PDA

View Full Version : New R1a paper by Underhill et al.



Pages : 1 [2]

DMXX
04-04-2014, 07:26 AM
Descendants of Scythians in Asia speak Eastern Iranian languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian_languages . The largest group today is 50 million speakers of Pashto.


Just a minor point which doesn't detract from your main assertion, but I'm unsure if Pashto can be used as an example of a Scythian-related language in this context.

Most of the sources I've seen on the matter class Pashto as a Southeast Iranic language, in contrast to what we can deduce of Scythian which is Northeast. Arguably in my opinion, the best example of Scythian-derived languages in the world are those spoken in the Pamirs. Linguists [1] have deduced the Pamiri languages are all Northeast Iranian but likely entered the region at different points after the break-up of a common East Iranian proto-dialect around the 1st millenium B.C. despite them sharing common local innovations and evidence of a local substratum existing. To me, this fits the rest of the evidence quite well.

Besides, I'm sure we've all at least heard of the dialect continuum idea between Ossetian and the Pamiri languages that has been associated with the Scythians. Pashto isn't a part of that continuum. I'd therefore imagine Pashto to be more related to ancient Iranian languages spoken further south, such as Bactrian or Soghdian.

[1] Windfuhr G. The Iranian Languages. London & New York: Routledge. 2009.

Sein
04-04-2014, 08:01 AM
Just a minor point which doesn't detract from your main assertion, but I'm unsure if Pashto can be used as an example of a Scythian-related language in this context.

Most of the sources I've seen on the matter class Pashto as a Southeast Iranic language, in contrast to what we can deduce of Scythian which is Northeast. Arguably in my opinion, the best example of Scythian-derived languages in the world are those spoken in the Pamirs. Linguists [1] have deduced the Pamiri languages are all Northeast Iranian but likely entered the region at different points after the break-up of a common East Iranian proto-dialect around the 1st millenium B.C. despite them sharing common local innovations and evidence of a local substratum existing. To me, this fits the rest of the evidence quite well.

Besides, I'm sure we've all at least heard of the dialect continuum idea between Ossetian and the Pamiri languages that has been associated with the Scythians. Pashto isn't a part of that continuum. I'd therefore imagine Pashto to be more related to ancient Iranian languages spoken further south, such as Bactrian or Soghdian.

[1] Windfuhr G. The Iranian Languages. London & New York: Routledge. 2009.

DMXX, I think you have made a very pertinent/interesting point. This topic is a source of much confusion for myself, as there seems to be a lot of ambiguity concerning how East Iranian languages relate to each other. For example, there is this (admittedly, this figure is from Wikipedia):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Iranian_Family_Tree_v2.0.png

Apparently, this figure has "Saka" on the same branch as Pashto. Also, it seems Bactrian and Sogdian are (were) rather distant to Pashto. As someone with no real knowledge concerning this field, I'm not sure if this is reasonable, or if it's completely incorrect.

According to Encyclopdia Iranica, Pashto and the Pamiri languages are "Northeast Iranian", http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/eastern-iranian-languages.

According to Ethnologue, Pashto and the Pamiri languages are "Southeast Iranian", http://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/southeastern.

As someone who lacks any real knowledge of robust historical linguistics, I'm not really sure why such ambiguity exists, nor do I properly understand the distinct implications involved in whether Pashto and the Pamiri group are "Northeast" or "Southeast" Iranic. I suppose a pragmatic view is necessary. For what it's worth, it was my impression that Pashto and the Pamiri group are very closely related. Much of what I've read seems to group Pashto and the Pamiri languages together.

Unfortunately, I haven't had the opportunity to read Windfuhr's The Iranian Languages.

parasar
04-04-2014, 02:35 PM
This is all very interesting (especially as far as correlation between historical linguistics & Y-DNA go), and nice to see that academia is actually catching up with private ancestry projects (sarcasm)...
However, besides the fact that Z93 & Z283 seem to be very good diagnostic markers for the split of IE in eastern & western branches, this leaves us with a crucial question:

What to make of R1a-L664?

Also I don't know if any of you noticed but the authors placed Z280 above Z282 on the tree (Figure 1), which is... Weird.

Only the following two European R1a lines were sequenced.
20 20-230 173.7x European R1a-L1029 Flow sorted chrY Cell line Yes
21 P0 9.1x European R1a-M558 Genomic Blood Yes Individual previously sequenced on Helicos platform, from5

Therefore they could not resolve the CTS4385 L664 branch. Therefore their age of M417 is actually the age of Z645.

Even with the two samples they sequenced they should have been able to resolve the relative positions of Z282 and Z280 since Z282 is common to both while Z280 is present in only the M558 (~CTS3607 - near CTS1211 under Z280) line.

Overall though the points the paper makes is IMO correct though some particulars may not be fully correct.

For example they could not resolve the branching points for L657, Z2125, and M582.
"The four subhaplogroups of Z93 (branches 9-M582, 10-M560, 12-Z2125, and 17-M780, L657) constitute a multifurcation unresolved by 10 Mb of sequencing; it is likely that no further resolution of this part of the tree will be possible with current technology. Similarly, the shared European branch has just three SNPs."
Z2124 does resolve it further.

Furthermore in my FG data a few more SNPs are seen (some perhaps such as L342 were deemed of lesser quality and not listed by Underhill) between M417 and M657, but overall relative ages should be the same as age per SNP will be lower for the FG data.

S347 L657 R1a1a1b2a1 +
F3568 Z95 R1a1a1b2a equivalent or upstream +
L349.2 L349.1 L349 R1a1a1b2a equivalent or upstream +
L348.3 L348.1 L348.2 L348.4 L348 R1a1a1b2a equivalent or upstream +
L319.4 L319.1 L319.2 L319.3 L319 R1a1a1b2a equivalent or upstream +
S340 Z94 F3105 R1a1a1b2a +
S278.2 S278.1 L342.2 L342.1 R1a1a1b2a +
S4582 M746 Z2479 R1a1a1b2 equivalent or upstream +
S202 Z93 F992 R1a1a1b2 +
F3044 Z651 R1a1a1b equivalent or upstream +
M750 Z650 CTS9754 PF6206 R1a1a1b equivalent or upstream +
M802 Z648 CTS12010 PF7533 R1a1a1b equivalent or upstream +
M811 CTS12179 R1a1a1b equivalent or upstream +
S346 M713 Z646 CTS6596 R1a1a1b equivalent or upstream +
CTS5508 Z649 R1a1a1b equivalent or upstream +
Y198 R1a1a1b equivalent or upstream +
R1 R1a1a1b equivalent or upstream +
Y1501 R1a1a1b equivalent or upstream +
M684 R1a1a1b equivalent or upstream +
PF6158 S441 Z647 R1a1a1b +
PF6162 S224 Z645 R1a1a1b +
CTS9667 R1a1a1 equivalent or upstream +
M11810 R1a1a1 equivalent or upstream +
M11797 R1a1a1 equivalent or upstream +
M11825 R1a1a1 equivalent or upstream +
M417 R1a1a1
SNPs gleaned by Underhill are highlighted.

parasar
04-04-2014, 03:57 PM
Apparently, this figure has "Saka" on the same branch as Pashto. Also, it seems Bactrian and Sogdian are (were) rather distant to Pashto. As someone with no real knowledge concerning this field, I'm not sure if this is reasonable, or if it's completely incorrect.



The Saka belt extended from Sistan, Gujarat, Malwa in the south, to the Gandhara-Mathura belt in the middle, to Khotan in the north. http://books.google.com/books?id=DguGWP0vGY8C&pg=PA411

This is the prevalent theory:

At the time of the establishment of the Bactrian monarchy, the territories to the north — Sogdiana and Transoxiana — were occupied by a tribe called the Sse (or Sek), who had come from the south of China.
These Sse have usually been identified with the Sakas, who, in previous ages, had come into conflict with the Achaemenid and Macedonian powers. In B.C. 165, the Sse were expelled from Sogdiana by the Yueh-chi, who were themselves flying before the Hiung-nu. The Sakas, thus dispossessed, invaded Bactria. From this period until the fall of the Bactrian monarchy, the Greeks had to contend against both Parthians and Sakas, while the Parthian and Sakas were alternately the friends and foes of one another. It is, perhaps, to this association with the Parthians that the earliest Saka coins of India owe certain Parthian characteristics. (v. inf. 29). The Yueh-chi, who now held the ancient territories of the Sakas, in turn invaded and gained complete possession of Bactria, c. 120 B.c. This was no doubt the immediate cause of the first Saka invasions of India. About a century later, or c. 25 B.C., one of the five tribes of the Yueh-chi, the Kusanas, gained the supremacy over the others, crossed over the Paropanisus, destroyed the last vestiges of Greek rule in the Kabul Valley, and subsequently conquered the whole of Northern India.


But as the above does not match physical evidence a route from China through the Karakorum has been advanced:


The coins of the dynasty of Maues are found in the Panjab only — particularly in the N.W. — and not in Afghanistan (C.NChr. 1890, p. 104). It has accordingly been conjectured (gard. p. Xli; Drouin, Rev. Num. 1888, p. 20; and JA. 1891 (XVII), p. 146 = Rev. Num. 1891, p. 219) that this band of Sakas, unlike other foreign invaders, entered India by the Karakoram Pass, and passed through Kashmir into the Panjab. . C, however, denies the possibility of this, and supposes that, after the Saka occupation of Arachosia and Drangiana — the country afterwards called Sakasthana — a detachment under the leadership of Maues passed thence into Sind and up the valley of the Indus.

http://books.google.com/books?id=MncWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7 The eminent historian Dani (RIP) was in the Karakorum camp.

Of course, whether the Saka were really from south of China, beyond Chinese statements we have no proof. I would rather think that they were the Sakiya tribe that disappeared from India in about 550bc.

vettor
04-06-2014, 04:05 AM
Unsure if this has been included before, but the link is interesting,

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/y-dna-r1a-spread-from-iran.html

no comment yet as I have not read the article in full

Rathna
04-06-2014, 06:51 AM
Unsure if this has been included before, but the link is interesting,

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/y-dna-r1a-spread-from-iran.html

no comment yet as I have not read the article in full

Yes, I found that Davidski read me (this is a battle of mine done from many years and on many forums):

"Another problem is that the M420* samples from the Near East appear to belong to single young subclade, so they're not evidence of an Iranian origin of R1a, especially since M420* is also found across Europe, except it wasn't reported from there in this study".

Whereas Maju doesn't read me, and this probably makes his theories destined to a defeat:

"M420* (R1a1*) has only been reported AFAIK in Greece (almost Asia) and Scandinavia (the cul-de-sac where all oddballs end piling up). That's very different from "across Europe". Obviously its frequencies are tiny enough to be irrelevant and lack enough STR diversity to matter. You can't build up a counter-theory on mere erratics".


P.S. All his ignorance: R-M420* is R1a* and not R1a1*.

Diverclic
04-08-2014, 05:33 AM
OK, as usual I am a very late comer on a long thread ! It seems no one noticed on this thread the "problem" with Figure 5 R1b tree. See this link :
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg201450ft.html and Figure 5 (bottom one)
I know it's a thread on R1a and I do share interest for M420* origin BUT the R1b tree is upside down : S116 is at the same level than Z195 (DF27 still ignored...) etc... This kind of findings suggest to me that the paper isn't that great.

