PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Jean M
11-12-2013, 10:28 AM
I'm starting a separate thread for this, because it is a dramatic shift of view by a significant figure. Some of the details have already been posted on other threads, but this one I suggest could collate the various reports of his presentation at the 2013 Family Tree DNA Conference.

Roberta Estes gives details on her blog, with some slides: http://dna-explained.com/2013/11/12/2013-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2/

She covers his shift of ground on the age of R1b in Europe:


Previous studies indicate that haplogroup R has a Paleolithic origin, but 2 recent studies agree that this haplogroup has a more recent origin in Europe – the Neolithic but disagree about the timing of the expansion. The first study, Joblin’s study in 2010, argued that geographic diversity is explained by single Near East source via Anatolia. It conclude that the Y of Mesolithic hunger-gatherers were nearly replaced by those of incoming farmers. In the most recent study by Busby in 2012 is the largest study and concludes that there is no diversity in the mapping of R SNP markers so they could not date lineage and expansion. They did find that most basic structure of R tree did come from the near east. They looked at P311 as marker for expansion into Europe, wherever it was. Hammer says that in his opinion, he thought that if P311 is so frequent and widespread in Europe it must have been there a long time. However, it appears that he and most everyone else, was wrong.

The hypothesis to be tested is if P311 originated prior to the Neolithic wave, it would predict higher diversity it the near east, closer to the origins of agriculture. If P311 originated after the expansion, would be able to see it migrate across Europe and it would have had to replace an existing population.

Because we now have sequences the DNA of about 40 ancient DNA specimens, Michael turned to the ancient DNA literature....This evidence supports a recent spread of haplogroup R lineages in western Europe about 5K years ago. This also supports evidence that P311 moved into Europe after the Neolithic agricultural transition and nearly displaced the previously existing western European Neolithic Y, which appears to be G2a.


Hammer will post all his slides, which will be available through a link on the GAP page at FTDNA by the end of the week.

Jean M
11-12-2013, 11:01 AM
Brad Larkin blogged faster http://www.surnamedna.com/?p=950


Dr Michael Hammer gave an interesting presentation at the FTDNA Conference today on R1b origins. Highlights included:

Recent work on sibling Y haplogroup K suggests that R ancestors migrated out of Africa and into SouthEast Asia then moved back west into Anatolia. This implies changes are needed in the migration maps presented by FTDNA & Genographic project.

Recap that no R1b found at ancient DNA sites from Europe.

R1b subgroups and cultural markers evidence several expansion centers in Europe,

Overall, P311 marker which is distinctly European part of R1b probably arose AFTER agriculture started in Europe but expanded rapidly and replaced G2a in the population. By contrast MtDNA pattern seems more conserved, especially in Northern Europe.

With expansion of SNPs we are starting to get SNPs in the historic era. By implication, these are starting to correspond to population groups recorded in history.

SNP CTS1122 seems like a distinctly Scottish Marker. Just as M222 is concentrated in Ireland and DF21 in England.

There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test. Plans to update the results page for these changes on the FTDNA result pages are well underway.

Jean M
11-12-2013, 11:05 AM
Jennifer Zinck gives more detail at Ancestor Central http://www.ancestorcentral.com/archives/821


Dr. Michael Hammer presented Origins of R-M269 Diversity in Europe. In 2010 the R-M269 clade would fit on one page. Now it can be made into a scroll! Now we can start talking about breaking up haplogroups with SNPs and this is very exciting. SNPs are appearing much faster than they can even type them in populations.

There were three major expansions into Europe. The first anatomically modern humans from Africa were about 45,000 years ago. Around 17,000 years ago after the Last Glacial Maximum out of the southern refugia there was a major expansion of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers. Neolithic Farmers from the Near East expanded beginning about 10,000 years ago.

In 2003, Diamond & Bellwood suggested that when these farming centers appeared due to independent origination of farming technology, these food production genes conferred an enormous advantage to farmers vs. hunter-gatherers. This triggered the outward expansions of farming populations. Their hypothesis was followed up by several studies looking at genetic replacement in Europe. There is disagreement about origins and timing. The Balareque group argues that “geographical distribution of STR diversity on the background of R-M269 is best explained by spread from a single source into the Near East via Anatolia during the Neolithic.” Busby’s study of 2012 contrasted that and found that there is no relationship between diversity and longitude for R-M269.

Dr. Hammer felt that P311 had to be pretty old and he thought it should be watched as a pointer. Alternate hypotheses include one that says that R-P311 originated prior to the Neolithic wave of expansion and the other indicates afterward. Dr. Hammer turned to the ancient DNA literature. There is now enough data out of different ancient DNA studies with Y chromosomes. There were samples from caves in France, Spain, Germany, and the well known Otzi sample. These are 5,000 – 7,000 years old. The cave in France yielded 20 G2a samples and 2 I2a samples. The cave in Spain yielded 5 G2a samples and 1 E1bibi. In Germany 1 G2a3 and 2 F*. Three populations studied close to the French site yield about 60.5% R1b. The second site 52.8 and the third 53.3. This indicates that there is something different going on now than there was 5,000 years ago. This evidence supports a recent spread of HgR lineages into Europe. The R-P311 lineage moved after the Neolithic agricultural transition. This is the Y chromosome only. The mitochondrial lines indicate something totally different. This is a male driven process.

U106, L21, and U152 each have a different epicenter in Europe. These radial distributions are the pattern that they’re seeing with the subhaplogroups. This suggests that the differentiation process may have occurred in multiple localized centers of expansion after the Neolithic period. Archaeological sites reveal that the spread of the Neolithic was not constant. There are “centers of renewed expansion” across Europe...

We are now talking about population movements without about the past 4,000 years. R1b appears in the Caucasus by the early Neolithic. By the end of the Neolithic, it is still isolated to pockets in Eastern Europe. Then in the Early-Mid Bronze age about 4500-4000 years ago, R1b was found in central Europe. By about 4000-3500 years ago, R1b begins to reach western Europe. In the Iron Age 3200-3000 years ago there was a period of differentiation in centers of renewed expansion. It is possible that this continued through the Iron Age and can be seen as recently as 2,000 years ago. There is a lot left to be learned and the ancient DNA contribution will be very large to determine the R1b overtaking of the Neolithic chromosomes.

greystones22
11-12-2013, 11:06 AM
Any closet statisticians want to comment on the relative power of the existing aDNA studies to find Hg R?

Because of the tribal nature of ancient cultures will there will be a bias towards males being related? Maybe this makes it less likely?

thanks

GTC
11-12-2013, 11:30 AM
Am waiting for the complete set of session slides to be uploaded somewhere.

(Could the moderator please correct the thread title to read 'Hammer' not 'Hammers').

Jean M
11-12-2013, 11:31 AM
Any closet statisticians want to comment on the relative power of the existing aDNA studies to find Hg R?


In order to get a firmer grip on the timing and routes of Y-DNA R into Europe, we need far more ancient Y-DNA, and particularly from regions of Europe where no Y-DNA at all has yet been published. That includes the British Isles. There is a long way to go to achieve the kind of coverage that will take us out of the realms of speculation solely on the basis of modern DNA.

Jean M
11-12-2013, 11:32 AM
(Could the moderator please correct the thread title to read 'Hammer' not 'Hammers').

Sorry. I have fixed my post title, but suspect that the moderator may have to tweek something to make that show up outside the thread.

Rathna
11-12-2013, 12:00 PM
Hammer's theory risks of lacking its foundations if he doesn't prove that Middle East gets the ancestor of all R1b1 subclades, i.e. R-L388/L389+.
The only Asians tested for this SNP (SNPs), for my impulse, are Raza and Joshi, both L389-.
I am asking from many years that Middle Easterner R1b1 with YCAII= 21-23 or 23-23 are tested for L389 and not only for P25, which is ancestral and not equivalent to L389. That Mr Hammer tests the Armenian R1b1 of the "R1b1 FTDNA Project" and demonstrates that they are L389+.
The Jewish cluster R1b1 is only one haplotype and introgressed from Western Europe.

GTC
11-12-2013, 12:40 PM
we need far more ancient Y-DNA, and particularly from regions of Europe where no Y-DNA at all has yet been published. That includes the British Isles.

PoBI Project, where a-r-e you?

Clinton P
11-12-2013, 02:03 PM
Some of the slides presented at the FTDNA 2013 conference appear to have been 'lifted' from the Eupedia Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) website.

Clinton P

greystones22
11-12-2013, 02:40 PM
In order to get a firmer grip on the timing and routes of Y-DNA R into Europe, we need far more ancient Y-DNA, and particularly from regions of Europe where no Y-DNA at all has yet been published. That includes the British Isles. There is a long way to go to achieve the kind of coverage that will take us out of the realms of speculation solely on the basis of modern DNA.

Yes I understand this concept.
My point was really to ask how reasonable the "lack of evidence" theory was, given so few aDNA samples have been examined. Statisticians can usually bracket such claims with confidence intervals.

POBI won't help with this, its all modern DNA.
This project will hopefully answer some questions: http://beanproject.eu/content/about-bean-network-0

jeanL
11-12-2013, 02:49 PM
This isn't anything new, I don't know what is all the fuss about!!! He doesn't seem to address the Chalcolithic finding of R1b-M269 in Germany. Also I don't see how this somehow disproves the presence of R1b-L11+ in Pre-Neolithic Europe, if anything, what this is arguing against is the arrival of R1b-L11+ with the Neolithic agriculturist from Anatolia, thus disproving the Balaresque.et.al.2010 study which claimed that R1b-M269 originated in Anatolia 4000-8000 years ago, which is still being shown in ISSOG's Y-DNA tree. Again, I'm not saying that R1b-M269(L11+) was or was not in Paleolithic Europe, I'm simply saying that using this as the line of evidence against it, is illogical, since why would anyone expect to find a Paleolithic lineages amongst Neolithic farmers given that we now know from Autosomal studies and mt-DNA studies that Hunter Gatherers and Farmers lived in segregated communities from one another for at least 2000 years before finally intermixing.

ADW_1981
11-12-2013, 03:00 PM
This isn't anything new, I don't know what is all the fuss about!!! He doesn't seem to address the Chalcolithic finding of R1b-M269 in Germany. Also I don't see how this somehow disproves the presence of R1b-L11+ in Pre-Neolithic Europe, if anything, what this is arguing against is the arrival of R1b-L11+ with the Neolithic agriculturist from Anatolia, thus disproving the Balaresque.et.al.2010 study which claimed that R1b-M269 originated in Anatolia 4000-8000 years ago, which is still being shown in ISSOG's Y-DNA tree. Again, I'm not saying that R1b-M269(L11+) was or was not in Paleolithic Europe, I'm simply saying that using this as the line of evidence against it, is illogical, since why would anyone expect to find a Paleolithic lineages amongst Neolithic farmers given that we now know from Autosomal studies and mt-DNA studies that Hunter Gatherers and Farmers lived in segregated communities from one another for at least 2000 years before finally intermixing.

Well said. Unless there is additional compelling evidence that is not provided in this summary, I very much agree. Unfortunately it will only take 1 aDNA sample to blow down this house of cards. I would agree that L11+ and downstream clades may very well be post-Neolithic. This has absolutely nothing to do with R1b's placement in Europe, or earlier settlements of hunter-gatherer. We have no YDNA of any European foragers....

Silesian
11-12-2013, 03:30 PM
Hammer's theory risks of lacking its foundations if he doesn't prove that Middle East gets the ancestor of all R1b1 subclades, i.e. R-L388/L389+.
The only Asians tested for this SNP (SNPs), for my impulse, are Raza and Joshi, both L389-.
I am asking from many years that Middle Easterner R1b1 with YCAII= 21-23 or 23-23 are tested for L389 and not only for P25, which is ancestral and not equivalent to L389. That Mr Hammer tests the Armenian R1b1 of the "R1b1 FTDNA Project" and demonstrates that they are L389+.
The Jewish cluster R1b1 is only one haplotype and introgressed from Western Europe.

It looks like nothing new. However lets wait for all the information to be put out. So far the link shows a brief explanation of MAH leaving Africa 45k ,30 non R1b samples between 6k and7k and 94 out of 172 modern R1b samples. No mention or breakdown of King Tut or Kromsdorf German samples. That leaves us with 39 thousand year gap and fill in the blanks with conjecture and theories; no samples presented as of yet.

ADW_1981
11-12-2013, 03:55 PM
It looks like nothing new. However lets wait for all the information to be put out. So far the link shows a brief explanation of MAH leaving Africa 45k ,30 non R1b samples between 6k and7k and 94 out of 172 modern R1b samples. No mention or breakdown of King Tut or Kromsdorf German samples. That leaves us with 39 thousand year gap and fill in the blanks with conjecture and theories; no samples presented as of yet.

Of course not. Would you expect "Muslim Arab" controlled Egypt to release anything that was less than J1c3d?

Silesian
11-12-2013, 05:12 PM
Of course not. Would you expect "Muslim Arab" controlled Egypt to release anything that was less than J1c3d?

Ah that explains why after 6 weeks I have not received a return email from Zahi Hawass with regard to king Tuts results. You think after a couple of regime changes, they would release that kind of information to better science. After 3 years of waiting, your implying that a conflict of interest exists, I would tend to have to agree. Every bit of information helps in trying to clarify out the time line and logistics of R1bs path.

alan
11-12-2013, 05:20 PM
Jennifer Zink gives more detail at Ancestor Central http://www.ancestorcentral.com/archives/821

Why the Caucasus?

Humanist
11-12-2013, 05:44 PM
Ah that explains why after 6 weeks I have not received a return email from Zahi Hawass with regard to king Tuts results.

A bit OT

If it makes you feel any better, I attempted to contact one of the European researchers regarding King Tut's result. I did not expect a reply, and did not receive one.

This is from Wikipedia:


Hawass has been skeptical of DNA testing of Egyptian mummies: "From what I understand, it is not always accurate and it cannot always be done with complete success when dealing with mummies. Until we know for sure that it is accurate, we will not use it in our research."[42]

In December 2000, a joint team from Waseda University in Japan and Cairo's Ain Shams University tried to get permission for DNA testing of Egyptian mummies, but was denied by the Egyptian Government.[citation needed] Hawass added that DNA analysis was out of the question because it would not lead to anything.[43]

Il Papà
11-12-2013, 05:49 PM
They don't seems to talk about that German Bell beaker R1b.

ADW_1981
11-12-2013, 05:54 PM
A couple things I would challenge from blogged excerpts from the conference.

"Any thoughts on why R1b didn’t infringe on J? Could be due to Roman legions bringing Mediterranean haplogroups."

It seems like the north European farming communities collapsed which likely led to the dominance of a couple of haplogroups such as R1b and I1. While the Balkans was depopulated, groups like E-V13 eventually filled in these gaps. The data still points to giving R1b a slight numeric edge over J in Southern Europe - Sicily, southern Greece, and western Turkey to name a few places.

"Bennett asked who built Stonehenge? Mike said he thinks it’s haplogroup G2a. It is not R1b."

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

Mikewww
11-12-2013, 06:09 PM
Jennifer Zink gives more detail at Ancestor Central http://www.ancestorcentral.com/archives/821

I have a technical correction. Zink wrote,
"Busby’s study of 2012 contrasted that and found that there is no relationship between diversity and longitude for R-M269."

Busby, et. al. did not report that of M269 as a whole, they eliminated M269xL23 and L23xL11 to make an assessment about S127/L11 only. That is one of the things that bothered by about Busby's methodology. I don't see why it is justifiable to ignore L23xL11 in that part of the assessment. There is plenty data available on it.

That could easily affect one's conclusion.

Silesian
11-12-2013, 06:12 PM
A couple things I would challenge from blogged excerpts from the conference.

"Any thoughts on why R1b didn’t infringe on J? Could be due to Roman legions bringing Mediterranean haplogroups."

It seems like the north European farming communities collapsed which likely led to the dominance of a couple of haplogroups such as R1b and I1. While the Balkans was depopulated, groups like E-V13 eventually filled in these gaps. The data still points to giving R1b a slight numeric edge over J in Southern Europe - Sicily, southern Greece, and western Turkey to name a few places.

"Bennett asked who built Stonehenge? Mike said he thinks it’s haplogroup G2a. It is not R1b."

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

I'm not sure I fully understand the path outlined in the slides, that's why I'm waiting to see the official material, hoping there might actually be some concrete dated samples. However in rough general terms if the path for ancestral R _ R1b started at timeline 45K MAH, migrated from Africa to Indonesia and then to Siberia Q+R with the newest R1b clades in Western Europe that would roughly equate to a 15 thousand mile journey in 45 thousand years 1 mile every 3 years. I'm not sure how M73 and V88 back to Africa, fit in this time frame?

Mikewww
11-12-2013, 06:21 PM
Of course not. Would you expect "Muslim Arab" controlled Egypt to release anything that was less than J1c3d?

I'm speaking as a moderator. The way you used a certain population as an adjective is not conducive to logical debate. Please, let us stay away from that.

Also, I tried to reset the title per Jean's request. All of you may have to update your "subscription" to this thread if you want to get email updates, etc.

parasar
11-12-2013, 08:05 PM
I'm not sure I fully understand the path outlined in the slides, that's why I'm waiting to see the official material, hoping there might actually be some concrete dated samples. However in rough general terms if the path for ancestral R _ R1b started at timeline 45K MAH, migrated from Africa to Indonesia and then to Siberia Q+R with the newest R1b clades in Western Europe that would roughly equate to a 15 thousand mile journey in 45 thousand years 1 mile every 3 years. I'm not sure how M73 and V88 back to Africa, fit in this time frame?

I think the timeline will need to be calibrated with ancient DNA.

The path outline is:
K moves from Africa to SE Asia.
K diversifies in SE Asia.
Descendants of K - P,Q, R move west.

At this point we get some ancient DNA confirmation.

We know that the Baikal-Mal'ta find is R and that is 24000ybp. Let us assume, that is the first R in Siberia. Close to it we have the first Q in Siberia which moves to the Americas and we do see >10000ybp Q-M3 ancient DNA in America.

Now from Europe we have both positive presence of R about 5000 years before present and absence before that.

Which means that it took 19000 years for R to reach Europe from the Baikal. While I doubt this happened (as I think R reached Europe much earlier), the time-line looks very plausible.

jeanL
11-12-2013, 08:09 PM
I have a technical correction. Zink wrote,
"Busby’s study of 2012 contrasted that and found that there is no relationship between diversity and longitude for R-M269."

Busby, et. al. did not report that of M269 as a whole, they eliminated M269xL23 and L23xL11 to make an assessment about S127/L11 only. That is one of the things that bothered by about Busby's methodology. I don't see why it is justifiable to ignore L23xL11 in that part of the assessment. There is plenty data available on it.

That could easily affect one's conclusion.

Not quite, Figure-2 a) shows the diversity of R1b-M269+(i.e. no exclusions) and as you can see the diversity peak isn't in the East but in Central Europe/Western Balkans.

911

Here is the legend:


Frequency distributions and variation of Y chromosome haplogroups R-M269, R-S127 and R-M269(xS127) in Europe. The three panels show contour maps based on the frequencies of the different haplogroups found across Europe and western Asia: (a) R-M269, (b) R-S127 and (c) R-M269(xS127). The maps on the left are based on the frequencies of the SNPs in all populations marked on the map (data in electronic supplementary material, table S1 and figure S1). The graphs on the right show the relationship between longitude and bootstrap variance based on 10 STRs for all populations with at least 10 individuals carrying that SNP. The R2 and associated p-values are shown for the correlations in the graphs. The population codes are detailed in table 1 and electronic supplementary material, table S1.

If you want to argue on small number of STR fine, but don't say that they didn't report M269 as a whole, when did in fact did do so.

newtoboard
11-12-2013, 08:29 PM
I think the timeline will need to be calibrated with ancient DNA.

The path outline is:
K moves from Africa to SE Asia.
K diversifies in SE Asia.
Descendants of K - P,Q, R move west.

At this point we get some ancient DNA confirmation.

We know that the Baikal-Mal'ta find is R and that is 24000ybp. Let us assume, that is the first R in Siberia. Close to it we have the first Q in Siberia which moves to the Americas and we do see >10000ybp Q-M3 ancient DNA in America.

Now from Europe we have both positive presence of R about 5000 years before present and absence before that.

Which means that it took 19000 years for R to reach Europe from the Baikal. While I doubt this happened (as I think R reached Europe much earlier), the time-line looks very plausible.

You really think K originated in Africa? I'd say somewhere in between West Asia and SE Asia is more likely.

parasar
11-12-2013, 08:41 PM
You really think K originated in Africa? I'd say somewhere in between West Asia and SE Asia is more likely.

Re: K, I was summarizing what the reported here: http://dna-explained.com/2013/11/12/2013-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2/
I very much doubt that K was born in Africa.

vettor
11-12-2013, 08:49 PM
You really think K originated in Africa? I'd say somewhere in between West Asia and SE Asia is more likely.

I believe K formed in Mesopotamia with such people as elamites, sumerains, Uruks to name a few

vettor
11-12-2013, 08:50 PM
I think the timeline will need to be calibrated with ancient DNA.

The path outline is:
K moves from Africa to SE Asia.
K diversifies in SE Asia.
Descendants of K - P,Q, R move west.

At this point we get some ancient DNA confirmation.

We know that the Baikal-Mal'ta find is R and that is 24000ybp. Let us assume, that is the first R in Siberia. Close to it we have the first Q in Siberia which moves to the Americas and we do see >10000ybp Q-M3 ancient DNA in America.

Now from Europe we have both positive presence of R about 5000 years before present and absence before that.

Which means that it took 19000 years for R to reach Europe from the Baikal. While I doubt this happened (as I think R reached Europe much earlier), the time-line looks very plausible.


what happened with N and O and T and L , ...........both from K ?

newtoboard
11-12-2013, 08:53 PM
I believe K formed in Mesopotamia with such people as elamites, sumerains, Uruks to name a few

Based on what?

parasar
11-12-2013, 09:04 PM
what happened with N and O and T and L , ...........both from K ?
I would assume those are included too in the diversification, but while chart is not clear as all of K is in the box, the downstream mutation listed is M526.
Hammer looks to be mainly concerned with P and R.

Regarding L and T, both show presence in SE India so they may have branched off separately.

parasar
11-12-2013, 09:26 PM
I would assume those are included too in the diversification, but while chart is not clear as all of K is in the box, the downstream mutation listed is M526.
Hammer looks to be mainly concerned with P and R.

Regarding L and T, both show presence in SE India so they may have branched off separately.

Maldives has a good proportion of K(xL,M,NO,P,S,T) as does SE Asia, but the authors reject any SE Asian connection.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/ajpa.22256/asset/supinfo/ajpa22256-sup-0010-suppinfo6.xlsx?v=1&931292c1


We report a strong genetic link between the Maldives Islands and the Indian sub-continent. We exclude the sharing of haplogroups between Southeast Asia and the Maldives, which questions the previously suggested central role of a Maldive Islands' stopping point for migration from South East Asia to Madagascar. The Maldives were more likely used for supplies than for settling a population, which is no surprise considering the limited landmass of coral atolls. We also dismiss female-mediated gene flow from West Asia. Male-mediated gene flow from West Asia to the Maldives could have occurred, although it cannot be separated from such gene flow through South Asia. The wide range of Y-chromosomal and mtDNA haplogroups mirrors the haplogroup diversity in South Asia.

So from SE Asia to Europe it appears P-R/Q followed the Siberian route rather than through India.

alan
11-12-2013, 10:27 PM
So where is this stuff about P or whatever heading east then heading back coming from and how does R* in Siberia 24000 years ago fit in?

Mikewww
11-12-2013, 11:02 PM
Not quite, Figure-2 a) shows the diversity of R1b-M269+(i.e. no exclusions) and as you can see the diversity peak isn't in the East but in Central Europe/Western Balkans.

Here is the legend:
If you want to argue on small number of STR fine, but don't say that they didn't report M269 as a whole, when did in fact did do so.

Okay. I did not intend to say they did not look at M269 beyond S127, just as it relates to the specific statement that I think Jennifer was noting. However, I'll leave it at Busby's work is fine, so I'll retract any criticism.

Let me go on and say I agree with the specific point that diversity of L11/S127 is about the same across Europe. However, my conclusion is that may have been caused by a rapid spread rather than old age in place.

On another topic, why are we talking about hg K, P, Q, N, O, P? I tried to set up a different thread in the general (non-R) category for that. I thought this was about Hammer's presentation and hg R?

alan
11-12-2013, 11:31 PM
The sentence 'R1b appears in the Caucasus by the early Neolithic' is very curious. Although I have speculated about the Caucasus having a role in the dispersal of R1b in terms of L23 in Maykop and V88 in Kura Araxes, that is only speculative and more importantly by no stretch of the imagination is that 'early Neolithic'. That period is not even late Neolithic, more copper age. There is L23 in the Caucasus but there is a lot more in the Balkans, Anatolia etc.

Some of the other suggestions of an Anatolia to Balkans move doesnt really work unless we are talking about the dairy farming spread which perhaps crossed into the Balkans about 5200BC. That would be a substantial stretch for even L23xL51 datewise. However, if it was true it is interesting. There is no doubt that the influence of the farming world, especially pastoralists was crucial in the creation of PIE society as before that there were just hunter-fishing cultures. Steppe hunters alone did not create the roots of PIE society. How much relative importance is put on the two elements depends on who you read. Some archaeologists from Ukraine and Russia put a very big emphasis on the influence of the farming world on the steppe. There is also evidence of mixed craniological types even among actual steppe groups like Stedny Stog. I tend to think people look at the steppe and farming worlds as completely oppositional but I think the creation of PIE society was due to the mixture. Otherwise we would just be looking at a bunch of hunter-fishers.



Jennifer Zink gives more detail at Ancestor Central http://www.ancestorcentral.com/archives/821

vettor
11-12-2013, 11:38 PM
On another topic, why are we talking about hg K, P, Q, N, O, P? I tried to set up a different thread in the general (non-R) category for that. I thought this was about Hammer's presentation and hg R?

Because this sentence from the conference is important for R which came from P and K

To make things even more interesting, the base tree that includes R has also been shifted, dramatically.

Haplogroup K has been significantly revised and is the parent of haplogroups P, R and Q.

It has been broken into 4 major branches from several individual lineages – widely shifted clades.

Haps R and Q are the only groups that are not restricted to Oceana and Southeast Asia.

Rapid splitting of lineages in Southeast Asia to P, R and Q, the last two of which then appear in western Europe.

This is significant for all the migration

alan
11-13-2013, 12:54 AM
I wonder if this pass was used

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


Because this sentence from the conference is important for R which came from P and K

To make things even more interesting, the base tree that includes R has also been shifted, dramatically.

Haplogroup K has been significantly revised and is the parent of haplogroups P, R and Q.

It has been broken into 4 major branches from several individual lineages – widely shifted clades.

Haps R and Q are the only groups that are not restricted to Oceana and Southeast Asia.

Rapid splitting of lineages in Southeast Asia to P, R and Q, the last two of which then appear in western Europe.

This is significant for all the migration

alan
11-13-2013, 11:13 AM
That pass is sometimes considered the only good way through the mountains between Manchuria and Afghanistan. So, short of going along the Pacific coast it must be the main candidate for the ancestor of R to have reached Siberia. Interesting thing is that the pass does come out relatively close to Lake Baikal etc on its north side. So, if the powers that be want to refine a map to explain Siberia R coming from a more easterly position than previously thought I think this surely must be the leading contender of the route north.


I posted before though that I dont think the same route was taken by R on exit from central Siberia during the LGM based on the distribution of earlier R/R1b forms. I have no idea how feasible that pass would have been in the LGM. Q might have headed in that general direction though. Some people think those that retreated to Altai and nearby formed the microblade cultures of the late upper Palaeolithic who were the first to be able to expand into arctic Siberia etc and some of the clades of Q associated with native Americans were linked to south Altai recently (where there is no R1b by the way). The only R1b in Altai is M73 and was found a group of Turkic people who are known to have retreated there from further west to escape Russian domination c. 1600AD - so they may well have absorbed M73 further west. So, I think its clear enough that R retreated west across central Asia in the LGM and there is a trail of early R1b along the southern edge of what was the central Asian desert at that time.

