is if R-L23 was the norm around the steppe area like M17 for example, it would have traveled all across the Asian steppes and be present in regular numbers among the modern populations living around Central Asia, but this is not the case.



Same logic could be used for all European R1a as well then.

Tomasso29
02-26-2014, 04:14 PM
Same logic could be used for all European R1a as well then.

In what way?

newtoboard
02-26-2014, 04:25 PM
In what way?

None of the R1a varieties on/or near the steppe today exists in Central Asia. If the frequency of R1b-L23 in Central Asia is probably less than 2%, the frequency of European R1a is even lower than that. My point is Ukranians don't represent the ancient steppe inhabitants or even the ancient forest steppe inhabitants who imo were mostly Baltic speakers (at least east of the Dnieper).

Tomasso29
02-26-2014, 04:38 PM
None of the R1a varieties on/or near the steppe today exists in Central Asia. If the frequency of R1b-L23 in Central Asia is probably less than 2%, the frequency of European R1a is even lower than that. My point is Ukranians don't represent the ancient steppe inhabitants or even the ancient forest steppe inhabitants who imo were mostly Baltic speakers (at least east of the Dnieper).

Ditto, though this is a different subject you can see why I think an earlier R1a1a separation might have happened (This was an opinion of mine in a different thread). Back to this topic, yes that same logic can apply though unlike R1b, R1a is quite frequent across the steppes and seems to have an actual strong presence even if it's not the same as the European R1a (Earlier ancestors).

I'm not saying that you can't find European lineages in Asia or the other way around. I'm just saying that most people would not want to live in such environments.

alan
02-26-2014, 05:43 PM
Very well thought out post but I can't wrap my head around the idea that Iranian/Central Asian M269(xL23) and L23 is derived from the steppe or Balkans. That seems very unlikely to me but Armenian, Anatolian, Mesopotamian, Levantine R1b being derived from the Balkans and steppe seems likely.

It may not have come from the Balkans. M269 would not appear to have been involved in many of the Balkans farmer waves for reasons outlined above so I essentially think it was only when farming influences reached the Dniester-Dnieper zone that hunters there may have benefited from farming and expanded demographically in a modest but permanent way. All that really says is M269 and also L23 may have lived for 1000 years at the western end of the steppes perhaps in the area between the Dniester and Azov/Dnieper before actual farmers started to infiltrate from the Balkans c. 5000BC or a little after.

In fact the whole history of those cultures like Kukrek, Grebiniki etc in the period 7000-5000BC straddles a fairly wide area of the western steppes, including areas pretty close to the NW Caucasus. There clearly was a native hunting-farming-fisher element among the complex mix of peoples encapsulated in the Maykop phenomenon. So, its not impossible that the Maykop links could have brought some m269(well L23 really) through the well established Maykop trail that led from the NW Caucasus all the way to NW Iran. Sometimes too much attention is paid to the exotic elite aspects of Maykop with its probably Iranian influences and it tends to get lost that in addition there were farmers in the lower hills and also very steppe-hunter-fisher like peoples too. It was apparently a complex mix and if I am right that M269 originated in groups who had periods in areas like Azov etc, it is very easy to see some of it being incorporated into Maykop - a network that may have made dispersal of genes at least into NW Iran rather easy. Its also often contended that Maykop's networking extended into northern Mesopotamia although it now seems more likely it was mainly through Iran and possibly Turkmenistan.

The same substrates were apparently involved in a complex of cultures that ultimately led to Sredny Stog and other cultures in the west end of the steppe and Sredny Stog is known to have spilled into the Balkans a little before 4000BC. Sredny Stog looks rather like a network to me rather than just a simple cultural block per se. Maykop too fits into that sort of category and contacts with NW Iran in its genesis probably commenced not long after 4000BC too - the links southwards being older than the late Maykop further expansion north into the steppes c. 3500BC. So, it is possible around 4000BC that M269 and L23 groups who had become part of the Sredny Stog and Maykop network could have almost simultaneously trickled into both the Balkans and NW Iran. That the latter happened is not conjecture based on Maykop metalwork - there are actual Maykop barrows in NW Iran apparently dating to around 3500BC.

I think the concept of how a pair of networks could move lineages around is probably more realistic than any large scale movement models when we are talking about the pre-Yamnaya period c. 4200-3500BC. I think these pre-wheel era movements were largely related to lineages controlling metal supply and quite different from the larger scale mobile wagon pastoralist movements into the Balkans and Danube areas under Yamnaya (which I think now were likely R1a dominated). I think that difference in modus operandi likely continued outside the steppes in Europe and may be the reason for the contrasting patterns of R1b and a and also the more baffling non-wave-like patterns that R1b displays compared to R1a.

As for M73, I think I am comfortable now to think it was a branch of P297 that always was more eastern and simply had not made the journey as far west as M269. I have identified the spread recently with the appearance of microblade groups in eastern Europe around 10000BC and after and M269 probably with the most westerly groups Kukrek and Greneniki. If that isnt just pie in the sky, I would simply assume that M73 was descended from a branch of the same wave who never made it much past the south end of the Urals, branching off from the future M269 line perhaps around 10000BC. I would think this is a lot more plausible than try and explain them as a phantom group who came from somewhere else as there just does not seem to be a convincing case for M73 coming from anywhere south of the Pontic Caspian or the Balkans or even Ukraine. My looking at M73 at the east end of the steppes showed me that the only M73 in Altai is from a group who are known to have retreated from some point further west in south-west Siberia and the nearby steppe.

So, I also do not any longer see M73 in the eastern end of the steppes as original. I could be wrong in this reassessment but I think M73 was probably a group that was settled somewhere where the urals, SW Siberia and the west end of the Asia steppe come together and probably in the main that is where they stayed before they were shunted around in later times by Turks etc. That is not to say that some could not also have been shunted around in earlier times too by other west-east groups like Afansievo but I wouldnt push that hard as its relatedness to Yamnaya (very close brother culture) suggests more a link with R1a as does Tarim if it is related to Afanasievo. In general, I have come to the conclusion that R1a dominated and was the overwhelming beneficiary of the innovation of mobile pastoralism in wagons.

That said, M73 was potentially close to some of their eastwards path and also M269, if linked to Sredny Stog, once settled as far as the Don and networked to the Volga-Urals c. 4500BC and may have had a small presence in the area where Yamnaya arose. Same with Maykop groups who had a steppe presence from c. 3500BC. Both groups may have potentially had metallurgical skills and contacts useful to groups around the Volga Urals who were developing local metallurgical and mining operations so I still wouldnt rule out a small element of M269 mixed in with Yamnaya and Afansievo.

alan
02-26-2014, 06:27 PM
I think the amount of time and space we have to play with in terms of steppe prehistory means that we absolutely cannot say that its unlikely for a lineage to move west but not east.

Steppe groups ranged over vast areas and before 3300bc and the use of the wheel for mobile pastoralism these groups were isolated from each other in river valleys due to the vast unusable dry steppe between the valleys. So there was no homogeneity until Yamnaya, the wheel etc. A lot of steppe history is pre-Yamanya. Just because a group goes west from the western steppe does not mean it also goes east. Linguistics shows this for a start. Some groups clearly were unidirectional and had preferred environments and different motives.

Most importantly in terms of hard evidence from archaeology, the westward flow of steppe peoples started as early as 4300BC with the Stedny Stog derived Suvorovo groups but there was no eastward movement until Afansievo around 1000 years later. Indeed the lack of the wheel may have meant that other than a few intrepid traders crossing between river valleys in the western steppe, moving into the eastern steppe may have had no attraction at all and may simply have not been feasible.

So, the answer could be simply one of chronology (although with a geographical aspect too) - R1b made its moves at the time 4300-3300BC when only movement west took place. If R1b was linked to Sredny Stog then then the route west was one that they had taken many times before for many centuries as part of the metalwork trade with the Balkans. There is also a strong possibility that M269 was located west of the Don IMO while R1a may have been more around the Volga. That also would be important as the early westward-only steppe waves originated mainly from the Dnieper and perhaps Don areas while the Yamanaya waves originated further east.

Finally, there is a massive difference in what your destination environment would be if you were located in the area between the Dnieper and Volga c. 4300-3300BC and were considering turning east or west. Move west of this area and you would enter a settled farming world. Turn east and you entered a place devoid of any population other than pockets of hunters with seemingly infinate grasslands although requiring the ability to live very mobile lifestyles. These are enormous differences and randomness or even waves both west and east cannot be expected.


All I'm saying is if R-L23 was the norm around the steppe area like M17 for example, it would have traveled all across the Asian steppes and be present in regular numbers among the modern populations living around Central Asia, but this is not the case.