Rathna asked in early pages of this thread : What happened between the R1b/ R1a split some 25000 years ago (I would like to know precisely how they made this timing) to M417 , 6000 y ago. The answer is a common place in all these trees and was first clearly distinguished by Ken Nordtvedt when looking at the I haplogroup tree and more precisely I1. I1 and I2 split is very ancient while I1 haplotypes are very similar, indicating a recent demographic explosion of the group, following a long long period of a small group surfing between life and death. Same for R1a ---> R1a1 ----> R1a1a. During all this time, these probably nomadic people certainly spread on large areas but genetics is saying that only one small group carrying M417 really made it and encountered a large expansion time. Those M420* are found through out the whole geographical domain once the places of nomadic dispersal for R1a. I wouldn't be surprised if more testing on Chinese samples would bring more data (and change the view on the group). It's a bad point to publish with so little testing on a possible Chinese extension.

parasar
04-14-2014, 05:08 PM
... Therefore their age of M417 is actually the age of Z645.
...

Age of Z645 calculated from the Z282 string at 5800ybp:
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/bigy_z280.jpg
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/bigy_z280.jpg

parasar
05-01-2014, 06:21 PM
One thing I now feel based on current evidence is that the Gravettians and their epi-Gravettian descendants in eastern Europe and Italy were not R people. I also have doubts that the Gravettians were WHG autosomally. I think the latter autosomal signal fits best the spread of Magdallenian derived groups through northern and central Europe which in the north extended as far east as the Baltic and even into the NW edges of Russia. The epi-gravettian groups do not seem to have undergone any similar expansion and if anything declined and indeed they seem to be the main European hunter group who were overlaid by pressure microblade traditions in the Mesolithic. So, I think the genetic signal, if indeed much has survived, of the epigravettians is unknown as no samples of this tradition have been tested AFAIK. As most of non-glaciated Europe had a Gravettian phase it is possible that it was just a variant on the western WHG signal and probably was yDNA I dominated but it simply has not been tested as yet. Its surely just a matter of time now.

Do you then think that they were one of the Basal Eurasian components?

How about the pre-Aurignacian at Kostenki? This should be the Ust Ishim type, right?

Archaeological and chronological data from the Kostenki site in Russia have convinced researchers that beneath a previously identified 40,000 year-old Aurignacian component representing Early Modern Humans is an early, previously unknown Initial Upper Paleolithic component, with secure dates at least as early as any other known modern human occupation in Europe. This conclusion supports the notion that Early Modern Humans migrated to central Eurasia and out from Africa before 45,000 years ago, carrying a fully developed Upper Paleolithic tool kit with them. The conclusions are presented in an article in the January 12, 2007 issue of Science magazine, written by a research team led by M. V. Anikovich and A. A. Sinitsyn of the Institute of the History of Material Culture at the Russian Academy of Sciences, and J. F. Hoffecker of the University 0f Colorado-Boulder.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/kostenki.htm

alan
05-01-2014, 08:07 PM
Its a big question and the European model of Aurigniacian then Gravettian etc hides a great deal of complexity. IMO neither have anything to do with R. I see a lot of stuff about R and the Gravettian on some genetic sites but its misinformed. The archaeology of the period is incredibly specialised and is even a challenge for an archaeologist to get to grips with.

I think the key to the lineage that led to R and Q is the surprisingly early thrust north-east of modern humans shown by the south-central Siberian early upper palaeolithic culture. This indicates that perhaps a millenia or so before 40000BC a group of modern humans made the turn north-east from Iran into the Stan countries of central Asia that lie north of the Inner Asian mountains. From there they spread within a couple of millennia to Altai, Baikal and apparently after some delay even into the fringes of China and Mongolia.

This is one of a group of cultures that include Bohenician and perhaps some of the Kostenki layers that are pre-Aurignacian, sometimes called initial upper palaeolithic cultures, which still retain some aspects of the late middle palaeolithic techniques in their tools. However, I think now its accepted that the Bohenician can indirectly be shown to be the work of fully modern humans and as far as I can recall the south-central Siberian area like Altai has produced very early modern humans too.

I think there is pretty well a good line of evidence in a lack of evidence of further intrusion that early south central Siberian upper palaeolithic locally morphed into the middle south central Siberian upper palaeolithic of whom Mal'ta boy was a very late member of. That is at the moment as close to a chain of evidence as we have and its pretty convincing IMO. So, it seems clear enough to me that P* people or perhaps immediate pre-P ancestral lines travelled through central Asia and probably arrived in south-central Siberia still in P form. From those people who settled perhaps 40000 years plus ago, R perhaps arose there around 30000BC.

It is likely that Q also arose in the area and south Altai has been shown to have the populations closest to those of the Americas. Altai is also one of the top candidates for the early emergence of the late upper palaeolithic Siberian microblade groups - again linked to the settlement of the Americas (and as I recently suggested possibly linked to the spread of R into Europe).

In short I pretty well am nailing my colours to the mast that P may have arisen in Iran or just north-east of it and R and Q in south-central Siberia. As a consequence I dont think any of them play any role whatsoever in the Aurignacian or Gravettian of Europe or its ancesters in SW Asia. My guess is that the archaeological split between the modern humans that headed through north-central Asia and Siberia and those that headed west happened well before 40000BC and the last common ancestor between the latter and European cultures like the Aurigancian was probably 45000BC or even before that. I think the split had already taken place somewhere in SW Asia and is very deep. I dont know how deep. Its often thought that Gravettian might be represented by I which does seem reasonable to me. Aurignacian might have been an even higher up split. After all we have the C Iberian guy who must have got there somehow and only the Aurignacian or Gravettian seem like strong candidates for his deep ancestry to me.


Do you then think that they were one of the Basal Eurasian components?

How about the pre-Aurignacian at Kostenki? This should be the Ust Ishim type, right?

http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/kostenki.htm

parasar
05-02-2014, 08:01 PM
There is one Cretan L657+ sample in the Underhill dataset, the only non Roma European that is L657+
South Europe Cretan M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

But the STR signature is identical to the Roma (Hungarian, Slovakian, Croatian).
Table S3 http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg201450x5.xls

Mehrdad
05-02-2014, 10:56 PM
thanks for the spreadsheet parasar, I created graphs out of these and its really interesting to note the percentages of R1a in these populations and groups.

1798 1799 1800 1801 1802

Mehrdad
05-02-2014, 10:57 PM
I can only upload 5 images at a time, here are the rest.

1803 1804 1805 1806

Jean M
05-25-2014, 01:02 PM
Ossets have very little R1a1a. Unless someone has managed to lure one of these rare creatures into an FTDNA project or Underhill's latest paper, then we don't know what type of R1a1a.

Just thought I would mention that two Ossetian males carrying R1a were included in the Underhill 2014 paper. They were both Z2125. See table 4 of Supplementary tables: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg201450s1.html

Hando
06-09-2014, 04:34 PM
Deduction David. We both know that there is no ancient DNA as yet from Scythians that has been tested for the new SNPs. The deductive process is as follows:


Those Scythians who moved west onto the European steppe around the 7th century BC were no different. A remnant of them settled in the North Caucasus. There is archaeological evidence at Klin Yar of some Sarmatian males settling there, taking local wives, followed by four rich Alanic catacombs of the early 7th century AD. This was an elite, but bringing Alanic women. http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/research/Projects/arch-HH-Klin-Yar.aspx
Their descendants speak Ossetic, which is an East Iranian language.
This language was most probably passed down mainly by women, since the Sarmatian and Alanic elite seems to have made a minimal impact on the Y-DNA of the Ossets today. If a rich leader buried there had no sons, his daughters could marry local men, so keeping the local Y-DNA going, but maintaining their own language.


Hello everyone, I am new to this forum and new to the world of archaeogenetics. I find it fascinating and I've read this thread in its entirety.
My first question is regarding the Ossets. I'm a bit confused by what was stated above. I assumed the Ossets were descended from Alans, but in the above quote the "Alanic elite seems to have made a minimal impact on the Y-DNA of the Ossets today." So if the majority of modern Ossets do not have Alanic Y DNA then what Y DNA do they mostly have?

Jean M
06-09-2014, 05:07 PM
I assumed the Ossets were descended from Alans, but in the above quote the "Alanic elite seems to have made a minimal impact on the Y-DNA of the Ossets today." So if the majority of modern Ossets do not have Alanic Y DNA then what Y DNA do they mostly have?

They are descended from Alans, but mainly in the female line. They predominantly have Y-DNA G2a1a, which is local to the Caucasus. Here are the percentages in a sample of 230 Ossets-Iron and 127 Ossets-Digor:

Ossets-Iron 72.6% G2a1a
Ossets-Digor 55.9% G2a1a

See Oleg Balanovsky et al., Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region, Molecular Biology and Evolution, (2011) 28 (10): 2905-2920. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/10/2905 (free).

Hando
06-10-2014, 09:11 AM
They are descended from Alans, but mainly in the female line. They predominantly have Y-DNA G2a1a, which is local to the Caucasus. Here are the percentages in a sample of 230 Ossets-Iron and 127 Ossets-Digor:

Ossets-Iron 72.6% G2a1a
Ossets-Digor 55.9% G2a1a

See Oleg Balanovsky et al., Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region, Molecular Biology and Evolution, (2011) 28 (10): 2905-2920. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/10/2905 (free).

Thanks for that. I was in Georgia several years ago and my Georgian friends served what they called a "traditional meal." It turned out to be the same as Tibetan/Mongolian/Korean dumplings with meat in the inside. What the Tibetans call "momo." I always assumed it was the Mongols or one of their vassal nations which introduced it to the Georgians. Also regarding steak tartare in France, the exact same raw beef dish is a traditional Korean dish. I had it when I worked there. The Mongols occupied Korea. I wonder if there is a connection. Especially since steak tartare includes the word "tartare." It always seemed to me that a nations cuisine was a very good indicator of their identity since food is such an intimate aspect of a culture and peoples very central to their existence.

Jean M
06-10-2014, 02:22 PM
Thanks for that. I was in Georgia several years ago and my Georgian friends served what they called a "traditional meal." It turned out to be the same as Tibetan/Mongolian/Korean dumplings with meat in the inside. What the Tibetans call "momo." I always assumed it was the Mongols or one of their vassal nations which introduced it to the Georgians. Also regarding steak tartare in France, the exact same raw beef dish is a traditional Korean dish. I had it when I worked there. The Mongols occupied Korea. I wonder if there is a connection. Especially since steak tartare includes the word "tartare." It always seemed to me that a nations cuisine was a very good indicator of their identity since food is such an intimate aspect of a culture and peoples very central to their existence.

I have responded over on the ancient and historic food and drink thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?879-Bring-the-past-to-your-table-%28ancient-food-and-drink%29&p=42219&viewfull=1#post42219

Hando
06-10-2014, 06:02 PM
Hi Jean, thanks for the link. I don't want to crowed this thread with irrelevant posts so I'll post food related issues there. Also, I just bought your book Ancestral journeys. It's right up my alley. (A.Indo European origins, and B.whether modern Europeans are descended from Cro Magnon/Paleolithic/Mesolithic Europeans or NE farmers) I noticed a thread you responded regarding B. so I'll start reading.

1)In the meantime, I've always been curious about the Norse myths and possible echoes of Indo European migrations there. It's said the Aesir gods who share similarities with other Indo European gods such as the Greeks and Romans defeated an older race of gods called the Vanir. They also defeated the race of giants just as Zeus and his fellow Indo European gods defeated the Titans.
I wonder if these stories hold kernels of truth regarding the arrival of Indo Europeans into Scandinavia replacing older settlers as the dominant group.