Generalissimo
11-13-2013, 11:40 AM
We are now talking about population movements without about the past 4,000 years. R1b appears in the Caucasus by the early Neolithic. By the end of the Neolithic, it is still isolated to pockets in Eastern Europe. Then in the Early-Mid Bronze age about 4500-4000 years ago, R1b was found in central Europe. By about 4000-3500 years ago, R1b begins to reach western Europe. In the Iron Age 3200-3000 years ago there was a period of differentiation in centers of renewed expansion.

I swear I read something like that at Eupedia a few years ago. Didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. But it looks like Mike Hammers is a fan. I wonder what his nick is at the Eupedia forum?

GTC
11-13-2013, 11:46 AM
I swear I read something like that at Eupedia a few years ago. Didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. But it looks like Mike Hammers is a fan. I wonder what his nick is at the Eupedia forum?

I gather that Dr Hammer (no 's'), a distinguished geneticist, is on record as having recently changed his mind on this topic hence his presentation on it, so I very much doubt he was publishing stuff on Eupedia years ago, or at any time.

Generalissimo
11-13-2013, 11:52 AM
I gather that Dr Hammer (no 's'), a distinguished geneticist, is on record as having recently changed his mind on this topic hence his presentation on it, so I very much doubt he was publishing stuff on Eupedia years ago, or at any time.

No, but Maciamo (the main guy at Eupedia) was. So I was wondering whether Mike Hammer was lurking there at the time?

But in any case, it doesn't matter. My point was that this sort of speculation based on modern data isn't anything new.

Jean M
11-13-2013, 01:18 PM
@ David, JeanL and anyone else remarking that the views of Dr Hammer seem familiar - I am not surprised! :)

The R1b-from-the-east-later-than-palaeolithic thesis has been around on various Internet forums for years. I don't know who should get the credit for the first suspicion that R1b did not appear old enough to have spread from Iberia in the Mesolithic and that its earliest subclades appear more common today in the Near East than Europe. Vince V. and others involved in FTDNA Y-DNA R projects seemed in the lead when I first took notice. Vince's thinking was that if R1b did not spread with the Mesolithic, then it must have arrived with the first farmers. The alternative is that R1b was the other half of the Indo-European story. Or at least it is an alternative for those of us who see the logic of lexico-cultural dating, which places Proto-Indo-European at not much earlier than 3500 BC. The case for R1b as IE was already being argued by Rich S. (now FTDNA R1b L21 project) when I arrived on DNA Forums in 2008, and I am told that Michal M. (FTDNA R1a and subclades project) had the same idea earlier.

The earliest academic publication to follow Vince V.'s thinking was Arredi, Poloni and Tyler-Smith 2007, but this was a book chapter that did not make much impact on academia or the public. It did not come out with a press release to get it noticed. They dated R1b1a2 (M269) as 5000-8000 ya, very close to V.V.'s dating. Karafet 2008 dated R1 (M173) as c. 18,500 years old, which made it unlikely that R arrived in Europe with the first Homo Sapiens 46,000 years ago. Then we had Balaresque et al 2010, A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000285), PLoS Biology, which told the same story as Arredi, Poloni and Tyler-Smith 2007, but in an open-access journal and so with much more impact.

This stirred up the academic opposition, who could scarcely credit that they could have been wrong all this time. Their feeble response to Balaresque was Busby 2012, which restricted itself to looking at variance in R1b-M269. R1b-M269 is found in the Near East and Europe. Earlier subclades of R1b are found in Asia. So the paper ignored the earlier subclades, and discounted the R1b-M269 in Anatolia as somehow different (by virtue of not being in Europe) and therefore to be considered a separate subclade. It ignored the fact that the greatest variance in R1b (M343) as a whole is in the Near East/Anatolia. It ignored the most convincing evidence of movement from east to west: the chain of SNP mutations within R1b runs in that direction, with those which occurred earliest being most prevalent without additional mutations towards the east. Focusing simply on R1b-M269 [correction - not just within Europe] enabled the authors to argue that the highest diversity is not necessarily in the east - or anywhere.

Up to this point the academic debate was between the old guard (R1b spread from Iberia in the Mesolithic) and those feeling that R1b arrived with farmers. It was ancient DNA that shifted some towards the view that R1b arrived in the late Neolithic or early Copper/Bronze Age. Papers moving in that direction include Ron Pinhasi, Mark G. Thomas, Michael Hofreiter, Mathias Currat, Joachim Burger, The genetic history of Europeans, Trends in Genetics October 2012, Vol. 28, No. 10. So my book arrived this autumn to a ground already prepared to some extent.

Dr Hammer is not breaking new ground - that's very true! However his shift is significant for its likely impact on the background story provided to customers by FTDNA.

parasar
11-13-2013, 01:30 PM
I recall VV's triple ovals - V88 M73 M269 - with the overlap in the Anatolia region.

razyn
11-13-2013, 02:37 PM
It's just a quibble, really, but most of this discussion of Dr. Hammer's slide lecture is based on Jennifer Zinck's (excellent) note-taking from the audience. So, as long as we are correcting the spelling of his surname, I thought somebody should correct the spelling of hers. Zinck, with a "c" in it. And references on this thread to what "he said" are really to what she paraphrased his having said. I believe he said he'd make the slides available, but as far as I'm aware the text of his speech hasn't been released.

Jean M
11-13-2013, 02:44 PM
Jennifer Zinck's (excellent) note-taking from the audience. So, as long as we are correcting the spelling of his surname, I thought somebody should correct the spelling of hers. Zinck, with a "c" in it..

My apologies. It is too late for me to edit my post with the error, but at least you have corrected it.

Generalissimo
11-13-2013, 02:53 PM
Dr Hammer is not breaking new ground - that's very true! However his shift is significant for its likely impact on the background story provided to customers by FTDNA.

Well, my opinion right now is that he's been reading too much Eupedia. I can even see some maps from Eupedia used in the slides at the conference...

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

But anyway, this map here is very interesting...

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

Note, however, that it mostly shows post-Neolithic in-situ expansions, rather than invasions. So I wouldn't take those blogs too seriously when they claim that new information shows that R1b arrived in Europe after the Neolithic, because we don't really know whether Hammer said that.

The P312 in the Carpathian Basin is very interesting for a couple of reasons, like the purported Italo-Celtic migrations from that area to Italy, and the earlier presence of eastern Bell Beakers there. But how and when it got there isn't clear, and I don't think a late Neolithic or post-Neolithic migration from Anatolia seems very plausible.

Humanist
11-13-2013, 02:57 PM
Jennifer Zinck gives more detail at Ancestor Central http://www.ancestorcentral.com/archives/821


My apologies. It is too late for me to edit my post with the error, but at least you have corrected it.

It is fine now.

Jean M
11-13-2013, 03:00 PM
It's just a quibble, really, but... as far as I'm aware the text of his speech hasn't been released.

More than a quibble, I'd say, since notes of his presentation have varied. Parts of it seem to have caused a degree of confusion. Brad Larkin blogged that

R ancestors migrated out of Africa and into SouthEast Asia then moved back west into Anatolia.

It is pretty clear that Dr Hammer was saying was that the ancestor of all the Y outside Africa migrated out of Africa, not R specifically, and that he places K in SE Asia.

Jennifer Zinck's notes give the relevant passage as:


There are new SNPs that revise haplogroup K. There was a rapid diversification of K in Southeast Asia and a later appearance of R and Q in western Eurasia. This suggests a very strange picture where people who got out of Africa were in Southeast Asia and it wasn’t until later after the diversification center that they headed west.

ADW_1981
11-13-2013, 03:04 PM
Well, my opinion right now is that he's been reading too much Eupedia. I can even see some maps from Eupedia used in the slides at the conference...

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

But anyway, this map here is very interesting...

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

Note, however, that it mostly shows post-Neolithic in-situ expansions, rather than invasions. So I wouldn't take those blogs too seriously when they claim that new information shows that R1b arrived in Europe after the Neolithic, because we don't really know whether Hammer said that.

The P312 in the Carpathian Basin is very interesting for a couple of reasons, like the purported Italo-Celtic migrations from that area to Italy, and the earlier presence of eastern Bell Beakers there. But how and when it got there isn't clear, and I don't think a late Neolithic or post-Neolithic migration from Anatolia seems very plausible.

I would predict a mesolithic spread of R1b1a2a across southern Europe, central-west and parts of eastern Europe. It looks like post-neolithic the L11+ guys had adapted and pushed eastwards with a growing population... Not trying to toot the horn of the P312/U106 guys but it appears to be the case from the data. It also would fit a 4000-8000 ybp timeframe and the collapse of central European farmers.

Jean M
11-13-2013, 03:08 PM
Well, my opinion right now is that he's been reading too much Eupedia. I can even see some maps from Eupedia used in the slides at the conference...

Since I don't follow Maciamo closely, I can't say when he got on board the idea of R1b from the east, but I have a vague idea that it was fairly early on. I didn't mean to exclude him from the credit. I just can't pinpoint his contribution.

But as I said, the idea has been around in academic publications from 2007. Maciamo certainly produces a lot of maps, but then we have maps of modern distributions of various haplogroups from published sources as well. Academics generally prefer to use published sources. I assume that Dr Hammer was using those of U106 and U152 from Cruciani 2011*, since that seems to be his source for the idea of local expansions of these subclades.

* Cruciani F, Trombetta B, Antonelli C, Pascone R, Valesini G, Scalzi V, Vona G, Melegh B, Zagradisnik B, Assum G, Efremov GD, Sellitto D, Scozzari R., Strong intra- and inter-continental differentiation revealed by Y chromosome SNPs M269, U106 and U152, Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2011 Jun;5(3):e49-52. http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973%2810%2900117-1/abstract

jeanL
11-13-2013, 03:13 PM
This stirred up the academic opposition, who could scarcely credit that they could have been wrong all this time. Their feeble response to Balaresque was Busby 2012, which restricted itself to looking at variance in R1b-M269. R1b-M269 is found in the Near East and Europe. Earlier subclades of R1b are found in Asia. So the paper ignored the earlier subclades, and discounted the R1b-M269 in Anatolia as somehow different (by virtue of not being in Europe) and therefore to be considered a separate subclade.

Now Jean M, why do you have to categorize the study by Busby.et.al.2012 as a mere "feeble response" to Balaresque.et.al.2010. You have once more shown your personal bias here, so hopefully for the last time, I will clarify it the Busby.et.al.2012 study for you and other readers. The Busby.et.al.2012 study used a completely different dataset which was built using the Myres.et.al.2011 dataset and their new additions, in this dataset they did variance analysis in all the populations, which included Near Eastern Populations, and they found that the greatest diversity of R1b-M269 isn't in the Near East, nor is there an East-West gradient.

Here is the study: The peopling of Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chromosome lineage R-M269 (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.full)

916


Figure 1. Y chromosome tree showing the relationships of SNPs downstream from R-M269 tested in this study. Alternative nomenclature for some SNPs is provided in italics.

917


Figure 2. Frequency distributions and variation of Y chromosome haplogroups R-M269, R-S127 and R-M269(xS127) in Europe. The three panels show contour maps based on the frequencies of the different haplogroups found across Europe and western Asia: (a) R-M269,(b) R-M269(xS127) and (c) R-S127 . The maps on the left are based on the frequencies of the SNPs in all populations marked on the map (data in electronic supplementary material, table S1 and figure S1). The graphs on the right show the relationship between longitude and bootstrap variance based on 10 STRs for all populations with at least 10 individuals carrying that SNP. The R2 and associated p-values are shown for the correlations in the graphs. The population codes are detailed in table 1 and electronic supplementary material, table S1.

So why?? I ask you why, do you keep spreading misinformation about the study??

Now, on their supplementary analysis, they did indeed re-analyzed the Balaresque.et.al.2010 dataset, where they removed the Turkish populations, and repeated the East-West gradients with and without them, they also added some Irish populations which twisted everything.


It ignored the fact that the greatest variance in R1b (M343) as a whole is in the Near East/Anatolia. It ignored the most convincing evidence of movement from east to west: the chain of SNP mutations within R1b runs in that direction, with those which occurred earliest being most prevalent without additional mutations towards the east. Focusing simply on R1b-M269 within Europe enabled the authors to argue that the highest diversity is not necessarily in the east - or anywhere.

We are talking about R1b-M269+, but since you want to talk about R1b(M343), then show me a study where is says that the greatest variance of R1b(M343) is greatest in the Near East/Anatolia. As for the chain of SNP mutations running from east-west. Do you really think that R1b-M269* found nowadays is ancestral to any R1b-M269+ derived clades?? Because if you do, then that's your problem. If you want to know, the greatest proportion of R1b-M269(xL23) doesn't occur in West Asia, Near East, instead it occurs in the Western Balkans as per Myres.et.al.2011. The greatest proportion of R1b-L23(xL11) occurs in the Caucasus, but we know found that most of them are derived from another mutation, so they aren't ancestral to anything. As for R1b-V88, it has been found in Europe, Adams.et.al.2008 found some R1b(xR1b-M269) in Valencia, it has also been found in Sardinia, and in Italy. The paragroup R1b-P25 according to Cruciani.et.al.2010 study fo V88 in Africa was found in 3 Europeans, 1-West Asian, 1-East Asian. Again, did you take the time to really look at the hard evidence?? Mind you that had the found the R1b-Z2103/Z2105 mutation from which most Anatolians and Caucasians are derived then the European branches would appear ancestral, as they would seem as R1b-M269(xZ2103/Z2105), and in fact if they continued their study and found more derived clades of R1b-Z2103/Z2105, then it would that the gene flow was west-east. So the trail of SNPs you talked about is nothing but a mere fluke, the fact that scientist happened to discover R1b-L11+ SNP before they found the R1b-Z2103 SNP is what gave Anatolia/West Asia is ancientness, when in fact they are all derived from R1b-Z2103. Perhaps, someone should look into where R1b-L23(xL11,Z2103/Z2105) is truly found, since this would be a third sister clade, and might give some clues as to the place of origin of R1b-L23, on any case, the presence of R1b-M269(xL23) in the Western Balkans makes it unlikely to place the origin of R1b-M269 in the Near East as a whole.

ADW_1981
11-13-2013, 03:20 PM
which included Near Eastern Populations, and they found that the greatest diversity of R1b-M269 isn't in the Near East

Remind me how they arrived at this conclusion. (no sarcasm intended) I recall one of these two studies you mentioned reported that V88+, M269*, L23*, P312*, and U152+ were found among the same Dead Sea, Jordan sample.

Despite the high level of L23* in Switzerland, I am not aware of any region in Europe or the world which has this broad SNP diversity in a single place for R1b.

EDIT: V88 in an East Asian? You sure?

Rathna
11-13-2013, 03:23 PM
We are talking about R1b-M269+, but since you want to talk about R1b(M343), then show me a study where is says that the greatest variance of R1b(M343) is greatest in the Near East/Anatolia. As for the chain of SNP mutations running from east-west. Do you really think that R1b-M269* found nowadays is ancestral to any R1b-M269+ derived clades?? Because if you do, then that's your problem. If you want to know, the greatest proportion of R1b-M269(xL23) doesn't occur in West Asia, Near East, instead it occurs in the Western Balkans as per Myres.et.al.2011. The greatest proportion of R1b-L23(xL11) occurs in the Caucasus, but we know found that most of them are derived from another mutation, so they aren't ancestral to anything. As for R1b-V88, it has been found in Europe, Adams.et.al.2008 found some R1b(xR1b-M269) in Valencia, it has also been found in Sardinia, and in Italy. The paragroup R1b-P25 according to Cruciani.et.al.2010 study fo V88 in Africa was found in 3 Europeans, 1-West Asian, 1-East Asian. Again, did you take the time to really look at the hard evidence?? Mind you that had the found the R1b-Z2103/Z2105 mutation from which most Anatolians and Caucasians are derived then the European branches would appear ancestral, as they would seem as R1b-M269(xZ2103/Z2105), and in fact if they continued their study and found more derived clades of R1b-Z2103/Z2105, then it would that the gene flow was west-east. So the trail of SNPs you talked about is nothing but a mere fluke, the fact that scientist happened to discover R1b-L11+ SNP before they found the R1b-Z2103 SNP is what gave Anatolia/West Asia is ancientness, when in fact they are all derived from R1b-Z2103. Perhaps, someone should look into where R1b-L23(xL11,Z2103/Z2105) is truly found, since this would be a third sister clade, and might give some clues as to the place of origin of R1b-L23, on any case, the presence of R1b-M269(xL23) in the Western Balkans makes it unlikely to place the origin of R1b-M269 in the Near East as a whole.

Add to all this that Asian R1b1* are actually L389- (see Raza and Joshi) and we are waiting that they test the Caucasian R1b1 too.

Jean M
11-13-2013, 03:35 PM
Now Jean M, why do you have to categorize the study by Busby.et.al.2012 as a mere "feeble response" to Balaresque.et.al. 2010.

For the reasons I carefully stated in that post! :)


You have once more shown your personal bias here ..

I have no personal bias. I have no idea what my father's Y-DNA haplogroup was.

I can understand that Basques won't like what I say, because the long history of regarding them as a palaeolithic relic population was taken to the hearts of many of them. I myself accepted that idea decades ago, and found it very interesting. I can report that the same is true of a number of British academics more closely involved than I was at the time. The idea was generally popular. There was no British bias against it. What has happened is the gradual accumulation of data against it.

Jean M
11-13-2013, 03:38 PM
since you want to talk about R1b(M343), then show me a study where is says that the greatest variance of R1b(M343) is greatest in the Near East/Anatolia.

Kristian J Herrera, Robert K Lowery, Laura Hadden, Silvia Calderon, Carolina Chiou, Levon Yepiskoposyan, Maria Regueiro, Peter A Underhill and Rene J Herrera, Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists, European Journal of Human Genetics vol. 20 (March 2012), pp. 313-320. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v20/n3/full/ejhg2011192a.html

newtoboard
11-13-2013, 03:43 PM
Kristian J Herrera, Robert K Lowery, Laura Hadden, Silvia Calderon, Carolina Chiou, Levon Yepiskoposyan, Maria Regueiro, Peter A Underhill and Rene J Herrera, Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists, European Journal of Human Genetics vol. 20 (March 2012), pp. 313-320. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v20/n3/full/ejhg2011192a.html


We also had this thread discussing the topic:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1005-M343*-has-an-elevated-presence-in-northern-Iran-among-several-Iranian-speaking-groups

jeanL
11-13-2013, 03:57 PM
Remind me how they arrived at this conclusion. (no sarcasm intended) I recall one of these two studies you mentioned reported that V88+, M269*, L23*, P312*, and U152+ were found among the same Dead Sea, Jordan sample.

Despite the high level of L23* in Switzerland, I am not aware of any region in Europe or the world which has this broad SNP diversity in a single place for R1b.

EDIT: V88 in an East Asian? You sure?

Look at Figure-2 a) from Busby.et.al.2012, you will see that there is not East-West gradient in diversity of R1b-M269+ using 10 STR, and that the diversity peaks happen in the Middle, which is likely Central Europe, Western Balkans.

Myres.et.al.2011 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/suppinfo/ejhg2010146s1.html?url=/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html) Table-4S shows that Jordan/Dead Sea sample (n=146) had 13.7% R1b-V88+, 0.7% R1b-M269*(xL23), 1.4% R1b-L23(xL51), 1.4% R1b-P312(xL21,U152), and 0.7% R1b-U152.

In that same Table-S4 we find R1b-V88 in 2% of Palestine(n=49), 0.7% of Iran(n=150), 0.5% Bouches du Rhone,France (at mouth)(n=207). We also find R1b-M343(xM73,M269) in 1%(1 person) of Germany West(n=100), 0.7%(2 people) of Slovakia(n=276), 0.64%(1 person) of Ukraine West(n=156), 1.3%(1 person) Tatars(Kazan, Russia) (n=80), 0.3%(1 person) in Romanians(n=330), 13%(3 people) in Kurds(n=23), 0.6%(3 people) in Turkey(n=522), and 1.1%(1 person) in Turkey(Cappadocia)(n=89).

Take a look at the Western Balkans.

Kosovo(n=114 out of which 24 are R1b-M269+) R1b-M269(xL23) 7.9% or 9 people, R1b-L23(xL51) 11.4% or 13 people, 0.9% or 1 person U106(xU198), 0.9% or 1 person P312(xL21,U152).

I don't feel like writing all the numbers down, but anyone can see that the Western Balkans are very rich when it comes to early clades and derived clades of R1b-M269. Also R1b-M343 is widespread, and it is indeed found inside of Europe. R1b-V88 is also found in Europe, as per Cruciani.et.al.2010 Table-1 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n7/pdf/ejhg2009231a.pdf).

Also R1b-V88 wasn't found in East Asia, Paragroup R1b-P25(xP297,V88) was found in 3 Europeans, 1 West Asian, 1 East Asian per Cruciani.et.al.2010. (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n7/pdf/ejhg2009231a.pdf)

jeanL
11-13-2013, 04:01 PM
For the reasons I carefully stated in that post! :)

Did you miss the part of the study where it clearly shows that they did indeed include West Asians, and Anatolians. Because half of your reasons are based on illusions as I showed above in my response to your original post.


Kristian J Herrera, Robert K Lowery, Laura Hadden, Silvia Calderon, Carolina Chiou, Levon Yepiskoposyan, Maria Regueiro, Peter A Underhill and Rene J Herrera, Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists, European Journal of Human Genetics vol. 20 (March 2012), pp. 313-320. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v20/n3/full/ejhg2011192a.html

They also missed like half of the European populations used by Myres.et.al.2011, so while using a subset of Europeans, they found Jordan to be the most diverse, but as I said, it didn't include a lot of populations that both Myres.et.al.2011, and Busby.et.al.2012 included.

Rathna
11-13-2013, 04:07 PM
Also R1b-V88 wasn't found in East Asia, Paragroup R1b-P25(xP297,V88) was found in 3 Europeans, 1 West Asian, 1 East Asian per Cruciani.et.al.2010. (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n7/pdf/ejhg2009231a.pdf)

With the difference that Italians are R1b1/L389+ and Asians R1b1/L389-, i.e. not ancestors of the European subclades, and this will be the definite proof.

P.S. Those 3 Europeans were actually 3 Italians.

Silesian
11-13-2013, 04:07 PM
...Table-4S shows that Jordan/Dead Sea sample (n=146) had 13.7% R1b-V88+, 0.7% R1b-M269*(xL23), 1.4% R1b-L23(xL51), 1.4% R1b-P312(xL21,U152), and 0.7% R1b-U152.....

What about R- M73?

ADW_1981
11-13-2013, 04:12 PM
Look at Figure-2 a) from Busby.et.al.2012, you will see that there is not East-West gradient in diversity of R1b-M269+ using 10 STR, and that the diversity peaks happen in the Middle, which is likely Central Europe, Western Balkans.

Myres.et.al.2011 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/suppinfo/ejhg2010146s1.html?url=/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html) Table-4S shows that Jordan/Dead Sea sample (n=146) had 13.7% R1b-V88+, 0.7% R1b-M269*(xL23), 1.4% R1b-L23(xL51), 1.4% R1b-P312(xL21,U152), and 0.7% R1b-U152.

In that same Table-S4 we find R1b-V88 in 2% of Palestine(n=49), 0.7% of Iran(n=150), 0.5% Bouches du Rhone,France (at mouth)(n=207). We also find R1b-M343(xM73,M269) in 1%(1 person) of Germany West(n=100), 0.7%(2 people) of Slovakia(n=276), 0.64%(1 person) of Ukraine West(n=156), 1.3%(1 person) Tatars(Kazan, Russia) (n=80), 0.3%(1 person) in Romanians(n=330), 13%(3 people) in Kurds(n=23), 0.6%(3 people) in Turkey(n=522), and 1.1%(1 person) in Turkey(Cappadocia)(n=89).

Take a look at the Western Balkans.

Kosovo(n=114 out of which 24 are R1b-M269+) R1b-M269(xL23) 7.9% or 9 people, R1b-L23(xL51) 11.4% or 13 people, 0.9% or 1 person U106(xU198), 0.9% or 1 person P312(xL21,U152).

I don't feel like writing all the numbers down, but anyone can see that the Western Balkans are very rich when it comes to early clades and derived clades of R1b-M269. Also R1b-M343 is widespread, and it is indeed found inside of Europe. R1b-V88 is also found in Europe, as per Cruciani.et.al.2010 Table-1 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n7/pdf/ejhg2009231a.pdf).

Also R1b-V88 wasn't found in East Asia, Paragroup R1b-P25(xP297,V88) was found in 3 Europeans, 1 West Asian, 1 East Asian per Cruciani.et.al.2010. (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n7/pdf/ejhg2009231a.pdf)

I believe that the conclusion was that no region was older than the other from a STR diversity perspective. It appears though, that West Asia (or Near East if you will) has more SNP diversity overall, from my previous position, and the data you supplied above.

Silesian
11-13-2013, 04:13 PM
Despite the high level of L23* in Switzerland, I am not aware of any region in Europe or the world which has this broad SNP diversity in a single place for R1b.

Where exactly were those Rhone samples taken? For example were they taken from an area settled by Celts/Italics/ancient Germans?

The Alemanni (also Alamanni, Alamani[1]) were a confederation of Suebian Germanic tribes located on the upper Rhine rive

Jean M
11-13-2013, 04:19 PM
Did you miss the part of the study where it clearly shows that they did indeed include West Asians, and Anatolians. Because half of your reasons are based on illusions as I showed above in my response to your original post.


My apologies JeanL for any misrepresentation. But we are still left with the other half of my reasons. We don't need to drown in numbers here. The earliest R1b subclades are found more frequently in the Near East and eastern Europe. The picture is pretty clear even from modern DNA. But the debate has gone beyond modern DNA now. So it's pretty pointless fighting over modern variance, which can only provide a clue at best.

parasar
11-13-2013, 04:44 PM
Remind me how they arrived at this conclusion. (no sarcasm intended) I recall one of these two studies you mentioned reported that V88+, M269*, L23*, P312*, and U152+ were found among the same Dead Sea, Jordan sample.

Despite the high level of L23* in Switzerland, I am not aware of any region in Europe or the world which has this broad SNP diversity in a single place for R1b.

EDIT: V88 in an East Asian? You sure?

Flores typed P25 - "In addition, M17 was typed by PCR–RFLP using a mismatch primer (Thomas et al. 1999) and P25 by sequencing using the BigDye Terminator kit v.3.1 and an ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer" but for some unstated reason did not observe it - "Markers P25, Tat, SRY10831.2, SRY2627, M2, M20, M26, M52, M65, M70, M92, M107, M122, M124, M148, M153, M163, M165, M166, M175, M224, M342, and M377 were also genotyped but not observed"
Their Fig 1 placement of P25 is incorrect as they did not observe P25 for some reason on any M173 including those listed M269+. http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v50/n9/pdf/jhg200565a.pdf

Later it was found that the Dead Sea M173 are all V88 as per SNP analysis of Flores et al data by Myres et al.
20 out of 45 men tested from the Dead Sea area were positive for M173 but negative for P25 and M269; and later the same 20 were all found to be V88 http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/extref/ejhg2010146x5.xls

That Dead Sea V88 could potentially be an example of a back flow from Africa, as an African origin cannot be discounted.
"The Dead Sea sample also showed a high presence of E3b3a-M34 lineages (31%), which is only comparable to that found in Ethiopians. Although ancient and recent ties with sub-Saharan and eastern Africans cannot be discarded, it seems that isolation, strong drift, and/or founder effects are responsible for the anomalous Y-chromosome pool of this population ... All these evidences point to the Dead Sea as an isolated region perhaps with past ties to sub-Saharan and eastern Africa. Strong drift and/or founder effects might be responsible for its present anomalous haplogroup frequencies."

alan
11-13-2013, 04:55 PM
Attack the post not the poster. You cannot go around accusing individuals of bias especially when it makes no sense.