It's actually quite easy to speculate that L23 among modern Ukrainians is a gene wave from the Balkans, after all the same can be said for haplogroup I2a found in those regions.

newtoboard
02-26-2014, 07:28 PM
- It seems like M73 is a perfect fit for either Botai and/or Keltiminar. These were cultures with pastoralist and hunter-gatherer lifestyles respectively and likely not related to West/Central Asian Neolithic cultures. I can’t think of any other lineage that fits besides R2 but that likely retreated south and is pretty rare in North Central Asia anyways. So M73 might have been an element carried eastwards by Afanasievo-whose roots may lie in the Repin culture of the middle-upper Don region but wasn’t the lineage associated with Repin. But on the other hand there is no R1a in East-Central Asia and South Siberia that can’t ultimately be traced back to ancient Indo-Iranian speakers or events related to the Russian colonization of Siberia. One hypothesis would be that the original paternal lineage of Afanasievo and the Tocharians doesn’t exist anymore. This very well could be the case. Iranian speakers only lived around the edge of the Tarim but their lineages might have entered the Tocharian gene pool and been selected for. In the other direction Tocharians were under pressure from Altaic nomads. Given the low population densities as well as arable land in the Tarim, the idea that no Tocharian paternal lineages survive is quite possible. Or maybe the original Tocharian lineage was R1a2 which I believe has been found in the region of Tibet bordering the Tarim. I suspect only ancient DNA will solve this issue.

-I disagree that Turks were the ones who shifted M73 east. Like you said Afanasievo is a good candidate. Andronovo is an even better candidate. If M73 existed in the region you are talking about (which is basically NW Kazakhstan and surrounds) up until the Turks it would be found in Europe, the Caucasus and West Asia. This region exerted significant influence on the formation of Timber-Grave and related cultures in Ukraine so we would have likely seen some M73 move with them into Anatolia and the Caucasus (where M73 should be distributed evenly as opposed to mostly among Turkic groups). This is also the region where the Alans originated. So I suppose we should see some M73 among Ossetians but this is probably not a valid argument given the Mongol destruction of the Kingdom of Alania could in theory have wiped out M73 among them (like it likely did to R1a). I guess verifying this would require testing Alanian kurgans in the Caucasus region.

-Sredny Stog had multiple influences if I recall including Dnieper-Donets, Bug-Dniester and Khvalynsk/Samara (which was associated with the introduction of new burial and funeral practices) so it was likely a mixed culture although it could have had more R1a in the North and East and more R1b in the south. So R1b was probably linked with Sredny Stog but Sredny Stog was likely associated with both R1a and R1b and maybe even I. So imo M269 was located west of the Donets (maybe with its’ strongest concentration in the Crimea and near the Dniester) and R1a both east and west of this region of the Donets (probably bounded by the Oder, Carpathians, Urals and Dvina river).

Tomasso29
02-26-2014, 07:57 PM
I think the amount of time and space we have to play with in terms of steppe prehistory means that we absolutely cannot say that its unlikely for a lineage to move west but not east

It's unlikely based on the current distribution of these lineages, and while I understand that current distribution may very well differ from what the situation was like a few thousand years ago, unfortunately that's all we have at this point.

Everything you're writing down is simply a story you're obviously imagining based on your personal opinion. But without any actual proof, anyone can write down random stories based on their thoughts. I could sit here and say haplogroup R originated in Southeast Asia and my opinion and view would be just as valid as all the stuff you're writing down.

alan
02-26-2014, 08:54 PM
By all means disagree or critique it but I dont think its very fair to just say I am purely using imagination (although imagination is not a dirty word and is vital even is science). I pool everything I know about archaeological evidence with many years interest in DNA when coming up with hypothesis. I gave reasoning based on a lot of archaeological evidence, SNP counting based SNP dates and clade dates. I gave a fair bit of detail as to my reasoning. Every deduction when put into plain language/prose is a 'story'. Its just my current opinion and I am not saying I am right or have the answers. However, I went to some lengths to set out my reasoning which took some time.


It's unlikely based on the current distribution of these lineages, and while I understand that current distribution may very well differ from what the situation was like a few thousand years ago, unfortunately that's all we have at this point.

Everything you're writing down is simply a story you're obviously imagining based on your personal opinion. But without any actual proof, anyone can write down random stories based on their thoughts. I could sit here and say haplogroup R originated in Southeast Asia and my opinion and view would be just as valid as all the stuff you're writing down.

Tomasso29
02-26-2014, 09:19 PM
By all means disagree or critique it but I dont think its very fair to just say I am purely using imagination (although imagination is not a dirty word and is vital even is science). I pool everything I know about archaeological evidence with many years interest in DNA when coming up with hypothesis. I gave reasoning based on a lot of archaeological evidence, SNP counting based SNP dates and clade dates. I gave a fair bit of detail as to my reasoning. Every deduction when put into plain language/prose is a 'story'. Its just my current opinion and I am not saying I am right or have the answers. However, I went to some lengths to set out my reasoning which took some time.

Besides disagreeing with your methods, I have no issues with your opinions. After all you're not pretending that these are facts so it's all cool, keep on speculating :)

alan
02-26-2014, 09:43 PM
All definitely possible. That is a good point about M73. It really does seem restricted in the Caucasus to Turkic groups and it didnt seem to pass through the Caucasus into SW Asia or west of the Dniester in anything beyond trace amounts. On the other hand in a big study the only Altai group with M73 was in north Altai and appears to have come from somewhere to the west although exactly where seems impossible to be sure as the particular group had a very wide sphere of influence before their retreat to Altai. I suppose that points to somewhere in the long stretch of land between the south end of the Urals/Caspian and Altai is where it was located. I wouldnt feel much confidence as to longitude or latitude. Botai is a definate possibility.

The other thing that I always feel the need to try to take into account is M73's relatively close ancestry to M269 with a shared ancestor maybe c. 10000BC or earlier. Its not simple to untangle that period. P322 on this article makes some interesting observations about the Mesolithic in central Asia and possible Ural-north Khazak links in microblade traditions.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qjm8IbYgnmAC&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=microblades+kazakhstan&source=bl&ots=YS6dC5yH-A&sig=s5ZgwijzjceOwnku-nQnwxUwRFI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eFsOU8_sNMKThgf4moGwBw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=microblades%20kazakhstan&f=false


- It seems like M73 is a perfect fit for either Botai and/or Keltiminar. These were cultures with pastoralist and hunter-gatherer lifestyles respectively and likely not related to West/Central Asian Neolithic cultures. I can’t think of any other lineage that fits besides R2 but that likely retreated south and is pretty rare in North Central Asia anyways. So M73 might have been an element carried eastwards by Afanasievo-whose roots may lie in the Repin culture of the middle-upper Don region but wasn’t the lineage associated with Repin. But on the other hand there is no R1a in East-Central Asia and South Siberia that can’t ultimately be traced back to ancient Indo-Iranian speakers or events related to the Russian colonization of Siberia. One hypothesis would be that the original paternal lineage of Afanasievo and the Tocharians doesn’t exist anymore. This very well could be the case. Iranian speakers only lived around the edge of the Tarim but their lineages might have entered the Tocharian gene pool and been selected for. In the other direction Tocharians were under pressure from Altaic nomads. Given the low population densities as well as arable land in the Tarim, the idea that no Tocharian paternal lineages survive is quite possible. Or maybe the original Tocharian lineage was R1a2 which I believe has been found in the region of Tibet bordering the Tarim. I suspect only ancient DNA will solve this issue.

-I disagree that Turks were the ones who shifted M73 east. Like you said Afanasievo is a good candidate. Andronovo is an even better candidate. If M73 existed in the region you are talking about (which is basically NW Kazakhstan and surrounds) up until the Turks it would be found in Europe, the Caucasus and West Asia. This region exerted significant influence on the formation of Timber-Grave and related cultures in Ukraine so we would have likely seen some M73 move with them into Anatolia and the Caucasus (where M73 should be distributed evenly as opposed to mostly among Turkic groups). This is also the region where the Alans originated. So I suppose we should see some M73 among Ossetians but this is probably not a valid argument given the Mongol destruction of the Kingdom of Alania could in theory have wiped out M73 among them (like it likely did to R1a). I guess verifying this would require testing Alanian kurgans in the Caucasus region.

-Sredny Stog had multiple influences if I recall including Dnieper-Donets, Bug-Dniester and Khvalynsk/Samara (which was associated with the introduction of new burial and funeral practices) so it was likely a mixed culture although it could have had more R1a in the North and East and more R1b in the south. So R1b was probably linked with Sredny Stog but Sredny Stog was likely associated with both R1a and R1b and maybe even I. So imo M269 was located west of the Donets (maybe with its’ strongest concentration in the Crimea and near the Dniester) and R1a both east and west of this region of the Donets (probably bounded by the Oder, Carpathians, Urals and Dvina river).

parasar
02-27-2014, 04:17 AM
It's unlikely based on the current distribution of these lineages, and while I understand that current distribution may very well differ from what the situation was like a few thousand years ago, unfortunately that's all we have at this point.

Everything you're writing down is simply a story you're obviously imagining based on your personal opinion. But without any actual proof, anyone can write down random stories based on their thoughts. I could sit here and say haplogroup R originated in Southeast Asia and my opinion and view would be just as valid as all the stuff you're writing down.