2)Much later in Scandinavian history the Svear tribe buried some of their first Yngling dynasty kings under the "Royal mounds" at Gamle Upsalla around the 5th and 6th centuries AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamla_Uppsala
Although these mounds that are similar to steppe kurgans were from a much later date than the arrival of Indo Europeans, it's interesting to note that the Ynglings apparently migrated to Sweden from the Volga region.

followtherabbit89
08-16-2014, 10:03 AM
Hey, I know I am pretty late on this thread and have not been active for a while now but I was wondering where I should continue with with respect to getting more SNP tests done. So far R1a1a2a- (M198+, M417+, L342+, Z93+, L721+, Z94+, L380-, Z96-, L354-, L657-, L176-, L260-, M157-, M434-, M458-, M56-, M64-, P98-, PK5-)
Can someone help me out here? FTDNA Kit number - 197670

Dr_McNinja
08-16-2014, 10:53 AM
Here's the R1a tree: http://i.imgur.com/IKLXss5.jpg

RCO
08-16-2014, 01:00 PM
A complete R1a tree should include the "R1a-M420 clade, particularly rare basal branches detected primarily within Iran and eastern Turkey".

Generalissimo
08-16-2014, 02:07 PM
A complete R1a tree should include the "R1a-M420 clade, particularly rare basal branches detected primarily within Iran and eastern Turkey".

Why not the rare basal branches detected elsewhere too?

DMXX
08-16-2014, 02:18 PM
I've gotten my hands on some recent Central Asian and Iranian haplotypes (n>1000) from another paper.

R1a*-M420 didn't appear even once. R1a1*-SRY1352.2 came up in a single north Iranian (Gilaki). All sorts of other R parahaplogroups (even R1b*-M343) did, however. This adds more weight to the idea that R1a*'s early zone of origin and development was not in Central Asia, instead somewhere further to the west.

parasar
08-16-2014, 02:25 PM
A complete R1a tree should include the "R1a-M420 clade, particularly rare basal branches detected primarily within Iran and eastern Turkey".

From STRs these hardly look like basal branches but more like a branch with a very recent shared SNP.

Michał
08-16-2014, 02:55 PM
Hey, I know I am pretty late on this thread and have not been active for a while now but I was wondering where I should continue with with respect to getting more SNP tests done. So far R1a1a2a- (M198+, M417+, L342+, Z93+, L721+, Z94+, L380-, Z96-, L354-, L657-, L176-, L260-, M157-, M434-, M458-, M56-, M64-, P98-, PK5-)
Can someone help me out here? FTDNA Kit number - 197670
Why not to use the recommendations offered by the admin team from the R1a1a and Subclades project? Kit 197670 has been placed by them in the following group:
9. ...>Z645>Z93>Z94-y (Z2124 and/or Y40, Big Y needed)

Big Y (or any other NGS-based test) is definitely the best choice, but if you prefer to test some individual SNP markers one by one, I would suggest starting with Z2124, and then follow with Z2125 or Z2122 (if tested positive for Z2124+) or Y40 (if tested negative for Z2124). However, if you are ready to take a more risky approach, you may start with Z2123 (a very large subclade, quite common in South Asia), and then follow with Z2124 (if Z2123-) or some new SNPs under Z2123 (if Z2123+).

RCO
08-16-2014, 03:07 PM
We should be cautious about the STRs and describe the long chains of SNPs. I thought we would have by this time of the year a complete revolution in the detailed description of the basal SNPs and basal branches of the major Eurasian haplogroups but after the NGS articles of Rootsi about the R1a Levites (Dec 2013), Underhill R1a (March 2014) and the decisive Karafet K-M526 (Jun 2014) study we have not seen any new article revealing the unseen baseline diversity and genetic distance expressed in terms of SNPs, specially from the rare basal branches from the core areas (Iran-Eastern Anatolia). The geneticists have the samples from the core areas and they should publish the new phylogenetic trees with the complete basal sequences. In the case of J1 we are discovering the SNPs with the FGC and Big Y results but we need the mentioned rare samples to get the totality of the tree.

BMG
08-23-2014, 12:48 PM
Hey, I know I am pretty late on this thread and have not been active for a while now but I was wondering where I should continue with with respect to getting more SNP tests done. So far R1a1a2a- (M198+, M417+, L342+, Z93+, L721+, Z94+, L380-, Z96-, L354-, L657-, L176-, L260-, M157-, M434-, M458-, M56-, M64-, P98-, PK5-)
Can someone help me out here? FTDNA Kit number - 197670
Since you are negative for L657 i would suggest you to test for Z2123 . Almost 95% of R1a in south asia belongs either to L657 or Z2123 . So chances are you are probably Z2123+ .

Volat
08-23-2014, 04:37 PM
A lot of people in east European countries don't agree with the conclusion of Underhil et al (2014) conclusion on the origins of R1a-M420

alan
08-23-2014, 05:29 PM
I agree. The very basal R1a tends to be swept under the carpet. IMO the fact that both R1a and b seem to have basal branches concentrated in places like Iran needs to be explained. These modern distributions could be misleading of course but the modern distribution of basal R1a and b perhaps need to be looked at collectively rather than as separate issues.


A complete R1a tree should include the "R1a-M420 clade, particularly rare basal branches detected primarily within Iran and eastern Turkey".

vettor
08-23-2014, 06:53 PM
I agree. The very basal R1a tends to be swept under the carpet. IMO the fact that both R1a and b seem to have basal branches concentrated in places like Iran needs to be explained. These modern distributions could be misleading of course but the modern distribution of basal R1a and b perhaps need to be looked at collectively rather than as separate issues.

since Karafet 2014, there has been ~7% of R-M207 found in java, Bali and Borneo.
Then there is an 8000 years wait for R-M173

considering the population was much smaller and then add in the people who have a positive reading of R-M207 and we get a picture of an asiatic marker. throw in R-M173 with positive R-M207 and we see a pattern. Thrown in people who have R-M420 with a positive R-M173 and we get a trail.
Discard anyone who does not have a positive R-M207 and R- M173 as part of their makeup and only then we can track a migrational path to the area where M420 can be placed.

To ignore the asiatic basal markers for R, and also to ignore everything in-between until the basal R1a ( R-M420 ) one only lead one to fantasy conclusions.

parasar
08-26-2014, 12:14 AM
since Karafet 2014, there has been ~7% of R-M207 found in java, Bali and Borneo.
Then there is an 8000 years wait for R-M173

considering the population was much smaller and then add in the people who have a positive reading of R-M207 and we get a picture of an asiatic marker. throw in R-M173 with positive R-M207 and we see a pattern. Thrown in people who have R-M420 with a positive R-M173 and we get a trail.
Discard anyone who does not have a positive R-M207 and R- M173 as part of their makeup and only then we can track a migrational path to the area where M420 can be placed.

To ignore the asiatic basal markers for R, and also to ignore everything in-between until the basal R1a ( R-M420 ) one only lead one to fantasy conclusions.

Plus I would argue that lines such as the Z645-Z93-L657 string are more basal than those M420 samples unless it is proven that those M420 samples are polyphyletic at a very upstream level.

jpz79
06-11-2015, 12:22 PM
"It is also possible to point to the north Iran area as earlier home for R1b before expansion."

Yes, Grungi 2012, showed R1b* present through Western Iran (not to mention other rare forms of R1 clade, in general)


Parasar said,
" Possible, but unlikely.
If you look at the Z93 map it clearly points to the South Siberia region as the place with max Z93*. So we have to assume that the South Siberia Mal'ta/Baikal folk (pre R derivative) moved to Iran where M420 was born and then moved back to Baikal/South Siberia region where Z93 was born.
The young age of M420 tells me that it is just one of the early splits, one of lines that were moving west from the Baikal/NW China region, and has an ancestor about 2000ybp. South Asian Z95, European Z283 and CTS4385 are far older.
Z95 and Z2125 on the other hand do look to have a potential NE Iranian/Afghan region origin. "


Firstly, who's talking about Z93? This is about what is ancesteral R1a-M420. Secondly, as mentioned by another poster, Z93* is not very old in Siberia, and given:

(Underhill) 'five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran'

there is good reason to assume Z93 is also Iranian origin, and z93 is not more significant than later, secondary, expansions, of IE speakers.





Jean M said,

Frankly I doubt it. Once again we have a paper from Underhill and crew based entirely on modern DNA. Once again we have conclusions drawn that make no sense in terms of history or archaeology. Remember the last one, which completely ignored the correlation between R1a-M458 and Slavic languages, because the paper used "evolutionary effective" mutation rates? This time they are ignoring the fact that there has been complete population replacement on the steppe several times over since the Copper Age. The DNA evidence of who lived there in the Copper Age is literally buried.

Yes basal forms of both R1a and R1b are found in Iran. We knew that already. It suggests that the split took place somewhere in the vicinity i.e. not in Mexico or Mississippi or Mali or Manchester or Munich. But that does not mean that R1a spread from Iran. If we look at the archaeology, pressure flaking arrived both south and north of the Caspian. It also moved into Lapland c. 7000 BC. That would explain an element of ANE in Scandinavian hunter-gatherers and possibly the "Old European" R1a.


Doubt it? Theen you are indulging in your own state of self-delusion, because, this study clearly reflects R1a origin in Iran. You say the study makes no sense in terms of history or archeaology? What evidence is there of Kurgan/ANdronovo/BMAC penetration into Iran or India? Nothing. There has always been 3-fold the evidence of outward migration from the Iranian Plateau. As blogger Dienekes Pontikos once said, "one might as well say the Plains Indians" were ancesteral to Iranians.

And you are open to the fact R1a occured 'somewhere in the vicinity' of Iran, but God forbid, it actually came out of Iran.


alan said,
One thing about that map that strikes me is how little R1a is in Iran. I didnt realise how low it was. Iran looks like a good example of how an empire and elites can change language without hugely changing the genetics and can integrate a lot of people to a new idenity.

Given the prescense of it's immediete ancestor in Iran, M17, is probably little more than late expansion of Iranian tribe. Many have suggested Scythian. It is historically documented that the Scyths settled
in India, and Eastern Iran, at one point.



Jean M said:
deduction David. We both know that there is no ancient DNA as yet from Scythians that has been tested for the new SNPs. The deductive process is as follows:

It has already been deduced that Andronovo is the material manifestation of Proto-Indo-Iranian. So we can guess that Z93 will be found in Andronovo.


By what method and means, of what we traditionally consider deduction, did you come to the conclusion that Proto-Indo-Iranian is Andronovan.

Lamberg-Karlovsky have noted, Not a single artifact of Andronovo type has been identified in Iran or in northern India, but there is ample evidence for the presence of Bactrian Margiana materials on the Iranian Plateau and in Baluchistan. It is impossible, however, to trace the continuity of these materials into the 1st millennium and relate them to the known cultures of Iranian-speakersthe Medes or the Achaemenids

Furthermore, a significant section of the archaeologists are now more inclined to see the BMAC culture as begun by farmers in the Near Eastern Neolithic tradition, but infiltrated by Andronovo culture in its late phase.

parasar
06-11-2015, 02:02 PM
...

Firstly, who's talking about Z93? This is about what is ancesteral R1a-M420. Secondly, as mentioned by another poster, Z93* is not very old in Siberia, and given:

(Underhill) 'five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran'

there is good reason to assume Z93 is also Iranian origin, and z93 is not more significant than later, secondary, expansions, of IE speakers.

...

There is nothing like ancestral M420 today. Where ancestral M420 was born, no one knows, but from the time-frame, and evidence from the Baikal, my feeling is it was born somewhere in its vicinity. But if it was born in Persia, that would not surprise either. Only ancient DNA will tell, and what we know present distribution is an unreliable predictor.

About Z93 we may soon know.