Now Jean M, why do you have to categorize the study by Busby.et.al.2012 as a mere "feeble response" to Balaresque.et.al.2010. You have once more shown your personal bias here, so hopefully for the last time, I will clarify it the Busby.et.al.2012 study for you and other readers. The Busby.et.al.2012 study used a completely different dataset which was built using the Myres.et.al.2011 dataset and their new additions, in this dataset they did variance analysis in all the populations, which included Near Eastern Populations, and they found that the greatest diversity of R1b-M269 isn't in the Near East, nor is there an East-West gradient.

Here is the study: The peopling of Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chromosome lineage R-M269 (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.full)

916



917



So why?? I ask you why, do you keep spreading misinformation about the study??

Now, on their supplementary analysis, they did indeed re-analyzed the Balaresque.et.al.2010 dataset, where they removed the Turkish populations, and repeated the East-West gradients with and without them, they also added some Irish populations which twisted everything.



We are talking about R1b-M269+, but since you want to talk about R1b(M343), then show me a study where is says that the greatest variance of R1b(M343) is greatest in the Near East/Anatolia. As for the chain of SNP mutations running from east-west. Do you really think that R1b-M269* found nowadays is ancestral to any R1b-M269+ derived clades?? Because if you do, then that's your problem. If you want to know, the greatest proportion of R1b-M269(xL23) doesn't occur in West Asia, Near East, instead it occurs in the Western Balkans as per Myres.et.al.2011. The greatest proportion of R1b-L23(xL11) occurs in the Caucasus, but we know found that most of them are derived from another mutation, so they aren't ancestral to anything. As for R1b-V88, it has been found in Europe, Adams.et.al.2008 found some R1b(xR1b-M269) in Valencia, it has also been found in Sardinia, and in Italy. The paragroup R1b-P25 according to Cruciani.et.al.2010 study fo V88 in Africa was found in 3 Europeans, 1-West Asian, 1-East Asian. Again, did you take the time to really look at the hard evidence?? Mind you that had the found the R1b-Z2103/Z2105 mutation from which most Anatolians and Caucasians are derived then the European branches would appear ancestral, as they would seem as R1b-M269(xZ2103/Z2105), and in fact if they continued their study and found more derived clades of R1b-Z2103/Z2105, then it would that the gene flow was west-east. So the trail of SNPs you talked about is nothing but a mere fluke, the fact that scientist happened to discover R1b-L11+ SNP before they found the R1b-Z2103 SNP is what gave Anatolia/West Asia is ancientness, when in fact they are all derived from R1b-Z2103. Perhaps, someone should look into where R1b-L23(xL11,Z2103/Z2105) is truly found, since this would be a third sister clade, and might give some clues as to the place of origin of R1b-L23, on any case, the presence of R1b-M269(xL23) in the Western Balkans makes it unlikely to place the origin of R1b-M269 in the Near East as a whole.

Rathna
11-13-2013, 04:59 PM
"Markers P25, were also genotyped but not observed"

Later it was found that the Dead Sea M173 are all V88
That Dead Sea V88 could potentially be an example of a back flow from Africa, as an African origin cannot be discounted.


V88 is a subclade of P25, but also in this case Africans are derived from V88*, that signed by 25 Sardinian SNPs in the last Geno 2.0, and if African R-V88 didn't come from Asia, probably came from Europe, as I wrote to the same Fulvio Cruciani many years ago.

ADW_1981
11-13-2013, 05:10 PM
That Dead Sea V88 could potentially be an example of a back flow from Africa, as an African origin cannot be discounted.
"The Dead Sea sample also showed a high presence of E3b3a-M34 lineages (31%), which is only comparable to that found in Ethiopians. Although ancient and recent ties with sub-Saharan and eastern Africans cannot be discarded, it seems that isolation, strong drift, and/or founder effects are responsible for the anomalous Y-chromosome pool of this population ... All these evidences point to the Dead Sea as an isolated region perhaps with past ties to sub-Saharan and eastern Africa. Strong drift and/or founder effects might be responsible for its present anomalous haplogroup frequencies."

I believe your quote from the authors was substantiated from the E1b diversity rather than the R1b-V88 portion. To the best of my knowledge all the central African men descend from the V88 man, but have very diverse STR data. I realize an African origin of R1b cannot be ruled out but this conclusion is counter intuitive from the data available. We have R1b1* from England in the west to China in the east at very low quantities, I would have expected it to show up in Africa by now.

ADW_1981
11-13-2013, 05:19 PM
Actually the highest diversity is in Britain according to the limited data we have from FTDNA I've added from publicly available haplotypes in the R1b and R1b1 projects, so don't get angry.

R1b1* N5556/67723 (one of my surnames!)
R1b1c-V88 100315/N37469 ..etc(Day one of my surnames too! Lumsden is a surname among R1b1 and R1a*!! We know these ancestors were closely related men.)
R1b1a1 - 249267

M269*/L23*/L51*...etc
These terminal SNPs are also found among British people including Irish but I didn't feel like digging them up. A western origin is possible I guess.... Immigration from the east is also an alternate hypothesis.

Silesian
11-13-2013, 05:24 PM
I believe your quote from the authors was substantiated from the E1b diversity rather than the R1b-V88 portion. To the best of my knowledge all the central African men descend from the V88 man, but have very diverse STR data. I realize an African origin of R1b cannot be ruled out but this conclusion is counter intuitive from the data available. We have R1b1* from England in the west to China in the east at very low quantities, I would have expected it to show up in Africa by now.

From the first study:
http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v5...jhg200565a.pdf

-92R7 is the third most numerous haplogroup in Jordan (12%), but most chromosomes were characterized as R1*-M173, R1a1-M17, and R1b3*-M269. It has been proposed that P-92R7 emerged in Central Asia in the Palaeolithic period and that the R1*-M173 branch traces its most ancient westward expansion (Underhillet al.2001, Wells et al.2001). This expansion reached west Africa where the undifferentiated R1*-M173 has been detected in high frequency (Cruciani et al. 2002 ).The presence of this clade in Oman may suggest the possibility of a southern route involving the Horn of Africa. However, the lack of R1*-M173 in Somalia (Sanchez et al.2005 ) and its presence in Jordan and Egypt points to the Levant as the alternative bridge of passage of R1*-M173 to Africa (Luis et al. 2004 ). All these results evidence the Levant as both a crossroad of migrations and a main focus of expansions

Rathna
11-13-2013, 05:27 PM
We have R1b1* from England in the west to China in the east at very low quantities, I would have expected it to show up in Africa by now.

These R1b1 aren't at the same level. Asian ones are L389-, thus not ancestors of the European subclades. English one ( the two Humpreyes) are L389+ and came probably from Italy, which has the most varied samples (DeMao, Toniolo, Buono Di Bello, probably Mangino, tested so far M269+ from FTDNA), not counting the three samples found from Cruciani and one sample from the Marches I posted some years ago.

ADW_1981
11-13-2013, 05:27 PM
Where exactly were those Rhone samples taken? For example were they taken from an area settled by Celts/Italics/ancient Germans?

Copy/Pasting directly from Myers et al.

Switzerland (Upper Rhone Valley) had 27% L23*.


It looks like West-Central Europe was a major staging ground for the post-neolithic expansion of R1b. Noting also from several other posters that downstream branches are more common west of Switzerland (L51* and L11*) If there is any merit to the post-Neolithic expansion of R1b, it must be from these branches. Determining the SNP result of the Bell Beaker man beyond simply xU106 would have been helpful....

Rathna
11-13-2013, 05:30 PM
Actually the highest diversity is in Britain according to the limited data we have from FTDNA I've added from publicly available haplotypes in the R1b and R1b1 projects, so don't get angry.

R1b1* N5556/67723 (one of my surnames!)
R1b1c-V88 100315/N37469 ..etc(Day one of my surnames too! Lumsden is a surname among R1b1 and R1a*!! We know these ancestors were closely related men.)
R1b1a1 - 249267

M269*/L23*/L51*...etc
These terminal SNPs are also found among British people including Irish but I didn't feel like digging them up. A western origin is possible I guess.... Immigration from the east is also an alternate hypothesis.

Great Britain is the most tested country, anyway has all these samples, also R1a-M420, so I said many times in the past that I wouldn't be surprised if the Refugium was there, but of course I am the theorist of the Italian Refugium.

P.S. For adding something to this, I could say that Saxton (R-V88+) finds its ancestor in the Italian Marchesi, tested of course M269+ by FTDNA, but actually R-V88+.

Silesian
11-13-2013, 05:33 PM
These R1b1 aren't at the same level. Asian ones are L389-,
They are Asian and very old, they are still classified under R1b. From where do they originate?

ADW_1981
11-13-2013, 05:35 PM
These R1b1 aren't at the same level. Asian ones are L389-, thus not ancestors of the European subclades. English one ( the two Humpreyes) are L389+ and came probably from Italy, which has the most varied samples (DeMao, Toniolo, Buono Di Bello, probably Mangino, tested so far M269+ from FTDNA), not counting the three samples found from Cruciani and one sample from the Marches I posted some years ago.

Hmm I don't know about that. I only see a few people have tested for L389. The R1b1* jewish cluster is L389+, where as Joshi is L389-. It doesn't look like Humphrey was tested for this SNP and he's not really close to the Ashkenazi cluster despite being in the same group on the page...

I checked the Italy project, and all the L389+ *tested* folks are M269+ and downstream branches. How did you arrive at this conclusion that R1b1* Italians are also L389+ as well as Humphrey?

EDIT: Even DeMao who has been put in the same cluster is 20+ GD (then I stopped counting) from the Ashkenazi group despite being in the same physical group on the page.... I think he should be tested for L389+ before drawing further conclusions.

vettor
11-13-2013, 05:45 PM
I would not be surprised if M.hammer is basing his ideas on the maps in link below

note - K based on the iran pakistsan order goes north to split as P, then R splits from P to go NW direction and Q goes NE direction. While T splits from K to go west direction and L goes SE direction...anyway the map is clearer

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2769/hxzk.png

Rathna
11-13-2013, 05:49 PM
Hmm I don't know about that. I only see a few people have tested for L389. The R1b1* jewish cluster is L389+, where as Joshi is L389-. It doesn't look like Humphrey was tested for this SNP and he's not really close to the Ashkenazi cluster despite being in the same group on the page...

I checked the Italy project, and all the L389+ *tested* folks are M269+ and downstream branches. How did you arrive at this conclusion that R1b1* Italians are also L389+ as well as Humphrey?

EDIT: Even DeMao who has been put in the same cluster is 20+ GD (then I stopped counting) from the Ashkenazi group despite being in the same physical group on the page.... I think he should be tested for L389+ before drawing further conclusions.

You should know all the story of DeMao, my letters to Vizachero, the wrong tests of his, etc etc. and lastly the fact that he wasn't able to send his Geno 2.0 to FTDNA. I have his data and he is of course L389+ etc. etc. I have written tons of letter about this (you find my letter like Rathna but before Gioiello, Maliclavelli, Claire etc.).

Joe B
11-13-2013, 05:51 PM
Actually the highest diversity is in Britain according to the limited data we have from FTDNA I've added from publicly available haplotypes in the R1b and R1b1 projects, so don't get angry.

R1b1* N5556/67723 (one of my surnames!)
R1b1c-V88 100315/N37469 ..etc(Day one of my surnames too! Lumsden is a surname among R1b1 and R1a*!! We know these ancestors were closely related men.)
R1b1a1 - 249267

M269*/L23*/L51*...etc
These terminal SNPs are also found among British people including Irish but I didn't feel like digging them up. A western origin is possible I guess.... Immigration from the east is also an alternate hypothesis.
The Isles are so well sampled that the M269*/L23*/L51* numbers seem inflated, especially if you include North Americans with probable ties to the Isles. These early R1b subclades are very rare as a percentage of R1b in Ireland and the UK. Because of these low numbers it seems more likely that these early R1b subclades are rather late arrivals to the Isles. IMO

Rathna
11-13-2013, 05:52 PM
They are Asian and very old, they are still classified under R1b. From where do they originate?
Silesian, I think that they belong to the most ancient R-P25 diffused from Asia or elsewhere but which isn't the ancestor of the European subclades which derive from Europe. You know that I think from the Italian Refugium.

ADW_1981
11-13-2013, 05:52 PM
I would not be surprised if M.hammer is basing his ideas on the maps in link below

note - K based on the iran pakistsan order goes north to split as P, then R splits from P to go NW direction and Q goes NE direction. While T splits from K to go west direction and L goes SE direction...anyway the map is clearer

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2769/hxzk.png

I am only aware of 1 K haplotype that is European and it's in the unclassified section of the Swedish project at FTDNA. If anyone is interested, it looks "R1b ish".

I haven't done all the reading, but K looks Central Asian originally to me. Just my weak, opinionated 2 cents.

vettor
11-13-2013, 05:55 PM
I am only aware of 1 K haplotype that is European and it's in the unclassified section of the Swedish project at FTDNA. If anyone is interested, it looks "R1b ish".

I haven't done all the reading, but K looks Central Asian originally to me. Just my weak, opinionated 2 cents.

There is a K in ftdna under the T project from Germany .............but I think he is a Basal T ( only M184 and not much else )

Silesian
11-13-2013, 05:57 PM
Silesian, I think that they belong to the most ancient R-P25 diffused from Asia or elsewhere but which isn't the ancestor of the European subclades which derive from Europe. You know that I think from the Italian Refugium.

And the Rhone samples L23x51?

alan
11-13-2013, 06:01 PM
I agree it cannot be ignored. It is far closer related to M269 than V88 or P23. M73 and M269 share an ancestor c. 9000BC. Yet M73 is virtually unknown west of Ukraine and south of the Caucasus or Capsian. It is unknown in the Caucasus except for Turkic groups in the north side of it. It is all but unknown in Iran. It is also unknown in Altai except one north Altian Turkic group with known roots much further west as late as 1600AD. It is unknown south of the southern mountain fringe of north central Asia. The small drop in Turkey has almost certainly come from Turkic groups well to the north-east.

So clearly its roots have got to be somewhere between the Caspian/Urals and north central Asia. There is no way to make sense of M269 in the far west of Europe given a shared P297*ancestor with M73 c. 9000BC. The coincidence of both L23xL51 and M269xL23 only really occurs in the west Balkans and Armenians and both of these linguistic groups are thought to have been displaced from linguistic groups elsewhere in the Balkans. So, I would put more weight on the Balkans than Armenia geographically. So, how do you link a Urals-central Asia M73 group and a Balkans M268/L23 group in a timeframe from 9000BC? Seems unlikely to me that either location is the original shared P297 homeland and much more likely that that lay somewhere in between. However, it seems impossible to place that in between area in the heart of early farming as R1b does not seem to have had a role in that and does not seem to have branched within the early Neolithic. So to me that leaves only the steppe, the Caspian fringe of Iran, the north Caucauses as plausible.


What about R- M73?

vettor
11-13-2013, 06:12 PM
I agree it cannot be ignored. It is far closer related to M269 than V88 or P23. M73 and M269 share an ancestor c. 9000BC. Yet M73 is virtually unknown west of Ukraine and south of the Caucasus or Capsian. It is unknown in the Caucasus except for Turkic groups in the north side of it. It is all but unknown in Iran. It is also unknown in Altai except one north Altian Turkic group with known roots much further west as late as 1600AD. It is unknown south of the southern mountain fringe of north central Asia. The small drop in Turkey has almost certainly come from Turkic groups well to the north-east. So clearly its roots have got to be somewhere between the Caspian/Urals and north central Asia. There is no way to make sense of M269 in the far west of Europe given a shared P297*ancestor with M73 c. 9000BC. The coincidence of both L23xL51 and M269xL23 only really occurs in the west Balkans and Armenians and both of these linguistic groups are thought to have been displaced from linguistic groups elsewhere in the Balkans. So, I would put more weight on the Balkans than Armenia geographically. So, how do you link a Urals-central Asia M73 group and a Balkans M268/L23 group in a timeframe from 9000BC? Seems unlikely to me that either location is the original shared P297 homeland and much more likely that that lay somewhere in between. However, it seems impossible to place that in between area in the heart of early farming as R1b does not seem to have had a role in that and does not seem to have branched within the early Neolithic. So to me that leaves only the steppe, the Caspian fringe of Iran, the north Caucauses as plausible.

In the bronze-age ( and before) people could boat from central-asia, to the aral sea to the caspian sea and to the black sea.............migration followed the highway of water ie rivers

Rathna
11-13-2013, 06:13 PM
And the Rhone samples L23x51?

You and me are R-Z2105, probably *, and all the others from Middle East etc. are derived. Then I think that our haplogroup was born in Western Europe and later expanded to East. Also M269*, in spite of what has been said also here recently, if R1b1-L389 is Western European one, is born here and not in Anatolia like Mr Hammer says.
The survived ones are all probably L150+ and with the three Sardinian SNPs (PF7558, PF7562, PF7563), but probably it isn't true that this clade is recent. I am waiting for a Geno 2.0 kit (and a month is already passed) to test my relative Fabrizio Federighi: R-M269 with DYS462=12, that present in the Jewish cluster.

ADW_1981
11-13-2013, 06:14 PM
I agree it cannot be ignored. It is far closer related to M269 than V88 or P23. M73 and M269 share an ancestor c. 9000BC. Yet M73 is virtually unknown west of Ukraine and south of the Caucasus or Capsian. It is unknown in the Caucasus except for Turkic groups in the north side of it. It is all but unknown in Iran. It is also unknown in Altai except one north Altian Turkic group with known roots much further west as late as 1600AD. It is unknown south of the southern mountain fringe of north central Asia. The small drop in Turkey has almost certainly come from Turkic groups well to the north-east. So clearly its roots have got to be somewhere between the Caspian/Urals and north central Asia. There is no way to make sense of M269 in the far west of Europe given a shared P297*ancestor with M73 c. 9000BC. The coincidence of both L23xL51 and M269xL23 only really occurs in the west Balkans and Armenians and both of these linguistic groups are thought to have been displaced from linguistic groups elsewhere in the Balkans. So, I would put more weight on the Balkans than Armenia geographically. So, how do you link a Urals-central Asia M73 group and a Balkans M268/L23 group in a timeframe from 9000BC? Seems unlikely to me that either location is the original shared P297 homeland and much more likely that that lay somewhere in between. However, it seems impossible to place that in between area in the heart of early farming as R1b does not seem to have had a role in that and does not seem to have branched within the early Neolithic. So to me that leaves only the steppe, the Caspian fringe of Iran, the north Caucauses as plausible.

Oddly enough, the R1b1a1-M73 haplotypes look strangely similar to the R1b-V88 haplotypes, often sharing some of the same off-modal values at the 12 marker level.

North Ossetian
13 22 14 11 14-15 12 12 12 14 13 33

Chadic person
13 24 14 11 14-15 12 12 12 14 13 30

I'm not suggesting recent kinship, but V88 and M73 folks have oddities.

Rathna
11-13-2013, 06:30 PM
Oddly enough, the R1b1a1-M73 haplotypes look strangely similar to the R1b-V88 haplotypes, often sharing some of the same off-modal values at the 12 marker level.

North Ossetian
13 22 14 11 14-15 12 12 12 14 13 33

Chadic person
13 24 14 11 14-15 12 12 12 14 13 30

I'm not suggesting recent kinship, but V88 and M73 folks have oddities.

Alan doesn't say that also Italy has two samples of R-M73 and I have written a lot about the possible origin of this haplogroup in Europe rather than in Asia, in spite of the more diffusion there now:
R1b1a1
39685 Giorgio Mainenti (1826-1868) Italy R1b1a1
12 25 14 11 13-14 12 12 11 14 13 29 16 9-10 11 11 22 15 20 32 12-15-16-16 11 11 19-23 15 15 15 19 34-35 14 10 11 8 16-16 8 11 10 8 10 10 12 23-23 16 10 12 12 17 8 13 22 20 13 12 11 14 11 11 12 12 34 15 9 15 12 26 27 19 13 11 13 13 10 9 12 11 10 11 11 31 12 15 24 13 11 10 22 15 20 12 23 16 11 14 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 11 11
67866 Gioacchino Vizzaccaro, (b. 1895), Lazio, Italy Italy R1b1a1
12 26 14 10 13-15 12 12 13 14 13 29 16 9-10 11 11 22 15 20 32 12-15-16-17 11 10 19-26 18 15 17 18 36-36 14 10

Rathna
11-13-2013, 06:34 PM
I make you note the closeness of these haplotypes to the R1b1-L389* and to the R-M269*:

8 11 10 8 10 10

11 14 11 11 12 12

parasar
11-13-2013, 06:47 PM
The Isles are so well sampled that the M269*/L23*/L51* numbers seem inflated, especially if you include North Americans with probable ties to the Isles. These early R1b subclades are very rare as a percentage of R1b in Ireland and the UK. Because of these low numbers it seems more likely that these early R1b subclades are rather late arrivals to the Isles. IMO

From the R1a1 side we see that that may not be the case, as an R1a1 type CTS4385xL664 is only present there, and unless we see it somewhere else too, the late arrival scenario is not supported.

Joe B
11-13-2013, 06:52 PM
From the R1a1 side we see that that may not be the case, as an R1a1 type CTS4385xL664 is only present there, and unless we see it somewhere else too, the late arrival scenario is not supported.
Is there any data that supports an association between R1a1 and R1b-M269*/L23*/L51* in Ireland or the UK?

parasar
11-13-2013, 07:09 PM
Is there any data that supports an association between R1a1 and R1b-M269*/L23*/L51* in Ireland or the UK?

I'm afraid we only have modern data to go by, and as R1b and R1a tend to crop up together (though in much different %ages), my assumption has always been that both were part of a core PIE group in Western Europe that underwent disparate expansions. We'll see what R type the Mal'ta boy turns out to be. If he is not some type of R1, I will need to revise my thinking.

newtoboard
11-13-2013, 07:22 PM
I'm afraid we only have modern data to go by, and as R1b and R1a tend to crop up together (though in much different %ages), my assumption has always been that both were part of a core PIE group in Western Europe that underwent disparate expansions. We'll see what R type the Mal'ta boy turns out to be. If he is not some type of R1, I will need to revise my thinking.

PIE originates in Western Europe? That is news to everybody.

newtoboard
11-13-2013, 07:23 PM
Is there any data that supports an association between R1a1 and R1b-M269*/L23*/L51* in Ireland or the UK?


Is there any data that supports an association between R1a1 and R1b-M269*/L23*/L51* in Ireland or the UK?

The R1a in the UK arrived from Corded Ware, Scandinavians and North Iranian speakers. So would you associate any of those groups with M269*, L23* or L51*? I wouldn't.

ADW_1981
11-13-2013, 07:29 PM
The R1a in the UK arrived from Corded Ware, Scandinavians and North Iranian speakers. So would you associate any of those groups with M269*, L23* or L51*? I wouldn't.

You refute other people's comments yet provide your own without any supportive reasoning, let alone data. There is no aDNA from Britain currently so from a historic/cultural perspective we actually can't say anything about Britain at all from a YDNA standpoint. Corded Ware had its own sphere of influence in its day affecting its local region and adjacent cultures. I've never heard of any impact on Britain.

There is a British clan which has both R1a* and R1b-V88 so this may or may not be a coincidence. There appears to be a healthy Arab cluster which is R1a*. I would predict a south Iranian or N.Indian origin for these folks. As Rathna pointed out, the only L389- person is from India. There are also 2 other R1b1* folks in the Indian project. What I think we're looking at is R1a* and R1b* arising in the stone age and dispersing from west/central asia somewhere and accumulating in their respective regions. I really don't see why one is PIE and the other is not.

newtoboard
11-13-2013, 07:34 PM
You refute other people's comments yet provide your own without any supportive reasoning, let alone data. There is no aDNA from Britain currently so from a historic/cultural perspective we actually can't say anything about Britain at all from a YDNA standpoint. Corded Ware had its own sphere of influence in its day affecting its local region and adjacent cultures. I've never heard of any impact on Britain.

The majority of R1a in Britain is L664+, Z284+ and Z93+. The last two are clearly associated with North Germanic and Iranian speakers. L664+ likely originated in NW Corded Ware and made the jump to Britain or arrived through Norway. I think Michal and the R1a experts would agree with that. it has been discussed on this forum before. Also all of this is speculation. Its silly for you to say I don't provide any support yet you are speculating on Mesolithic R1b.

Jean M
11-13-2013, 07:40 PM
The R1a in the UK arrived from Corded Ware.

There is no Corded Ware in the UK. As far as I know, most of the R1a1a in the UK is of the Scandinavian subclade R1a1a1b1a3 (S221/Z284, S443/Z289) or descended from it. That is the dominant type in Scotland and can be associated with the Vikings. There is also some R1a1a1a (L664) in the UK, which seem to be associated with the Anglo-Saxons. The rarer cases of R1a1a1b2 (S202/Z93) subclades in the UK presumably have more exotic origins, such as Sarmatians serving in the Roman army.

[Added] I see now that you were referring to Angles and Saxons with presumed origins long before in Corded Ware.

Silesian
11-13-2013, 07:40 PM
The majority of R1a in Britain is L664+, Z284+ and Z93+. The last two are clearly associated with North Germanic and Iranian speakers. L664+ likely originated in NW Corded Ware and made the jump to Britain or arrived through Norway. I think Michal and the R1a experts would agree with that. it has been discussed on this forum before. Also all of this is speculation. Its silly for you to say I don't provide any support yet you are speculating on Mesolithic R1b.
But are any of these associated in the Walsers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walser
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamanni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valais

More likely Kromsdorf R1b samples.

newtoboard
11-13-2013, 07:45 PM
There is no Corded Ware in the UK. As far as I know, most of the R1a1a in the UK is of the Scandinavian subclade R1a1a1b1a3 (S221/Z284, S443/Z289) or descended from it. That is the dominant type in Scotland and can be associated with the Vikings. There is also some R1a1a1a (L664) in the UK, which seem to be associated with the Anglo-Saxons. The rarer cases of R1a1a1b2 (S202/Z93) subclades in the UK presumably have more exotic origins, such as Sarmatians serving in the Roman army.

[Added] I see now that you were referring to Angles and Saxons with presumed origins long before in Corded Ware.

I should have said originated in Corded Ware. I think L664+ originated in Corded Ware. You are probably right that most of it arrived through Continental Europe at a much later date with Germanic speakers. Although I still think some could have moved from NW Corded Ware to the UK.

Joe B
11-13-2013, 07:47 PM
I'm afraid we only have modern data to go by, and as R1b and R1a tend to crop up together (though in much different %ages), my assumption has always been that both were part of a core PIE group in Western Europe that underwent disparate expansions. We'll see what R type the Mal'ta boy turns out to be. If he is not some type of R1, I will need to revise my thinking.
It is very important to seperate out the early R1b subclades from the downstream clades that did migrate to Ireland and the UK many thousands of years ago. Without anything to back it up, my opinion is that R1b-M269*/L23*/L51* came to the Isles now and then over the last 1000 years. The numbers are just so small. Thread: R-Z2103 & Early R1b, an Enigma of Western Europe (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1501-R-Z2103-amp-Early-R1b-an-Enigma-of-Western-Europe) probably is a better place for that topic.

newtoboard
11-13-2013, 07:47 PM
You refute other people's comments yet provide your own without any supportive reasoning, let alone data. There is no aDNA from Britain currently so from a historic/cultural perspective we actually can't say anything about Britain at all from a YDNA standpoint. Corded Ware had its own sphere of influence in its day affecting its local region and adjacent cultures. I've never heard of any impact on Britain.