For mtDNA R - that actually would be a very valid proposition. :) Y-R, that is also possible, but from modern distribution (or lack thereof) of Y-R types in SE Asia, it is difficult to imagine its origin in SE Asia.

GailT
02-27-2014, 04:33 AM
Everything you're writing down is simply a story you're obviously imagining based on your personal opinion. But without any actual proof, anyone can write down random stories based on their thoughts. I could sit here and say haplogroup R originated in Southeast Asia and my opinion and view would be just as valid as all the stuff you're writing down.

Alan developed a well reasoned hypothesis base on data. That's very different from making up random stories based on nothing but fantasy. It sounds like you are taking a very postmodernist view, that all stories are equally valid, whether they are based on evidence or not. If you disagree with Alan's methods, what do you propose? Should we not say anything and wait for the certain proof to be revealed? I doubt that we will ever get that. In the end, we might have nothing but more plausible and less plausible theories.

Generalissimo
02-27-2014, 05:48 AM
Hammer shouldn't be using maps from Eupedia. It almost makes him look like a Eupedia affiliated spokesman, because that's where most of his visuals are from. Has anyone really checked whether those maps are beyond reproach? I know that Humanist has some reservations about them.

And we're still no closer to finding out when and how R1b first entered Western Europe.

Tomasso29
02-27-2014, 06:20 AM
Alan developed a well reasoned hypothesis base on data. That's very different from making up random stories based on nothing but fantasy. It sounds like you are taking a very postmodernist view, that all stories are equally valid, whether they are based on evidence or not. If you disagree with Alan's methods, what do you propose? Should we not say anything and wait for the certain proof to be revealed? I doubt that we will ever get that. In the end, we might have nothing but more plausible and less plausible theories.

I'm not sure what data he's using but let's just say that neither ancient DNA that we have nor do the current distributions fit with his hypothesis. What do I propose? I already said my opinion on R-L23 and I also mentioned that my opinion is based on the lack of ancient DNA and current distribution and diversity of the lineage.

Humanist
02-27-2014, 06:36 AM
I know that Humanist has some reservations about them.

I cannot speak for his European distributions, but one thing I have reservations about are his ME distributions. There are significant differences between Arab/Muslim and minority Y-DNA frequencies (e.g. J1 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1091-Euphrates-demographics-change-only-with-the-Mongols&p=30764&viewfull=1#post30764), T, Q1b, R1b, etc.). There are other qualms that I have with his maps, such as recent total or near exterminations of populations in certain parts of the region, and its effects on the demographics of the area, and how this is not at all considered in his maps. I do not believe that is the best way to make sense of the currently available data.

newtoboard
02-27-2014, 12:50 PM
All definitely possible. That is a good point about M73. It really does seem restricted in the Caucasus to Turkic groups and it didnt seem to pass through the Caucasus into SW Asia or west of the Dniester in anything beyond trace amounts. On the other hand in a big study the only Altai group with M73 was in north Altai and appears to have come from somewhere to the west although exactly where seems impossible to be sure as the particular group had a very wide sphere of influence before their retreat to Altai. I suppose that points to somewhere in the long stretch of land between the south end of the Urals/Caspian and Altai is where it was located. I wouldnt feel much confidence as to longitude or latitude. Botai is a definate possibility.

The other thing that I always feel the need to try to take into account is M73's relatively close ancestry to M269 with a shared ancestor maybe c. 10000BC or earlier. Its not simple to untangle that period. P322 on this article makes some interesting observations about the Mesolithic in central Asia and possible Ural-north Khazak links in microblade traditions.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qjm8IbYgnmAC&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=microblades+kazakhstan&source=bl&ots=YS6dC5yH-A&sig=s5ZgwijzjceOwnku-nQnwxUwRFI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eFsOU8_sNMKThgf4moGwBw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=microblades%20kazakhstan&f=false

The other possibility is that it was shifted somewhere between Botai and the Altai. I think it is more likely it was pushed northwards into South Siberia (maybe Tatarstan and Bashkirostan?) and Uralic speaking zones. Or maybe it really was pushed into the Tarim.

parasar
02-27-2014, 05:26 PM
Hammer shouldn't be using maps from Eupedia. It almost makes him look like a Eupedia affiliated spokesman, because that's where most of his visuals are from. Has anyone really checked whether those maps are beyond reproach? I know that Humanist has some reservations about them.

And we're still no closer to finding out when and how R1b first entered Western Europe.

Those other visuals from his prior presentation (http://dna-explained.com/2013/11/12/2013-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2/), the ones showing K diversifying in SE Asia and P crossing over to Eurasia, are they Hammer's original work (those can't be from Eupedia), or are they copied too?

ArmandoR1b
02-27-2014, 06:00 PM
Those other visuals from his prior presentation (http://dna-explained.com/2013/11/12/2013-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2/), the ones showing K diversifying in SE Asia and P crossing over to Eurasia, are they Hammer's original work (those can't be from Eupedia), or are they copied too?

The same slides that are in those pictures are available in a PDF that Dr. Hammer has made available where you can get a better look at the maps then compare them with what is available at Eupedia. Most are from there. Some are his own.

https://gap.familytreedna.com/media/docs/2013/Hammer_M269_Diversity_in_Europe.pdf

I think people are losing sight of the big picture. Dr. Hammer is saying that since ancient R1b DNA has not been found in Western Europe that it made it's way into Europe after the Neolithic agricultural transition and the distribution of the subclades of P311/L11 is close to what it is now as opposed to the old hypothesis that it comes from the Iberian refugium. He isn't worried about some of the details of some of the maps because they have nothing to do with his primary point.

parasar
02-27-2014, 06:25 PM
The same slides that are in those pictures are available in a PDF that Dr. Hammer has made available where you can get a better look at the maps then compare them with what is available at Eupedia. Most are from there. Some are his own.

https://gap.familytreedna.com/media/docs/2013/Hammer_M269_Diversity_in_Europe.pdf

I think people are losing sight of the big picture. Dr. Hammer is saying that since ancient R1b DNA has not been found in Western Europe that it made it's way into Europe after the Neolithic agricultural transition and the distribution of the subclades of P311/L11 is close to what it is now as opposed to the old hypothesis that it comes from the Iberian refugium. He isn't worried about some of the details of some of the maps because they have nothing to do with his primary point.

Yes, thanks, I had looked at them before when you had mentioned in another thread. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1483-24-000-year-old-Y-DNA-R-AND-MTDNA-U-FOUND-IN-SIBERIA!!!!&p=30826&viewfull=1#post30826 On the "SE Asian Origin of Hg P" he looks to have drawn over the Eupedia R1b frequency map, so that conclusion on the origin of P is perhaps his own. The slide below is missing in the pdf.

http://dnaexplained.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/hammer-r-and-q-in-europe.jpg

As far as his main point, yes that had to with R1b, but one of the major surprises was his take on P and K.

newtoboard
02-27-2014, 07:35 PM
Not sure if I agree with a SE Asian origin for P but I do agree it is unlikely P originated in West Asia. I think it entered North-Central Asia/South Siberia from a more SE location and likely originated somewhere between Uzbekistan and Burma.

Tomasso29
02-27-2014, 07:58 PM
Not sure if I agree with a SE Asian origin for P but I do agree it is unlikely P originated in West Asia. I think it entered North-Central Asia/South Siberia from a more SE location and likely originated somewhere between Uzbekistan and Burma.

Considering that haplogoup K* is found in Australia and M and S being exclusive to Southeast Asia along with O and N dominating that region. I would say P originating around those parts or at least somewhere closer to the eastern side of Asia is quite a strong argument imo.

newtoboard
02-27-2014, 08:39 PM
Considering that haplogoup K* is found in Australia and M and S being exclusive to Southeast Asia along with O and N dominating that region. I would say P originating around those parts or at least somewhere closer to the eastern side of Asia is quite a strong argument imo.

Since you seem to think modern distribution is more important than anything else then it is very likely P did not originate in SE Asia because if I recall correctly it is distributed between South, Central and West Asia.

And by your logic why should K originating in SE Asia be considered? If P can't be the outlier among K's descendants (and originate west of SE/E Asia) why should K be the outlier among F's descendants? Out of G-H-I-J-K-K(xLT) , 5/6 of those F descendants have nothing to do with SE Asia whatsoever or even originate anywhere near it.

newtoboard
02-27-2014, 08:41 PM
Also given NO*-X has recently been found in South Asia it is possible some of K's descendants did indeed originate outside of SE Asia.

parasar
02-27-2014, 09:10 PM
Since you seem to think modern distribution is more important than anything else then it is very likely P did not originate in SE Asia because if I recall correctly it is distributed between South, Central and West Asia.

And by your logic why should K originating in SE Asia be considered? If P can't be the outlier among K's descendants (and originate west of SE/E Asia) why should K be the outlier among F's descendants? Out of G-H-I-J-K-K(xLT) , 5/6 of those F descendants have nothing to do with SE Asia whatsoever or even originate anywhere near it.