Artmar
06-11-2015, 07:53 PM
There is nothing like ancestral M420 today. Where ancestral M420 was born, no one knows, but from the time-frame, and evidence from the Baikal, my feeling is it was born somewhere in its vicinity. But if it was born in Persia, that would not surprise either.
It would've been a surprise, if born in Persia. It wouldn't have been a surprise if found West Siberia/around the Urals. Unless Persia (or its northern/northeastern extent) was full of ANE-rich R1 people(what wouldn't have guranteed anything either) but we don't have genomes of pre-Copper Age inhabitants of what is now Persia, let alone mesolithic ones. What if Persia was, for example, just full of various L or T (and J in the West), that were genetically very different from any Siberians of that days. Because it's likely (though not definitely) the case. aDNA appreciated.


Only ancient DNA will tell, and what we know present distribution is an unreliable predictor.
Right. It has a secondary importance.


About Z93 we may soon know.
We know it already. You are a descendant of invaders from the Northwest. Now it's proven by amounts of aDNA that should suffice (although aDNA from India would be interesting, to see exactly how it changed and shaped over the years). Place for debates is getting smaller and smaller with every thesis like that of Haak or Allentoft, predictions are getting more and more accurate.

Jean M
06-11-2015, 08:27 PM
this study clearly reflects R1a origin in Iran.

This paper was based only on modern DNA. The assumption behind using modern DNA is that people have not moved around much, so a modern population is a good proxy for an ancient one in the same area. This has been proved wrong time and time again by ancient DNA.

Two important ancient DNA papers were published in the current issue of Nature, which build on a previous paper showing Y-DNA R in a Palaeolithic Siberian. The two more recent papers provide the results from a large number of samples. Together they show that R1a and R1b arrived on the European steppe with pottery from Lake Baikal and that both were spread from Yamnaya to descendant cultures Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Afanasievo, Sintashta and Andronovo. One known exception is a type of R1b which spread earlier with the Neolithic. It would not surprise me at all if that spread from Iran. There may well be some scattered R1a unrelated to the main Copper and Bronze Age spread with Indo-European languages. Whether any such entered Iran I couldn't say. What we do know is that almost all Asian R1a today is Z93+, which seems to have expanded in the Copper Age.

We don't know the exact spot on the map where R1a-M420 was born and we will never know. It is not vitally important. Our ancestors at that date had no idea that one day their descendants would have boundaries cutting right across the hunting grounds where they wandered freely. If they had been told that these boundaries were of all consuming importance to their descendants, who desperately wanted to find out exactly where their last son was born so that they could wave flags and rejoice and crow over the people on the other side of this artificial line, they would probably be very glad to live in a saner age. ;)

Generalissimo
06-12-2015, 01:00 AM
As blogger Dienekes Pontikos once said, "one might as well say the Plains Indians" were ancesteral to Iranians.

They weren't, but Sintashta/Andronovo most likely were, and now we're seeing direct evidence of this thanks to ancient genomics.

It's not that bad having these guys as your linguistic and perhaps genetic ancestors. Here's what Allentoft et al. says about them...


From the beginning of 2000 BC, a new class of master artisans known as the Sintashta culture emerged in the Urals, building chariots, breeding and training horses (Fig. 1), and producing sophisticated new weapons. These innovations quickly spread across Europe and into Asia where they appeared to give rise to the Andronovo culture (Fig. 1).

They were awesome, and none of the models that put PIE in Asia work. Not even barely. Iran was certainly not the PIE homeland. Let's just move on.

Agamemnon
06-12-2015, 01:09 AM
[...] and none of the models that put PIE in Asia work. Not even barely. Iran was certainly not the PIE homeland. Let's just move on.

I find it really disconcerting that despite the clear consensus in favour of a Pontic Caspian steppe urheimat produced by centuries of research in Indo-European studies, some are still able to come up with idiosyncratic theories such as these. The PIE urheimat isn't up for debate anymore, there's nothing left to discuss here, as you said let's move on.

Megalophias
06-12-2015, 04:58 AM
I find it really disconcerting that despite the clear consensus in favour of a Pontic Caspian steppe urheimat produced by centuries of research in Indo-European studies, some are still able to come up with idiosyncratic theories such as these. The PIE urheimat isn't up for debate anymore, there's nothing left to discuss here, as you said let's move on.

Uhhhh... I don't think anyone even proposed the steppe urheimat until the late 19th century, and it didn't become popular until Gimbutas published her stuff. And not long after that Renfrew came out with his Neolithic hypothesis; and reputable scholars like Johanna Nichols have continued to propose different theories (leaving aside the innumerable disreputable ones). So I cannot agree with you at all. The steppe hypothesis is leading hypothesis to be sure, but the debate is certainly not over.

Michał
06-12-2015, 07:56 AM
The PIE urheimat isn't up for debate anymore, there's nothing left to discuss here, as you said let's move on.
I can only partially agree with your statement. When the so-called Late PIE is considered, there is no doubt that the NPC steppe urheimat seems to be the most likely (if not "the only possible") scenario now. However, I wouldn't say so about the Archaic PIE (or Proto-Indo-Hittitie) stage, even though the steppe origin of Proto-Indo-Hittite is certainly one of the possibilities.

Also, there seems to be much controversy regarding the exact timing for Late PIE on the steppe. Most people associate it with Yamna, which I personally find relatively unlikely. Instead, I am more inclined towards some earlier steppe cultures, like Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog, with Yamna representing just one of the major sub-branches of Late PIE, and with Dnieper-Donets being one of the major "biological" (but not necessarily linguistic) contributors to the Late PIE-speaking population(s).

Jean M
06-12-2015, 09:23 AM
I don't think anyone even proposed the steppe urheimat until the late 19th century, and it didn't become popular until Gimbutas published her stuff. And not long after that Renfrew came out with his Neolithic hypothesis

Not quite. The steppe homeland thesis was proposed in 1890 by the German linguist Otto Schrader and accepted by V. Gordon Childe, who was a major figure in Anglophone archaeology from the 1920s to the 1950s. Marija Gimbutas developed the idea in the 1950s. Renfrew did not publish his Neolithic theory until 1987. When J. P. Mallory wrote In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989), the steppe homeland thesis was (as he pointed out) the standard one, given in encyclopedias. But he reviewed the various theories from scratch and confirmed that it was the most satisfactory of them. He has been followed by other reviews drawing the same conclusion. The most recent book is Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin W. Lewis, The Indo-European Controversy: Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics (Cambridge University Press 2015) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Indo-European-Controversy-Fallacies-Historical-Linguistics/dp/1107054532/


Over the past decade, a group of prolific and innovative evolutionary biologists has sought to reinvent historical linguistics through the use of phylogenetic and phylogeographical analysis, treating cognates like genes and conceptualizing the spread of languages in terms of the diffusion of viruses. Using these techniques, researchers claim to have located the origin of the Indo-European language family in Neolithic Anatolia, challenging the near-consensus view that it emerged in the grasslands north of the Black Sea thousands of years later. But despite its widespread celebration in the global media, this new approach fails to withstand scrutiny. As languages do not evolve like biological species and do not spread like viruses, the model produces incoherent results, contradicted by the empirical record at every turn. This book asserts that the origin and spread of languages must be examined primarily through the time-tested techniques of linguistic analysis, rather than those of evolutionary biology.

The great majority of linguists never gave any credence to Renfrew's theory, which ignored linguistic evidence. Renfrew's attitude (I've personally heard him say it) was that archaeologists should not be swayed by scholars from another discipline. His theory appealed to many archaeologists, because they thought there could not have been a major migration in the Copper Age. (In fact during the decades of anti-migrationism, many archaeologists refused to believe that there had even been a major migration in the Neolithic! But that was seen as a better bet. They could not deny that it was a period of great change.) What Haak 2015 and Allentoft 2015 prove is that there was a major migration in the Copper Age. So the only supposed support for Renfrew is gone. His theory is dead in the water.

Jean M
06-12-2015, 09:30 AM
When the so-called Late PIE is considered, there is no doubt that the NPC steppe urheimat seems to be the most likely (if not "the only possible") scenario now. However, I wouldn't say so about the Archaic PIE (or Proto-Indo-Hittitie) stage, even though the steppe origin of Proto-Indo-Hittite is certainly one of the possibilities.

You are arguing linguistics with a linguist? :biggrin1: I'm no linguist, but I can tell you that trying to place Archaic PIE anywhere but on the steppe works no better than trying to place later PIE elsewhere. The exact same linguistic reasons apply to PIE at all stages. It is fixed in place by its linguistic contacts.

From the start PIE was in contact with Uralic and had no contact with non-IE Anatolian languages. Instead it had some contact with Semitic, a Copper Age language taking over parts of Mesopotamia at the time. This language contact appears to have filtered via Kartvelian, which would make total sense given the Maikop trade with Mesopotamia.

Poor old Renfrew seems to have retreated to his fall-back position that PIE began in Neolithic Anatolia, was exported to the steppe with farming and then spread from there in the Copper Age. It's dotty. A language does not remain unchanged for thousands of years. The date of PIE is Copper Age, not Neolithic. The Anatolian IE languages shared with other IE languages a word for thill, which implies the use of animal traction for ploughs and/or sledges, which preceded wheeled transport by only a relatively short period. There were no ploughs in the Neolithic.

Jean M
06-12-2015, 09:58 AM
Also, there seems to be much controversy regarding the exact timing for Late PIE on the steppe. Most people associate it with Yamna, which I personally find relatively unlikely. Instead, I am more inclined towards some earlier steppe cultures, like Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog..

What David Anthony calls Early PIE (i.e. the form following Archaic) is associated with Yamna for the logical reason that wagons appear at this period i.e. around 3500 BC. The wheel vocabulary defines Early PIE. David Anthony links the Archaic Indo-European speakers to the Late Khvalynsk (c. 3900 BC) and Repin (c. 4000-3300 BC) cultures of the Don-Volga steppes. Early PIE is the language immediately prior to its break up into daughter languages including Tocharian. Late PIE (c. 3000 BC) precedes the departure of the people who would eventually speak Celtic, Italic etc. See The Horse, the Wheel and Language, p. 57.

alan
06-12-2015, 10:29 AM
Not quite. The steppe homeland thesis was proposed in 1890 by the German linguist Otto Schrader and accepted by V. Gordon Childe, who was a major figure in Anglophone archaeology from the 1920s to the 1950s. Marija Gimbutas developed the idea in the 1950s. Renfrew did not publish his Neolithic theory until 1987. When J. P. Mallory wrote In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989), the steppe homeland thesis was (as he pointed out) the standard one, given in encyclopedias. But he reviewed the various theories from scratch and confirmed that it was the most satisfactory of them. He has been followed by other reviews drawing the same conclusion. The most recent book is Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin W. Lewis, The Indo-European Controversy: Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics (Cambridge University Press 2015) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Indo-European-Controversy-Fallacies-Historical-Linguistics/dp/1107054532/



The great majority of linguists never gave any credence to Renfrew's theory, which ignored linguistic evidence. Renfrew's attitude (I've personally heard him say it) was that archaeologists should not be swayed by scholars from another discipline. His theory appealed to many archaeologists, because they thought there could not have been a major migration in the Copper Age. (In fact during the decades of anti-migrationism, many archaeologists refused to believe that there had even been a major migration in the Neolithic! But that was seen as a better bet. They could not deny that it was a period of great change.) What Haak 20125 and Allentoft 2015 prove is that there was a major migration in the Copper Age. So the only supposed support for Renfrew is gone. His theory is dead in the water.

was thinking Gordon Childe would be reasonably pleased at the way the DNA in panning out. Poor bugger retired to Australia and jumped off a cliff.