There is a British clan which has both R1a* and R1b-V88 so this may or may not be a coincidence. There appears to be a healthy Arab cluster which is R1a*. I would predict a south Iranian or N.Indian origin for these folks. As Rathna pointed out, the only L389- person is from India. There are also 2 other R1b1* folks in the Indian project. What I think we're looking at is R1a* and R1b* arising in the stone age and dispersing from west/central asia somewhere and accumulating in their respective regions. I really don't see why one is PIE and the other is not.

I never mentioned PIE. I just disagreed with the association of R1a in the UKwith those R1b clades (M269*, L23*, L51*). Although it is possible they were minority haplogroups among those who carried R1a to the UK.

ADW_1981
11-13-2013, 07:48 PM
The majority of R1a in Britain is L664+, Z284+ and Z93+. The last two are clearly associated with North Germanic and Iranian speakers. L664+ likely originated in NW Corded Ware and made the jump to Britain or arrived through Norway. I think Michal and the R1a experts would agree with that. it has been discussed on this forum before. Also all of this is speculation. Its silly for you to say I don't provide any support yet you are speculating on Mesolithic R1b.

Farming = lots of food supply and lots of offspring. While the West Asian R1b1* folks likely have their own downstream, yet to be discovered SNPS, they were not part of a successful clade which led to a population explosion in western Asia. There's archaeological data that supports farming expansion out of Mesopotamia and this would be partly driven by growing population. There is enough data that J2, G, J1 (take your pick) branches might have been linked to the center of this farming explosion - not R1b1*.

Jean M answered the other part nicely.

newtoboard
11-13-2013, 07:51 PM
Farming = lots of food supply and lots of offspring. While the West Asian R1b1* folks likely have their own downstream, yet to be discovered SNPS, they were not part of a successful clade which led to a population explosion in western Asia. There's archaeological data that supports farming expansion out of Mesopotamia and this would be partly driven by growing population. There is enough data that J2, G, J1 (take your pick) branches might have been linked to the center of this farming explosion - not R1b1*.

Jean M answered the other part nicely.

I agree with that. West Asian (or Asian R1b in general) R1b mostly exists in highland regions.

alan
11-13-2013, 08:57 PM
Well we known that M269 and M73 share the immediate upstream P297 SNP while V88 doesnt share a common ancestor until P25 which is much further back. To me V88 is a very different story and seems to have sprung from the paragroup P25* people who were scattered around in small numbers especially in and around north Iran and central Asia.

R1 and early R1b may have started separating into geographically distinctive groups shortly after the LGM. In that period there was a vast expansion of the Caspian north and eastwards and in north central Asia there was improvement in the early LGM followed by Dryas return to arid conditions followed by an Atlantic pluvial improvement followed again by aridification. That is more than enough to have meant that any unity of R1 as a whole and R1b as a subgroup was probably gone with the effect that strong geographical subdivision would have occurred that probably didnt exist before the end of the LGM. The result seems to have been M73 to the north and east of the Caspian, the P25* paragroup people strung along the north Iran/central Asia area and M269 somewhere in the circumpontic area. The geographical divisions of R1b may predate the SNPs that define the clades. We have no idea of what the ancestors of M73 and M269 were doing c. 9000-5000BC as no confirmed P297* has ever been found.


Oddly enough, the R1b1a1-M73 haplotypes look strangely similar to the R1b-V88 haplotypes, often sharing some of the same off-modal values at the 12 marker level.

North Ossetian
13 22 14 11 14-15 12 12 12 14 13 33

Chadic person
13 24 14 11 14-15 12 12 12 14 13 30

I'm not suggesting recent kinship, but V88 and M73 folks have oddities.

alan
11-13-2013, 09:06 PM
In the Hindu Kush study a lot of it was associated with Iranian speakers. I dont think it was a major component in Iranian speakers or how it got absorbed but it clearly was to some degree. So was some M73.


The R1a in the UK arrived from Corded Ware, Scandinavians and North Iranian speakers. So would you associate any of those groups with M269*, L23* or L51*? I wouldn't.

parasar
11-13-2013, 09:16 PM
It is very important to seperate out the early R1b subclades from the downstream clades that did migrate to Ireland and the UK many thousands of years ago. Without anything to back it up, my opinion is that R1b-M269*/L23*/L51* came to the Isles now and then over the last 1000 years. The numbers are just so small. Thread: R-Z2103 & Early R1b, an Enigma of Western Europe (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1501-R-Z2103-amp-Early-R1b-an-Enigma-of-Western-Europe) probably is a better place for that topic.

Possible.
On the R1a1 side I think similarly about Z93+Z94- as it also present elsewhere (the English ones, though, are quite distant may have a different unifying SNP than the Arabs and Italians). On the other hand, CTS4385+L664- is at present limited to the English, so it is difficult to argue for a non-English origin for that line.

alan
11-13-2013, 09:41 PM
The core issue with Hammer is that an origin in Anatolia is not compatible with a spread after 3000BC or even 4000BC and indeed the lack of branching in the Neolithic period. In R1b terms the entire middle east Neolithic c 8000-5000BC is not represented by any branching at all. So, it must have been a lot more peripheral to farming than a location in Anatolia would suggest. The areas compatible with R1b branching and clade ages etc runs from the Caucasus through Caspian Iran, the steppes and probably parts of north-west central Asia. If R1b came from Anatolia then something would have to be significantly wrong with yDNA dating. One would also have to dream up some way of explaining how M269/L23xL51 made it in significant numbers into the Balkans and M73 made it to the Urals and central Asia from Anatolia in the copper age which basically did not happen as far as the archaeological evidence shows.

Generalissimo
11-13-2013, 10:08 PM
Since I don't follow Maciamo closely, I can't say when he got on board the idea of R1b from the east, but I have a vague idea that it was fairly early on. I didn't mean to exclude him from the credit. I just can't pinpoint his contribution.

I'm not saying that anyone should get any credit for anything, since nothing's been worked out yet.

Anyway, STR diversity is best ignored, but SNP diversity surely isn't a fool proof method either. This map shows what we've known for a long time, which is that the main European variants of R1b expanded after the Neolithic. But it doesn't really tell us when and how M269 entered Europe.

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

Bulgaria and the Carpathian Basin do look very interesting for R1b. But I'd caution against simply connecting the dots in this case, because we don't know whether the main R1b migration went directly from Bulgaria to the Carpathian Basin (ie. with the early Indo-Europeans), or whether it took a major detour, like from Bulgaria to Western Europe via the Mediterranean, and then moved from Western Europe into the Carpathian Basin (ie. with the non-Indo-European Bell Beakers) where it expanded with the Indo-Europeanized eastern Beaker groups that eventually became the Italo-Celts. Considering the very high mobility of late Neolithic groups and several major back and forth migrations across Europe at the time, nothing is certain.

Mikewww
11-13-2013, 11:23 PM
... You have once more shown your personal bias here ..


... I have no personal bias. I have no idea what my father's Y-DNA haplogroup was.

I can understand that Basques won't like what I say, because the long history of regarding them as a palaeolithic relic population was taken to the hearts of many of them. I myself accepted that idea decades ago, and found it very interesting. I can report that the same is true of a number of British academics more closely involved than I was at the time. The idea was generally popular. There was no British bias against it. What has happened is the gradual accumulation of data against it.

JeanL, I'm speaking as a moderator. Please, no accusations of bias, hidden agendas or personal attacks. We are trying to stay on the topic by using logic and evidence about the topic.

jeanL
11-13-2013, 11:43 PM
JeanL, I'm speaking as a moderator. Please, no accusations of bias, hidden agendas or personal attacks. We are trying to stay on the topic by using logic and evidence about the topic.

So how would you characterize her description of the Busby.et.al.2012 study as a "This stirred up the academic opposition, who could scarcely credit that they could have been wrong all this time. Their feeble response to Balaresque was Busby 2012". This sort of statement undermines the scientific value(Which was the first study to bring about the relationship between mutation rates of markers and the TMRCA, did their own analyses on a combined dataset of Myres.et.al.2011 and new populations, and did a re-analysis of the Balaresque.et.al dataset) of the study, and is basically saying that the Busby.et.al. team which included numerous scientists was just a comeback of the "R1b-Paleolithic Zombie", which is something that carries a negative connotation in these forums. Now, given that some of the stuff she actually said wasn't true, I had to either:

a) Assume she was naive enough to not have studied the paper throughly, and was simply speaking out of what she has seen.

b) She has read the paper, and was simply omitting or twisting the information.

I'll admit I might have over-reacted, but it was mostly due to the fact that not even 6 posts before you thought that Busby.et.al.2012 didn't include R1b-M269(xL11) people in their analysis, so there seems to be a lot of misunderstading when it comes to that study, so as you can imagine it can be frustating dealing with such misunderstandings. Again, if you are building your hypothesis on certain premises, at least make sure you get the information correct. In any case, JeanM and I already worked things out. The same thing goes to Alan who also mention that I shouldn't be accusing people of personal bias, or something along those lines.

Jean M
11-14-2013, 12:09 AM
a) Assume she was naive enough to not have studied the paper thoroughly, and was simply speaking out of what she has seen.

b) She has read the paper, and was simply omitting or twisting the information.


Neither. I read the paper when it was published i.e. not yesterday. I commented at the time on my blog at DNA Forums, and in my post above, I drew on my commentary then, which I suspect (following your correction) rolled a couple of things into one. From what you say, they included Anatolian data in the variance. So my comment on excluding Anatolian R1b must refer to something else, but what I don't know at this time.

[Added] Found it:


The Balaresque dataset presents genotype data only to the resolution of SNP R-M269. Our results show that the vast majority of R-M269 samples in Anatolia, approximately 90 per cent, belong to the R-M269(xS127) sub-haplogroup. Removing these Turkish populations from the Balaresque data and repeating the regression removes the significant correlation (R2 ¼ 0.23, p ¼ 0.09; details in the electronic supplementary material and figure S2). These populations are therefore intrinsic to the significant correlation.

Humanist
11-14-2013, 12:34 AM
So how would you characterize her description of the Busby.et.al.2012 study as a "This stirred up the academic opposition, who could scarcely credit that they could have been wrong all this time. Their feeble response to Balaresque was Busby 2012".

They excluded the populations with some of the highest frequencies of R1b in West Asia? Armenians, Assyrians, Alawites, Druze, and Iranian minority groups?

A gigantic chunk of West Asia is missing.

Figure S1 from Busby et al 2011

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

alan
11-14-2013, 01:07 AM
I would tend to feel now that its pretty clear that the Balkans/Lower Danube is the stepping stone for M269 into the rest of Europe. An ultimately much more eastern derived y lineage in order to enter SE Europe simply has to have passed through one side of the Black Sea or the other (short of sailing). The proposed date of c. 4000-3000BC simply doesnt tally with any movement out of Anatolia but does coincide with a period of multiple waves from north of the Black Sea into the Balkans and lower Danube and indeed probably from there into Anatolia.

I would also again add that the closest brother clade of M269, M73, looks incredibly unlikely to have been positioned south of the Caspian, Caucasus and M269 and indeed P297 as whole doesnt behave in branching terms like it had been in early farming areas like Anatolia, SW Asia or even the Balkans. I think the northern route is far far more probable assuming the lack of R1b in Neolithic Europe remains and assuming the current datings proposed are roughly correct.

I think we tend to feel this route is problematic simply because of a current low level of R1b in the western steppe but it cannot be overlooked that the western steppe has hopelessly changed even in the last 300 years and had an unbelievable amount of changes over the last 4 thousand years or more. Steppe nomadic groups by the nature of their society can up sticks more drastically than most.

I believe the only reason that the southern route into SE Europe through Anatolia cannot simply be thrown out as a possibility is doubts over variance dating.




I'm not saying that anyone should get any credit for anything, since nothing's been worked out yet.

Anyway, STR diversity is best ignored, but SNP diversity surely isn't a fool proof method either. This map shows what we've known for a long time, which is that the main European variants of R1b expanded after the Neolithic. But it doesn't really tell us when and how M269 entered Europe.

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

Bulgaria and the Carpathian Basin do look very interesting for R1b. But I'd caution against simply connecting the dots in this case, because we don't know whether the main R1b migration went directly from Bulgaria to the Carpathian Basin (ie. with the early Indo-Europeans), or whether it took a major detour, like from Bulgaria to Western Europe via the Mediterranean, and then moved from Western Europe into the Carpathian Basin (ie. with the non-Indo-European Bell Beakers) where it expanded with the Indo-Europeanized eastern Beaker groups that eventually became the Italo-Celts. Considering the very high mobility of late Neolithic groups and several major back and forth migrations across Europe at the time, nothing is certain.

jeanL
11-14-2013, 01:25 AM
Neither. I read the paper when it was published i.e. not yesterday. I commented at the time on my blog at DNA Forums, and in my post above, I drew on my commentary then, which I suspect (following your correction) rolled a couple of things into one. From what you say, they included Anatolian data in the variance. So my comment on excluding Anatolian R1b must refer to something else, but what I don't know at this time.

[Added] Found it:

Again, like I said, that was one of the three analysis they did. The analyses presented on Figure-2 where done on their dataset which contained the populations from Myres.et.al.2011 and newly added populations by them.

As you can see in here:

920

They did include West Asian populations in their analyses.

From their Table-S1 (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1730/884/suppl/DC1) One can see that they included Turkey in their analyses.

Rathna
11-14-2013, 01:37 AM
About R-M73 to Alan
I think having demonstrated in the past (see Worldfamilies above all) that the European R-M73 is more varied than the Asian ones. I can add now:

1) if we exclude Cluster B2 of the FTDNA R1b1a1 Project, because very recent:
185173 Kazakhstan R1b1a1
13 19 14 11 13-13 12 12 13 14 13 30 17 9-9 11 11 23 15 19 34 12-15-15-16 11 10 19-25 15 16 16 17 30-36 12 10 11 8 16-16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23-23 16 10 12 12 16 8 12 24 21 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 11

we should exam Cluster A (European) and Cluster B1 (Asian, but with two Europeans which augment its variation).

249621 Russian Federation R1b1a1
13 22 14 11 14-15 12 12 13 14 13 33 16 9-9 11 11 24 15 19 31 13-15-15-17 10 10 20-25 16 17 16 19 34-38 12 10
186122 Luxembourg R1b1a1
13 23 14 11 13-15 12 12 13 13 13 30 16 9-9 11 11 23 15 20 28 13-15-15-17 11 10 19-24 15 14 18 17 35-39 12 11 11 8 16-16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 21-23 15 10 12 12 17 8 12 25 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12

2) I think that everyone may see that European R-M73 are more varied than the Asian ones, thus, as I have said, European haplotypes are the oldest.

alan
11-14-2013, 01:41 AM
I personally find the branching more persuasive than intraclade variance. Regardless of current variance I think the shedding off of branches further up the tree tells us most. Unfortunately for R1b there are basically no branches with surviving descendants on the future M269 and M73 lines after P25. So there is a totally chasm of c. 10000 years in our understanding that stretches from the late Palaeolithic to the copper age. It seems incredibly unlikely that that will change and therefore it looks very unlikely that modern population studies will ever be able to shed light on that gap.

Rathna
11-14-2013, 01:51 AM
I personally find the branching more persuasive than intraclade variance. Regardless of current variance I think the shedding off of branches further up the tree tells us most. Unfortunately for R1b there are basically no branches with surviving descendants on the future M269 and M73 lines after P25. So there is a totally chasm of c. 10000 years in our understanding that stretches from the late Palaeolithic to the copper age. It seems incredibly unlikely that that will change and therefore it looks very unlikely that modern population studies will ever be able to shed light on that gap.

Perhaps you are right, but we may consider one sample of branching hg. R-M335, which I demonstrated European in its origin and the only samples on the R1b1 FTDNA Project come from Europe, and I added samples from Italy too. Beyond this R-M335 gets YCAII=18-23 like the European R1b1 and different from the Asian ones with 21-23 and 23-23 and that we know now to be L389-.

Humanist
11-14-2013, 01:59 AM
As you can see in here:

920

They did include West Asian populations in their analyses.

From their Table-S1 (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1730/884/suppl/DC1) One can see that they included Turkey in their analyses.

OK. But Anatolian Turks are not representative of Assyrians, Alawites, Druze and Iranian minority groups.

jeanL
11-14-2013, 02:30 AM
OK. But Anatolian Turks are not representative of Assyrians, Alawites, Druze and Iranian minority groups.

They did include Iranians though. As per Table-S1 they included in the STR analyses:

Turkey(n=151)

Central Turkey (n=94)

South Turkey (n=77)

Iran(n=328)

Not sure why they didn't include the other groups of Near Easterns and West Asians.

Humanist
11-14-2013, 03:05 AM
They did include Iranians though. As per Table-S1 they included in the STR analyses:

Turkey(n=151)

Central Turkey (n=94)

South Turkey (n=77)

Iran(n=328)

Not sure why they didn't include the other groups of Near Easterns and West Asians.

Thanks for the info. I am referring specifically to Iranian minority groups. They have, on average, significantly higher R1b frequencies than Iranians in general (please see my map at bottom). Eupedia has the national Iranian R1b frequency at a mere 6.5%.

As to why they did not include the other West Asian groups, well, I reckon they are either unfamiliar with minority groups like Alawites, Assyrians, etc., or believe that all Middle Easterners are of the same basic stock (i.e. "Arab Muslim"), and so they rely on the sampling of Arab groups. The differences in Y-DNA haplogroup frequencies between minority Middle Eastern groups and the predominantly Arab Muslim groups are significant.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/Map_Middle_East_R1b_size.jpg

Mikewww
11-14-2013, 03:16 AM
So how would you characterize her description of the Busby.et.al.2012 study...
I don't have to characterize her description of anything. That's the point. I'm not trying to rate her or you or anybody else on one thing or another. All of that is a distraction from sound logic. That all falls into the category of "ad hominen" arguments. If we want to listen to that I can go turn on the TV and listen to our politicians/magicians.

If you think someone's description of something else is unfair, attack the description with new evidence and a logical approach, like you did with me.


I'll admit I might have over-reacted, but it was mostly due to the fact that not even 6 posts before you thought that Busby.et.al.2012 didn't include R1b-M269(xL11) people in their analysis, so there seems to be a lot of misunderstading when it comes to that study, so as you can imagine it can be frustating dealing with such misunderstandings. Again, if you are building your hypothesis on certain premises, at least make sure you get the information correct. In any case, JeanM and I already worked things out. The same thing goes to Alan who also mention that I shouldn't be accusing people of personal bias, or something along those lines.

JeanL, I disagree with your characterization but I don't want to re-argue Busby. Don't you see that I conceded and said I retract criticism of that study? It's not that I don't see problems. It's just I don't want to argue about that again and particularly in distraction of this topic and thread. If you want to have a knock down, drag out about Busby's study, please start a new thread.

We need to stay away from "ad hominem" attacks. Those aspects of an argument are devoid of content from the real topic.

Mikewww
11-14-2013, 03:25 AM
About R-M73 to Alan
I think having demonstrated in the past (see Worldfamilies above all) that the European R-M73 is more varied than the Asian ones.
Please do not refer to Worldfamilies. Not all of us use that. Instead, please restate or reference to your prior arguments here on this forum.

What is the implication of your position that M73 is more varied in Europe than Asia. Are you asserting that M73 originated in Europe? If so, where?

parasar
11-14-2013, 03:58 AM
...
What is the implication of your position that M73 is more varied in Europe than Asia. Are you asserting that M73 originated in Europe? If so, where?

I recall VV had mentioned that it was eastern Europe that most varied M73 was found. I don't remember where - perhaps Dna-Forums.

ADW_1981
11-14-2013, 03:58 AM
It looks like R1a* and R1b1* are oldest in Central/West Asia, and the NW European branch (R1a*) lacks the diversity of its eastern counterpart. A similar point could be made that the R1b1* in India are (L389-)

These are all Arab kits who are R1a*.

13 23 17 11 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 30 16 9-9 11 12 26 15 19 32 ...
13 25 14 10 12-12 12 12 11 13 14 31 17 9-9 11 11 25 15 19 30 ...
13 25 14 10 12-12 12 12 11 13 14 30 16 9-9 11 11 25 15 19 31 ...

NW Euro R1a* kits

13 24 14 10 12-12 12 12 11 13 13 29 19 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 30 ...
13 24 14 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 28 18 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 30 ...
--etc

Generalissimo
11-14-2013, 05:18 AM
I think we tend to feel this route is problematic simply because of a current low level of R1b in the western steppe but it cannot be overlooked that the western steppe has hopelessly changed even in the last 300 years and had an unbelievable amount of changes over the last 4 thousand years or more. Steppe nomadic groups by the nature of their society can up sticks more drastically than most.

The western steppe has always been a highway. But in the forest steppe, from Poland to the Middle Volga, north of these red lines that show the fortifications known as the Serpent's Wall, there's been genetic continuity for thousands of years, since the local Mesolithic hunter-gatherers mixed with the incoming farmers from the Near East.

http://bialczynski.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/zmij-wac582-map-3-foto-095.jpg

So if there aren't any really old clades of R1b north of those lines, then R1b doesn't come from north of the Black Sea. But it might have simply passed by the area during the Copper Age, just like the Mongol and Turkic groups did much later. If so, wherever it came from, it might still be there. Daghestan in the North Caucasus could be a good option.


I believe the only reason that the southern route into SE Europe through Anatolia cannot simply be thrown out as a possibility is doubts over variance dating.

There's actually no archeological evidence of a migration that would back a purported movement of M269 from Anatolia to the Balkans after the Neolithic. R1b had to have been in Bulgaria by the end of the Neolithic, and if not, then it arrived there from the northeast, around the northern edge of the Black Sea, possibly from just north of the Caucasus (ie. Daghestan) . But I think it was already in Bulgaria and also the Carpathian Basin well before the Bronze Age.

Rathna
11-14-2013, 05:51 AM
It looks like R1a* and R1b1* are oldest in Central/West Asia, and the NW European branch (R1a*) lacks the diversity of its eastern counterpart. A similar point could be made that the R1b1* in India are (L389-)

These are all Arab kits who are R1a*.

13 23 17 11 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 30 16 9-9 11 12 26 15 19 32 ...
13 25 14 10 12-12 12 12 11 13 14 31 17 9-9 11 11 25 15 19 30 ...
13 25 14 10 12-12 12 12 11 13 14 30 16 9-9 11 11 25 15 19 31 ...

NW Euro R1a* kits

13 24 14 10 12-12 12 12 11 13 13 29 19 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 30 ...
13 24 14 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 28 18 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 30 ...
--etc

This is certainly an Arab R1a* from Geno 2.0 (see Morley's tree):

1821 R1a–1 Z186686
1822 N114240

I was searching for R1a* haplotypes from Middle East. These are interesting. Anyway it seems that they all, with the European ones, belong to an unique haplotype. It would be interesting to ascertain its point of departure, being it spread from Middle East to Western Europe, but it seems to lack in India.

In Europe we have Cluster 1
73823 Pickering England R1
13 24 14 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 21 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 30 12-13-15-16 11 11 19-22 15 16 18 16 33-40 12 11 11 8 15-16 8 12 11 8 12 11 12 22-22 15 10 12 12 15 8 14 24 21 13 12 11 12 11 11 12 12
but also Cluster 2:
140814 Yeager Germany R1
14 23 15 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 15 9-9 11 12 25 15 20 31 11-12-15-16 11 10 19-23 15 16 16 18 36-37 12 12 9 8 15-16 8 11 10 8 11 11 12 20-20 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 21 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12 35 15 9 15 12 28 24 19 12 12 12 12 10 9 13 11 10 11 11 30 12 12 24 13 11 9 18 15 18 16 23 15 11 16 25 12 24 19 10 15 18 9 11 11

Generalissimo
11-14-2013, 06:54 AM
This is certainly an Arab R1a* from Geno 2.0 (see Morley's tree).

Who's Morley?

Rathna
11-14-2013, 07:20 AM
Who's Morley?

http://Ytree.MorleyDNA.com

vettor
11-14-2013, 08:39 AM
http://Ytree.MorleyDNA.com

it's broken

Error: No call specified for "L446". Please check that the correct data format is selected (see notes below). Then check the call for "L446".

this subclade has been out for over 18 months

cmorley
11-14-2013, 08:49 AM
Who's Morley?

At your service.


it's broken

Error: No call specified for "L446". Please check that the correct data format is selected (see notes below). Then check the call for "L446".

this subclade has been out for over 18 months

It's not broken. You likely got this error message by submitting the data "L446" instead of "L446+" or "L446-". Kindly review http://ytree.morleydna.com/#Formats .

By the way, I think Rathna is referring to lines 1821-1822 of my 8 September 2013 tree (accessible from http://ytree.morleydna.com/experimental-phylogeny). That corresponds with lines 1883-4 of my 8 November 2013 tree (accessible from the same link). When mentioning my experimental trees, it's imperative to say which version you are looking at.

Rathna
11-14-2013, 10:10 AM
By the way, I think Rathna is referring to lines 1821-1822 of my 8 September 2013 tree (accessible from http://ytree.morleydna.com/experimental-phylogeny). That corresponds with lines 1883-4 of my 8 November 2013 tree (accessible from the same link). When mentioning my experimental trees, it's imperative to say which version you are looking at.

I was quoting from my PC and didn't know your last version. I'll look at that very willing. Thanks.

vettor
11-14-2013, 10:11 AM
It's not broken. You likely got this error message by submitting the data "L446" instead of "L446+" or "L446-". Kindly review http://ytree.morleydna.com/#Formats .


thanks, i stand corrected, I left out the positive marker

Jean M
11-14-2013, 10:30 AM
I would not be surprised if M.hammer is basing his ideas on the maps in link below

note - K based on the iran pakistsan order goes north to split as P, then R splits from P to go NW direction and Q goes NE direction. While T splits from K to go west direction and L goes SE direction...anyway the map is clearer

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2769/hxzk.png

Those are from Shi Yan, Chuan-Chao Wang, Hong-Xiang Zheng, Wei Wang, Zhen-Dong Qin, Lan-Hai Wei, Yi Wang, Xue-Dong Pan, Wen-Qing Fu, Yun-Gang He, Li-Jun Xiong, Wen-Fei Jin, Shi-Lin Li, Yu An, Hui Li, Li Jin, Y Chromosomes of 40% Chinese Are Descendants of Three Neolithic Super-grandfathers, arXiv:1310.3897v1 [q-bio.PE] http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3897v1

They don't place the origin of K in SE Asia, or its split in to P and NO. Dr Hammers had a slide up showing the origin of P in SE Asia. So Some differences.

Rathna
11-14-2013, 11:23 AM
I was quoting from my PC and didn't know your last version. I'll look at that very willing. Thanks.

I looked at your tree and I'm glad that you put CTS7822 under R-Z2105, but R-M269 and R-L23 aren't linked by the SNP L150+ (as the "Jewish R1b project" says) and the R-M269 aren't by chance negative for L23 and L49. They belong to a different haplogroup.
The R-M269+/L150+/PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+ but L23- and L49- are the unique R-M269* found so far. It isn't true: "Unexpected negative calls: L23- [1 level above, at R1b1a2a], L49- [1 level above, at R1b1a2a].)".


The R-M269+/L150+/PF7558-/PF7562-/PF7563- but L23+/L49+/Z2103+/Z2105+ are the unique subclade so far found of R-L23* and ancestor of all the subclades under that.
And about R-L584+ it isn't demonstrated that Carnevali (and one Rumanian), who is PF7580+, is also "R1b1a2a2a CTS1848 [1/3], L584 [9/9], PF3449 [1/3], PF7580 [3/3] 152974, 166322, 166323, 182984, 235098, 45475, 87265, 92187, N10795, N1130444, N93831".
They could be the European R-Z2103+/Z2105+ and PF7580+ ancestor of the L584+ subclades.

alan
11-14-2013, 12:13 PM
There is also a lack of R1a clades in the steppe so a lack of old R1b clades there is not really a problem in that sense. I think basically steppe cultures before the copper age basically didnt reproduce to a level that left upstream branches. So, it remains a mystery. I dont disagree that the range of possibilities includes the Caucasus etc. I also dont disagree that there is doubt about variance dating. General autosomal continuity of course can be a very different thing from Y lines as we see all over Europe.