While I do think that F-GHIJKLT has a west Eurasian (incl. South Asia) origin, there is at least one confirmed separate F(xGHIJKLT) line in SE Asia, and SE Asia has not yet been studied in great depth.

What Tomasso29 was referring to was the paraphyletic nature of K* (actually both K* and M526 are paraphyletic there) in SE Asia, and so far that is what has been looked at for origin based on modern distributions. Of course nothing is sure, and all these K* types could have suddenly decided to abandon W Eurasia and retired to SE Asia, but then a similar argument can be made say that A and B(xM168) abandoned West Eurasia for Africa (I believe Dr. Klyosov has posited something of this nature).

Tomasso29
02-27-2014, 09:25 PM
Since you seem to think modern distribution is more important than anything else then it is very likely P did not originate in SE Asia because if I recall correctly it is distributed between South, Central and West Asia.

And by your logic why should K originating in SE Asia be considered? If P can't be the outlier among K's descendants (and originate west of SE/E Asia) why should K be the outlier among F's descendants? Out of G-H-I-J-K-K(xLT) , 5/6 of those F descendants have nothing to do with SE Asia whatsoever or even originate anywhere near it.

I should rephrase that I think modern distribution is only important because we lack other important info. Of course modern distribution may very well be very different than ancient distribution, but the point is the pattern to where P's other relatives are aligned may very well indicate its far eastern origin. I suppose it's equally feasible that one of MP's sons ended up travelling toward Central Asia where P might have originated, though I think it happened a little further out east rather than central (Haplogroup Q's distribution sort of gives me that indication along to where Mal'ta boy's haplogroup R was found).

Anything is possible, but with all these lineages related to R being so widely distributed out east, I think it's highly unlikely that R had any origins out west.

parasar
02-27-2014, 09:30 PM
Also given NO*-X has recently been found in South Asia it is possible some of K's descendants did indeed originate outside of SE Asia.

Do we know where in Andhra that sample is from? You see representations of mongoloid Shiva there (cf Gudimalla). My thoughts had been that that was a Kushan and Nepalese influence.

alan
02-28-2014, 12:54 AM
I primarily fall back on archaeological evidence when ancient DNA is not available in significant numbers. Archaeology would appear to indicate a movement from SW Asia through Iran through central Asia to south-central Siberia around 45-40000BC. The material of this initial upper palaeolithic group is very distinctive in that it is utterly different from that of the same period in the far east or the Indian subcontinent.

So, it seems likely to me that the R* boy at Mal'ta's distant ancestors arrived in south-central Siberia via central Asia from the west. There is also some pretty strong suggestions that Q may have arisen somewhere like Altai. The initial upper palaeolithic material from south Asia and SE Asia is so totally distinct from that of south Siberia and central Asia that I dont think it would be possible to miss a movement west from a hypothetical MP origin point in SE Asia. So, while I respect Hammer's work, I think the idea of an MP node in SE Asia is very contradictory to the archaeological record as it is most easily interpreted.

There has been so much subsequent east to west movement across south Siberia and central Asia that its hard to infer from modern populations but the furthest east I would put the MP node would be Altai and I would strongly favour it entering SE Asia from Siberia somehow.

I posted this idea before but I think the significant presence of Neanderthal and Denisovan genes in parts of SE Asia and the Pacific is interesting because it is not thought that either of those hominids ever lived in that area - something that is especially clear in terms of Neanderthals. That suggests to me that populations must have arrived in this area from within.passing through the Neanderthal and Denisovan areas.


I should rephrase that I think modern distribution is only important because we lack other important info. Of course modern distribution may very well be very different than ancient distribution, but the point is the pattern to where P's other relatives are aligned may very well indicate its far eastern origin. I suppose it's equally feasible that one of MP's sons ended up travelling toward Central Asia where P might have originated, though I think it happened a little further out east rather than central (Haplogroup Q's distribution sort of gives me that indication along to where Mal'ta boy's haplogroup R was found).

Anything is possible, but with all these lineages related to R being so widely distributed out east, I think it's highly unlikely that R had any origins out west.

Tomasso29
02-28-2014, 01:01 AM
I primarily fall back on archaeological evidence when ancient DNA is not available in significant numbers. Archaeology would appear to indicate a movement from SW Asia through Iran through central Asia to south-central Siberia around 45-40000BC. The material of this initial upper palaeolithic group is very distinctive in that it is utterly different from that of the same period in the far east or the Indian subcontinent.

That's fine, but unless actual ancient DNA proves something, I think mixing archeological evidence with haplogroup lineages is quite a flawed approach.


So, it seems likely to me that the R* boy at Mal'ta's distant ancestors arrived in south-central Siberia via central Asia from the west. There is also some pretty strong suggestions that Q may have arisen somewhere like Altai. The initial upper palaeolithic material from south Asia and SE Asia is so totally distinct from that of south Siberia and central Asia that I dont think it would be possible to miss a movement west from a hypothetical MP origin point in SE Asia. So, while I respect Hammer's work, I think the idea of an MP node in SE Asia is very contradictory to the archaeological record as it is most easily interpreted.

Once again, nothing based on archeological evidence suggests that MP did not originate in SE Asia. On the same token nothing real suggests a SE Asian origins either, but if anything, the pattern of those K lineages makes SE Asia to be the strongest theory at this point.

parasar
02-28-2014, 01:32 AM
I primarily fall back on archaeological evidence when ancient DNA is not available in significant numbers. Archaeology would appear to indicate a movement from SW Asia through Iran through central Asia to south-central Siberia around 45-40000BC. The material of this initial upper palaeolithic group is very distinctive in that it is utterly different from that of the same period in the far east or the Indian subcontinent.


So, it seems likely to me that the R* boy at Mal'ta's distant ancestors arrived in south-central Siberia via central Asia from the west.
There has been so much subsequent east to west movement across south Siberia and central Asia that its hard to infer from modern populations but the furthest east I would put the MP node would be Altai and I would strongly favour it entering SE Asia from Siberia somehow.

alan,

But your acceptance of archeological evidence is selective. When I mentioned that Gerasimov, who is the person with the most in depth knowledge of Mal'ta, considered it SE Asian derived, you responded that Gerasimov's analysis is old and has now been superseded without providing any evidence that that was the case.



I posted this idea before but I think the significant presence of Neanderthal and Denisovan genes in parts of SE Asia and the Pacific is interesting because it is not thought that either of those hominids ever lived in that area - something that is especially clear in terms of Neanderthals. That suggests to me that populations must have arrived in this area from within.passing through the Neanderthal and Denisovan areas.

On this, the evidence though not clear is quite persuasive that while Neanderthal component is widespread, the Denisovan is more limited. So a Denisovan admixed population migrating from somewhere else to south-east asia could not have lost its Denisovan in Sunda while at the same time maintaining it in Sahul. At the macro level both Sunda and Sahul share the same M526, but differ starkly downstream indicating two quite independent populations developed in SE Asia itself.

alan
02-28-2014, 01:48 AM
The way I look at it we can look at the archaeology of a particular date and compare it to the sort of branching of the human y chromosome according to the latest SNP dating and at least that way we might be able to discuss both the y lineages and the archaeological evidence for humans at the same period. If we wait until ancient DNA evidence comes along we may as well close most of the threads on this site and shut down the site except for maybe a day a month.

What simplifies things and gives me more confidence in using archaeology is when we get back to the sort of ages being calculated for K, P etc we are often back in the period of the very first modern human cultures of large areas. That really trims down the options for interpretation in a way that is not possible in later periods.

There is a pretty good case for no new intrusions between the very first modern human south-central Siberian culture c. 40000BC and the culture of the Mal'ta boy who was R. R, even based on SNP counting, is not older than 30000BC. So, it seems that R probably occurred in-situ in south-central Siberia among hunters who had arrived there 10000 years earlier in some sort of ancestral (presumably P or MP or even a further upstream form). With the solid evidence of Mal'ta mixed in with what by archaeological standards is fairly safe supposition I think that can be said with a relatively descent amount of confidence that wouldnt have been possible before the Mal'ta and Afontova Gora results. Another thing of course is that the mtDNA and autosomal DNA does not point very strongly to SE Asia and more supports the idea that the ancestors of the Siberian hunters had come from western Eurasia in the distant past.


That's fine, but unless actual ancient DNA proves something, I think mixing archeological evidence with haplogroup lineages is quite a flawed approach.



Once again, nothing based on archeological evidence suggests that MP did not originate in SE Asia. On the same token nothing real suggests a SE Asian origins either, but if anything, the pattern of those K lineages makes SE Asia to be the strongest theory at this point.

Tomasso29
02-28-2014, 03:22 AM
The way I look at it we can look at the archaeology of a particular date and compare it to the sort of branching of the human y chromosome according to the latest SNP dating and at least that way we might be able to discuss both the y lineages and the archaeological evidence for humans at the same period. If we wait until ancient DNA evidence comes along we may as well close most of the threads on this site and shut down the site except for maybe a day a month.

What simplifies things and gives me more confidence in using archaeology is when we get back to the sort of ages being calculated for K, P etc we are often back in the period of the very first modern human cultures of large areas. That really trims down the options for interpretation in a way that is not possible in later periods.