Jean M
06-12-2015, 11:06 AM
was thinking Gordon Childe would be reasonably pleased at the way the DNA in panning out.

Ah well. J.P. Mallory, David Anthony, Kristian Kristiansen, Philip L. Kohl, Natalia Shishlina, Elena Kuz'mina and various other Russian archaeologists who backed the steppe homeland hypothesis are still around to enjoy the aDNA results.

Michał
06-12-2015, 12:14 PM
You are arguing linguistics with a linguist? :biggrin1: I'm no linguist, but I can tell you that trying to place Archaic PIE anywhere but on the steppe works no better than trying to place later PIE elsewhere. The exact same linguistic reasons apply to PIE at all stages. It is fixed in place by its linguistic contacts.

From the start PIE was in contact with Uralic
Honestly speaking, I am not aware of any consensus among the linguists regarding the exact dating for these IE-Uralic contacts. To express it more precisely, it is not clear whether there were indeed any contacts between Proto-Uralic and Indo-Hittite (Archaic PIE). It seems much more likely that this was related to either the Early PIE or Late PIE stage, not to mention that many (or even most) of those linguistic contacts seemed to be restricted to the Proto-Indo-Iranian stage, which makes perfect sense when knowing that PU is now commonly dated to 2000 BC only.

Also, we dont really know the exact place of origin for PU, so even if such hypothetical PU-IH contacts were taking place (which is far from being demonstrated), this would not need to mean that the Indo-Hittite-speaking population lived on the NPC steppe in Europe, but rather in an unknown location somewhere in Asia (or wherever PU comes from).



and had no contact with non-IE Anatolian languages. Instead it had some contact with Semitic, a Copper Age language taking over parts of Mesopotamia at the time. This language contact appears to have filtered via Kartvelian, which would make total sense given the Maikop trade with Mesopotamia.
The above scenario poses some conceptual problems, as listed below.

Firstly, Semitic is not attested in Mesopotamia prior to 3000 BC (according to the Summerian sources), so it is hard to believe that any Semitic dialect became a kind of lingua franca in Mesopotamia and significantly influenced the steppe cultures located far north (on the other side of the Caucasian range) as early as 4500-4000 BC (ie. before the Anatolian-Late PIE split took place according to Anthony and most of his followers). BTW, I would like to ask Agamemnon for providing his estimates for the Proto-Semitic dating.

Secondly, the Maykop culture (3600-3000 BC) is far too late to be responsible for mediating the transmission of any Semitic loanwords from Mesopotamia to the hypothetical Indo-Hittite population living on the NPC steppe prior to 4000 BC.

Thirdly, the existence of any Kartvelian-filtered Semitic loans to Archaic PIE (or to Indo-Hittite) does not seem to be supported by the majority of linguists specializing in IE/PIE (but please correct me if Im wrong about it).

Michał
06-12-2015, 12:16 PM
What David Anthony calls Early PIE (i.e. the form following Archaic) is associated with Yamna for the logical reason that wagons appear at this period i.e. around 3500 BC. The wheel vocabulary defines Early PIE.
Actually, the wheeled wagon-related vocabulary in Tocharian is not pointing very strongly to such late separation from the population ancestral to Late PIE. For example, the Tocharian and Anatolian words for "wheel" derive from a different PIE lexeme (*h2werg-) than the corresponding words attested in the languages descending from Late PIE (where the word for wheel is derived from either *kwel- or *Hrots). Also, Tocharian does not share the Late PIE-derived words for wagon, axle and thill, so the only Tocharian word indicating the shared vocabulary for wheeled vehicles is kokale/kukl (chariot), showing analogy to a Greek word for wheel (kklos), which, however, doesn't seem to be enough to claim that Tocharian and Late PIE diverged only after 3500 BC.

Also, this is not a proper thread for discussing the questions related to Indo-Hittites, so I suggest starting a new thread if anyone wants to continue this. BTW, I have already exchanged my views on this particular subject with Agamemnon, but havent found his arguments convincing enough:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3795-Split-The-Yuezhi-Who-Were-They/page4&p=67927#post67927

Jean M
06-12-2015, 01:45 PM
I am not aware of any consensus among the linguists regarding the exact dating for these IE-Uralic contacts. To express it more precisely, it is not clear whether there were indeed any contacts between Proto-Uralic and Indo-Hittite (Archaic PIE). ... Also, we don’t really know the exact place of origin for PU, so even if such hypothetical PU-IH contacts were taking place ... this would not need to mean that the Indo-Hittite-speaking population lived on the NPC steppe in Europe, but rather in an unknown location somewhere in Asia (or wherever PU comes from).

Good point. The dating of the contacts has been much debated. Some linguists have argued for a common ancestor of PU and PIE on the basis of some very basic shared vocabulary, such as the words for 'water' and 'name' and shared pronouns, but others have argued that the said vocabulary is much too similar to have so ancient a root, preferring the "early loan" hypothesis i.e. those basic type words borrowed from PIE into PU. I understand from David Anthony's summary (Anthony 2007) pp. 94-95, that the 'late loan' hypothesis i.e. from Indo-Iranian into PU has been much favoured in the past, but that not one linguist at a conference in Helsinki on the topic in 1999 argued for a strong version of it i.e. all loans at that date. Some of the borrowed vocabulary relates to agriculture, so it makes sense to suppose that it was borrowed later, when the speakers of Uralic languages began to adopt agriculture.

Contact between the predecessors of PIE and PU somewhere in/near the Altai would account for the early loans. An ancestral language to PU was probably spoken somewhere in the Sayan region of south-central Siberia.*

* Hkkinen, J. 2012. Early contacts between Uralic and Yukaghir, in Per Urales ad Orientem Iter polyphonicum multilingue Festskrift tillgnad Juha Janhunen p hans sextiorsdag den 12 februari 2012. (Mmoires de la Socit Finno-Ougrienne 264), T. Hyytiinen, L. Jalava, J. Saarikivi and E. Sandman (eds.), 91–101. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.


The above scenario poses some conceptual problems, as listed below.

Oh dear. Yes you are right that there are problems. I wish I'd realised this before. I was unhappy with David Anthony's suggested solution to the tawros problem. He has it borrowed into PIE from early farmers of the Cris culture, who are far too early to have been speaking Proto-Semitic.

I have no idea how well the Kartvelian-mediated proposal by Johanna Nichols has been received by other linguists. We shall have to await Agamemnon.

Megalophias
06-12-2015, 06:18 PM
Not quite. The steppe homeland thesis was proposed in 1890 by the German linguist Otto Schrader and accepted by V. Gordon Childe, who was a major figure in Anglophone archaeology from the 1920s to the 1950s. Marija Gimbutas developed the idea in the 1950s. Renfrew did not publish his Neolithic theory until 1987. When J. P. Mallory wrote In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989), the steppe homeland thesis was (as he pointed out) the standard one, given in encyclopedias. But he reviewed the various theories from scratch and confirmed that it was the most satisfactory of them. He has been followed by other reviews drawing the same conclusion. The most recent book is Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin W. Lewis, The Indo-European Controversy: Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics (Cambridge University Press 2015) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Indo-European-Controversy-Fallacies-Historical-Linguistics/dp/1107054532/
Childe was a remarkable man. IIRC most of his contemporaries were hung up on Funnelbeaker.

Mallory considered the steppe homeland to be the best of an unsatisfactory lot. :) I share his view.

Agamemnon
06-13-2015, 12:48 AM
Uhhhh... I don't think anyone even proposed the steppe urheimat until the late 19th century, and it didn't become popular until Gimbutas published her stuff. And not long after that Renfrew came out with his Neolithic hypothesis; and reputable scholars like Johanna Nichols have continued to propose different theories (leaving aside the innumerable disreputable ones). So I cannot agree with you at all. The steppe hypothesis is leading hypothesis to be sure, but the debate is certainly not over.

1) I am not saying that the Pontic Caspian steppe urheimat predates the 19th century, I am saying that the current academic consensus in favour of a Pontic Caspian steppe urheimat is the product of centuries of research in IE studies.
2) Renfrew isn't a linguist, and his theory actually contradicts linguistic evidence.
3) I am well-acquainted with Johanna Nichols' work, especially her work on NE Caucasian languages. While much of what she has written is legitimate, she has also produced some pretty unsustainable claims. For instance, she claimed that PNEC (or "Proto-Nakh-Daghestanian" as she calls it) came to the North Caucasus with the earliest farmers from the Fertile Crescent and that "The Nakh-Daghestanian languages are the closest thing we have to a direct continuation of the cultural and linguistic community that gave rise to Western civilization", bold claims indeed. So regardless of what she says or claims, I'm quite sure that the current scholarly consensus (Pontic Caspian steppe as the PIE urheimat) isn't about to change anytime soon.


I can only partially agree with your statement. When the so-called Late PIE is considered, there is no doubt that the NPC steppe urheimat seems to be the most likely (if not "the only possible") scenario now. However, I wouldn't say so about the Archaic PIE (or Proto-Indo-Hittitie) stage, even though the steppe origin of Proto-Indo-Hittite is certainly one of the possibilities.

Also, there seems to be much controversy regarding the exact timing for Late PIE on the steppe. Most people associate it with Yamna, which I personally find relatively unlikely. Instead, I am more inclined towards some earlier steppe cultures, like Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog, with Yamna representing just one of the major sub-branches of Late PIE, and with Dnieper-Donets being one of the major "biological" (but not necessarily linguistic) contributors to the Late PIE-speaking population(s).

Much of the traits IE & Uralic share find even stronger parallels in the Anatolian branch. For instance, take the Proto-Anatolian nominative singular of the second person pronoun *tih₁: The sheer similarity to its Proto-Uralic counterpart *ti compared to its non-Anatolian PIE counterpart *tuh₁ highlights this singular fact.
Taking the above into consideration, I'd say that the Archaic PIE/PIH urheimat has to be in the vicinity of an early Uralic-speaking community, there's no way around this because these aren't innovate traits.

As far as the time frame goes, Archaic PIE is a Chalcolithic language, so it isn't going to predate the mid-fifth millenium BCE (fifth millenium BCE at best, and that's a stretch). Regarding archeological cultures, I'm somewhat agnostic as this isn't my field, all I can say so far is that the last period of Archaic PIE/PIH unity dates back to the Chalcolithic era (mid-fifth millenium BCE in all likeliness) and that this was taking place in the vicinity of an early Uralic-speaking community.


Also, we don’t really know the exact place of origin for PU, so even if such hypothetical PU-IH contacts were taking place (which is far from being demonstrated), this would not need to mean that the Indo-Hittite-speaking population lived on the NPC steppe in Europe, but rather in an unknown location somewhere in Asia (or wherever PU comes from).

Quite so, in a sense if pre-PU was to be found in Central Asia or even eastwards back then one must logically conclude that the Archaic PIE/PIH urheimat wasn't far away either.


Firstly, Semitic is not attested in Mesopotamia prior to 3000 BC (according to the Summerian sources), so it is hard to believe that any Semitic dialect became a kind of “lingua franca” in Mesopotamia and significantly influenced the steppe cultures located far north (on the other side of the Caucasian range) as early as 4500-4000 BC (ie. before the Anatolian-Late PIE split took place according to Anthony and most of his followers).

Indeed, the earliest Semitic evidence at our disposal comes from Proto-Akkadian personal names found in Sumerian administrative texts dating back to the 29th century BCE.


BTW, I would like to ask Agamemnon for providing his estimates for the Proto-Semitic dating.