The western steppe has always been a highway. But in the forest steppe, from Poland to the Middle Volga, north of these red lines that show the fortifications known as the Serpent's Wall, there's been genetic continuity for thousands of years, since the local Mesolithic hunter-gatherers mixed with the incoming farmers from the Near East.

http://bialczynski.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/zmij-wac582-map-3-foto-095.jpg

So if there aren't any really old clades of R1b north of those lines, then R1b doesn't come from north of the Black Sea. But it might have simply passed by the area during the Copper Age, just like the Mongol and Turkic groups did much later. If so, wherever it came from, it might still be there. Daghestan in the North Caucasus could be a good option.



There's actually no archeological evidence of a migration that would back a purported movement of M269 from Anatolia to the Balkans after the Neolithic. R1b had to have been in Bulgaria by the end of the Neolithic, and if not, then it arrived there from the northeast, around the northern edge of the Black Sea, possibly from just north of the Caucasus (ie. Daghestan) . But I think it was already in Bulgaria and also the Carpathian Basin well before the Bronze Age.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 01:21 PM
In the Hindu Kush study a lot of it was associated with Iranian speakers. I dont think it was a major component in Iranian speakers or how it got absorbed but it clearly was to some degree. So was some M73.


Yes but the R1a from Iranian speakers in the UK likely comes from steppe Iranian speakers. We know from Andronovo and other related cultures that Scythians, Alans and other steppe Iranian speakers likely carried nothing but R1a. Iranian speakers south of the steppe obviously carried other haplogroups. It is my belief that the Hindu Kush R1b arrived from Iran very recently. After all those regions are speaking Persian and Tajiki now whereas in the past they spoke Bactrian, Sogdhian and Saka. L23 is one of those lineages likely responsible for the shift fromE ast Iranian languages to West Iranian ones. That theory makes more sense when we see Pashtuns (East Iranian speakers) have lower R1b frequencies than neighboring Tajiks.

Generalissimo
11-14-2013, 01:24 PM
There is also a lack of R1a clades in the steppe so a lack of old R1b clades there is not really a problem in that sense.

I'd agree with you if, for instance, at least one of those Kurgan or Tarim Basin samples was R1b, but none of them are. And the ancestors of those Tarim Basin mummies left the European steppe very early. Moreover, I'd say they probably came from Ukraine, considering the mtDNA C4 carried by them and the samples from the Ukrainian Kurgans.

In any case, I was thinking that the collapse of agricultural communities in Bulgaria during the Copper Age, when the steppe nomads started streaming into the area, might have something to do with the appearance of the Bell Beakers in Portugal. It might have been a forced migration, but otherwise not unlike the later maritime colonization of the west Mediterranean by the Greeks.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 01:57 PM
Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
In the Hindu Kush study a lot of it was associated with Iranian speakers. I dont think it was a major component in Iranian speakers or how it got absorbed but it clearly was to some degree. So was some M73.[/SIZE]

Thats why R1a is not found in the Ossetians unlike R1b. R1a on the Steppe is found in Turks and Brahui, groups having nothing to do with PIE. It is interesting that no connection is made with modern Iranians and ancient R1a samples. When you compare Grugni et al, as wll as the Hindu Kush study there is plenty of R1b in and around Iran with a far amount of variance. The R1a in Iran was brought in by Turks and has nothing to do with Iranians.

ADW_1981
11-14-2013, 02:15 PM
I was searching for R1a* haplotypes from Middle East. These are interesting. Anyway it seems that they all, with the European ones, belong to an unique haplotype. It would be interesting to ascertain its point of departure, being it spread from Middle East to Western Europe, but it seems to lack in India.



I was wondering about this too. I arrived at the conclusion that R1a* may have arrived in UAE/Yemen/Arabia from southern Iran or Pakistan rather than India. We can see the parallels between these two regions for Z93+ as well. In the case where R1b-V88 shows up in UAE/Yemen/Arabia, it most certainly has a southern Levant origin. (in my view)

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 02:16 PM
Thats why R1a is not found in the Ossetians unlike R1b. R1a on the Steppe is found in Turks and Brahui, groups having nothing to do with PIE. It is interesting that no connection is made with modern Iranians and ancient R1a samples. When you compare Grugni et al, as wll as the Hindu Kush study there is plenty of R1b in and around Iran with a far amount of variance. The R1a in Iran was brought in by Turks and has nothing to do with Iranians.

So because one Indo-Iranian group (likely the smallest groups and most recent to adopt an Indo-Iranian language) carries no R1a that means all other Iranian groups in history had no R1a? And that this small minor group carries no R1a is somehow more important than the other more ancient and numerically significant Indo-Iranian groups that have an high frequencies of R1a-Z93+? Also I didn't know modern Iranians were steppe Proto Indo-Iranians living in West Asia. Why should those groups be the same?

And regarding Ossetians, how do you know they represent the ancient Alans? The kingdom of Alania was much larger than Ossetia. Ossetia lies at the SE edge of the Kingdom of Alania. It is located in the portion of Alania most distant from the steppe and homeland of the Alans. Part of Ossetia is even located outside the boundaries of the Kingdom of Alania. Not to mention that we know Ossetian has significant linguistic influences from NW Caucasian languages. So most of their ancestry likely derives from NW Caucasian speakers who adopted the language of the Kingdom of Alania. Not to mention that the Mongols pretty much destroyed the Kingdom of Alania and the Alanian elite. That the majority of Ossetians belong to a very young G2a1 clade that is exclusive to them and their neighbors might indicate significant bottlenecks.

The steppe Turks absorbed Iranian R1a speakers. That is well documented.

And I suppose the Andronovo R1a samples were Ancient Turks right?

Who cares about the Brahui? They are likely recent migrants to the area and live in an area surrounded by IE speakers. By your logic IE has nothing to do with R1b because Basques carry R1b. By the way Turks in the forest steppe, steppe, Central Asia and Caucasus as well as Anatolia carry R1b as well. I suppose R1b-U152+ never spoke an Italo-Celtic or IE language because it is also found in a bunch of Bashkirs/Tatars right?

Silesian
11-14-2013, 02:23 PM
So because one Indo-Iranian group (likely the smallest groups and most recent to adopt an Indo-Iranian language) carries no R1a that means all other Iranian groups in history had no R1a? And that this small minor group carries no R1a is somehow more important than the other more ancient and numerically significant Indo-Iranian groups that have an high frequencies of R1a-Z93+? Also I didn't know modern Iranians were steppe Proto Indo-Iranians living in West Asia. Why should those groups be the same?

And regarding Ossetians, how do you know they represent the ancient Alans? The kingdom of Alania was much larger than Ossetia. Ossetia lies at the SE edge of the Kingdom of Alania. It is located in the portion of Alania most distant from the steppe and homeland of the Alans. Part of Ossetia is even located outside the boundaries of the Kingdom of Alania. Not to mention that we know Ossetian has significant linguistic influences from NW Caucasian languages. So most of their ancestry likely derives from NW Caucasian speakers who adopted the language of the Kingdom of Alania. Not to mention that the Mongols pretty much destroyed the Kingdom of Alania and the Alanian elite. That the majority of Ossetians belong to a very young G2a1 clade that is exclusive to them and their neighbors might indicate significant bottlenecks.

The steppe Turks absorbed Iranian R1a speakers. That is well documented.

And I suppose the Andronovo R1a samples were Ancient Turks right?

Who cares about the Brahui? They are likely recent migrants to the area and live in an area surrounded by IE speakers. By your logic IE has nothing to do with R1b because Basques carry R1b. By the way Turks in the forest steppe, steppe, Central Asia and Caucasus as well as Anatolia carry R1b as well. I suppose R1b-U152+ never spoke an Italo-Celtic or IE language because it is also found in a bunch of Bashkirs/Tatars right?

Please provide some real scientific studies showing R1a in Iran is connected with known IE speaking groups in the region like Armenians[separate branch] Digor [ancient Eastern Iranian branch]. As far as we know the R1a could come from Saudi Arabia or from Sri Lanka and have nothing to do with PIE.

Grugni et al or the study that Alan mentions are the latest, showing R1b in Iranians.

ADW_1981
11-14-2013, 02:28 PM
Grugni et al or the study that Alan mentions are the latest, showing R1b in Iranians.

An interesting tidbit was that R1b-L23 was the most numerous subclade among all sampled Iranians in that study. Moving over to the country of Afghanistan that number drops off completely.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 02:33 PM
An interesting tidbit was that R1b-L23 was the most numerous subclade among all sampled Iranians in that study. Moving over to the country of Afghanistan that number drops off completely.
It cuts both ways. There is virtually no R1a in Italy IE groups, but plenty in Saudi Arabia[quite old] and Sri Lanka. However the focus is on Iran. and studies on the ydna of Iranians, an IE speaking people.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 02:34 PM
Please provide some real scientific studies showing R1a in Iran is connected with known IE speaking groups in the region like Armenians[separate branch] Digor [ancient Eastern Iranian branch]. As far as we know the R1a could come from Saudi Arabia or from Sri Lanka and have nothing to do with PIE.

Grugni et al or the study that Alan mentions are the latest, showing R1b in Iranians.

I never said the R1a in Iran is connected with Armenians. Why don't you post this information for R1b? How about you post something other than frequencies? Why don't you show some information regarding the origin of R1a in Saudi Arabia or Sri Lanka and its migration to Kazakhstan, the steppe, South Siberia and the South Urals? Show us some information about this migration you made up. And then show us some R1b samples from a culture associated with Proto Indo-Iranian or Iranian. And then explain why Sri Lankan and Arabian R1a looks like a subset of R1a from India and Iran. Btw Sri Lanka is majority IE speaking so I have no idea what your point is by bringing up Sri Lanka. Why don't you address the rest of my previous post?

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 02:37 PM
It cuts both ways. There is virtually no R1a in Italy IE groups, but plenty in Saudi Arabia[quite old] and Sri Lanka. However the focus is on Iran.

Who said IE groups had to be homogenous? And where are you getting the information thar Saudi Arabian R1a is quite old? The majority or a high percentage seems to be Z93+, Z94+, L657+. If you are referring to older upstream R1a clades being old there, who cares? No one said the spread of Iranian languages was associated with upstream R1a.

And once again most of Sri Lanka is IE speaking.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 02:38 PM
An interesting tidbit was that R1b-L23 was the most numerous subclade among all sampled Iranians in that study. Moving over to the country of Afghanistan that number drops off completely.

Also not surprising is that R1b is strongest in the North and NW regions of Iran.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 02:41 PM
I never said the R1a........

Just post any study on R1a/R1b frequency in native speaking Iranians.


Why don't you address the rest of my previous post?

Just post any study on R1a/R1b frequency in native speaking Iranians.

Feel free to use Grugni et al or Alans reference.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 02:43 PM
And once again most of Sri Lanka is IE speaking.
Post a scientific study that shows the R1a in Sri Lanka is from ancient R1a samples found or matches Iranian samples.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 02:47 PM
Just post any study on R1a/R1b frequency in native speaking Iranians.



Just post any study on R1a/R1b frequency in native speaking Iranians.

Feel free to use Grugni et al or Alans reference.

You do realize the majority of Iranian speakers outside of Iran have more R1a than R1b? And that Iranian speakers in Iran are not representative of Proto Indo-Iranians. R1b is also strongest in the NW of the country which is Turkic speaking btw. And I believe Kurds have more R1a than R1b so not even all West Asian Iranian speakers have more R1b than R1a.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 02:52 PM
Post a scientific study that shows the R1a in Sri Lanka is from ancient R1a samples found or matches Iranian samples.

I never said any of that. You are the one that said the R1a in Iran is possibly from Sri Lanka (which was ridiculous to say given there are no migrations of the sort have ever been mentioned) and if that is true R1a in Iran has nothing to do with IE. That you mentioned Saudi Arabia in the same sentence made it clear you were trying to say R1a came from these non IE places and that you had no idea Sri Lanka is IE speaking.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 03:26 PM
You do realize..................I never said any of that................

Brahui and Sri Lanka are Dravidian areas, not Turkic or Arabian like the other R1a samples found.

Just post any study on R1a/R1b frequency in native speaking Iranians.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 03:42 PM
Brahui and Sri Lanka are Dravidian areas, not Turkic or Arabian like the other R1a samples found.

Just post any study on R1a/R1b frequency in native speaking Iranians.

I am sure the Sinhalese people would disagree about Sri Lanka being a Dravidian place given they speak an IE language and make up close to 75% of Sri Lanka's population. Brahui is a Dravidian place? I don't know of a place called Brahui but if you are referring to the Brahui people of Balochistan then you are wrong. They live in a place surrounded by IE speakers on every side and in a province that is mostly IE speaking.

Either way there is very little evidence that the Brahui are not migrants from the Decann region of India or that they have managed to magically escape admixture with their IE neighbors. They are basically the Asian version of the Basque. And the argument that R1b is not linked to IE languages because the Basque carry it is as poorly informed as your argument that R1a is not linked to IE languages because the Brahui have R1a. And both conclusions based on the myth that those populations are perfect representations of the pre-IE population who have avoided all admixture with their numerically more significant and historically more powerful IE neighbors.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 03:53 PM
I am sure the Sinhalese.......

I'm sure I would have an easier time retrieving a scientific census on current Iranian speakers carrying R1b/R1a from a Tamil speaking person.

Current study please on Iranians with R1b/R1a, Alans suggested study would be good, since it is the most recent and shows R1b out numbering R1a. If you don't like that one use Grugni's or whatever you choose.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 03:57 PM
I'm sure I would have an easier time retrieving a scientific census on current Iranian speakers carrying R1b/R1a from a Tamil speaking person.

Current study please on Iranians with R1b/R1a, Alans suggested study would be good, since it is the most recent and shows R1b out numbering R1a. If you don't like that one use Grugni's or whatever you choose.

Sinhalese is an IE language. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Even Alan said R1b was a minority component.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 04:01 PM
Sinhalese is an IE language.....

That post was put in the context of a study showing R1b is higher in Iranians than R1a.

This is not a Diwali celebration; study please.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 04:15 PM
That post was put in the context of a study showing R1b is higher in Iranians than R1a.

This is not a Diwali celebration; study please.

Even if it was higher than R1a what does that prove? The majority of Iranian ancestry is not from the steppe and you are making no separation between Proto Iranian speakers and the native inhabitants of the Iranian plateau. Unless you believe the history of Iran begins with the Medes and Persians (the Persians who btw who originate in a province with more R1a than R1b and probably close to no R1b) and nobody lived there before.

I also haven't seen anything indicating a higher R1b frequency. As Humanist pointed out earlier Eupedia has the national frequency at under 7%.

Oh and btw

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/03014460.2012.747628

28 R1a samples to just 3 R1b samples. More R2a than R1b actually.

Jean M
11-14-2013, 04:31 PM
Those present-day nations known to be composed of significant non-IE and IE inputs, such as Greece and Iran, tend not to have any overwhelmingly predominant Y-DNA haplogroup. This is in contrast to those present-day nations such as Ireland in which the archaeological evidence suggests a dramatic drop in farming populations before the arrival of (presumed) IE speakers and which have not had big influxes of non-IE speakers subsequently. In the latter we tend to see either R1b (as in the case of Ireland) or R1a predominant.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 04:32 PM
Even if it was higher than R1a what does that prove? The majority of Iranian ancestry is not from the steppe and you are making no separation between Proto Iranian speakers and the native inhabitants of the Iranian plateau. Unless you believe the history of Iran begins with the Medes and Persians (the Persians who btw who originate in a province with more R1a than R1b and probably close to no R1b) and nobody lived there before.

I also haven't seen anything indicating a higher R1b frequency. As Humanist pointed out earlier Eupedia has the national frequency at under 7%.

Oh and btw

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/03014460.2012.747628

28 R1a samples to just 3 R1b samples. More R2a than R1b actually.

The majority of Iranian lineage is not from the Steppe or related to Iranians that were on the Steppe? The Brahui and Sri Lankans originated from the Steppe and have plenty of R1a yet it is not found at the same levels among native Iranians? Lurs are ancient original Iranian tribe. Refer to Grugni et al R1b/R1a@ Lurs but you probably already know that. Medes are in the same North Western region and considered substrate for Iranian Western branch, that is how ancient it is. Ancient Iranian tribes like Lurs, Azeri, Osset[Digor ancient Eastern Iranian] and non Iranian speaking Armenians[separate I.E. branch] carried R1b L23x51 but you probably already know that. Hence your lack of referencing the cited study by Alan. Assyrians also are carriers of R1a,that would make sense, since it is found in higher numbers compared to R1b [found in Iranians] R1a found in Saudi Arabia; again you probably already know that, hence your lack of posting any study showing frequency among the groups we are discussing.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 04:51 PM
The majority of Iranian lineage is not from the Steppe or related to Iranians that were on the Steppe? The Brahui and Sri Lankans originated from the Steppe and have plenty of R1a yet it is not found at the same levels among native Iranians? Lurs are ancient original Iranian tribe. Refer to Grugni et al R1b/R1a@ Lurs but you probably already know that. Medes are in the same North Western region and considered substrate for Iranian Western branch, that is how ancient it is. Ancient Iranian tribes like Lurs, Azeri, and non Iranian speaking Armenians carried L23x51 but you probably already know that. Hence your lack of referencing the cited study by Alan. Assyrians also are carriers of R1a,that would make sense, since it is found in higher numbers compared to R1b [found in Iranians] R1a found in Saudi Arabia; again you probably already know that, hence your lack of posting any study showing frequency among the groups we are discussing.

I laughed at the statement I bolded. What does that even mean? Lurs like other Iranians are a mixed group. What is special about them? The language they speak is SW Iranian anyways. Why do you keep on bringing up Armenians? Nobody mentioned them. We weren't discussing Assyrians either. The Assyrian R1a frequency is under 2%. What does the R1a in Saudi Arabia have to do with anything? It is downstream of Iranian R1a in most cases. Plus since when are Arabs a pure population that couldn't have acquired their R1a from more Northern populations? That seems more likely than your mythical and ridiculous idea of an origin of R1a in Saudi Arabia with a migration to the South Urals. A migration which no archealogist has ever mentioned and makes no sense for a wide variety of other reasons.

And of course it makes sense that the Brahui have more R1a. Baluchistan has likely seen more movements from Central Asia and is sparsely populated in comparison to North and West Iran. It also lies west of the densely populated Indus plains.

And I just posted a study showing more R1a than R1b.

parasar
11-14-2013, 04:58 PM
Thats why R1a is not found in the Ossetians unlike R1b. R1a on the Steppe is found in Turks and Brahui, groups having nothing to do with PIE. It is interesting that no connection is made with modern Iranians and ancient R1a samples. When you compare Grugni et al, as wll as the Hindu Kush study there is plenty of R1b in and around Iran with a far amount of variance. The R1a in Iran was brought in by Turks and has nothing to do with Iranians.

Brahui are not a steppe people - they are for most part not distinguishable from their neighbors. They essentially live in what in the past was Iran, but show some influence of Kurukh/Malto type language. Modern Iran was Elam and then Persia. The ancient Iran/Airan/Ariana was from the Hindu Kush to the Indus.

For the regions were R1a1 is current found in Turks, we have excellent accounts from the Chinese travelers to India. Those regions were Tukhara (Chinese Tuholo). But starting somewhere between 400 and 600AD we see Turks (Chinese Tuhkieuh) moving into the area and the accounts of the Chinese then say "old land of the Tu-ho-lo country" "dependent on the Tuh-kieuh"

Eg. http://books.google.com/books?id=wdQMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA286
Xuanzang:

"This is the old land of the Tu-ho-lo country.13 It is about 3000 li round; the capital is 14 or 15 li round. They have no chief ruler; it is dependent on the Turks (Tuh-kiueh) ...
They follow the teaching of the Mahasanghika (Ta-chong-pu) school. There is one stupa built by Asokaraja ... K'woh-si-to (khost).15
This also is the old land of the Tu-ho-lo country. It is about 3000 li in circuit; the capital is about 10 li round. It has no chief ruler, but is dependent on the Turks ...
Hwoh (kunduz).16
This country is also the old land of the Tuh-ho-lo country. It is about 3000 li in circuit; the chief town is about 10 li. There is no chief ruler, but the country depends on the Turks ...
MUNG-KIN (MUNJAN).
This country19 is an old territory of the Tu-ho-li country. It is about 400 li in circuit. The chief city is about 15 or 16 li round. The soil and manners of the people resemble to a great extent the Hwoh country. There is no chief ruler, but they depend on the Turks ...
O-LI-NI (AHRENG).
This country20 is an old territory of Tu-ho-lo. It borders both sides of the river Oxus...
Ho-lo-hu (bagh).
This country23 is an old territory of Tu-ho-lo. On the north it borders on the Oxus (Fo-ts'u, Vakshu)...
Ki-li-si-mo (khrishma or KlSHM).
This country u is an old territory of Tu-ho-lo
Hl-MO-TA-LO (HlMATALA).
This country26 is an old territory of the country of Tu-ho-lo...
Po-TO-CHANG-NA (badakshan).
This kingdom28 is an old territory of the Tu-ho-lo country; it is about 2000 li in circuit ...
In-po-kin. (yamgan).
This country29 is an old territory of the Tu-ho-lo country. It is about 1000 li or so in circuit. The capital is about 10 li round ...
KlU-LANG-NA (KUKAN).
This country80 is an old territory of Tu-ho-lo; it is about 2000 li' round...
Ta-mo-si-tie-ti (tamasthiti ?).
This country31 is situated between two mountains. It is an old territory of Tu-ho-lo...

Shang-mi (sambhi ?).
This country88 is about 2500 or 2600 li in circuit ... Their writing is the same as that of the kingdom of Tu-ho-lo, but the spoken language is somewhat different
In the middle of the Pamir valley is a great dragon lake (Nagahrada); from east to west ifc is 300 li or so, from north to south 50 li. It is situated in the midst of the great T'sung ling mountains, and is the central point of Jambudvipa

K'ie-p'an-to.
...When Asoka-raja was in the world he built in this palace a stuppa. Afterwards, when the king changed his residence to the north-east angle of the royal precinct, he built in this old palace a sangrahama for the sake of Kumaralabdha (T'ong-shiu). The towers of this building are high {and its halls) wide. There is in it a figure of Buddha of majestic appearance. The venerable Kumaralabdha was a native of Takshas'ila.

K'lU-SA-TA-NA (KHOTAN)...

Going on 400 li or so, we arrive at the old kingdom of Tu-ho-lo (Tukhara).74 This country has long been deserted and wild. All the towns are ruined and uninhabited..."


In fact these lands were the center of the Indo-Aryan universe (Jambudvipa) prior to the coming of the Turks.

The original lands of the Turks is also described by the Chinese as being much farther east, but by 650AD they came to rule over all the Tocharian (people, not the language) lands and were soon to go further west and south.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 05:02 PM
The Assyrian R1a frequency is under 2%.
Study please, Grugni?


What does the R1a in Saudi Arabia have to do with anything?
Study please.



And I just posted a study showing more R1a than R1b.

How about a more current study like the one Alan referred to.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 05:07 PM
Brahui are not a steppe people - they are for most part not distinguishable from their neighbors. They essentially live in what in the past was Iran, but show some influence of Kurukh/Malto type language. Modern Iran was Elam and then Persia. The ancient Iran/Airan/Ariana was from the Hindu Kush to the Indus.

Yet they have 30% R1a and 70% Gedrosia in Dodecad K12b which is not found among Z280 samples farther west? How does that work?

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 05:10 PM
Yet they have 30% R1a and 70% Gedrosia in Dodecad K12b which is not found among Z280 samples farther west? How does that work?

Maybe because the autosomal signature of R1a-Z93+ is not Gedrosia.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 05:12 PM
Those present-day nations known to be composed of significant non-IE and IE inputs, such as Greece and Iran, tend not to have any overwhelmingly predominant Y-DNA haplogroup. This is in contrast to those present-day nations such as Ireland in which the archaeological evidence suggests a dramatic drop in farming populations before the arrival of (presumed) IE speakers and which have not had big influxes of non-IE speakers subsequently. In the latter we tend to see either R1b (as in the case of Ireland) or R1a predominant.

Common lets face it there is more R1a among the Brahui and Tamil regions than the ancient Italian[I.E speaking] and Albanian[I.E. speaking], which if we are to believe the findings of Dr. Hammer very recent migration of Asian peoples into Europe, which did not include R1a.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 05:14 PM
Maybe because the autosomal signature of R1a-Z93+ is not Gedrosia.
What then Turkish, Arab?

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 05:19 PM
Common lets face it there is more R1a among the Brahui and Tamil regions than the ancient Italian[I.E speaking] and Albanian[I.E. speaking], which if we are to believe the findings of Dr. Hammer very recent migration of Asian peoples into Europe, which did not include R1a.

I have no idea what Albanians and Italians have to do with the Brahui and Tamils (whose R1a comes from IE speakers anyways). You constantly attack straw man arguments because you have no idea what you are talking about. There is plenty of R1b-U152 in the Bashkirs too. Maybe That is originally a non IE lineage. After all you care about is frequency not the structure or source of a haplogroup. Were ancient Balto-Slavs R1b carriers too?

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 05:19 PM
What then Turkish, Arab?

I didn't realize those are autosomal components.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 05:27 PM
I didn't realize those are autosomal components.
Study please using autosomal components you realize showing R1a Z93 and or Z280 are connected to I.E groups in Europe and Iran, your choice.

parasar
11-14-2013, 05:30 PM
Yet they have 30% R1a and 70% Gedrosia in Dodecad K12b which is not found among Z280 samples farther west? How does that work?

Gedrosia component (Metspalu's k5) is over 500 generations old. On the Y dna side it would correlate with F*, but that F* has been replace by incoming R, much more so in Europe that in South Asia. For IE component we have look at R - which means R1a, R2, and R1b. While this IE component (IMO, Metspalu's k4) dominates Europe now, it is much younger.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 05:38 PM
Gedrosia component (Metspalu's k5) is over 500 generations old. On the Y dna side it would correlate with F*, but that F* has been replace by incoming R, much more so in Europe that in South Asia. For IE component we have look at R - which means R1a, R2, and R1b. While this IE component (IMO, Metspalu's k4) dominates Europe now, it is much younger.
The branch of R1a Z93 Z280 accompanied by corresponding autosomal found in Armenians, Iranians, Albanians and ancient Italics all in the I.E family grouping, and some within the last 5K with invasion of Europe by Asians. What matches? Anything?

Jean M
11-14-2013, 05:40 PM
Common lets face it there is more R1a among the Brahui and Tamil regions than the ancient Italian[I.E speaking] and Albanian[I.E. speaking], which if we are to believe the findings of Dr. Hammer very recent migration of Asian peoples into Europe, which did not include R1a.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Overall and generally speaking there is a significant correlation between IE languages and the distribution of R1a and R1b combined i.e. the distribution of R1a plus the distribution of R1b. A correlation is not the same as an absolute, iron-clad one-to-one correspondence. A significant correlation simply means that two things occur together more often than would be expected by chance. We can understand such correlations between language and Y-DNA haplogroup, because children usually learn their first language from their biological parents. But that is not always the case. Plus we can expect cases where people have adopted another language as adults and then passed that new language to their children, so creating cases such as R1a1 in some Turkish speakers.

Dr Hammer is saying that R arose in Asia and its descendants moved into Europe largely in the post-Neolithic period, which he deduces from the total lack of R of any kind in ancient DNA from Neolithic Europe, whereas both R1a and R1b appear in European DNA from the Copper Age onwards. Now it may be that we shall find R1b and R1a at the south-Eastern edge of Europe in the Neolithic. In fact I would predict it. (My theory is that R1 lived around the Caspian in the Mesolithic.) But the main spread further into Europe, the big replacement of G2 as the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup, seems to belong to the Late Neolithic to Copper Age.