There is a pretty good case for no new intrusions between the very first modern human south-central Siberian culture c. 40000BC and the culture of the Mal'ta boy who was R. R, even based on SNP counting, is not older than 30000BC. So, it seems that R probably occurred in-situ in south-central Siberia among hunters who had arrived there 10000 years earlier in some sort of ancestral (presumably P or MP or even a further upstream form). With the solid evidence of Mal'ta mixed in with what by archaeological standards is fairly safe supposition I think that can be said with a relatively descent amount of confidence that wouldnt have been possible before the Mal'ta and Afontova Gora results. Another thing of course is that the mtDNA and autosomal DNA does not point very strongly to SE Asia and more supports the idea that the ancestors of the Siberian hunters had come from western Eurasia in the distant past.

For whatever it's worth and it has been discussed in another thread, SNP date calculations should be taken with a grain of salt at best.

parasar
02-28-2014, 03:45 AM
We have to keep in mind what is now supposed to have happened in Europe. A Y-R sweep across all of Europe did not take much time - perhaps as little as a 1000 years. Something similar might have happened across much of Eurasia on the Y side with the mtDNA staying mainly U.


The suggested similarity between Mal'ta and Upper Paleolithic civilizations of Western and Eastern Europe coincides with a long-held belief that the ancient people of Mal'ta were related to the Paleolithic societies of Europe. These similarities can be established by their tools, dwelling structures, and art. These commonalities draw into question the origin of Upper Paleolithic Siberian people, and whether the migrating peoples originated from Southeastern Asia or quite possibly from Europe.
http://www.proza.ru/2010/12/22/1475


As a group, these hybrid South Siberians are not especially like Europeans or Northeast Asians, clustering instead with the Southeast Asians.
The evolution and dispersal of modern humans in Asia, Takeru Akazawa, ‎Kenichi Aoki, ‎Tasuku Kimura - Page 427


As to the ancestry of the Mal'ta culture, Gerasimov finds no corroboration of Okladnikov's hypothesis of a Western (European) origin. He feels that certain elements of the flint tool inventory, as well as of the art, indicate the distinctive nature of this culture and give grounds for advancing the hypothesis of a southeastern origin.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/16665/AP-v5n1-118-126.pdf?sequence=1

Regarding 'facial' features of figurines:

M.M. Gerasimov described the first figurine he found dissimilar to Western European counterparts as follows: “The wide and oval face with a high protruding forehead is decorated with a massive flat nose with wide pronounced nostrils. The eyes are slightly outlined by superciliary arcs; the mouth is absent; the chin is indistinct. The hair is elaborately shown descending to the shoulders in long and wavy strands” (1931: 19).Observations of the stylistics of the image and details which may be incident to the prototype, are note worthy in this description. Importantly, Gerasimov noticed these in the rendition of facial features

while,


A.P. Okladnikov described the same in a more expressive manner: “The face of the first figurine found is modeled with great deliberation. It is protruding and three-dimensional in its main details. A small bulging forehead, prominent cheeks and cheekbones, as well as a round and gently outlined chin are rendered in a simple yet distinct manner. The mouth is not shown but appears to be implied. Certainly its absence is not striking. The gently outlined “Mongolian” nose is sharply limited from below. The eyes are rendered as narrow, almond-shaped hollows. The eyes produce a unique impression. Being narrow and slanting they recall faces typical of members of the Mongolian race” (1941: 105)
http://www.academia.edu/3573868/The_Malta_realism_

alan
02-28-2014, 02:16 PM
Thing is Mal'ta doesnt appear to be genetically east Asian or east Asian in terms of his dental characteristics. Has to be remembered that often upper palaeolithic humans look kind of generic. Also, the classic cromagnon has rather narrow low wide rectangular orbits, a relatively short, wide face etc, a type that is probably best just called something like north Eurasian as it doesnt match any 'race' all that closely.


We have to keep in mind what is now supposed to have happened in Europe. A Y-R sweep across all of Europe did not take much time - perhaps as little as a 1000 years. Something similar might have happened across much of Eurasia on the Y side with the mtDNA staying mainly U.


http://www.proza.ru/2010/12/22/1475


The evolution and dispersal of modern humans in Asia, Takeru Akazawa, ‎Kenichi Aoki, ‎Tasuku Kimura - Page 427


https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/16665/AP-v5n1-118-126.pdf?sequence=1

Regarding 'facial' features of figurines:


while,


http://www.academia.edu/3573868/The_Malta_realism_

parasar
03-05-2014, 07:54 PM
Thing is Mal'ta doesnt appear to be genetically east Asian or east Asian in terms of his dental characteristics. Has to be remembered that often upper palaeolithic humans look kind of generic. Also, the classic cromagnon has rather narrow low wide rectangular orbits, a relatively short, wide face etc, a type that is probably best just called something like north Eurasian as it doesnt match any 'race' all that closely.

That is if by East Asian we mean the present ones.
MA1 is of the older east asian type when EDAR characteristics had not yet arisen.

Heber
03-05-2014, 08:20 PM
Here is a slide from Andy Grierson excellent presentation at WDYTYA. It shows the clear expansion of R1b in Europe with three main branches, DF13 (L21) isles, L2 (U152) Alpine and DF27 Iberia. I interpret this as Atlantic, Alpine and Iberian Celtic with the parent SNP P312 (Italic Celtic) possibly Bell Beaker.
Mike Hammers presentation also confirmed this. Andy's work was a collaboration with citizen scientists who contribute to this forum.
1553

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rzgP_jDByh0

Heber
03-05-2014, 10:42 PM
Mike Hammers presentation also confirmed this. Andy's work was a collaboration with citizen scientists who contribute to this forum.
1553

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rzgP_jDByh0


Here is Mike Hammers talk (audio only) at WDYTYA.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lcgvvUFDN0o&feature=youtu.be

1554

TigerMW
03-08-2014, 04:34 AM
I've been looking for SNPs that would tie any of DF13's Big Ten subclades together more than with any pair than the rest. I can't find it yet. There must be some closer linkage somewhere. The implication is that DF13's progeny diversified safely or in great numbers so that a lot of them survived.

I'm not sure what that means.

On the other hand, M222 has a long line of phylogenetic equivalents. This makes sense since their haplotype modal is quite distinct from the rest of L21. Somehow M222's ancestry barely managed through the bottlenecks before bursting into some very successful situation.

I haven't been able to find SNPs that link L21 to U152 or DF27 or L238 or DF99 or some other part of P312* more closely in any kind of pairing. There are a few phylogenetic equivalents for L21 so after the L21/U152/DF27 etc. burst there was a little bit of lull before L21 and the DF13 burst open prolifically.

Heber
03-08-2014, 11:05 AM
The Phylogenetic Tree is organised in alphabetical order for its main branches from older to younger.
A,B,C..G...IJ...N..OQR...etc.
It will be interesting to see if this order is maintained for its sub branches when the new Phylogenetic Tree is published by
FTDNA, Genographic, ISOGG, Grierson, CTS, Morley etc.
On the latest Morley Tree it shows expansion of
U106...DF27.....U152..... L21

http://ytree.morleydna.com/ExperimentalGenoPhylogeny20140207.pdf

I wonder if this is significant and if we will get a tree with all branches arranged in order of expansion.
I am assuming these vastly expanded trees will be generated using computer programs.

I hope we don't have to wait until the next DNA in Forensics conference in Brussels in May to find out more.

"THU 15 May - Continuation plenary session - 9 am till 6 pm
Thursday is Y-Day. The session will be opened by a lecture of Chris Tyler-Smith, followed by other presentations about NGS related large-scale projects. Sascha Willuweit will present the next generation YHRD. Other items tackled on this day are Casework and its statistics, Population genetics, New Y-STRs and the impact of mutation rates."

http://forensischinstituut.be/dna-forensics-2014/programme-new

http://www.yhrd.org

Dubhthach
03-13-2014, 02:58 PM
Here is Mike Hammers talk (audio only) at WDYTYA.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lcgvvUFDN0o&feature=youtu.be

1554

Where is this photo taken from? Is there a clearer one, I can't make out the snp's mentioned for England.

razyn
03-13-2014, 03:08 PM
Where is this photo taken from? Is there a clearer one, I can't make out the snp's mentioned for England.

If somebody doesn't provide an actual sharp image -- you can read most of them in Ireland (same color coding). A couple on this map are printed in black, over the deep blue sea -- for those, maybe paste the image into a photo program, and drain the sea by adjusting the color temperature toward "warmer." Just a WAG, I haven't tried it here -- but that can differentiate blacks from blues.

Dubhthach
03-14-2014, 10:36 AM
If somebody doesn't provide an actual sharp image -- you can read most of them in Ireland (same color coding). A couple on this map are printed in black, over the deep blue sea -- for those, maybe paste the image into a photo program, and drain the sea by adjusting the color temperature toward "warmer." Just a WAG, I haven't tried it here -- but that can differentiate blacks from blues.