PS dates back to the 4th millenium BCE (closer to the mid-fourth millenium BCE), but it could be slightly younger than that since the PS terms for "wheel" and "horse" can be reconstructed (contrary to a common assertion, there was no PS word for "camel"). It was broadly contemporary with PIE.


Thirdly, the existence of any Kartvelian-filtered Semitic loans to Archaic PIE (or to Indo-Hittite) does not seem to be supported by the majority of linguists specializing in IE/PIE (but please correct me if I’m wrong about it).

That's where you're wrong, PIE *mdhu (honey), *twros (wild bull) and *septḿ̥ (seven) are generally understood to have been borrowed from Semitic through Kartvelian (IMO these loans traveled northwards at a time when pre-PS was entering its latest stages and had already evolved from biliteral to triliteral consonantal morphology).

Michał
06-13-2015, 02:54 PM
Much of the traits IE & Uralic share find even stronger parallels in the Anatolian branch. For instance, take the Proto-Anatolian nominative singular of the second person pronoun *tih₁: The sheer similarity to its Proto-Uralic counterpart *ti compared to its non-Anatolian PIE counterpart *tuh₁ highlights this singular fact.
This is quite commonly explained as a hypothetical deep common origin of Uralic and Indo-European (probably somewhere close to Central Asia), as reflected in a concept of a larger (and much older) Indo-Uralic superfamily of languages, with Proto-Indo-Uralic possibly dated to a period much older than 4500 BC (and to a location distinct from the European steppe). By contrast, I haven’t seen any well-supported claims that this has anything to do with the much more recent contacts between PIH and PU (or pre-PU, as PU is much younger than PIH) , even when regarding these two ancient dialects as separate languages sharing a distant common ancestry.



Taking the above into consideration, I'd say that the Archaic PIE/PIH urheimat has to be in the vicinity of an early Uralic-speaking community, there's no way around this because these aren't innovate traits.
[...]
Quite so, in a sense if pre-PU was to be found in Central Asia or even eastwards back then one must logically conclude that the Archaic PIE/PIH urheimat wasn't far away either.
As mentioned above, all this could be a result of a common Indo-Uralic origin. If trusting the results of the most recent analysis that was mentioned above by JeanM, Proto-Uralic derives from the Sayan region. Based on this, the most likely homeland of Indo-Uralic seems to be somewhere in a region encompassing East-Central Asia and Altai mountains, which is quite far from the NPC steppe on which the PIH was supposed to be spoken around 45000-4000 BC (according to Anthony). Since there is nothing strongly indicating that PU was spoken anywhere sufficiently close to the NPC steppe before 2500 BC, all this makes any hypothetical contacts between PU and PIH on the North-Eastern edge of the NPC steppe relatively unlikely (especially when not supported by any strong linguistic evidences).

In fact, once we accept the Indo-Uralic theory, we should be more willing to place the Archaic phase of PIE somewhere in Asia, or east from the NPC steppe, which obviously points to Central Asia. Personally, I consider the Western or South-Western part of Central Asia (or the SE Caspian region) to be a reasonable alternative for the NPC homeland of Indo-Hittites, though this would require accepting the earlier dates for PIH than commonly suggested. However, it should be noted that such early dates for PIH (let’s say about 6500-6000 BC) Early PIE ( 5500-4500 BC) and Late PIE (4000-3500 BC) are consistent not only with the age estimates produced by Gray & Atkinson (2003), Nicholls & Gray (2008), Ryder & Nicholls (2011) and Bouckaert et al. (2013), by also with at least some of the most recent analyses by Chang et al. (2015) who strongly support the steppe hypothesis, see fig. 6 in this paper:
http://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/news/ChangEtAlPreprint.pdf



Indeed, the earliest Semitic evidence at our disposal comes from Proto-Akkadian personal names found in Sumerian administrative texts dating back to the 29th century BCE.
[...]
PS dates back to the 4th millenium BCE (closer to the mid-fourth millenium BCE), but it could be slightly younger than that since the PS terms for "wheel" and "horse" can be reconstructed (contrary to a common assertion, there was no PS word for "camel"). It was broadly contemporary with PIE.
PS seems to be roughly contemporary with Late-PIE and maybe with Early-PIE (but only if assuming the existence of non-attested early separated “para-Semitic“ branches, and when additionally accepting the very late chronology suggested by Anthony and Ringe) but hardly with Archaic-PIE (Proto-Indo-Hittite).

Do you know any data suggesting that by 4500-4000 BC Semitic was strong enough (in the Middle East) to linguistically influence very distantly located populations, including not only those in the Armenian Highland and in the Caucasus but also those on the NPC steppe? How come the Semitic language was able to influence the Eurasian steppe populations while not being able to be noticed by the Sumerians?



That's where you're wrong, PIE *mdhu (honey), *twros (wild bull) and *septḿ̥ (seven) are generally understood to have been borrowed from Semitic through Kartvelian
If these are commonly accepted examples of Semitic>Kartvelian>PIE(PIH) loans, why they are not mentioned as such in any respectable summary of PIE linguistics? For example, this is all what the “The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World” by Mallory and Adams writes on this subject:


Lesser claims for borrowing into or out of Proto-Indo-European have been made with reference to Sumerian, Kartvelian and other Caucasian languages.

When discussing the hypothetical Semitic origin of IE numerals, the authors don’t mention Kartvelian at all, while the Semitic/pre-Akkadian origin of those loans into PIE is actually considered intriguing but somehow doubtful:


One might also note that the attested Akkadian form is far too late to have been the model for Proto-Indo-European borrowing, no matter where the Proto-Indo-Europeans may have been located, and the earlier Proto-Semitic form of ‘six’, *šidţ(at), looks even less promising as a model for *ksweks.


Generally, the source is taken to be from pre-Akkadian *sabá-tum (the form used to modify masculine definite nouns) ‘seven’. However, as was the case with ‘six’, the pre-Akkadian form would be too late to serve as a model for the Proto-Indo-European word and the Proto-Semitic *šab’(at) looks considerably less helpful.

In case you know any recent work (on those hypothetical Kartvelian-mediated loans from Semitic) that has not managed to be accepted by the mainstream yet, please give us a link to such publication.

It should also be noted that many of the above-mentioned words correspond to the hypothetical Nostratic roots, so if accepting the Nostratic hypothesis (which is generally considered controversial, to say the least), all such words might be regarded as inherited from a very distant common ancestor. For example, *twros has cognates not only in Semitic and Kartvelian, but also in Altaic and Dravidian.



As far as the time frame goes, Archaic PIE is a Chalcolithic language, so it isn't going to predate the mid-fifth millenium BCE (fifth millenium BCE at best, and that's a stretch).
You have already presented this view when mentioning that Anatolian shares the PIE words for "copper" or "bronze" (h₂yos), "to plough" (h₂erh₃-) and "plough" (h₂rh₃trom), but you haven’t responded to my request regarding the source of this information:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3795-Split-The-Yuezhi-Who-Were-They/page4&p=67934#post67934

Agamemnon
06-13-2015, 06:55 PM
This is quite commonly explained as a hypothetical deep common origin of Uralic and Indo-European (probably somewhere close to Central Asia), as reflected in a concept of a larger (and much older) Indo-Uralic superfamily of languages, with Proto-Indo-Uralic possibly dated to a period much older than 4500 BC (and to a location distinct from the European steppe). By contrast, I havent seen any well-supported claims that this has anything to do with the much more recent contacts between PIH and PU (or pre-PU, as PU is much younger than PIH) , even when regarding these two ancient dialects as separate languages sharing a distant common ancestry.

As mentioned above, all this could be a result of a common Indo-Uralic origin. If trusting the results of the most recent analysis that was mentioned above by JeanM, Proto-Uralic derives from the Sayan region. Based on this, the most likely homeland of Indo-Uralic seems to be somewhere in a region encompassing East-Central Asia and Altai mountains, which is quite far from the NPC steppe on which the PIH was supposed to be spoken around 45000-4000 BC (according to Anthony). Since there is nothing strongly indicating that PU was spoken anywhere sufficiently close to the NPC steppe before 2500 BC, all this makes any hypothetical contacts between PU and PIH on the North-Eastern edge of the NPC steppe relatively unlikely (especially when not supported by any strong linguistic evidences).


While you are right in pointing out that a deep common origin is often invoked, these links don't necessarily imply a genetic relationship. The nature of these claims is reminiscent of those used to support the validity of the "Ural-Altaic" phylum (personal pronouns, suffixing morphology, etc), which is as dead as a dodo nowadays.
Rather, it seems that these traits are due to geographical proximity and linguistic convergence (as opposed to divergence from a common ancestor). I'm sure you know that comparative linguists tend to be either "splitters" or "lumpers", in this case those pushing this whole Indo-Uralic genetic relationship theory belong to the latter group (and, as you might've noticed by now, I belong to the former).
Mind you, I am not claiming that these contacts between PIH and pre-PU took place on the Pontic Caspian steppe, I'm just pointing out that they took place.


In fact, once we accept the Indo-Uralic theory, we should be more willing to place the Archaic phase of PIE somewhere in Asia, or east from the NPC steppe, which obviously points to Central Asia. Personally, I consider the Western or South-Western part of Central Asia (or the SE Caspian region) to be a reasonable alternative for the NPC homeland of Indo-Hittites, though this would require accepting the earlier dates for PIH than commonly suggested. However, it should be noted that such early dates for PIH (lets say about 6500-6000 BC) Early PIE ( 5500-4500 BC) and Late PIE (4000-3500 BC) are consistent not only with the age estimates produced by Gray & Atkinson (2003), Nicholls & Gray (2008), Ryder & Nicholls (2011) and Bouckaert et al. (2013), by also with at least some of the most recent analyses by Chang et al. (2015) who strongly support the steppe hypothesis, see fig. 6 in this paper:
http://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/news/ChangEtAlPreprint.pdf

As I said earlier, the time frame isn't going to predate the fifth millenium BCE, not just because Archaic PIE is a Chalcolithic language but mainly because the kind of time depth we're supposed to deal with here (mid-seventh millenium BCE for Archaic PIE, mid-sixth to mid-fifth millenium BCE for Early PIE and mid-fourth millenium BCE for Late PIE) implies greater divergence than what we actually observe. Either way, I think you got it the other way around: The Indo-Uralic phylum's validity actually means good news for the Pontic Caspian steppe urheimat since it allows us to describe the shared traits between Anatolian and Uralic as retentions, while a model where these traits are the product of areal convergence and prehistorical proximity means PIH/Early PIE has to be in the vicinity of the earliest Uralic (pre-PU) speaking communities.


PS seems to be roughly contemporary with Late-PIE and maybe with Early-PIE (but only if assuming the existence of non-attested early separated para-Semitic branches, and when additionally accepting the very late chronology suggested by Anthony and Ringe) but hardly with Archaic-PIE (Proto-Indo-Hittite).

I agree, PS unity cannot predate the 4th millenium BCE and, if anything, is actually younger than that. Archaic PIE was contemporary with pre-PS in its latest stages (again, back at a time when pre-PS had evolved from a language with biconsonantal morphology to a language with triliteral morphology).


Do you know any data suggesting that by 4500-4000 BC Semitic was strong enough (in the Middle East) to linguistically influence very distantly located populations, including not only those in the Armenian Highland and in the Caucasus but also those on the NPC steppe? How come the Semitic language was able to influence the Eurasian steppe populations while not being able to be noticed by the Sumerians?