The ancient R found in Siberia was not in an Asian person, if by that you mean someone looking like a modern East Asian. But it was no great surprise to find R there.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 05:46 PM
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Overall and generally speaking there is a significant correlation between IE languages and the distribution of R1a and R1b combined i.e. the distribution of R1a plus the distribution of R1b. A correlation is not the same as an absolute, iron-clad one-to-one correspondence. A significant correlation simply means that two things occur together more often than would be expected by chance. We can understand such correlations between language and Y-DNA haplogroup, because children usually learn their first language from their biological parents. But that is not always the case. Plus we can expect cases where people have adopted another language as adults and then passed that new language to their children, so creating cases such as R1a1 in some Turkish speakers.

Dr Hammer is saying that R arose in Asia and its descendants moved into Europe largely in the post-Neolithic period, which he deduces from the total lack of R of any kind in ancient DNA from Neolithic Europe, whereas both R1a and R1b appear in European DNA from the Copper Age onwards. Now it may be that we shall find R1b and R1a at the south-Eastern edge of Europe in the Neolithic. In fact I would predict it. But the main spread further into Europe, the big replacement of G2 as the predominant Y-DNa, seems to belong to the Late Neolithic to Copper Age.

Its funny because he still hasn't addressed the R1b in Basques point but constantly brings up R1a in Turkish speakers and the Brahui.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 05:52 PM
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Overall and generally speaking there is a significant correlation between IE languages and the distribution of R1a and R1b combined i.e. the distribution of R1a plus the distribution of R1b. A correlation is not the same as an absolute, iron-clad one-to-one correspondence.

Okay Jean, hands down your the expert and have a very good knowledge. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. So let me inquire what are the 5 oldest I.E languages in Europe accompanied by written attestation?

Silesian
11-14-2013, 05:59 PM
Its funny because he still hasn't addressed the R1b in Basques point but constantly brings up R1a in Turkish speakers and the Brahui.

It's actually not funny. It's science, the evidence is that the Basque are devoid of type B blood group found at 15%-30% of population[some R1a] from Poland to India, yet carry a very quirky mutation that requires immunization shot by females, something that was not around 5 to 6 thousand years ago; that is why it was speculated that R1b that far west was Mesolithic; how it effected the in coming Asian R1b I'm not sure.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 06:02 PM
It's actually not funny. It's science, the evidence is that the Basque are devoid of type B blood group found at 20%-30% of R1a carriers around India, yet carry a very quirky mutation that requires immunization shot by females something that was not around 5 to 6 thousand years ago; that is why it was speculated that R1b that far west was Mesolithic, how it effected the in coming Asian R1b I'm not sure.

And once again you avoid the question. How can R1b be related to IE if non IE speakers (the Basque carry it) carry it since you kept on arguing R1a can't be related to IE because of its presence in Turks and Brahui. It appears the concept of neighboring groups mixing is too difficult for you to understand. It was speculated that R1b was that far west in the Mesolithic and it was pretty much proven wrong.

Silesian
11-14-2013, 06:10 PM
And once again you avoid the question. How can R1b be related to IE if non IE speakers (the Basque carry it) ...

1]Substitute R1a and Brahui in your question.
2]Still waiting for your autosomal and ydna studies.
3]While we await JeanM's take on the most ancient I.E languages confirmed by written attestation, what would you say they were?

Jean M
11-14-2013, 06:15 PM
So let me inquire what are the 5 oldest I.E languages in Europe accompanied by written attestation?

The oldest written attestation of any IE language is found where writing first appears i.e. the Near East. The earliest complete texts are in Anatolian languages c. 1920 BC. Then we have texts in Indo-Iranian languages. The earliest Indic actually comes from personal names of the chariot-riding leaders of the Mitanni in the Near East, which is a big clue that the first written attestation is not necessarily found where a language originates.

Within Europe, again we get the first attestations of language families where writing appears first i.e.

Greek 1450 BC
Italic 600-400 BC
Celtic 600-300 BC
Germanic 0-200 AD
Slavic 865 AD

The actual ages of particular language families are a different matter. Written attestation is only part of the evidence. See my next post.

ADW_1981
11-14-2013, 06:16 PM
Its funny because he still hasn't addressed the R1b in Basques point but constantly brings up R1a in Turkish speakers and the Brahui.

I can't answer for him but it may be the result of I-M26 and potential linguistic connection between neolithic Sardinia and Iberia(Euskara et al).The fact that I-M26 did not grow with the R1b spread implies that it is neolithic or earlier in Europe. (ie: farmers and hunter gatherers have been largely wiped out on the male side) However, other comments would be appreciated.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 06:18 PM
1]Substitute R1a and Brahui in your question.
2]Still waiting for your autosomal and ydna studies.
3]While we await JeanM's take on the most ancient I.E languages confirmed by written attestation, what would you say they were?

1-Because the R1b in the Basque is like the R1a in the Brahui. Admixture from neighboring IE populations. It was your idea that R1a can't be related to IE because of its presence in the Brahui. The Basque remark was a counterpoint. I don't actually believe R1a is not related to IE languages because of the Basque.

2-What does autosomal dna have to do with anything? Different IE groups had different autosomal components. That is true today as well. IE groups were not homogenous back then just as they are not today. And in most places they absorbed the native populations they conquered. That is true in Europe and Asia.

3-Who cares? Tocharian is older than many IE languages but was likely written later as it uses a script that arrived from South Asia. Languages exist before they are written and many IE groups had a history of having no writing (especially the ones living on or near the steppe). They still existed.

Jean M
11-14-2013, 06:19 PM
My IE language tree:

921

Based on that by Don Ringe and colleagues:

922

Silesian
11-14-2013, 06:23 PM
The oldest written attestation of any IE language is found where writing first appears i.e. the Near East. The earliest complete texts are in Anatolian languages c. 1920 BC. Then we have texts in Indo-Iranian languages. The earliest Indic actually comes from personal names of the chariot-riding leaders of the Mitanni in the Near East, which is a big clue that the first written attestation is not necessarily found where a language originates.

Within Europe, again we get the first attestations of language families where writing appears first i.e.

Greek 1450 BC
Italic 600-400 BC
Celtic 600-300 BC
Germanic 0-200 AD
Slavic 865 AD

The actual ages of particular language families are a different matter. Written attestation is only part of the evidence.
Written in my view is just as important, that is for another thread. Thank you

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 06:23 PM
Meant to say: I don't actually believe R1b is not related to the spread of IE languages just because the Basque carry it.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 06:27 PM
My IE language tree:

921

Based on that by Don Ringe and colleagues:

922


What about Thracian and Dacian? You don't think Germanic has some sort of unity with either Italo-Celtic or Balto-Slavic?

Silesian
11-14-2013, 06:27 PM
1-Because the R1b in the Basque is like the R1a in the Brahui. Admixture from neighboring IE populations. It was your idea that R1a can't be related to IE because of its presence in the Brahui. The Basque remark was a counterpoint. I don't actually believe R1a is not related to IE languages because of the Basque.

2-What does autosomal dna have to do with anything? Different IE groups had different autosomal components. That is true today as well. IE groups were not homogenous back then just as they are not today. And in most places they absorbed the native populations they conquered. That is true in Europe and Asia.

3-Who cares? Tocharian is older than many IE languages but was likely written later as it uses a script that arrived from South Asia. Languages exist before they are written and many IE groups had a history of having no writing (especially the ones living on or near the steppe). They still existed.

Jean is the expert and with out a doubt I would stand by her knowledge. What autosomal run connecting the branches of R1a z93-z280 ydna do you associate with the following list and Iranians? I can ask the same rhetorical question with respect to R1b.


Within Europe, again we get the first attestations of language families where writing appears first i.e.
Greek 1450 BC
Italic 600-400 BC
Celtic 600-300 BC
Germanic 0-200 AD
Slavic 865 AD

parasar
11-14-2013, 06:29 PM
...

They don't place the origin of K in SE Asia, or its split in to P and NO. Dr Hammers had a slide up showing the origin of P in SE Asia. So Some differences.

Very true. In fact Dr. Hammer is almost completely in line with the banned Fair Haired who went on his 'R is mongoliod' rants and such, and got banned.

Excerpts from search for "mongliod" or "R is mongoliod":

Y DNA R is a MONGOLIOD Y DNA haplogroup. Its brother Q is exclusively in Mongoloid people like Native Americans. Same with its cousins N and O and its uncles S and M are exclusively in papue New Gunie and austosomally a very close relation between Mongliods and Oceania has been proven.


I have been saying for so long Y DNA R is Mongliod and originated probably in Siberia


Just because it is so popular in Europeans today does not mean it tells something about European origin and people just cant belive it was originally a Mongol Y DNA haplogroup.


So the native men were killed way more than the native women because they fought in wars and were seen as a threat. Also when Indo Europeans won they could force as many native women to be their wives. So they had way more offspring with the native women than Indo European women had with native men and in pretty much all cultures women are only allowed to have one husband while in some and alot of ancient ones men could have about as many wives and mistresses as they wanted. High ranking people and Chiefs sometimes had over 1,000 women. So this lead to Indo European speaking people direct male lineage to be heavily Indo European.


Eupedia migration map of R1b. I dis agree with R1b1a2 M269 originating in Europe. I think R1b made the same type of migration out of the mid east to Europe
etc. etc.

Matches the slides of Dr. Hammer's quite well:
http://dnaexplained.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/hammer-hap-r-dist.jpg

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

Jean M
11-14-2013, 06:36 PM
What about Thracian and Dacian?

My tree does not aim to be comprehensive. It would have to be huge to cover every known IE language. Thracian is little known, but I'm assuming that it fits on the same branch as Greek and Armenian, together with Phrygian.


You don't think Germanic has some sort of unity with either Italo-Celtic or Balto-Slavic?

No. Germanic was a headache to Don Ringe and colleagues, because it shows evidence of contacts with multiple other language families. This is not really the best thread to try to thrash it out.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 06:37 PM
Jean is the expert and with out a doubt I would stand by her knowledge. What autosomal run connecting the branches of R1a z93-z280 ydna do you associate with the following list and Iranians? I can ask the same rhetorical question with respect to R1b.

I don't associate R1a with Italic or Celtic speakers. It is possible R1a-Z93* was a minority clade among Greek speakers and R1a-Z284+ a minority clade among Germanic speakers who were otherwise R1b carriers. You can obviously associate Slavs with Z283+ and many clades downstream of Z283+ (Z282+, M458+, Z280+). I wouldn't associate any autosomal component with those groups because they were very different by the time they started expanding and likely even more different by the time they arrived in their historical seats but it is my opinion PIE speakers were predominantly Northern European and West Asian in terms of autosomal components.

alan
11-14-2013, 06:37 PM
The total non branching of P297 until M269 and M73 covers the period 9000-5000BC, the entire Neolithic period in the near east. So, no model placing these lines or their ancestors in a developed farming area makes sense. In fact even the very much separate (since the Palaeolithic) V88 clade also appears in the same broad period after the Neolithic. So, while I have an open mind on origin point I think pretty well all R1b was sitting peripheral to early farming. As I posted before, that area could be the steppes, parts of the Caucasus, Caspian Iran and west central Asia.

It impossible to refine it more than that from DNA at present so archaeology is our best bet to further work it out until more ancient DNA comes to light. My feeling is that P25 was in Iran perhaps Khazakstan but its not impossible some went north too. V88 IMO probably was just a branch off of inactive P25 that had sat in the north Iran and adjacent south Caucasus and was likely somehow encorporated into Kura-Araxes, a large complex that covered areas all the way from Iran to the Levant after 3000BC. M73 looks Caspian/Urals/NW central Asia to me. M269 is the hardest to work out but it has a range that basically goes primarily from the NW Iran area to the north Caucasus and Armenia, the Balkans and Anatolia with some in the steppe. I would just use the term Circumpontic imperfect though it is. However there must have been a common ancestor of M269 and M73 somewhere in that range in an area outside the developed farming zone. The centrepoint geographically for M269 and M73 cannot have been far from the north Caucasus IMO. Its the position that is easiest to see a common thread between the more western M269 and the eastern M73. I really struggle to see a southern route into Europe for M269 with the current dates and the lack of branching behavour of R1b during the Neolithic.

If I had to bet on the current data I would suggest a southern fringe of the western steppe position for M269 or perhaps even just its immediate ancestor with the move into the Balkans associated with pre-Yamnaya steppe movements. It just fits the archaeology and at least part of the clade pattern best IMO. I woudnt be surprised therefore if M269 and M73 had some link to Sredny Stog groups and their Skelya elite. They were rather more connected in with the farming world and Balkans metal trade than groups further east on the western steppe although their settlements did stretch to the Don and their influence and metal network (for which they were middlemen) even further east. A position for M269 or its immediate ancestor just on the steppe side of the farmer-steppe boundary of the Dnieper would make a lot of sense. In a way it would prep them for easier integration into the Old Europe world of the Balkans etc. R1a I would suspect was near the Volga as per the usual Yamnaya model and much more remote from these farmer contacts.

One thing though that I think tends to be overlooked in these discussions (which tend to take on an R1a vs R1b IE glory seeking flavour unfortunately) is the remarkably similar behavours of R1a and b in terms of non-branching pre-5000BC or later and its massive branching after 3500BC or so. That really does give a strong impression that these brother haplogroups remained in a broadly similar economic/ecological/societal/demographic setting until the copper age.

I think the simplest explanation is if M269 or its immediate ancestor was also situated in the steppes but on its south-westernmost area and was first to exit the area when Old Europe broke down. There is 1000 years or more between the start of steppe migration west and the very first Yamnaya phase migrants west of the Black Sea. The steppes is a very big place where wave after wave have come and gone, sometimes leaving little trace. So, to me its absurd to try and 2nd guess what was going on at the western end of the steppes c. 4300BC on the basis of ancient DNA from 2000BC or the like much further east, even worse looking at much later periods. The chronological and geographical space is massive and I cannot see people's problem with the idea that both R1a and b could have fitted in that vast span of time and space.

Its also interesting to me that if the idea of R1b being a factor in western Sredy Stog groups c. 4500-4000BC or so while R1a was in steppe groups nearer the Volga-Urals area as per the usual suggested roots of Yamnaya then the two groups may have become pre-adapted for their later zones of particular strength. R1b has been hypothesised to have blended into farming groups in Old Europe and to have at least later had a role in metallurgy. A role in the Sredny Stog-Skelya links with the farming interface, Balkan metals etc would have made crossing into the farming world a little easier. R1a may have had one foot in the steppe and one foot in the forest steppe in the period leading up to Yamnaya at the east end of the western steppe. Isnt it interesting that R1a cut a swath through the forrest steppe and forrest zones of the north in the form of Middle Dnieper, Abashevo, Fatyanovo etc? Could that have been because they had one foot in that sort of environment? It makes sense to me that previous experience prior to expansion beyond the western steppe may have influenced choices made. That of course on top of geographical nuances, if nuance is the right word in a vast area like the western steppe.





I'd agree with you if, for instance, at least one of those Kurgan or Tarim Basin samples was R1b, but none of them are. And the ancestors of those Tarim Basin mummies left the European steppe very early. Moreover, I'd say they probably came from Ukraine, considering the mtDNA C4 carried by them and the samples from the Ukrainian Kurgans.

In any case, I was thinking that the collapse of agricultural communities in Bulgaria during the Copper Age, when the steppe nomads started streaming into the area, might have something to do with the appearance of the Bell Beakers in Portugal. It might have been a forced migration, but otherwise not unlike the later maritime colonization of the west Mediterranean by the Greeks.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 06:40 PM
If R1a groups were that far east one would wonder how they seemed to have been admixed Tripoyle farmers on the mtDNA side?

Jean M
11-14-2013, 06:46 PM
Jean is the expert and with out a doubt I would stand by her knowledge.

Don't say that. It's alarming. ;) I do my poor best, but there are others here very well equipped to discuss correlations between present-day Y-DNA and IE languages. Michal M. has given a lot of thought to the correlations with branches of R1a. We have a thread on it: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1519-Languages-and-Y-DNA-lineages

Personally I'm fascinated by the correlations coming out of the work by the R1a1a and Subclades project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/default.aspx). We await scientific sampling and (please!) more ancient DNA, but it is looking very interesting.

The arguments over R1b subclades continue, and again there are separate threads which seem to attract a lot of interest e.g. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes focusing on Celtic, Italic and Germanic.

It seems pretty clear now that R1b1a2a2 (Z2103, Z2105) is found in Armenians, but I'm unclear about the L23 in Greeks. As you will know Z2103, Z2105 is also found in Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, and Russia.

[Correction after post below - CTS1083 no longer on tree]

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 06:50 PM
Don't say that. It's alarming. ;) I do my poor best, but there are others here very well equipped to discuss correlations between present-day Y-DNA and IE languages. Michal M. has given a lot of thought to the correlations with branches of R1a. We have a thread on it: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1519-Languages-and-Y-DNA-lineages

The arguments over R1b subclades continue, and again there are separate threads which seem to attract a lot of interest e.g. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes .

Personally I'm fascinated by the correlations coming out of the work by the R1a1a and Subclades project. We await scientific sampling and (please!) more ancient DNA, but it is looking very interesting.

What new correlations have been found? Have they been posted anywhere? I am curious on the linguistic identity of Z284+ and if it originally spoke a language somewhat related to what developed into Balto-Slavic and if it accounts for Germanic's similarities with Balto-Slavic.

I still can't believe the study that was supposed to test Andronovo, Afanasievo and Tagar culture sites for DNA is not out yet.

alan
11-14-2013, 07:00 PM
Interestingly one of the most convincing theories based on Albanian vocab is that they were displaced Dacians from inland Romania. The Illyrian and probably too the Thracian theories makes no sense as they have no native maritime vocab. I cannot remember all the details but I am hard to convince on stuff like this and I came out pretty convinced there was a very strong case for Albanians being displaced Dacians. I dont know a lot about their other haplogroups but I do know Albanians have a lot of L23XL51 and M269xL23 which is rare in the same place. I actually think the relatively young modern variance of M269xL23 in general would also fit a Dacian diaspora. So, I do think there is a very strong case that M269 and L23 were present in the Dacians as well as other Balkan IEs like Greeks and perhaps displaced groups like Armenians and Anatolians. Problem of course with much of the Balkans is multiple waves of invaders. I agree with the suggestion you made in the past that satemisation may often be aerial rather than root as it cuts across other plausible groupings.


What about Thracian and Dacian? You don't think Germanic has some sort of unity with either Italo-Celtic or Balto-Slavic?

alan
11-14-2013, 07:06 PM
Would be interesting but they do seem to be concentrating on eastern or late cultures of the steppe. I do not understand why they havent had a look at stuff like Stedny Stog, Bug-Dniester, Dnieper-Donets etc in the early period and more to the west.


What new correlations have been found? Have they been posted anywhere? I am curious on the linguistic identity of Z284+ and if it originally spoke a language somewhat related to what developed into Balto-Slavic and if it accounts for Germanic's similarities with Balto-Slavic.

I still can't believe the study that was supposed to test Andronovo, Afanasievo and Tagar culture sites for DNA is not out yet.

newtoboard
11-14-2013, 07:10 PM
Would be interesting but they do seem to be concentrating on eastern or late cultures of the steppe. I do not understand why they havent had a look at stuff like Stedny Stog, Bug-Dniester, Dnieper-Donets etc in the early period and more to the west.

I don't know. It is possible they might just be working with samples from the earlier Andronovo (and its Siberian related cultures) studies. Either way it would be interesting to see the subclade breakdown and see if there was a bottleneck in the South Urals.

parasar
11-14-2013, 07:30 PM
The oldest written attestation of any IE language is found where writing first appears i.e. the Near East. The earliest complete texts are in Anatolian languages c. 1920 BC. Then we have texts in Indo-Iranian languages. The earliest Indic actually comes from personal names of the chariot-riding leaders of the Mitanni in the Near East, which is a big clue that the first written attestation is not necessarily found where a language originates.

Within Europe, again we get the first attestations of language families where writing appears first i.e.

Greek 1450 BC
Italic 600-400 BC
Celtic 600-300 BC
Germanic 0-200 AD
Slavic 865 AD

The actual ages of particular language families are a different matter. Written attestation is only part of the evidence. See my next post.

Jean,

I realize this spoils the time-lines somewhat, but I think there are older written attestations of IE forms in middle eastern texts.

Akkad http://books.google.com/books?id=6lPzhfNRZ9IC&pg=PA374
Ur http://books.google.com/books?id=-PsUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA166

Jean M
11-14-2013, 07:48 PM
Jean,

I realize this spoils the time-lines somewhat, but I think there are older written attestations of IE forms in middle eastern texts.

Akkad http://books.google.com/books?id=6lPzhfNRZ9IC&pg=PA374
Ur http://books.google.com/books?id=-PsUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA166

Doesn't spoil anything, Parasar, as far as I can see. What did you see as the problem?

alan
11-14-2013, 07:50 PM
There is the Sumerian IE borrowings. Slightly more sober scholars than Whittaker have still identified IE borrowings.

http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~asahala/asahala_sumerian_and_pie.pdf

I dont really have the energy to think through the dating aspects.

Jean,

I realize this spoils the time-lines somewhat, but I think there are older written attestations of IE forms in middle eastern texts.

Akkad http://books.google.com/books?id=6lPzhfNRZ9IC&pg=PA374
Ur http://books.google.com/books?id=-PsUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA166

Joe B
11-14-2013, 08:01 PM
Don't say that. It's alarming. ;) I do my poor best, but there are others here very well equipped to discuss correlations between present-day Y-DNA and IE languages. Michal M. has given a lot of thought to the correlations with branches of R1a. We have a thread on it: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1519-Languages-and-Y-DNA-lineages

Personally I'm fascinated by the correlations coming out of the work by the R1a1a and Subclades project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/default.aspx). We await scientific sampling and (please!) more ancient DNA, but it is looking very interesting.

The arguments over R1b subclades continue, and again there are separate threads which seem to attract a lot of interest e.g. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes focusing on Celtic, Italic and Germanic.

It seems pretty clear now that R1b1a2a2 (CTS1083/Z2103, Z2105) is found in Armenians, but I'm unclear about the L23 in Greeks. As you will know CTS1083/Z2103, Z2105 is also found in Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, and Russia.
Jean,
You do yeoman's work on these threads.
The Greeks are starting to show up in the R1b1a2a2 (CTS1078/Z2103, Z2105) subclade. The str values can be a little wacky.(DYS393=11,12,13) Two R1b-L23>CTS7822+ Geno 2.0 tested are found in the FTDNA Arcadia Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Arcadia/default.aspx?section=ysnp).

F.Y.I. CTS1083 was a mistake and has been removed from the ISOGG R-tree and SNP index.
Should read Z2103 R1b1a2a2 CTS1078 7246135 7186135 G->C

Jean M
11-14-2013, 08:02 PM
That 7-volume History of Civilizations of Central Asia looks very good, but so expensive. I just bought Christoph Baumer, The History of Central Asia: The Age of the Steppe Warriors (2012), but haven't had time to read it yet.

Rathna
11-15-2013, 06:24 AM
Jean,
The Greeks are starting to show up in the R1b1a2a2 (CTS1078/Z2103, Z2105) subclade. The str values can be a little wacky.(DYS393=11,12,13) Two R1b-L23>CTS7822+ Geno 2.0 tested are found in the FTDNA Arcadia Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Arcadia/default.aspx?section=ysnp).


I have said from so long that the Eastern European or Middle Easterner R-L23 are all (or pretty all) derived from R-Z2105*. Also the Italian ones like Varipapa (R-CTS7822+) or Stasi (R-L277+) are probably of Balkan origin (Arbereshe or Greek one).
Of course it shall be demonstrated that my R-Z2105+/L277-/L584- and of all the other Western Europeans will remain so after other deep tests. But if it will be the truth, I think that this will be another proof of all my theories.
But it is interesting that the other Italian tested for Geno 2.0, Carnevali, is R-PF7580*, which could be the ancestor of R-L584+.

Silesian
11-15-2013, 06:33 AM
I have said from so long that the Eastern European or Middle Easterner R-L23 are all (or pretty all) derived from R-Z2105*. Also the Italian ones like Varipapa (R-CTS7822+) or Stasi (R-L277+) are probably of Balkan origin (Arbereshe or Greek one).
Of course it shall be demonstrated that my R-Z2105+/L277-/L584- and of all the other Western Europeans will remain so after other deep tests. But if it will be the truth, I think that this will be another proof of all my theories.
But it is interesting that the other Italian tested for Geno 2.0, Carnevali, is R-PF7580*, which could be the ancestor of R-L584+.

I think we should focus our attention to the Rhone samples. Don't you? They could be ancient Italics, Celts or Alemanni.

Rathna
11-15-2013, 06:54 AM
I think we should focus our attention to the Rhone samples. Don't you? They could be ancient Italics, Celts or Alemanni.

Yes, of course. I noted from so long the presence of R-L23 in Switzerland and the Rhine region, but I noted also that they were above all in the limits of the Roman Empire (the Limes Rhine/Danube).
I paid a test c/o EthnoAncestry for S136 (a mutation of mine which isn't the known L50 but a deletion of 9 bp in that region) to a Fluckiger, an American who came from Switzerland but before the family came from a town near the Limes where a Roman Legion was present for centuries.
He resulted negative. Probably he seemed linked to me within 2000 years, but the link was older. He has also the rare DYS459=10-10.
Hope that next we'll be able to know the ancient origin of this people.

Silesian
11-15-2013, 07:02 AM
Yes, of course. I noted from so long the presence of R-L23 in Switzerland and the Rhine region, but I noted also that they were above all in the limits of the Roman Empire (the Limes Rhine/Danube).
I paid a test c/o EthnoAncestry for S136 (a mutation of mine which isn't the known L50 but a deletion of 9 bp in that region) to a Fluckiger, an American who came from Switzerland but before the family came from a town near the Limes where a Roman Legion was present for centuries.
He resulted negative. Probably he seemed linked to me within 2000 years, but the link was older. He has also the rare DYS459=10-10.
Hope that next we'll be able to know the ancient origin of this people.

I do not know the region but perhaps it is very old.However I think there is no "B" allele only "A" or very high "O", which sets Italy apart, also it would be of interest to see the difference between north-south Italy and rh value.

Silesian
11-15-2013, 07:13 AM
Don't say that. It's alarming. ;) I do my poor best, but there are others here very well equipped to discuss correlations between present-day Y-DNA and IE languages. Michal M. has given a lot of thought to the correlations with branches of R1a. We have a thread on it: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1519-Languages-and-Y-DNA-lineages

Personally I'm fascinated by the correlations coming out of the work by the R1a1a and Subclades project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/default.aspx). We await scientific sampling and (please!) more ancient DNA, but it is looking very interesting.

The arguments over R1b subclades continue, and again there are separate threads which seem to attract a lot of interest e.g. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes focusing on Celtic, Italic and Germanic.

It seems pretty clear now that R1b1a2a2 (CTS1083/Z2103, Z2105) is found in Armenians, but I'm unclear about the L23 in Greeks. As you will know CTS1083/Z2103, Z2105 is also found in Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, and Russia.

Thanks again for your input. I do agree with you about R1a and R1b both having a roll in I.E. Of course my paternal side comes from ground zero R1a Z283 territory in between Poland and Germany, R1b L23x51 is the odd man out in the region . A quick tally on my 23andme account shows I share genes with 40.63% -R1b, 23%-R1a, 11%- I1 and 11%- I2.[86%]

Rathna
11-15-2013, 07:18 AM
I do not know the region but perhaps it is very old.However I think there is no "B" allele only "A" or very high "O", which sets Italy apart, also it would be of interest to see the difference between north-south Italy and rh value.