What's interesting is that CTS2501 (proxy for DF41) charts for Ireland. I can't see it on the other two though. Hopefully they are going to release a paper with some stats.

-Paul
(DF41+)

ArmandoR1b
03-14-2014, 11:55 AM
Where is this photo taken from? Is there a clearer one, I can't make out the snp's mentioned for England.

It's on page 24 of Mike Hammers PDF of the presentation.

https://gap.familytreedna.com/media/docs/2013/Hammer_M269_Diversity_in_Europe.pdf

rms2
03-14-2014, 06:22 PM
It's on page 24 of Mike Hammers PDF of the presentation.

https://gap.familytreedna.com/media/docs/2013/Hammer_M269_Diversity_in_Europe.pdf

Thanks. No stats for Wales apparently, and England is only represented by a sample of 20.

CTS2501 shows up on the pie chart for Ireland as a small sliver. It's a slightly bigger slice in Scotland. England's sample is too small to take too seriously. It's a shame there is no pie chart for Wales.

Dubhthach
03-14-2014, 07:52 PM
Thanks. No stats for Wales apparently, and England is only represented by a sample of 20.

CTS2501 shows up on the pie chart for Ireland as a small sliver. It's a slightly bigger slice in Scotland. England's sample is too small to take too seriously. It's a shame there is no pie chart for Wales.

It wouldn't surprise if a big chunk of the scottish CTS2501 is L744+ (Stewarts). Looking at the graphs they are bit unsatisfactory in number of ways. For example I'm assuming the sample size is only of L21+ men as oppose to say 120 random Irishmen? Also they didn't test for DF13, surely there would be some men who were DF13* (* for subclades they tested for etc.)

Ideally it would be nice if they had a breakdown like this:
Ireland


Random sample of men (say 200)
Percentage breakdown of how many are R1b-L21+, R1b-U106, R1b-DF27, R1b-U152, R1b-P312*, I1, I2, G, J1, J2, R1a etc.
Chart showing breakdown of above haplogroups
Break out of say L21 men from sample (let's say 140 out of 200 men -- 70%)
Percentage breakdown of who is L21, DF13, DF63, L21** (if any), Big 8 under DF13
Chart of above


You could then do same for England, Scotland and Wales. I definetly think it's worthwhile showing percentage of other major haplogroups as we know the likes of R1b-U106 is higher in England (let alone I1).

I'm hoping there's a proper paper gonna come out of all this with some update distribution figures. (Even if they used Busby samples but updated list of SNP's tested)

-Paul
(DF41+)

rms2
03-15-2014, 01:09 AM
Since L21 is undoubtedly the biggest single y haplogroup in the Isles, one would think a major study of it and its subclades there would be warranted.

Webb
03-25-2014, 05:21 PM
I find the pie graph very interesting. I am not sure of the sample size, but Z195 is larger in France than both L21 and U152, and Z195 doesen't even represent all of DF27. The graph of England also shows Z195 as being larger than U152 and just under L21. Z195 would represent DF17, the north/south cluster, L165 and SRY2627. This still leaves quite a bit of DF27 unaccounted for.

razyn
03-26-2014, 12:14 AM
The graph of England also shows Z195 as being larger than U152 and just under L21. Z195 would represent DF17, the north/south cluster, L165 and SRY2627. This still leaves quite a bit of DF27 unaccounted for.

In the "2000" Chromo2 results released last month, actually 1,999 of them, 144 DF27 samples were identified. I don't know how random or representative a slice of the Isles population that was, and some fraction of those samples probably came in from the Continent and the colonies; but anyway they were tested in Edinburgh by BritainsDNA. And DF27 accounted for 7.2% of the total sample.

rms2
03-26-2014, 09:53 PM
I find the pie graph very interesting. I am not sure of the sample size, but Z195 is larger in France than both L21 and U152, and Z195 doesen't even represent all of DF27. The graph of England also shows Z195 as being larger than U152 and just under L21. Z195 would represent DF17, the north/south cluster, L165 and SRY2627. This still leaves quite a bit of DF27 unaccounted for.

I noticed the size of the Z195 slice of the French pie chart. What proportion of DF27 is unaccounted for outside of Z195? All I can see from the ISOGG Tree are L617 and L881 that are DF27xZ195. Are those large clades? All the rest of DF27 is Z195+.

DF27xZ195 can't account for much more of the French pie chart, since the white part is non-R1b, and only the little gray sliver is unclaimed R-L11. Some or all of that could be DF27xZ195, but it wouldn't add a lot to the total DF27, and some of it could be DF19 or DF99.

Webb
03-26-2014, 10:45 PM
I noticed the size of the Z195 slice of the French pie chart. What proportion of DF27 is unaccounted for outside of Z195? All I can see from the ISOGG Tree are L617 and L881 that are DF27xZ195. Are those large clades? All the rest of DF27 is Z195+.

DF27xZ195 can't account for much more of the French pie chart, since the white part is non-R1b, and only the little gray sliver is unclaimed R-L11. Some or all of that could be DF27xZ195, but it wouldn't add a lot to the total DF27, and some of it could be DF19 or DF99.

I believe the majority, or just over half of the kits in the DF27 project are DF27**. So if the pie shows Z195, what about the roughly 50% who are just DF27**. The rox cluster is just one of many who have been Z196- from the beginning. Either way the Z195 slice is larger than L21 and U152. Sort of odd for an Iberian clade.

rms2
03-26-2014, 10:57 PM
Thanks. Apparently by far the majority of French DF27 is Z195+, at least based on that pie chart from Hammer's presentation. There is very little unclaimed L11 to add to the DF27 total, and probably not all of that unclaimed L11 is DF27. Looks like the same is true most everywhere else, too, except for maybe the pie charts over Switzerland, Italy, and maybe Portugal.

rms2
03-26-2014, 11:12 PM
I believe the majority, or just over half of the kits in the DF27 project are DF27**. So if the pie shows Z195, what about the roughly 50% who are just DF27**. The rox cluster is just one of many who have been Z196- from the beginning. Either way the Z195 slice is larger than L21 and U152. Sort of odd for an Iberian clade.

If you don't mind my saying it, I get the impression that some of you fret too much about the idea of DF27 being the "Iberian clade". Who is saying that, anyway?

It might only be considered the Iberian clade in terms of geography, since it is so overwhelming there, in the same way that L21 might be considered the "British Isles clade" or the "Irish clade".

Personally, I think of DF27 as another of the largely-Celtic clades. I think the historical Iberians were not even R1b.

Besides, the obvious distaste that some of you display for the term "Iberian" is liable to offend your many Spanish, Portuguese, and Basque brethren.

Webb
03-26-2014, 11:22 PM
Thanks. Apparently by far the majority of French DF27 is Z195+, at least based on that pie chart from Hammer's presentation. There is very little unclaimed L11 to add to the DF27 total, and probably not all of that unclaimed L11 is DF27. Looks like the same is true most everywhere else, too, except for maybe the pie charts over Switzerland, Italy, and maybe Portugal.

The pie chart over Scicily is interesting as well, with Z195 and U152 looking dead even. Not a place I would expect DF27 to be that high.

Dubhthach
03-26-2014, 11:34 PM
If you don't mind my saying it, I get the impression that some of you fret too much about the idea of DF27 being the "Iberian clade". Who is saying that, anyway?

It might only be considered the Iberian clade in terms of geography, since it is so overwhelming there, in the same way that L21 might be considered the "British Isles clade" or the "Irish clade".

Personally, I think of DF27 as another of the largely-Celtic clades. I think the historical Iberians were not even R1b.

Besides, the obvious distaste that some of you display for the term "Iberian" is liable to offend your many Spanish, Portuguese, and Basque brethren.

Personally as an Irish person I'd prefer if people called L21 Iberian as oppose to "British Isles" yuck! ;)

rms2
03-26-2014, 11:36 PM
Sicily was ruled by the Spanish for at least 200 years. That could account for some of the DF27, although probably not all of it.

rms2
03-26-2014, 11:39 PM
Personally as an Irish person I'd prefer if people called L21 Iberian as oppose to "British Isles" yuck! ;)

Lol! Well, there is some L21 in Iberia.

I was just talking about geography, anyway, and haplogroups acquiring monikers based on where they are most frequent. Folks can call us the "Irish clade," if they want. Some of them already think we're all Irish, one way or another, anyhow.

Webb
03-26-2014, 11:39 PM
If you don't mind my saying it, I get the impression that some of you fret too much about the idea of DF27 being the "Iberian clade". Who is saying that, anyway?

It might only be considered the Iberian clade in terms of geography, since it is so overwhelming there, in the same way that L21 might be considered the "British Isles clade" or the "Irish clade".

Personally, I think of DF27 as another of the largely-Celtic clades. I think the historical Iberians were not even R1b.

Besides, the obvious distaste that some of you display for the term "Iberian" is liable to offend your many Spanish, Portuguese, and Basque brethren.