IMO there was no such thing as "Semitic" 6500 to 6000 years ago, pre-PS was around and early para-Semitic offshots might've wandered northwards at that time, but this is just an educated guess judging from the nature of the Semitic-like loans in PIE. In fact the Sumerians did notice the expansion of Semitic speakers, the administrative texts I mentionned bear witness to this since they date back to the earliest stage of the language (Archaic Sumerian).



When discussing the hypothetical Semitic origin of IE numerals, the authors dont mention Kartvelian at all, while the Semitic/pre-Akkadian origin of those loans into PIE is actually considered intriguing but somehow doubtful:

I sincerely fail to see how this is doubtful, it seems to me that this approach is due to a certain lack of familiarity with Semitic studies more than anything else (something I've actually noticed by the past while reading Mallory's work). Indeed, the PS prepalatal // merged with /s/ in other languages, an unusual variation /s occurs in some words, like abe/sebe "seven", in Assyrian and b'm/sb'm "seventy" in Neo-Punic so the Semitic nature of this loan is valid until proof of the contrary. Kartvelian is the only valuable contender in this case, since PS and PIE weren't neighbours.



In case you know any recent work (on those hypothetical Kartvelian-mediated loans from Semitic) that has not managed to be accepted by the mainstream yet, please give us a link to such publication.

Even though this isn't my field of expertise, I'll take a look (I expect to find several papers which will differ in scholarly value and soundness of argumentation, that's for a start).


It should also be noted that many of the above-mentioned words correspond to the hypothetical Nostratic roots, so if accepting the Nostratic hypothesis (which is generally considered controversial, to say the least), all such words might be regarded as inherited from a very distant common ancestor. For example, *twros has cognates not only in Semitic and Kartvelian, but also in Altaic and Dravidian.

You're too kind, if you ask me "Nostratic" is a crackpot theory riddled with serious methodological issues relating to the most basic facts of historical linguistics.


You have already presented this view when mentioning that Anatolian shares the PIE words for "copper" or "bronze" (h₂yos), "to plough" (h₂erh₃-) and "plough" (h₂rh₃trom), but you havent responded to my request regarding the source of this information:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3795-Split-The-Yuezhi-Who-Were-They/page4&p=67934#post67934

The Proto-Anatolian word for "plough" is *h₂rsiya and the verb "to plough" is *h₂rs- (I believe this is mentionned in the Oxford intro to PIE IIRC), like Akkadian Hittite uses URUDU/ru for "copper" or "bronze" (Calvert Watkins, The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor) which is hypothesised to be a Proto-Anatolian loan (and in turn a descendant of PIE *h₂yos) into Akkadian since this word has no reliable Semitic etymology. Also, PIE *yugm "yoke" also yields ikan in Hittite.

Michał
06-13-2015, 09:46 PM
The Proto-Anatolian word for "plough" is *h₂rsiya and the verb "to plough" is *h₂rs- (I believe this is mentionned in the Oxford intro to PIE IIRC)
No such reconstructed Proto-Anatolian form is mentioned there. The Hittite word hars-~ harsiya- (to till the soil) is mentioned in the context of "to plough" but its relationship to the reconstructed PIE form is reported as questionable. The Hittite Etymological Dictionary by Jaan Puhvel considers hars- to be most likely derived from Akkadian harau (plant) or harasu (dig a furrow), or from West Semitic hara- (plow).



Akkadian Hittite uses URUDU/ru for "copper" or "bronze" (Calvert Watkins, The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor) which is hypothesised to be a Proto-Anatolian loan (and in turn a descendant of PIE *h₂yos) into Akkadian since this word has no reliable Semitic etymology.
This is not mentioned in any work on PIE (or on Anatolian) I had a chance to survey, so I guess this is not a commonly accepted view. Could you point me to the any book/paper that reports this Akkadian form (URUDU/ru) as securely derived from PIE *h₂yos through a hypothetical Proto-Anatolian intermediate?

parasar
06-14-2015, 03:40 AM
No such reconstructed Proto-Anatolian form is mentioned there. The Hittite word hars-~ harsiya- (to till the soil) is mentioned in the context of "to plough" but its relationship to the reconstructed PIE form is reported as questionable. The Hittite Etymological Dictionary by Jaan Puhvel considers hars- to be most likely derived from Akkadian harau (plant) or harasu (dig a furrow), or from West Semitic hara- (plow).
...

We have the cognate hal/har in IE Indic languages.
https://books.google.com/books?id=-IZEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1203
https://books.google.com/books?id=-IZEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1203&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3shVKzGQapH4yOnDqtIbqliMUqWw&ci=111%2C649%2C420%2C183&edge=0

Agamemnon
06-15-2015, 02:07 AM
No such reconstructed Proto-Anatolian form is mentioned there. The Hittite word hars-~ harsiya- (to till the soil) is mentioned in the context of "to plough" but its relationship to the reconstructed PIE form is reported as questionable.

My bad, Watkins has ḫarra- “crush,” PIE ∗h₂arh₃o- < ∗h₂erh₃o- (cf. Greek ro-tron “plough”) while Kortlandt lists *qorqs- as the pre-Hittite form which yielded hārš-. Logically, the PA term should be reconstructed as *h₂rs- or *h₂ars- (since h₂ is a-colouring).


The Hittite Etymological Dictionary by Jaan Puhvel considers hars- to be most likely derived from Akkadian harašu (plant) or harasu (dig a furrow), or from West Semitic haraš- (plow).

This is impossible for three reasons:
1) There is no "harašu" in Akkadian, since one of the most typical features of Akkadian (and by extension, East Semitic) is the loss and/or elision of glottal and pharyngeal fricatives (which led to vowel colouring), instead we have erāšu (http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/dosearch.php?searchkey=2040&language=id) "plant" and erēšu (http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/dosearch.php?searchkey=100&language=id) "to plough". Furthermore, ḫarāṣu (http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/dosearch.php?searchkey=2422&language=id) "to dig" has nothing to do with the ḥ-r-θ root.
2) Since Hittite preserved some of the laryngeal fricatives, one would expect the ḥ-r-θ root to have yielded something closer to h₂ars- instead of hars-.
3) This particular root (ḥ-r-θ) was rather unproductive in Akkadian, which preferred using the (originally Sumerian) epinnu (http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/dosearch.php?searchkey=2527&language=id) for "plough" and rakābu (http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/dosearch.php?searchkey=4556&language=id) for the verb "to plough". A West Semitic etymology doesn't make much sense either, especially given the nature of the early West Semitic speaking communities.


Again, I can only notice that the lack of familiarity with Semitic studies which is strikingly obvious here, leads some to seek Semitic etymologies for specific terms which show negative correlation with some of the most basic patterns in Semitic morphology to begin with.
Needless to say, an IE etymology is far more convincing than a Semitic one in this case.



This is not mentioned in any work on PIE (or on Anatolian) I had a chance to survey, so I guess this is not a commonly accepted view. Could you point me to the any book/paper that reports this Akkadian form (URUDU/ru) as securely derived from PIE *h₂yos through a hypothetical Proto-Anatolian intermediate?

I was apparently wrong about the root *h₂yos, since it seems that URUDU/ru- is related to PIE *h₁reudh- instead (see here (http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~asahala/asahala_sumerian_and_pie.pdf), though the author mistakenly claims that Akk. erēšu derives from Sumerian uru₄ and is in turn related to PIE ∗h₂erh₁o- it is widely known that Akk. ru- is a loan from PIE).

But that's above the point quite frankly, the sole fact that the Hittite terms relating to ox traction have reliable IE etymologies (hissa- "harness pole, thill" < PIE *h₃ih₁o-; ikan "yoke" < PIE *yugm; turiye- "harness" < PIE *dhwerH) puts Archaic PIE/PIH squarely in the 5th millenium BCE. And we're not even discussing the discrepancies in divergence implied by earlier dates, which IMO is the main reason why the time frame cannot predate the (mid-)fifth millenium BCE.

Ral
06-29-2015, 09:32 PM
I have a question
Have Slavic languages cognate for the PIE word *ekwos (horse). And if they doesnt have - is correct to assert that PIE lang had common word for horse? and similarly for a wagon?

Agamemnon
06-29-2015, 11:12 PM
I have a question
Have Slavic languages cognate for the PIE word *ekwos (horse). And if they doesnt have - is correct to assert that PIE lang had common word for horse? and similarly for a wagon?

Slavic is the sole branch of IE where PIE *h₁ḱwos has failed to produce a descendant, nevertheless it did yield a descendant in Baltic languages so one is compelled to conclude that the loss of this cognate is a specifically Slavic phenomenon. Otherwise, cognates for "horse" are attested in every IE branch out there (Anatolian included), so the only logical explanation is that PIE did have a word for "horse". Now, whether the semantic implication was "domesticated horse" or "wild horse" is unknown (not to say still in debate).
Wagons, carts and chariots are another story altogether. Early PIE speakers (post-Anatolian break up) certainly used carts and wagons, since they have the terminology associated with this field (words for "wheel", "axle", "pole/thill" and the verbal root for "to convey/ride a vehicle" can be reconstructed). The earliest phase of PIE unity ("Archaic PIE" AKA "Proto-Indo-Hittite"), however, did not have the full terminology relating to carts and wagons (only the PIE term for "pole/thill" can reliably be reconstructed going from Anatolian data).

jpz79
07-01-2015, 01:15 PM
This paper was based only on modern DNA. The assumption behind using modern DNA is that people have not moved around much, so a modern population is a good proxy for an ancient one in the same area. This has been proved wrong time and time again by ancient DNA.

Two important ancient DNA papers were published in the current issue of Nature, which build on a previous paper showing Y-DNA R in a Palaeolithic Siberian. The two more recent papers provide the results from a large number of samples. Together they show that R1a and R1b arrived on the European steppe with pottery from Lake Baikal and that both were spread from Yamnaya to descendant cultures Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Afanasievo, Sintashta and Andronovo. One known exception is a type of R1b which spread earlier with the Neolithic. It would not surprise me at all if that spread from Iran. There may well be some scattered R1a unrelated to the main Copper and Bronze Age spread with Indo-European languages. Whether any such entered Iran I couldn't say. What we do know is that almost all Asian R1a today is Z93+, which seems to have expanded in the Copper Age.

We don't know the exact spot on the map where R1a-M420 was born and we will never know. It is not vitally important. Our ancestors at that date had no idea that one day their descendants would have boundaries cutting right across the hunting grounds where they wandered freely. If they had been told that these boundaries were of all consuming importance to their descendants, who desperately wanted to find out exactly where their last son was born so that they could wave flags and rejoice and crow over the people on the other side of this artificial line, they would probably be very glad to live in a saner age. ;)


You understand that your objection can be applied to the distribution of any haplogroup - of course distribution does not suggest origin. But in this case, given the particularly rare and early forms of R1a scattered through Iran, and their absence in the vicinity of the plateau, the simplest hypothesis would be that R1a originated in Iran.

jpz79
07-01-2015, 01:59 PM
They weren't, but Sintashta/Andronovo most likely were, and now we're seeing direct evidence of this thanks to ancient genomics.

It's not that bad having these guys as your linguistic and perhaps genetic ancestors. Here's what Allentoft et al. says about them...

They were awesome, and none of the models that put PIE in Asia work. Not even barely. Iran was certainly not the PIE homeland. Let's just move on.



The Andronovo hypothesis is dead as ever. Not only has there never been material evidence of Andronovo on the Iranian plateau, but BMAC may, in fact, have been inclusive of parts of North-East Iran. Between 2011 and 2013 and Iranian-Italian Team discovered BMAC material dated to as early as 3700 BC, at the site of Chalo. http://www.payvand.com/news/13/nov/1138.html. A significant portion of archaeologist have long seen BMAC to have it's roots in the Neolithic tradition. Indeed, it was Viktor Sarianidi himself who suggested BMAC was just an Iranian culture!