I'd be cautious about Sanguine Groups, otherwise we should reevaluate Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza.
They belong to autosomal SNPs, which are subjected to many factors.
Anyway I am 00/+-. My maternal line was all A (my mother was A0/--), and it may have facilitated my mother's disease (it seems that hg. 0 is resistant to the adenocarcynomes).
Hg. B has been introduced in my line from my wife from Sicily. For what I know my zone (Western Pisa Province) is overwhelmingly hg. A.

[[[ Mikewww/moderator 15Nov2013: I corrected spelling on proper name, per request. ]]]

Jean M
11-15-2013, 11:31 AM
Thanks again for your input. I do agree with you about R1a and R1b both having a roll in I.E. Of course my paternal side comes from ground zero R1a Z283 territory in between Poland and Germany, R1b L23x51 is the odd man out in the region . A quick tally on my 23andme account shows I share genes with 40.63% -R1b, 23%-R1a, 11%- I1 and 11%- I2.[86%]

That is interesting. As you may know, I have wavered between seeing the L23xL51 spread (or some of it) as a remnant of dairy farmers spreading up the Danube and down the Rhine before the Copper Age, and as the signature of the "Balkan group" of IE languages, which includes Armenian. Now we are getting subclades of it, I hope that things may get clearer.

The fact that Z2103 appears so widely (though thinly) across the Slavic block including places remote from the proposed dairy farming route, and even in Pakistan and India, is now leaning me towards the theory that some of it (could be just one man originally) stayed behind in the IE homeland while relatives moved into Thrace (Cotofeni culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co%C8%9Bofeni_culture)) around 3500 BC. So the stay-at-home could then have descendants in the Middle Dnieper Culture (proposed home of Proto-Balto-Slavic), though a minority group there. This group and its descendant cultures around what is now Kiev had contacts with the steppe which might explain the spread of just one or two Z2103 in the direction of India and Pakistan. It is liable to be difficult to pick up minority haplogroups from ancient DNA.

newtoboard
11-15-2013, 12:56 PM
That is interesting. As you may know, I have wavered between seeing the L23xL51 spread (or some of it) as a remnant of dairy farmers spreading up the Danube and down the Rhine before the Copper Age, and as the signature of the "Balkan group" of IE languages, which includes Armenian. Now we are getting subclades of it, I hope that things may get clearer.

The fact that Z2103 appears so widely (though thinly) across the Slavic block including places remote from the proposed dairy farming route, and even in Pakistan and India, is now leaning me towards the theory that some of it (could be just one man originally) stayed behind in the IE homeland while relatives moved into Thrace (Cotofeni culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co%C8%9Bofeni_culture)) around 3500 BC. So the stay-at-home could then have descendants in the Middle Dnieper Culture (proposed home of Proto-Balto-Slavic), though a minority group there. This group and its descendant cultures around what is now Kiev had contacts with the steppe which might explain the spread of just one or two Z2103 in the direction of India and Pakistan. It is liable to be difficult to pick up minority haplogroups from ancient DNA.

Do you have any information on the South Asian Z2103+? If it is higher in Muslim groups then it is quite likely all Z2103+ east of Iran has its source in Iran. I would say the same for the Tajik R1b.

alan
11-15-2013, 01:12 PM
That is an interesting thought. It does make sense that very wide light sprinklings of a clade could move around easier if incorporated as minority elements in absorbed into late waves of highly mobile groups. I have always doubted the idea of single haplogroup or clade populations. Dynasties yes but not populations. Dynasties having prestige burials may create the impression of homogeneous groups that is false. I suspect this is already a major problem with ancient DNA testing of prominent Kurgans etc.

IMO the other major problem is ancient DNA testing seems to be focused in the steppes on much later groups or extreme eastern groups with zilch data on the interesting west end of the steppes c. 5000-3500BC. Until we have data from a number of cultures in that area cross that sort of timespan I believe they can test and test away Scythians, Andronovo etc and we will still be no closer to understanding PIE or the origins of IE branches other than Indo-Iranian and perhaps Tocharian. The constant testing ancient DNA for cultures relating to the same likely language groups is very frustrating to me even if there are some reasons for it. To understand the roots of PIE and the large majority of IE branches they need to test focussing on the period 4500-3500BC in the area between the Volga and the Dniester. After that time and outside that geographical zone they will not likely find the DNA of PIEs as such. R1b clearly somehow (I dont care how) became a/the major spreading vector for several IE branches and that appears to have happened very early in the game and in an easterly location. M269 as a group emerges out of 5000 years of branching oblivion at just the right period and it would be simply astonishing if it isnt linked somehow in the fall of Old Europe (usual caveat that the variance dating is not systematically too young).

Personally, I have had a read into the more easterly aspects of R, R1, R1b etc and it is very interesting in terms of the very early origins of these clades BUT I now fancy focussing again on M269 and its sudden appearance just at the sort of time PIE is said to have arisen and just at the sort of time Old Europe fell.

That is interesting. As you may know, I have wavered between seeing the L23xL51 spread (or some of it) as a remnant of dairy farmers spreading up the Danube and down the Rhine before the Copper Age, and as the signature of the "Balkan group" of IE languages, which includes Armenian. Now we are getting subclades of it, I hope that things may get clearer.

The fact that Z2103 appears so widely (though thinly) across the Slavic block including places remote from the proposed dairy farming route, and even in Pakistan and India, is now leaning me towards the theory that some of it (could be just one man originally) stayed behind in the IE homeland while relatives moved into Thrace (Cotofeni culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co%C8%9Bofeni_culture)) around 3500 BC. So the stay-at-home could then have descendants in the Middle Dnieper Culture (proposed home of Proto-Balto-Slavic), though a minority group there. This group and its descendant cultures around what is now Kiev had contacts with the steppe which might explain the spread of just one or two Z2103 in the direction of India and Pakistan. It is liable to be difficult to pick up minority haplogroups from ancient DNA.

Jean M
11-15-2013, 01:18 PM
Do you have any information on the South Asian Z2103+?

The only detailed note I seem to have made is that Ossetian R1b appears to be mainly Z2103/Z2105+, as you can see here: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Ossetian/default.aspx?section=yresults. Maybe we can ferret around for more information on the South Asian samples in http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=ysnp

[Added] All I'm finding so far is Musa Aliyev, 1903 -1995, Shahbuz, Nakhichevan, and the surname Ghosh (Indian family surname found mostly amongst Bengali Kulin Kayastha Hindus). So I don't know where I got the idea of a Pakistani.

Generalissimo
11-15-2013, 01:33 PM
R1b clearly somehow (I dont care how) became a/the major spreading vector for several IE branches and that appears to have happened very early in the game and in an easterly location.

Well, it's actually easy to explain how R1b got caught up in the Indo-European sphere soon after the Proto-Indo-Europeans started expanding from the steppe, because it's very likely that, like today, its various subclades were positioned just southwest and southeast of the western steppe at the time, in the eastern Balkans and Anatolia/Caucasus, respectively.

newtoboard
11-15-2013, 01:49 PM
Well, it's actually easy to explain how R1b got caught up in the Indo-European sphere soon after the Proto-Indo-Europeans started expanding from the steppe, because it's very likely that, like today, its various subclades were positioned just southwest and southeast of the western steppe at the time, in the eastern Balkans and Anatolia/Caucasus, respectively.

What about the possibility that R1b was present in the Carpathian basin?

newtoboard
11-15-2013, 01:50 PM
The only detailed note I seem to have made is that Ossetian R1b appears to be mainly Z2103/Z2105+, as you can see here: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Ossetian/default.aspx?section=yresults. Maybe we can ferret around for more information on the South Asian samples in http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=ysnp

[Added] All I'm finding so far is Musa Aliyev, 1903 -1995, Shahbuz, Nakhichevan, and the surname Ghosh (Indian family surname found mostly amongst Bengali Kulin Kayastha Hindus). So I don't know where I got the idea of a Pakistani.

Yea I still think my theory on an Iranian origin for these is not wrong. As well as a Persian origin for all the Central Asian R1b-L23+.

alan
11-15-2013, 02:00 PM
The stay home concept of some L23XL51might also be interesting in light of some of the theories about the origins of Greek, Armenians, relationships with Iranian etc which suggest they hung around the steppe area longer.

Here is a related thought. M269xL23 must be an early branching off relative to L23 and would usually be dated c. 4000-3500BC. Yet despite being lightly scattered they appear to have a lowish variance suggesting they shared common ancestry perhaps 2500BC. The discrepancy between intraclade variance (when its for such a lightly scattered group) and its much older branching age relative to L23 may be telling us something important that its light scattering is hiding. It suggests a relatively late dispersal perhaps through minority incorporation in another group and that this event took place at some point after 2500BC give or take a few centuries. That it seems younger than L23xL51 suggests its a later wave.

If there was a definitive map of M269xL23 this would make the job of speculation a lot easier. However, all I know is that it has been found in the west Balkans, especially Albanians and was also found at raised levels among some Armenians in Ararat. I do recall too it is lightly sprinkled in east central Europe. I was pretty convinced by the linguistic evidence that Albanian seems to have spend a long time in a different non-coastal landlocked position a significant degree away from the Greeks with whom they lack the degree of borrowings that a position near them would normally indicate. Armenians, well I am pretty convinced that they too derived from a male-only elite spread from somewhere around the Balkans although am open to other ideas. Armenian spread into Anatolia and beyond is usually dated to around 1500BC or so isnt it? That could provide an upper book end to combine with the variance date giving a timeperiod of entry of M269* into the Balkans of say 2500-1500BC.

It is not totally possible to rule out that M269* independently got into Armenians, Albanians etc given the chequered history of the Balkans and Armenia but there could be a case that a wave dating to c. 2500-1500BC reached them when they lived nearer each other in the Balkans. Such a wave obviously is much younger than the classic copper age steppe waves of 4200-3000BC. I wonder is this somehow also has some links to the somewhat hard to understand links with Iranian speakers in these languages.


That is an interesting thought. It does make sense that very wide light sprinklings of a clade could move around easier if incorporated as minority elements in absorbed into late waves of highly mobile groups. I have always doubted the idea of single haplogroup or clade populations. Dynasties yes but not populations. Dynasties having prestige burials may create the impression of homogeneous groups that is false. I suspect this is already a major problem with ancient DNA testing of prominent Kurgans etc.

IMO the other major problem is ancient DNA testing seems to be focused in the steppes on much later groups or extreme eastern groups with zilch data on the interesting west end of the steppes c. 5000-3500BC. Until we have data from a number of cultures in that area cross that sort of timespan I believe they can test and test away Scythians, Andronovo etc and we will still be no closer to understanding PIE or the origins of IE branches other than Indo-Iranian and perhaps Tocharian. The constant testing ancient DNA for cultures relating to the same likely language groups is very frustrating to me even if there are some reasons for it. To understand the roots of PIE and the large majority of IE branches they need to test focussing on the period 4500-3500BC in the area between the Volga and the Dniester. After that time and outside that geographical zone they will not likely find the DNA of PIEs as such. R1b clearly somehow (I dont care how) became a/the major spreading vector for several IE branches and that appears to have happened very early in the game and in an easterly location. M269 as a group emerges out of 5000 years of branching oblivion at just the right period and it would be simply astonishing if it isnt linked somehow in the fall of Old Europe (usual caveat that the variance dating is not systematically too young).

Personally, I have had a read into the more easterly aspects of R, R1, R1b etc and it is very interesting in terms of the very early origins of these clades BUT I now fancy focussing again on M269 and its sudden appearance just at the sort of time PIE is said to have arisen and just at the sort of time Old Europe fell.

Generalissimo
11-15-2013, 02:06 PM
What about the possibility that R1b was present in the Carpathian basin?

I don't know. I suppose we'll find out soon when those Y-DNA results from the German-Hungarian Neolithic aDNA project are published, which should be soon.

See that's the thing, we can jabber on about the phylogeography of R1b based on thousands of modern samples, and even think that everything's sorted out, but then a single ancient DNA result might turn everything on its head.

ADW_1981
11-15-2013, 02:17 PM
Any word on Hammer's release coming out soon? It's after 9 AM and I will need to read something on my break... :)

Jean M
11-15-2013, 02:28 PM
Maybe we can ferret around for more information on the South Asian samples in http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=ysnp

[Added] All I'm finding so far is Musa Aliyev, 1903 -1995, Shahbuz, Nakhichevan, and the surname Ghosh (Indian family surname found mostly amongst Bengali Kulin Kayastha Hindus). So I don't know where I got the idea of a Pakistani.

I now find a note that the Polish Project has a group originally labelled L23EE Type, which is Z2103+ Predicted. All those listed in it are from Slavic or Baltic-speaking countries. http://www.familytreedna.com/public/polish/default.aspx?vgroup=polish&vgroup=polish&section=yresults . But someone found matches to this type in India and Pakistan. Now we just need to find out where they are. :\

ADW_1981
11-15-2013, 02:36 PM
I still like your theory of R1b and R1a dividing south to north with the Black sea. I figure there must have been some geographic division.

It's almost as though R1b1* and R1a* go together, and R1a1 and R1a1a go together in a different area and spread separately.

MJost
11-15-2013, 03:25 PM
Alan and all,

I pulled the HTs from MikeW spreadsheet

R1b-EARLY>P25>L389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103

Geo Variance

Turkey (Armenian Project) 11.64
(Founders Modal generation age of 152.0 +-40.1)

Albania ,Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Rep, Kosovo, Macedonia - Combined 10.7
Italy 10.1
Poland 9.5
Russia 9.4
Greece 8.9
Germany 8.6
Ukraine 7.8
Syria 7.6
Irag 7.1
Lithuania 6.1
Lebanon 6.0
England 5.7
Hungary 5.6
Azerbaijan 5.0
France 4.0
Scotland 2.4

MJost

Jean M
11-15-2013, 03:27 PM
I still like your theory of R1b and R1a dividing south to north with the Black sea.

You mean me? I suggest that R1 ranged seasonally across the Caspian in the Mesolithic. It's just a guess that R1b ended up settling on the south side and R1a on the north, only to come together again north of the Black Sea in the late Neolithic. But it would explain V88 ending up in the Near East and Africa. Let's wait and see.

newtoboard
11-15-2013, 03:39 PM
You mean me? I suggest that R1 ranged seasonally across the Caspian in the Mesolithic. It's just a guess that R1b ended up settling on the south side and R1a on the north, only to come together again north of the Black Sea in the late Neolithic. But it would explain V88 ending up in the Near East and Africa. Let's wait and see.


You don't agree with Michal's theory that R1a originated in Central Asia and moved into Eastern Europe very early on? Is there evidence for cross Caspian movements in the Mesolithic? I ask because I have been intrigued by how the Uzbek R1b-L23 matches Caucasians better than Iranians (West to East migration across the Caspian?), the presence of L1c in the North Caucasus(East to West Migration across the Caspian?) and the presence of Y-DNA I clades with unsual STR's on the South side of the Caspian (North to South Migration across the Caspian?). Of course all of these movements could be a lot more recent.

Rathna
11-15-2013, 03:46 PM
Alan and all,

I pulled the HTs from MikeW spreadsheet

R1b-EARLY>P25>L389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103

Geo Variance

Turkey (Armenian Project) 11.64
(Founders Modal generation age of 152.0 +-40.1)

Albania ,Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Rep, Kosovo, Macedonia - Combined 10.7
Italy 10.1
Poland 9.5
Russia 9.4
Greece 8.9
Germany 8.6
Ukraine 7.8
Syria 7.6
Irag 7.1
Lithuania 6.1
Lebanon 6.0
England 5.7
Hungary 5.6
Azerbaijan 5.0
France 4.0
Scotland 2.4

MJost

Variance risks of being worth nothing, as there are many subclades. What will decide about the origin will be where we'll find the Z2105*, and not a massive presence of its subclades, as it seems the case of Eastern Europe and Middle East.

Jean M
11-15-2013, 03:48 PM
You don't agree with Michal's theory that R1a originated in Central Asia and moved into Eastern Europe very early on?

I have the greatest respect for Michal's thinking, and I might change my mind if data accumulates to suggest that R1a actually originated in Central Asia, rather than R and R1. But what I actually went into print with was the suggestion that R1 oscillated seasonally across the Caspian.


Is there evidence for cross Caspian movements in the Mesolithic?

Yes indeed - archaeological matches, plus boat petroglyphs. It's all in the book.

alan
11-15-2013, 03:52 PM
That is only possible if variance dating is coming in too young. The P297 lineage that led to M269 shows no branching through the whole Neolithic period. It seems impossible on current variance dating for this line be rooted in Balkans farmers with ancestry from much older farmers in Anatolia and the Levant. You would expect thousands of years of branching before that just isnt there. Also it is significant that there is nothing between P343*/P25* clades around north Iran etc and M269 (L23 overwhelmingly). The early clades being in northern Iran and to some extent eastwards is important as northern Iran was not involved in farming until the close of the Neolithic/early copper age. They are not found in the Levant, Anatolia etc - what was formerly thought of as P25* actually has turned out to be copper age V88. There are essentially no modern survivors of any branching between Palaeolithic P25 and copper age M269, M73 and even distantly related V88. Assuming the dating is correct then all of these are intrusive and post-Neolithic when found in early farming areas such as Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the Levant etc.

The ydna dating being approximately correct is the big caveat. However, the extreme unlikelihood of R1b being spread by early farmers is not just down to the suggested date of M269, L23 etc. Its down to the absolute chasm between P25 and M269, M73 etc. There are simply no modern represetatives of intermediate surviving branches between Palaeolithic P25* SNP and copper age clades like M269 in the early farming zone or indeed anywhere on earth.

Jean and myself have talked for many years about the Evershed work and the spread of dairying from NW Anatolia to the Balkans - the Bosphoris possibly being crossed c. 5300BC. Now while that closes the gap between M269 variance date and an archaeological event/process and allowing for margins of error doesnt seem impossible, it then has to be recalled that dairying commenced in NW Anatolia not long after 6500BC and the culture there now appears to have received its farming element in its population from the area around Katal Hoyuk in the Konya Plain who were farming along before. So it get a bigger and bigger stretch to match the sort of variance dates for R1b clades in Anatolia (basically L23XL51) of c. 3500BC to dairying if it is tracked back through Anatolia.

The only 'out' that would give a non-steppe origin a glimmer of hope I can see is if R1b was a local clade of hunters absorbed somewhere between Marmara (where a hunter-gatherer Agach population do seem to be mixed in with the Konya farming migrants) and the western edge of the steppes. What I think is impossible based on current variance dating is to see R1b in the Balkans as having roots going back to NW Anatolia and unltimately to their Konya/Catal Hoyuk ancestors before that. That would create a huge discrepancy between the variance dating of about 5500 years for the oldest R1b clades in Anatolia and the Balkans and the archaeological dates of about 9500 years of farmers of the Konya traditions who later spread to NW Anatolia.

As the dating of the first M269 lineage of any age and size (L23xL51) stands this lineage did not exist until around the time of or even just after the collapse of Old Europe. Its sudden appearance from nothingness perfectly corresponds with that event, the spread of steppe groups into the vacuum and the date of PIE. It seems way too much of a coincidence. The distribution may not be one with much of a role in the eastern steppe and Asia but many of the IE linguistic groups L23 might be related to are thought to have come back to the Balkans at least as a stepping stone - Greek, Armenian, Albanian, Anatolian etc


Well, it's actually easy to explain how R1b got caught up in the Indo-European sphere soon after the Proto-Indo-Europeans started expanding from the steppe, because it's very likely that, like today, its various subclades were positioned just southwest and southeast of the western steppe at the time, in the eastern Balkans and Anatolia/Caucasus, respectively.

ADW_1981
11-15-2013, 03:58 PM
You mean me? I suggest that R1 ranged seasonally across the Caspian in the Mesolithic. It's just a guess that R1b ended up settling on the south side and R1a on the north, only to come together again north of the Black Sea in the late Neolithic. But it would explain V88 ending up in the Near East and Africa. Let's wait and see.

Yes I agree to the extent that there must have been an actual physical division before the population/descendants really took off, and your north-south divide makes sense. For example, R1b1* and R1a* have a weak distribution south of the Caucasus mtns and through Europe, mostly western Europe. R1a1* is confined to eastern Europe, and R1a1a* has an eastern European + Central Asian and South Asian expansion range which more than likely ties back to a central Asian population.

It looks like at least some of the R1b1a1*, R1b1b2* and R1b1b2a* men moved north of the Black Sea as you imply in your theory and the data does support it. It looks like this may have happened later in time since it doesn't look like either of the three lines were part of the major expansion of Z93+ into South Asia.

MJost
11-15-2013, 03:59 PM
Variance risks of being worth nothing, as there are many subclades. What will decide about the origin will be where we'll find the Z2105*, and not a massive presence of its subclades, as it seems the case of Eastern Europe and Middle East.

Z2105*'s just haven't found a Subclade SNP yet. Z2105* has 12- 67 marker members with a Variance of 11.9 from these areas.

Bulgaria
England
England, South West, Devonshire, Plymstock
Germany, Hesse, Darmstadt
Germany, Rhineland-Palatinate, Bad Kreuznach, Staudernheim
Ireland, Ulster, Co. Donegal, Drumhome Parish
Poland
Poland
Russia
Russia, Caucasus, Ossetia, Makhchesk
Spain, Valencian Community, Alicante, Marina Baixa, Benidorm
zzzUnkOrigin


MJost

R.Rocca
11-15-2013, 04:08 PM
...

If there was a definitive map of M269xL23 this would make the job of speculation a lot easier.

Speculate away. :) This was based on Busby 2011 data. I had posted it to an older forum and it received very little fanfare. The big gap separating the Balkan/Anatolian M269(xL23) hotspot and the Caspian one is due to L23(xL51).

http://r1b.org/imgs/M269_without_L23.png

Rathna
11-15-2013, 04:39 PM
Z2105*'s just haven't found a Subclade SNP yet. Z2105* has 12- 67 marker members with a Variance of 11.9 from these areas.

Bulgaria
England
England, South West, Devonshire, Plymstock
Germany, Hesse, Darmstadt
Germany, Rhineland-Palatinate, Bad Kreuznach, Staudernheim
Ireland, Ulster, Co. Donegal, Drumhome Parish
Poland
Poland
Russia
Russia, Caucasus, Ossetia, Makhchesk
Spain, Valencian Community, Alicante, Marina Baixa, Benidorm
zzzUnkOrigin


MJost

Did I understand well your English?
Are you saying that there aren't SNPs under Z2105?

!!!1R1b1a2a2 Z2103/CTS1078 [20/20], Z2105 [29/29]
1971
!!!!!!!!!
!1127630
r, 134236
r, 140135
r, 14386
r, 145692
r, 159888
r, 164229
r, 16910
r, 185782
r, 257842
r, 47778
r, 64409
r, 82745
r, 84950
r, 99230
r, E12439
r,
N23635
r, N66406
r
1972 !!!!!!!!!!R1b1a2a2a CTS1848 [1/3], L584 [9/9], PF3449 [1/3], PF7580 [3/3]
1973 !!!!!!!!!!152974, 166322, 166323, 182984, 235098, 45475, 87265, 92187, N10795, N113044, N93831
1974 !!!!!!!!!!R1b1a2a2b L277[7/7]
1975 !!!!!!!!!!159189
r, 195191
r, 234905
r, 95875
r, N81217, N97723
1976 !!!!!!!!!!!R1b1a2a2b–1 L479 [1/1] (no nearby negative results)
1977 !!!!!!!!!!!1177152
1978
!!!!!!!!!
?!1R1b1a2a2c L150/PF6274 180 [???? mine]
bR
1979 !!!!!!!!!!108347, N37658
1980 !!!!!!!!!!R1b1a2a2–14 CTS7822 [9/9], CTS9219 [6/9]
1981 !!!!!!!!!!247019, 257843, N112689, N114393, N115142, N115176, N115870, N116170, N29277
1982 !!!!!!!!!!R1b1a2a2–24 CTS7763 [1/1], CTS8966 [1/1]
1983 !!!!!!!!!!164226

alan
11-15-2013, 05:06 PM
Well there is no doubt boats existed in the Caspian late Palaeolithic. Even without boats, the way I look at it is once you reach any point on the shore of an inland sea, you could simply walk around the entire shore. I say that because maritime resources mean that even the changes in terrestrial ecology around the shores (steppe tundra in the north, desert to the east, hilly warmer areas the south and west) would not be quite so important and so limiting. The 'Atelian Sea' (as the shrunken LGM Caspian was known) was far smaller during the LGM anyway, much quicker to 'circumnavigate' the shores. The downside of that is that the entire shoreline of the LGM Caspian is deep under the centre of the present sea and there could easily have been a single culture ringing the Caspian shoreline that we would seriously struggle to ever recover anything of short of near miraculous underwater archaeological work. A fairly unified group of shore dwellers around the small LGM Caspian would have been potentially pushed a huge distance apart by the enormous early post-LGM expansion of the Caspian which formed what was called the Khyvalnian Sea.

For those not familiar with small Atelian Caspian of the LGM (much smaller than today) and the hugely expanded Khyvalnian Caspian (much larger than today) in the immediate post-LGM this map shows the extremes

http://paleogeo.org/Flood_big_en.jpg

http://paleogeo.org/Flood_big_en.jpg


You don't agree with Michal's theory that R1a originated in Central Asia and moved into Eastern Europe very early on? Is there evidence for cross Caspian movements in the Mesolithic? I ask because I have been intrigued by how the Uzbek R1b-L23 matches Caucasians better than Iranians (West to East migration across the Caspian?), the presence of L1c in the North Caucasus(East to West Migration across the Caspian?) and the presence of Y-DNA I clades with unsual STR's on the South side of the Caspian (North to South Migration across the Caspian?). Of course all of these movements could be a lot more recent.

MJost
11-15-2013, 05:12 PM
[QUOTE=Rathna;19559]Did I understand well your English?
Are you saying that there aren't SNPs under Z2105?

I said that 'Z2105*'s just haven't found a Subclade SNP yet. Z2105*'

if a SNP Z2105 has an asterisk (Z2105*) then these kits have been shown that they are negative for any known derived subclades. These are from MikeW spread sheet only.

MJost

Rathna
11-15-2013, 05:45 PM
I said that 'Z2105*'s just haven't found a Subclade SNP yet. Z2105*'

if a SNP Z2105 has an asterisk (Z2105*) then these kits have been shown that they are negative for any known derived subclades. These are from MikeW spread sheet only.

MJost

I am R-Z2105+ and L277- L584- and, as I have said to my haplogroup cousins, we should test for all the other known SNPs for saying that we are Z2105*. But I have also said that in Western Europe we haven't found so far any L584+. In Italy the L277+ (Stasi, but there is also Manno from 23andMe) and the CTS7822+ seem of Balkan origin. We should test Romitti, who has been put amongst this new subclade of Z2105 for his L150-, but I have written many times that he doesn't match the others by his STRs, and Seymour (the other L150-) has resulted CTS7822+, like Ware who belongs to his cluster, then probably (as I have written too many times) this subclade created on the "ht 35 FTDNA Project" has no reason to exist.
Eastern Europeans and Middle Easterners seem to belong all to some subclade and probably my thinking that Z2105* wil be found in Italy and Western Europe has some reason to be.