I think you have missed the point, or rather twisted it a bit. It's not a distaste for being Iberian. To me, it's a distaste of being very Wapolish about the placement of where a clade was most probably born. I personally would prefer to have Celtic origins above anything else. It's a search for the truth based on evidence. I see a lot of evidence stacking on this site. In other words rummaging through the evidence and keeping what fits a theory and discarding what might refute it, and not willing to change theories as new evidence arises. Hence Wapolish. Walpole sticking to a regional development of modern humans simultaneously across the globe even after other scientist said that was very unlikely. So my issue with Iberian isn't because I have an issue with Spain, but an issue with any evidence popping up pointing to the most probable place of France or the alps being discarded. Pooling points should never be used to evidence place of birth. 25 markers should never be used to determine variance.

rms2
03-26-2014, 11:46 PM
I think you have missed the point, or rather twisted it a bit. It's not a distaste for being Iberian. To me, it's a distaste of being very Wapolish about the placement of where a clade was most probably born. I personally would prefer to have Celtic origins above anything else. It's a search for the truth based on evidence. I see a lot of evidence stacking on this site. In other words rummaging through the evidence and keeping what fits a theory and discarding what might refute it, and not willing to change theories as new evidence arises. Hence Wapolish. Walpole sticking to a regional development of modern humans simultaneously across the globe even after other scientist said that was very unlikely. So my issue with Iberian isn't because I have an issue with Spain, but an issue with any evidence popping up pointing to the most probable place of France or the alps being discarded. Pooling points should never be used to evidence place of birth. 25 markers should never be used to determine variance.

I don't know where DF27 arose, although I doubt it was Iberia, but I haven't seen a lot of claims that it did originate there. I have noticed a number of DF27+ guys - not just you - taking umbrage at the thought that DF27 might be characterized as "the Iberian clade", which is why I posted what I did. Whatever your intent, it does sometimes come off as a distaste for being associated with Iberia.

Anyway, my own view is that DF27 should be characterized as Celtic, although I realize I may be criticized for saying it. I think most of P312 was generally Celtic, but I mean that in a very general, overall sense, not one that can be applied to every single, individual case.

Webb
03-27-2014, 12:09 AM
I don't know where DF27 arose, although I doubt it was Iberia, but I haven't seen a lot of claims that it did originate there. I have noticed a number of DF27+ guys - not just you - taking umbrage at the thought that DF27 might be characterized as "the Iberian clade", which is why I posted what I did. Whatever your intent, it does sometimes come off as a distaste for being associated with Iberia.

Anyway, my own view is that DF27 should be characterized as Celtic, although I realize I may be criticized for saying it. I think most of P312 was generally Celtic, but I mean that in a very general, overall sense, not one that can be applied to every single, individual case.

I appreciate the understanding. It gets frustrating at times. I notice that L21 had a number of clades that have nice straight run mutations. So if you start at the most recent working back towards the trunk, you can use these as indicators to possibly track movements based on the surnames in a particular clade. So if the most recent is Irish and the next one upstream is Irish, then the next one upstream is Irish and welsh, then Irish, Welsh, and French. You can see in which direction a group came from and where they are going to. It probably works best with long runs of straight line mutations. The north/south cluster is the only straight run that is available to look at in DF27. M153 the most recent being found in Spain, mainly Basque. Then Z214 mostly Spanish with one or two French names. Then Z216/Z278, a mix of Spanish, French, and Brits. Then Z295, mostly French, Dutch, and Brits with one Spanish. Then Z220, which is predominately British, some French, Dutch, Scandanavian and one Spanish. So you move from Spain in a north east direction towards Scandanavia and Britain as you move closer to the trunk of the run. That is why I get easily agitated. The evidence is there if people are willing to look. Spanish with the most recent clade in the run, to Northern Europe in the oldest clade in the run. This evidence, to me points in a south west movement of the north/south cluster, not a movement from Spain, but a movement towards Spain.

Webb
03-27-2014, 12:23 AM
Now if you have a general idea on age of each clade, you would apply that and you might get a general picture of place and time. If say IrishIII is O'Brien and around 1000 AD, what is the predominant group just upstream and age of mutation, then the next one upstream, and so forth.

Gray Fox
03-27-2014, 03:49 AM
I don't know where DF27 arose, although I doubt it was Iberia, but I haven't seen a lot of claims that it did originate there. I have noticed a number of DF27+ guys - not just you - taking umbrage at the thought that DF27 might be characterized as "the Iberian clade", which is why I posted what I did. Whatever your intent, it does sometimes come off as a distaste for being associated with Iberia.

Anyway, my own view is that DF27 should be characterized as Celtic, although I realize I may be criticized for saying it. I think most of P312 was generally Celtic, but I mean that in a very general, overall sense, not one that can be applied to every single, individual case.

I agree. I think L21 and DF27 are two sides of the same coin. Not to exclude U152, but that's a different beast in its own right.

Dubhthach
03-27-2014, 09:32 AM
Now if you have a general idea on age of each clade, you would apply that and you might get a general picture of place and time. If say IrishIII is O'Brien and around 1000 AD, what is the predominant group just upstream and age of mutation, then the next one upstream, and so forth.

Funilly enough that you mention "Irish Type III". L226 is obviously part of wider Z253. Z253 was first discovered in two samples from 1000 genomes sample, one from Colombia and one from Mexican-American sample (from LA). Both men were of "Iberian origin" so perhaps we can say that "Irish Type III" is really Iberian ;) (in jest)

L21+ -> DF13+ -> Z253+ -> Z2534+ -> L226+

Interesting enough "Irish Type IV" (which some called Continental/Irish) also falls under Z2534
L21+ -> DF13+ -> Z253+ -> Z2534+ -> Z2185+ -> L1066.1+ -> CTS9881+ (-- CTS9881 is new!)

My own personal opinion is that within P312 that DF27 and L21 are fellow travellers. They probably arose not too far apart from each other more then likely if you ask me within what we now call France (Gallia).

rms2
03-27-2014, 11:39 AM
I agree. I think L21 and DF27 are two sides of the same coin. Not to exclude U152, but that's a different beast in its own right.

Thanks. I think that is a good way to characterize things. In my view, P312 in general is Celtic or Italo-Celtic, especially U152, DF27, and L21. There are some notable exceptions: DF19 may have begun in the Celtic milieu and was Germanized; L238 may have arisen in Scandinavia from an earlier P312 root, perhaps brought there by Beaker Folk who were Celtic or Italo-Celtic speaking but whose descendants lost their original language. The jury is still out on DF99: thus far there are insufficient data.

rms2
03-27-2014, 12:01 PM
Going back to the pie charts on page 4 of Hammer's presentation here (https://gap.familytreedna.com/media/docs/2013/Hammer_M269_Diversity_in_Europe.pdf), it is somewhat startling to note that in the Isles there isn't much of a sliver of L11 left over that isn't L21, Z195, U152, or U106.

In the Celtic Fringe countries, L21 and Z195 are the heavy hitters. In England there seems to be a fairly even split, although I wonder where the stats are coming from. If they are from Busby, then there was an eastern sampling bias, and U106 is exaggerated a bit, in my opinion.

Anyway, if those pie charts are right, there isn't much left over for DF19, L238, and DF99 anywhere in Western Europe except in Switzerland and Italy. There is a little bit bigger slice of unclaimed L11 in Germany than elsewhere. Perhaps that is mostly DF19 with some DF99 here and there. Sweden also has a small but noticeable unclaimed L11 slice that is probably mostly L238.

razyn
03-27-2014, 03:39 PM
Sorry, I looked the other way for a day or two and missed all this.


If you don't mind my saying it, I get the impression that some of you fret too much about the idea of DF27 being the "Iberian clade". Who is saying that, anyway?

Here is one place to start, courtesy of Maciamo Hay: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml

Besides that, there are his recent forerunners (notably a map by Rich Rocca in which P312xU152,L21 and U106 was a "proxy" for DF27) and successors. Although I have argued with Rich about this, intermittently over the past three years or so, I continue to think he's one of the good guys in this endeavor. None of us were talking about DF27 before Rich and his co-authors brought it to our attention. And for that matter, Maciamo's maps have helped drag this late-to-the-banquet haplogroup out of the shadows. I just don't like to see their graphic simplifications (for the purpose of illustration), brief captions, and rough approximations taken as factual grounds for the construction of huge ethnogeographical edifices, upon genetic quicksand. And I tend to agree with most of what Webb has posted in this thread.


Besides, the obvious distaste that some of you display for the term "Iberian" is liable to offend your many Spanish, Portuguese, and Basque brethren.

I believe the only distaste for "Iberian" that I have displayed is for the casual misapplication of that geographical term. I just think DF27 (and bearers of certain other R1b haplogroups, many of whom were indeed called Celts about 15 centuries later) went there, rather than coming from there. Sometimes one must sort of shout this sort of thing, to be heard over the other noise.

Webb
03-27-2014, 05:46 PM
Going back to the pie charts on page 4 of Hammer's presentation here (https://gap.familytreedna.com/media/docs/2013/Hammer_M269_Diversity_in_Europe.pdf), it is somewhat startling to note that in the Isles there isn't much of a sliver of L11 left over that isn't L21, Z195, U152, or U106.

In the Celtic Fringe countries, L21 and Z195 are the heavy hitters. In England there seems to be a fairly even split, although I wonder where the stats are coming from. If they are from Busby, then there was an eastern sampling bias, and U106 is exaggerated a bit, in my opinion.

Anyway, if those pie charts are right, there isn't much left over for DF19, L238, and DF99 anywhere in Western Europe except in Switzerland and Italy. There is a little bit bigger slice of unclaimed L11 in Germany than elsewhere. Perhaps that is mostly DF19 with some DF99 here and there. Sweden also has a small but noticeable unclaimed L11 slice that is probably mostly L238.

Not just Germany. Look at how the L11 slice grows as you head south east towards Greece.

Webb
03-27-2014, 05:53 PM
Funilly enough that you mention "Irish Type III". L226 is obviously part of wider Z253. Z253 was first discovered in two samples from 1000 genomes sample, one from Colombia and one from Mexican-American sample (from LA). Both men were of "Iberian origin" so perhaps we can say that "Irish Type III" is really Iberian ;) (in jest)

L21+ -> DF13+ -> Z253+ -> Z2534+ -> L226+

Interesting enough "Irish Type IV" (which some called Continental/Irish) also falls under Z2534
L21+ -> DF13+ -> Z253+ -> Z2534+ -> Z2185+ -> L1066.1+ -> CTS9881+ (-- CTS9881 is new!)

My own personal opinion is that within P312 that DF27 and L21 are fellow travellers. They probably arose not too far apart from each other more then likely if you ask me within what we now call France (Gallia).

I believe the 15 percent or so L21 amongst the Basque is the Z2534 variety.

GoldenHind
03-27-2014, 06:03 PM
Going back to the pie charts on page 4 of Hammer's presentation here (https://gap.familytreedna.com/media/docs/2013/Hammer_M269_Diversity_in_Europe.pdf), it is somewhat startling to note that in the Isles there isn't much of a sliver of L11 left over that isn't L21, Z195, U152, or U106.

In the Celtic Fringe countries, L21 and Z195 are the heavy hitters. In England there seems to be a fairly even split, although I wonder where the stats are coming from. If they are from Busby, then there was an eastern sampling bias, and U106 is exaggerated a bit, in my opinion.

Anyway, if those pie charts are right, there isn't much left over for DF19, L238, and DF99 anywhere in Western Europe except in Switzerland and Italy. There is a little bit bigger slice of unclaimed L11 in Germany than elsewhere. Perhaps that is mostly DF19 with some DF99 here and there. Sweden also has a small but noticeable unclaimed L11 slice that is probably mostly L238.

I don't know the source of the data for those pie charts, but I wouldn't bet the farm on their accuracy. As some know, I have been keeping an eye for some time on some of those groups which compose that silver sliver: L238, P312** and more recently DF99. I leave DF19 and DF27(XZ195) to others. Although the distribution of these smaller subclades does not appear to be uniformly spread throughout Europe, I would be surprised if their total numbers are as small as indicated on the pie charts, at least in northern Europe. There are indications that P312** alone is fairly substantial in Britain, including England, Wales and Scotland.

rms2
03-28-2014, 12:06 AM
Not just Germany. Look at how the L11 slice grows as you head south east towards Greece.

I was talking about Western Europe. I would be really surprised if the unclaimed L11 in the Balkans was any combination of DF27xZ195, DF19, DF99, and/or L238.

rms2
03-28-2014, 12:14 AM
I don't know the source of the data for those pie charts, but I wouldn't bet the farm on their accuracy. As some know, I have been keeping an eye for some time on some of those groups which compose that silver sliver: L238, P312** and more recently DF99. I leave DF19 and DF27(XZ195) to others. Although the distribution of these smaller subclades does not appear to be uniformly spread throughout Europe, I would be surprised if their total numbers are as small as indicated on the pie charts, at least in northern Europe. There are indications that P312** alone is fairly substantial in Britain, including England, Wales and Scotland.

It would be interesting to know upon what data those pie charts are based. Busby seems likely, but Busby didn't test for DF27 or Z195.

Still, Hammer is pretty reputable. It is hard to imagine him constructing pie charts that are way off.

rms2
03-28-2014, 12:28 AM
Sorry, I looked the other way for a day or two and missed all this.



Here is one place to start, courtesy of Maciamo Hay: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml

Besides that, there are his recent forerunners (notably a map by Rich Rocca in which P312xU152,L21 and U106 was a "proxy" for DF27) and successors. Although I have argued with Rich about this, intermittently over the past three years or so, I continue to think he's one of the good guys in this endeavor. None of us were talking about DF27 before Rich and his co-authors brought it to our attention. And for that matter, Maciamo's maps have helped drag this late-to-the-banquet haplogroup out of the shadows. I just don't like to see their graphic simplifications (for the purpose of illustration), brief captions, and rough approximations taken as factual grounds for the construction of huge ethnogeographical edifices, upon genetic quicksand. And I tend to agree with most of what Webb has posted in this thread.



I believe the only distaste for "Iberian" that I have displayed is for the casual misapplication of that geographical term. I just think DF27 (and bearers of certain other R1b haplogroups, many of whom were indeed called Celts about 15 centuries later) went there, rather than coming from there. Sometimes one must sort of shout this sort of thing, to be heard over the other noise.

Well, despite the title Maciamo chose to apply to DF27, even he does not believe it originated in Iberia.



It is hard to say when exactly DF27 entered Iberia. Considering its overwhelming presence in the peninsula and in south-west France, it is likely that DF27 arrived early, during the 1800 to 1300 BCE period, and perhaps even earlier, if R1b adventurers penetrated the Bell Beaker culture, as they appear to have done all over Western Europe from 2300 BCE to 1800 BCE. The Atlantic Bronze Age could correspond to the period when DF27 radiated more evenly around Iberia and ended up, following Atlantic trade routes, all the way to the British Isles, the Netherlands and western Norway (where M153 and SRY2728 make up about 1% of the population).

I don't think it really matters when the Celts were called Celts. If the Beaker Folk were speaking an early form of Celtic during the 3rd millennium BC, then it is likely that most of the subclades of P312 were born into a Celtic or Italo-Celtic milieu. In fact, since P312 itself doesn't predate its major branches by much, it is likely that it was a part of the Proto-Italo-Celtic milieu itself.

That's not to say that absolutely all of P312 was uniformly Italo-Celtic or Celtic always and everywhere. I am generalizing about what I believe is true of the bulk of the haplogroup.

alan
03-28-2014, 12:30 AM
I had kind of hoped the splitting off sequence below P312 would have been better understood by now but it still seems stubbornly looking like P312 led to the three big breeding brothers and a couple of minor ones. I thought it might have been possible to show a sequence in the breaking off with perhaps one breaking off first and two continuing on the same line before splitting etc - you know what I mean. However, unless I have missed it there doesnt seem to be any evidence of this as yet. I personally have a hunch that L21 remained on a parallel P312* line to very early U152 and DF27 and possibly L21 and a couple of the minor P312 brothers are linked. Just a guess though and it seems like there was a false alarm on this last week.

Webb
03-28-2014, 02:02 AM
I regularly check semargl's website as Geno 2.0 results are posted there as they come. I regularly cross check CTS's looking for markers shared by the three P312 clades. Early on there were numerous snps, however most, if not all must have been chip design flaws, as the more recent results are showing about half of the CTS's that the earlier kits were showing.

GoldenHind
03-29-2014, 05:58 PM
I regularly check semargl's website as Geno 2.0 results are posted there as they come. I regularly cross check CTS's looking for markers shared by the three P312 clades. Early on there were numerous snps, however most, if not all must have been chip design flaws, as the more recent results are showing about half of the CTS's that the earlier kits were showing.

May I remind you there are actually six P312 subclades? Of these, L238 appears to be the youngest, and in my opinion, the most likely to have an upstream SNP.

GoldenHind
03-29-2014, 06:02 PM
It would be interesting to know upon what data those pie charts are based. Busby seems likely, but Busby didn't test for DF27 or Z195.

Still, Hammer is pretty reputable. It is hard to imagine him constructing pie charts that are way off.

With out knowing the source and especially the numbers involved, it is difficult to know how reliable the data is. They seem to be in conflict with other studies I have seen.

Webb
03-29-2014, 11:39 PM
May I remind you there are actually six P312 subclades? Of these, L238 appears to be the youngest, and in my opinion, the most likely to have an upstream SNP.

Geno 2.0 is not testing all 6.

rms2
03-29-2014, 11:52 PM
With out knowing the source and especially the numbers involved, it is difficult to know how reliable the data is. They seem to be in conflict with other studies I have seen.

What other studies are those? I don't mean that in an adversarial way; I really am interested. Frankly, I was surprised that those pie charts showed so little unclaimed L11.

However, I would say that Hammer deserves the benefit of the doubt, and it seems extremely unlikely that his pie charts are too far off.