Joe B
11-15-2013, 06:33 PM
Alan and all,

I pulled the HTs from MikeW spreadsheet

R1b-EARLY>P25>L389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103

Geo Variance

Turkey (Armenian Project) 11.64
(Founders Modal generation age of 152.0 +-40.1)

Albania ,Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Rep, Kosovo, Macedonia - Combined 10.7
Italy 10.1
Poland 9.5
Russia 9.4
Greece 8.9
Germany 8.6
Ukraine 7.8
Syria 7.6
Irag 7.1
Lithuania 6.1
Lebanon 6.0
England 5.7
Hungary 5.6
Azerbaijan 5.0
France 4.0
Scotland 2.4

MJost
Thanks for doing this!
I wonder what would happen if the criteria was relaxed. Maybe do something on a regional bases. The Isles and Normandy, Central Europe etc. This is a funky subclade.
It would be easy to misread what that high German variance means. My kit #257842 may be an outlier for Germany. Was soll's!
Wonder what would happen if mine was taken out and the criteria for Germany was loosened to include these 67str kits. All these are speculative variety mml2303-40610 of some sort, except for my mml2303-a- uas
fN80089 Cox Z2103+ L49+ Z2105+ mml2303-40610 Germany
f127630 Ehrman Z2103+ L49+ Z2105+ L277- mml2303-40610 Germany, Baden-Württemberg
f140135 Ehrman Z2103+ L150+ L49+ Z2105+ mml2303-40610 Germany, Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, Sichertshausen
f95535 Wahl Z2103+ L150+ L49+ Z2105+ mml2303-40610 Germany, Saxony-Anhalt, Wittenberg
f190448 Visko/Viesko Z2103+ L150+ mml2303-a40611-X Germany
f145692 Earhart Z2103+ L150+ L405+ L49+ Z2105+ L277- L584- mml2303-a40610-Y Germany Germany, Rhineland-Palatinate, Bad Kreuznach, Staudernheim
f257842 Bork Z2103+ L150+ Z2105+ L277- L584- mml2303-a- uas Germany, Hesse, Darmstadt

Thanks,
Joe

alan
11-15-2013, 06:54 PM
I must have been on holiday somewhere. I cannot remember seeing it before although that doesnt mean I havent seen it lol.

Its odd distribution reminds me very broadly of L23xL51 partially but differently nuanced. Something that is perhaps not very surprising considering there ultimate roots being the same. The core of early farming in eastern Anatolia, Iraq, Levant etc is lacking M269*. That is an easy take home from that map. That area sites between the two concentrations in the Balkans/East Anatlia on the one hand and around Iran/the west end of north central Asia and the Volga on the other. Add the suggested age of the clade as represented by modern people of c. 2500BC and it paints a picture.

Somewhere along the line relatively significant spillages of M269* happened into the Balkans, perhaps later being displaced to the western Balkans. This probably post-dates 2500BC. That is probably the most solid ground we have for M269*. The Albanians in particular are high in this clade and the best theory for them based on sound linguistics is that they were displaced Dacians speaking a Daco-Thracian type dialect. These dialects were satem in nature. Again this would fit well with the implication of the age of the M269* clade today only being around 2500BC and lingering closer to the satemisation zone longer than other dialects who departed earlier and have L23xL51 but not M269*.

It does suggest therefore that the Dacians, whatever their origin, at some point came to carry M269* in more substantial numbers than usual or that they had perhaps absorbed it through later intrusions of Iranic steppe peoples into the Balkans in the millenium BC prior to displacement. The fact that M269* has a second centre in the cicumcaspian area may support this idea.

Some of the many Iranic movements could easily have hoovered up remnants of older western steppe groups and moved them around much of the area where it is found today. Entire peoples displaced each other time and again from the steppes, usually entering the Balkans or areas south of the pontic-Caspian so really its borderline hopeless to sort it out. Even ancient DNA will always struggle to pick up minor lineages.


Speculate away. :) This was based on Busby 2011 data. I had posted it to an older forum and it received very little fanfare. The big gap separating the Balkan/Anatolian M269(xL23) hotspot and the Caspian one is due to L23(xL51).

http://r1b.org/imgs/M269_without_L23.png

alan
11-15-2013, 07:23 PM
One other simpler point about that map is that it again looks like it crops up mainly in non-Balto-Slavic locations and broadly speaking it looks like it coincides with historic areas that features Balkans (and probable spin off groups) and Iranian speakers even it it was a small element. I am not aware of any other linguistic predecessor or successor groupings who can realistically be linked to the surviving distribution of M269*. Probably the only single linguistic group with a great enough extent at some period in their historically recorded past to explain M269* would be Iranic ones. Then again recent studies of Iran and central Asia have also suggested a strong association of L23xL51 with Iranian speaking populations and extreme rarity in other linguistic groups in that zone.

This I think is an important point to make- there would be a significant difference between the eastern and western steppes in terms of genetics. When early Iranian steppe groups moved east of the Urals through the steppe area they may have encountered next to nothing until they reached the offshoot Afansievo pocket who had crossed the empty spaces 1000 years earlier and plotted themselves near Altai. They may have been single clans descended from one man and they may have picked up next to no stray genes en-route. This is dramatically different from the western steppes where there was continuous settlement of one sort or another since the Palaeolithic and there may have been a myriad of different lineages. That IMO is why we cannot take even ancient DNA from east of the Urals as representative of the steppes west of the Urals. They have an entirely separate settlement history from the Mesolithic to the first western steppe groups spreading east of the Urals.

genetic makeup of Iranian populations entering very sparsely populated zones of central Asia where a single lineages or clan may have been the structure and further west where they were in a


Speculate away. :) This was based on Busby 2011 data. I had posted it to an older forum and it received very little fanfare. The big gap separating the Balkan/Anatolian M269(xL23) hotspot and the Caspian one is due to L23(xL51).

http://r1b.org/imgs/M269_without_L23.png

vettor
11-15-2013, 07:26 PM
I must have been on holiday somewhere. I cannot remember seeing it before although that doesnt mean I havent seen it lol.

Its odd distribution reminds me very broadly of L23xL51 partially but differently nuanced. Something that is perhaps not very surprising considering there ultimate roots being the same. The core of early farming in eastern Anatolia, Iraq, Levant etc is lacking M269*. That is an easy take home from that map. That area sites between the two concentrations in the Balkans/East Anatlia on the one hand and around Iran/the west end of north central Asia and the Volga on the other. Add the suggested age of the clade as represented by modern people of c. 2500BC and it paints a picture.

Somewhere along the line relatively significant spillages of M269* happened into the Balkans, perhaps later being displaced to the western Balkans. This probably post-dates 2500BC. That is probably the most solid ground we have for M269*. The Albanians in particular are high in this clade and the best theory for them based on sound linguistics is that they were displaced Dacians speaking a Daco-Thracian type dialect. These dialects were satem in nature. Again this would fit well with the implication of the age of the M269* clade today only being around 2500BC and lingering closer to the satemisation zone longer than other dialects who departed earlier and have L23xL51 but not M269*.

It does suggest therefore that the Dacians, whatever their origin, at some point came to carry M269* in more substantial numbers than usual or that they had perhaps absorbed it through later intrusions of Iranic steppe peoples into the Balkans in the millenium BC prior to displacement. The fact that M269* has a second centre in the cicumcaspian area may support this idea.

Some of the many Iranic movements could easily have hoovered up remnants of older western steppe groups and moved them around much of the area where it is found today. Entire peoples displaced each other time and again from the steppes, usually entering the Balkans or areas south of the pontic-Caspian so really its borderline hopeless to sort it out. Even ancient DNA will always struggle to pick up minor lineages.

The hot spot on the map is clearly Kosovo, in ancient times the home of the Dardanian peoples. who where ultimetly "killed" off by, firstly an invading "illyrian" tribe called Autariatae, then invaded from the east by the thracians and lastly invaded from the south by macedonians. All for their rich fertile land. These Dardanians fled into the mountains of northern Albania. to conclude, the roman surveyors after Rome conquered Macedonia in 168BC noted that the people found in northern albania are noted as vlachs .............Vlachs are Dacian people more so, than Thracian.

So I agree that albanians have a dacian linguistic theme to their language. but as of 2010, linguistics have placed the Thracian language separate (on its own ) from illyrian, phyrgian, getae and only marginally with dacian. Dacians are land-locked peoples.

R.Rocca
11-15-2013, 07:30 PM
I must have been on holiday somewhere. I cannot remember seeing it before although that doesnt mean I havent seen it lol.

Its odd distribution reminds me very broadly of L23xL51 partially but differently nuanced. Something that is perhaps not very surprising considering there ultimate roots being the same. The core of early farming in eastern Anatolia, Iraq, Levant etc is lacking M269*. That is an easy take home from that map. That area sites between the two concentrations in the Balkans/East Anatlia on the one hand and around Iran/the west end of north central Asia and the Volga on the other. Add the suggested age of the clade as represented by modern people of c. 2500BC and it paints a picture.

Somewhere along the line relatively significant spillages of M269* happened into the Balkans, perhaps later being displaced to the western Balkans. This probably post-dates 2500BC. That is probably the most solid ground we have for M269*. The Albanians in particular are high in this clade and the best theory for them based on sound linguistics is that they were displaced Dacians speaking a Daco-Thracian type dialect. These dialects were satem in nature. Again this would fit well with the implication of the age of the M269* clade today only being around 2500BC and lingering closer to the satemisation zone longer than other dialects who departed earlier and have L23xL51 but not M269*.

It does suggest therefore that the Dacians, whatever their origin, at some point came to carry M269* in more substantial numbers than usual or that they had perhaps absorbed it through later intrusions of Iranic steppe peoples into the Balkans in the millenium BC prior to displacement. The fact that M269* has a second centre in the cicumcaspian area may support this idea.

Some of the many Iranic movements could easily have hoovered up remnants of older western steppe groups and moved them around much of the area where it is found today. Entire peoples displaced each other time and again from the steppes, usually entering the Balkans or areas south of the pontic-Caspian so really its borderline hopeless to sort it out. Even ancient DNA will always struggle to pick up minor lineages.

I don't know if the STR signatures of the Balkan/Anatolian M269(xL23) is different than that of the Caspian group, but it could also be that they belong to two different brother clades to L23 separated over a long period of time. Something to keep an eye on.

vettor
11-15-2013, 07:33 PM
Based on the position of m.hammer's chart for the postion U106 ( in old east Germany ), would I be correct in saying that U106 was the foundation of Lusatian culture?
Moving back to the eastward through modern Poland via the bastarnae tribes which ended up in ukraine

newtoboard
11-15-2013, 07:46 PM
One other simpler point about that map is that it again looks like it crops up mainly in non-Balto-Slavic locations and broadly speaking it looks like it coincides with historic areas that features Balkans (and probable spin off groups) and Iranian speakers even it it was a small element. I am not aware of any other linguistic predecessor or successor groupings who can realistically be linked to the surviving distribution of M269*. Probably the only single linguistic group with a great enough extent at some period in their historically recorded past to explain M269* would be Iranic ones. Then again recent studies of Iran and central Asia have also suggested a strong association of L23xL51 with Iranian speaking populations and extreme rarity in other linguistic groups in that zone.

This I think is an important point to make- there would be a significant difference between the eastern and western steppes in terms of genetics. When early Iranian steppe groups moved east of the Urals through the steppe area they may have encountered next to nothing until they reached the offshoot Afansievo pocket who had crossed the empty spaces 1000 years earlier and plotted themselves near Altai. They may have been single clans descended from one man and they may have picked up next to no stray genes en-route. This is dramatically different from the western steppes where there was continuous settlement of one sort or another since the Palaeolithic and there may have been a myriad of different lineages. That IMO is why we cannot take even ancient DNA from east of the Urals as representative of the steppes west of the Urals. They have an entirely separate settlement history from the Mesolithic to the first western steppe groups spreading east of the Urals.

genetic makeup of Iranian populations entering very sparsely populated zones of central Asia where a single lineages or clan may have been the structure and further west where they were in a

I don't see the logic in this. These R1b lineages are more likely to have been present in West Asia and the Balkans before Iranian speakers ever existed in either place. I don't see the correlation with Iranian languages when there is no R1b among Pashtuns and Pamiri Tajiks. The Iranian speakers spreading back into Europe and Balkans would have resembled Andronovo and Scythio-Siberian groups all of whom probably had no R1b. There likely were people east of the Urals (Keltiminar culture). Whether they were absorbed is another matter.

newtoboard
11-15-2013, 07:49 PM
I don't see how you can even argue for M269* and such being spread by the Scythians and such. It doesn't exist in the Kazakh steppe for the most part. And since there is no R1a-Z93+ in the Western Balkans the argument is that Scythians basically ditched their most dominant lineage at the Urals.

Silesian
11-15-2013, 07:56 PM
I don't see how you can even argue for M269* and such being spread by the Scythians and such. It doesn't exist in the Kazakh steppe for the most part. And since there is no R1a-Z93+ in the Western Balkans the argument is that Scythians basically ditched their most dominant lineage at the Urals.

Thats because the Scythians were not R1a-Z93+

Khorasan= Parthia= Yazd=Ancient Mede Iranian tribe.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252

Azeri-R1b* M343*R1b1a2* M269*R1b1a2a L23*
Kohrasan-[Parthia] R* R1* R1b*
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/default.aspx?section=ysnp
276867-North Ossetia-R1b R-M343 M343+, M269-

291836-Karachay R-M343 M343+, M269-
some authors locate in Arkhyz, the mountains currently inhabited by the Karachay, while others place it in modern Ingushetia or North Ossetia
184189 Uzbekistan. M343+ M269-

Joe B
11-15-2013, 08:39 PM
Thats because the Scythians were not R1a-Z93+

Khorasan Parthia Yazd-Ancient Mede
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252

Azeri-R1b* M343*R1b1a2* M269*R1b1a2a L23*
Kohrasan-[Parthia] R* R1* R1b*
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/default.aspx?section=ysnp
276867-North Ossetia-R1b R-M343 M343+, M269-

291836-Karachay R-M343 M343+, M269-
184189 Uzbekistan. M343+ M269-

Khorasan Parthia Yazd-Ancient Mede
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252
This is a good paper. In the conclusion the authors speculate on a direct northwest movement out of Iran.

Frequency and variance distributions of the main haplogroups together with the network analyses and age estimates were suggestive of pre-agricultural expansions from the Iranian plateau toward Europe via Caucasus/Turkey (J2-M410*, J2-PAGE55*, J2-M530, and R1b-M269*) as well as more recent movements into the Iranian region from Asia Minor/Caucasus (J1-M267*, J2-M92), Central Asia (Q-M25), southern Mesopotamia (J1-Page08) and from West Eurasia (R1b-L23 and probably part of R1a-M198*).

They also comment on on R1b-L23(xM412) (R1b-Z2103?) mostly being in the northwest of Iran and two-way movement in that area.

As for the distribution of haplogroup R1b-L23 (xM412), it is frequent in the north-western area of the country, whereas its incidence rapidly declines southwards from Lorestan. Differently, higher levels of heterogeneity are revealed in entrance or transit areas such as, for example, those observed in the populations living around the Caspian Sea, a situation that could be ascribed to population movements from and to Europe.

Silesian
11-15-2013, 08:50 PM
Khorasan Parthia Yazd-Ancient Mede
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252
This is a good paper. In the conclusion the authors speculate on a direct northwest movement out of Iran.


They also comment on on R1b-L23(xM412) (R1b-Z2103?) mostly being in the northwest of Iran and two-way movement in that area.

This is true and a valid point. Dr Hammer has access to much more information than we have, and it's clear he is showing a basic [invasion] movement from the East. A. Klyosov showed the same with L23x51 in his Arbin paper. Upstream R1b* among Kurds in Kazakstan and ancient Medes, Northern Ossets shows perhaps that both of theses conclusions based on differing techniques are correct, L23x51 is very frequently found in the same region, among the older branches including M73. As has been pointed out we need more ancient samples and more samples from the East. Don't forget Nazarov the Cossack in the Baskir project is also in our grouping, his str numbers are very different from ours, I think he might have some Iranian ancestry

newtoboard
11-15-2013, 09:11 PM
Thats because the Scythians were not R1a-Z93+

Khorasan= Parthia= Yazd=Ancient Mede Iranian tribe.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252

Azeri-R1b* M343*R1b1a2* M269*R1b1a2a L23*
Kohrasan-[Parthia] R* R1* R1b*
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/default.aspx?section=ysnp
276867-North Ossetia-R1b R-M343 M343+, M269-

291836-Karachay R-M343 M343+, M269-
184189 Uzbekistan. M343+ M269-

They were. Arguing against it is pretty much trolling.

Silesian
11-15-2013, 09:12 PM
They were.......
Scientific study please.

newtoboard
11-15-2013, 09:13 PM
This is true and a valid point. Dr Hammer has access to much more information than we have, and it's clear he is showing a basic [invasion] movement from the East. A. Klyosov showed the same with L23x51 in his Arbin paper. Upstream R1b* among Kurds in Kazakstan and ancient Medes, Northern Ossets shows perhaps that both of theses conclusions based on differing techniques are correct, L23x51 is very frequently found in the same region, among the older branches including M73. As has been pointed out we need more ancient samples and more samples from the East. Don't forget Nazarov the Cossack in the Baskir project is also in our grouping, his str numbers are very different from ours, I think he might have some Iranian ancestry

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

alan
11-15-2013, 09:43 PM
Fair point. Just speculating. Somehow it developed a bimodal distribution in the circum Caspian and the Balkans/east Anatolia with a gap in the heartland of farming. Iranians may not be the answer. However, there is a great deal unknown about how IE groups were once positioned. I would certainly stand by Albanian link to displaced landlocked Dacians. I have read a fair bit about this and it almost has to be close to the truth when the Albanian language with its complete absence of maritime native vocab and lack of expected level of Greek borrowings is considered. Daco-Thracian is pretty mysterious although it was Satem, another reason to see it as a Balkan language that has been somewhat displaced.

A Daco-Thracian link to the M269 and L23xL51 in Albanians I think is plausible. Perhaps the inclusion of M269* of Albanians reflects this former position in Dacia which linguistics have put a very strong case for. Many think there was a Daco-Thracian linguistic group with subdivisions or a continuum.

So lets say this is indirect evidence for M269 in both the Daco-Thracian zone and the CircumCaspian area but none in between in the farming core of Mesopotamia, Levant and east Anatolia and also assume that it did not involve Iranians. This pretty well forces us to look at M269* as some lineage positioned somewhere on the Pontic Caspian or Azov until after c. 2500BC - prior to the rise of Andronovo etc to the east.

Following Jean's earlier theme of stay home remnants of groups who had earlier moved west, it would make a lot of sense to see M269 as a remnant lineage left behind in the north Pontic area, perhaps partly incorporated into the Catacomb or Srubna cultures. The former has been linked by some to 'the ancestors of the Greek, Armenian and Paleo-Balkan dialects' while the latter has been linked by some to the Cimmerians. Some have linked the Thracians and Cimmerians. Between the Cimmerians passing south from the north side of the Caucasus and the Daco-Thracian groups heading west it would be not too bad a fit for the sprinkling of M269*. The high concentration among the Albanians may be because they are actual living linguistic direct but displaced descendants of the Daco-Thracian speakers of Romania.



I don't see how you can even argue for M269* and such being spread by the Scythians and such. It doesn't exist in the Kazakh steppe for the most part. And since there is no R1a-Z93+ in the Western Balkans the argument is that Scythians basically ditched their most dominant lineage at the Urals.

vettor
11-15-2013, 10:18 PM
Fair point. Just speculating. Somehow it developed a bimodal distribution in the circum Caspian and the Balkans/east Anatolia with a gap in the heartland of farming. Iranians may not be the answer. However, there is a great deal unknown about how IE groups were once positioned. I would certainly stand by Albanian link to displaced landlocked Dacians. I have read a fair bit about this and it almost has to be close to the truth when the Albanian language with its complete absence of maritime native vocab and lack of expected level of Greek borrowings is considered. Daco-Thracian is pretty mysterious although it was Satem, another reason to see it as a Balkan language that has been somewhat displaced.

A Daco-Thracian link to the M269 and L23xL51 in Albanians I think is plausible. Perhaps the inclusion of M269* of Albanians reflects this former position in Dacia which linguistics have put a very strong case for. Many think there was a Daco-Thracian linguistic group with subdivisions or a continuum.

So lets say this is indirect evidence for M269 in both the Daco-Thracian zone and the CircumCaspian area but none in between in the farming core of Mesopotamia, Levant and east Anatolia and also assume that it did not involve Iranians. This pretty well forces us to look at M269* as some lineage positioned somewhere on the Pontic Caspian or Azov until after c. 2500BC - prior to the rise of Andronovo etc to the east.

Following Jean's earlier theme of stay home remnants of groups who had earlier moved west, it would make a lot of sense to see M269 as a remnant lineage left behind in the north Pontic area, perhaps partly incorporated into the Catacomb or Srubna cultures. The former has been linked by some to 'the ancestors of the Greek, Armenian and Paleo-Balkan dialects' while the latter has been linked by some to the Cimmerians. Some have linked the Thracians and Cimmerians. Between the Cimmerians passing south from the north side of the Caucasus and the Daco-Thracian groups heading west it would be not too bad a fit for the sprinkling of M269*. The high concentration among the Albanians may be because they are actual living linguistic direct but displaced descendants of the Daco-Thracian speakers of Romania.

saying M269 is cimmerians is a stretch as cimmerians where pushed out of the northern black-sea areas ( Azov, Crimea and southern Ukraine) by the Scythians around 700BC, they settled in Pannonia ( Hungaria) and cappodacia ( eastern Anatolia). Is M269 that young?

Silesian
11-15-2013, 10:21 PM
That is because Central Asia is a crossroads for movements from Siberia, West Asia and Europe. Persians brought in L23(xL51) from the West. Nomadic Turks brought in some M73. And now people are arguing for some ancient presence of R1b in Central Asia based on movements that likely happened in the last 1000 or so years.
The Grugni et al R1b* areas co-relate very well in Iran are ancient Mede, to distinguish between Persians. That's beside the point. If the samples in the remote mountainous region of Rhone Switzerland are truly R1b L23x51 and [269xL23] connected to [ancient Italic/Celtic/Germanic] R1b L23x51 samples in the remote Himalayan plateau of Newar people of Nepal your looking at a distance at a minimum of 7000 kilometers. I think it's a bit of a stretch to credit Persians if it turns out the samples are in the same R1b branch.

alan
11-15-2013, 10:50 PM
I also felt that the route that passes from the north Caucasus and adjacent steppe down the east side of the Caspian into NW Iran was clearly very much used by L23xL51 when I was looking at Maykop and the way it was a sort of link between the steppe and NW Iran. The links were far stronger than direct north-south routes from the north to the south Caucasus and this seems to be demonstrated by the huge drop in L23xL51 among south Caucasians compared to north if you remove the possibly Balkans derived (male line only) Armenians.

It actually does indeed look 2 way in this period. The Maykop mystery seems to have been solved in a recent paper as influences and limited migration from NW Iran into the north Caucasus farmer and steppe pastoralists there . However, that it went both ways can be seem by late Maykop Kurgans in the extreme NW of Iran. As noted by others, L23xL51 drops away dramatically from the NW Iran area as you head east and south in Iran and as you move south through the Caucasus (excluding Armenians). So, whatever the timing, direction and origin it looks extremely likely that the route from the north Caucasus and NW Iran along the west Caspian was an important one for L23 in that longitude. I

It seems incredibly unlikely that L23xL51 came from further east by an Iranian route. It also seems very unlikely that it came from the farming core to the south and west of Iran due to its apparent non-participation in the Neolithic farming demographic explosion - it must be an intrusion in Assyrians from elsewhere. I would have no problem placing the origins of L23 in that fascinating area where Iranian influences met steppe peoples, Sredny Stog elites and north Caucasus pre-Maykop farmers in the centuries on either side of c. 4000BC. A very interesting melting pot.

However, that leaves the question of which element in this mix did L23XL51 come from?
M269* is the natural place to look. Regardless of the variance of the clade now, its descendants do represent a line that split off from the M269 line leading to L23 before the L23 SNP occurred. So, all we can do is what we do for all clades and look at its modern distribution. Looking at the M269* map and given millenia of displacement, it is also tempting to think this clade at some point in time used broadly similar routes as L23xL51. It has what I would call the look of a bimodal distribution that is Circumcaspian and Balkano-east Anatolian with a gap in the farming core in between.

To me, its natural to look for overlap of commonality in the distribution of M269* and L23xL51 to look for where they may have branched. The same major caveats apply as for all attempts to read the copper age from modern peoples. The main overlaps I can see are the Balkans, NW Iran and the Volga-Urals area. Clearly that is, short of teleport, what I would call a 'shattered' distribution i.e the original clines no longer fully exist due to later displacements etc. However given the timeframes of c. 4500-3500BC for the origins of the branching (and 5000 years of non-branching before this), it pretty well forces us to use the hand we are dealt with and the only thing that presents itself is the western steppe.

However, I am not losing sight that, although an early branch off from the more successful L23xL51 line, the dispersal of M269* seems to be not much older than 2500BC. So, although by definition it has the same ultimate origin as L23xL52 and appears to have followed broadly similar routes, it may have been the 'stay home' less adventurous brother and dispersed later. Its variance tends to suggest it stayed on the verge of extinction for around 1500 years until somehow it found a niche or two that allowed it to expand.

Two options spring to mind for a delayed dispersal.

1. Perhaps M269* did move fairly early from its origin point and found a home where it barely survived before a secondary phase of expansion after c. 2500BC created its modern distribution patterns. The nearest I can come to making sense of that would be somewhere in the hazy complex of suggested origins of IE Balkan and related groups displaced into Anatolia and beyond.

From the early Anatolian group all the way to the fairly late Satem ones like Armenians etc, non-Iranian groups in SW Asia and Anatolia tend to be interpreted by mainstream scholars as having a long stay in the Balkans before heading into Anatolia and beyond. So the odd mix of being an early branching off but having a lower variance that M269* displays could be explained by a long sojourn in the Balkans before really finding its feet outside Europe and expanding. However, its not easy to explain the Circumcaspian distribution totally on the basis of ex-Balkans groups. It doesnt explain the Volga group or the Iran and west central Asian group.

2. It may simply have remained on the steppe as a very small barely reproducing group (quite normal for the steppe) and exited later under pressure from other groups. Some cultures that were once important lingered in reduced states in the steppes for very long periods. Subsequent displacement of small groups might be very hard to detect.



Khorasan Parthia Yazd-Ancient Mede
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252
This is a good paper. In the conclusion the authors speculate on a direct northwest movement out of Iran.


They also comment on on R1b-L23(xM412) (R1b-Z2103?) mostly being in the northwest of Iran and two-way movement in that area.

alan
11-15-2013, 11:09 PM
. If you combine it all from central Asia to Italy its variance suggests expansion from 2500BC but if you split that into localities and break it down region by region the variance could be very low. There is no such thing as too young. A subset of any clade can move any time with totally different variance effects. It really depends on whether there are people of the same male line present, the distance of 'cousinhood' within a migration and how many of them reproduce in a way that forms lines. An ancient tribe who have lived in the same place for thousands of years could have very little variance if the survivors just so happen to share a closer common ancestor- quite likely if its an elite hogging resources type set up or a close to extinction small scale society.

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


saying M269 is cimmerians is a stretch as cimmerians where pushed out of the northern black-sea areas ( Azov, Crimea and southern Ukraine) by the Scythians around 700BC, they settled in Pannonia ( Hungaria) and cappodacia ( eastern Anatolia). Is M269 that young?

Mikewww
11-16-2013, 12:07 AM
They were. Arguing against it is pretty much trolling.

newtoboard, I'm speaking as a moderator. Please do not post brief statements devoid of content. Bring some new evidence or logic. Also, you are equating to disagreement with trolling which is clearly a negative attack on the person. Let's stay away from this.

Jean M
11-16-2013, 12:29 AM
That's because the Scythians were not R1a-Z93+

We have ancient DNA from Scythians which was not tested for Z93+, but certainly showed them as R1a1. See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

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

alan
11-16-2013, 12:40 AM
That raises an interesting point. We know P343* and P25*, which seem commonest in north Iran and just east around the same latitude, are ancient branchings off the R1b tree in terms of phylogeny but has anyone ever done variance for them? It would be interesting to know if they look like a very ancient in situ group or if they all probably share a much more recent common ancestor. If its the latter, they could just be a stray line that moved with more upstream forms like L23. I personally doubt that because the distribution is not the same in that region.


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