And quite the contrary with respect to PIE. At this point, there is clearly no reason to exclude Iran as a candidate for PIE. As both the earliest, and isolate forms of both R1b (NW Iran, E. Turkey, and Lower Caucauses), and R1a in Eastern Iran (thanks to Underhill 2014), not to mention more recent work on J2 (Grugni et al. 2012) , screams for an Iranian Hypothesis, perhaps to some degree consistent with Gamkrelidze and Ivanov suggested. Your type of persistent denial, in the face of evidence, was common from those who supported the Paelolithic Myth (origin) of Europeans, which died off some time ago.

And it's interesting you feel I must be Iranian. As far as I know I don't have an Iranian gene in me. lol

Agamemnon
07-01-2015, 04:36 PM
And quite the contrary with respect to PIE. At this point, there is clearly no reason to exclude Iran as a candidate for PIE. As both the earliest, and isolate forms of both R1b (NW Iran, E. Turkey, and Lower Caucauses), and R1a in Eastern Iran (thanks to Underhill 2014), not to mention more recent work on J2 (Grugni et al. 2012) , screams for an Iranian Hypothesis, perhaps to some degree consistent with Gamkrelidze and Ivanov suggested. Your type of persistent denial, in the face of evidence, was common from those who supported the Paelolithic Myth (origin) of Europeans, which died off some time ago.

Funny you'd speak of "persistent denial in the face of evidence" since you've offered no such evidence in the first place. You are looking at what is essentially a linguistic issue through the prism of population genetics, none of the points you've raised relate to linguistics. Furthermore, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have produced bold and unsustainable (not to say incorrect) claims which have been thoroughly discarded by most linguists, so there's that.

jpz79
07-01-2015, 05:42 PM
Funny you'd speak of "persistent denial in the face of evidence" since you've offered no such evidence in the first place. You are looking at what is essentially a linguistic issue through the prism of population genetics, none of the points you've raised relate to linguistics. Furthermore, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have produced bold and unsustainable (not to say incorrect) claims which have been thoroughly discarded by most linguists, so there's that.

I disagree. Nearly all of European haplotype ancestors scattered across the Iranian Plateau, Eastern Turkey and the lower Caucauses, is hardly consistent with their being 'no evidence' for an Iranian hypothesis for IEs. Perhaps, you uphold the questionable assumption that IE can be accounted for by a single migration of an ancestral population. And since when does linguistics, which you have conveniently brushed off anyway (the trans-Caucasian hypothesis is alive and well, far from being unanimously 'discarded') , take precedence over population genetics? Genetic, historical, and archaeological evidence combined, with very little ambiguity in interpretation, support an Iranian hypothesis. Your predicament stands.

parasar
07-01-2015, 06:01 PM
You understand that your objection can be applied to the distribution of any haplogroup - of course distribution does not suggest origin. But in this case, given the particularly rare and early forms of R1a scattered through Iran, and their absence in the vicinity of the plateau, the simplest hypothesis would be that R1a originated in Iran.

It is rare that's all. The M420xM417 branch even in Iran should have a shared SNP that has a relatively recent TMRCA.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/full/ejhg201450a.html
M420* 2571
M417* 4900
Z93 assemblage (incl 4 M560 samples) 3066
Z93* 2952
Z95 assemblage (incl 4 M560 samples) 3085
Z95* 4042
Z2125 (incl M434) 2575
Z2125* 2586
M434 1400
M780 3268
M582 1825
Z282 assemblage 2944
Z282* 3153
Z284 2135
M458 2349
M558 2603

Agamemnon
07-01-2015, 06:05 PM
I disagree. Nearly all of European haplotype ancestors scattered across the Iranian Plateau, Eastern Turkey and the lower Caucauses, is hardly consistent with their being 'no evidence' for an Iranian hypothesis for IEs. Perhaps, you uphold the questionable assumption that IE can be accounted for by a single migration of an ancestral population. And since when does linguistics, which you have conveniently brushed off anyway (the trans-Caucasian hypothesis is alive and well, far from being unanimously 'discarded') , take precedence over population genetics? Genetic, historical, and archaeological evidence combined, with very little ambiguity in interpretation, support an Iranian hypothesis. Your predicament stands.

I'm sure you disagree, the problem is that you have provided no linguistic evidence evidence to back up the Iranian hypothesis you speak of. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's "Transcaucasian" hypothesis is as dead as a dodo nowadays, as it fails to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the IE-Uralic links which have been discussed in the preceding posts (you might want to have a look). Moreover, since the IE urheimat debate is an essentially linguistic issue, genomic data is inconsequential and can only hint to the likeliness of a given model (see my posts on this particular issue here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-(Allentoft-et-al-2015)&p=90791#post90791), here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-(Allentoft-et-al-2015)&p=90804&viewfull=1#post90804), here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-(Allentoft-et-al-2015)&p=90822&viewfull=1#post90822) and here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4723-Dissection-of-the-Y-SNP-S116-in-Atlantic-Europe-and-Iberia-Valverde-et-al-2015&p=90561#post90561)). You speak of "Genetic, historical and archeological" evidence which, of course, isn't only incorrect, but quite literally irrelevant since the only kind of evidence which matters here is linguistic evidence.
Long story short: The burden of proof is on you.

jpz79
07-01-2015, 07:20 PM
I'm sure you disagree, the problem is that you have provided no linguistic evidence evidence to back up the Iranian hypothesis you speak of. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's "Transcaucasian" hypothesis is as dead as a dodo nowadays, as it fails to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the IE-Uralic links which have been discussed in the preceding posts (you might want to have a look). Moreover, since the IE urheimat debate is an essentially linguistic issue, genomic data is inconsequential and can only hint to the likeliness of a given model (see my posts on this particular issue here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-(Allentoft-et-al-2015)&p=90791#post90791), here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-(Allentoft-et-al-2015)&p=90804&viewfull=1#post90804), here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-(Allentoft-et-al-2015)&p=90822&viewfull=1#post90822) and here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4723-Dissection-of-the-Y-SNP-S116-in-Atlantic-Europe-and-Iberia-Valverde-et-al-2015&p=90561#post90561)). You speak of "Genetic, historical and archeological" evidence which, of course, isn't only incorrect, but quite literally irrelevant since the only kind of evidence which matters here is linguistic evidence.
Long story short: The burden of proof is on you.


Really? Speaking of linguistics, maybe you should be informed of how many variables can effect the evolution of a populations language. Because a plethora of different factors can account for both linguistic similarities and divergences between populations, linguistic histories cannot be inferred so easily. An example, that I often speak of is the Indo-Iranians, long assumed to be related through a single ancestral population, are actually related to an initial neolithic, J2 bearing population originating in NW Iran, and a later R1a bearing population originating (thanks to Underhill et al, 2014), from the East of the country. A limited reliance on a populations historical languages, would not necessarily allow for such complex, but non-redundant scenarios.

So, of course, it is only prudent to talk about IEs more from a genetic perspective, and especially when the evidence is so strong, as in the case I have presented. But even then, it would be wise to apply archaeology and linguistics to compliment a hypothesis. Left to rely only on linguistics to build a model of history, one would end up with only fantastic assertions such as the notoriously premature, Steepe hypothesis.

My only burden is your relentless and delusional clinging to a corrupt model of history.

Agamemnon
07-01-2015, 08:12 PM
Really? Speaking of linguistics, maybe you should be informed of how many variables can effect the evolution of a populations language. Because a plethora of different factors can account for both linguistic similarities and divergences between populations, linguistic histories cannot be inferred so easily. An example, that I often speak of is the Indo-Iranians, long assumed to be related through a single ancestral population, are actually related to an initial neolithic, J2 bearing population originating in NW Iran, and a later R1a bearing population originating (thanks to Underhill et al, 2014), from the East of the country. A limited reliance on a populations historical languages, would not necessarily allow for such complex, but non-redundant scenarios.

So, of course, it is only prudent to talk about IEs more from a genetic perspective, and especially when the evidence is so strong, as in the case I have presented. But even then, it would be wise to apply archaeology and linguistics to compliment a hypothesis. Left to rely only on linguistics to build a model of history, one would end up with only fantastic assertions such as the notoriously premature, Steepe hypothesis.

My only burden is your relentless and delusional clinging to a corrupt model of history.

Again, you fail to provide linguistic evidence, your approach is thus inherently flawed and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Relying on genomic data in a linguistic debate is a bit like bringing a knife to a gunfight, I'm sure even you can realise this.

Moderator
07-01-2015, 08:26 PM
My only burden is your relentless and delusional clinging to a corrupt model of history.

[MOD] Please be advised that you are in breach of site rule 3.11:


Invectives and posts devoid of substance (e.g. threads or replies consisting solely of inflammatory content or triviality) will be considered junk postings and deleted. Anthrogenica encourages its members to engage in debate with each other, but discussions that degenerate into little more than flaming and inanity will be considered spam (see Rule 3.9).

This is a WARNING. Any further violations of the forum's rules will result in the temporary or permanent revocation of your posting privileges. Thank you for your cooperation.

Generalissimo
07-01-2015, 08:57 PM
The Andronovo hypothesis is dead as ever. Not only has there never been material evidence of Andronovo on the Iranian plateau, but BMAC may, in fact, have been inclusive of parts of North-East Iran. Between 2011 and 2013 and Iranian-Italian Team discovered BMAC material dated to as early as 3700 BC, at the site of Chalo. http://www.payvand.com/news/13/nov/1138.html. A significant portion of archaeologist have long seen BMAC to have it's roots in the Neolithic tradition. Indeed, it was Viktor Sarianidi himself who suggested BMAC was just an Iranian culture!


And quite the contrary with respect to PIE. At this point, there is clearly no reason to exclude Iran as a candidate for PIE. As both the earliest, and isolate forms of both R1b (NW Iran, E. Turkey, and Lower Caucauses), and R1a in Eastern Iran (thanks to Underhill 2014), not to mention more recent work on J2 (Grugni et al. 2012) , screams for an Iranian Hypothesis, perhaps to some degree consistent with Gamkrelidze and Ivanov suggested. Your type of persistent denial, in the face of evidence, was common from those who supported the Paelolithic Myth (origin) of Europeans, which died off some time ago.

And it's interesting you feel I must be Iranian. As far as I know I don't have an Iranian gene in me. lol

R1a doesn't come from Iran. It comes from Eastern Europe.

jpz79
07-01-2015, 09:15 PM
Again, you fail to provide linguistic evidence, your approach is thus inherently flawed and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Relying on genomic data in a linguistic debate is a bit like bringing a knife to a gunfight, I'm sure even you can realise this.

So I'm mistaken in my belief that Antrogenica forum has something to do with anthropology and genetics? And that this is a thread about R1a? I can interpret 'Indo-European origins', as meaning the genetic origin(s) of populations who currently speak, what is classified as an Indo-European language. So my view is not solely based on linguistics, nor should it be. In this case, the evidence from genetics and archaeology, are far more reliable, then any linguistic-based conclusion one can arrive at, given the ambiguity one will face in their interpretation. This isn't to say that genetic evidence cannot be misleading - it certainly can, though this is far less likely in this case, given the sheer strength of the evidence. So I'm not sure why you take so much pride in linguistic analysis. But intuition precedes analysis: More evidence is better than some evidence. Good opinions are based on such evidence and parsimony. Refuting a model of history that is highly consistent with essential genetic and archaeological interpretations, is nothing but linguistic determinism.

jpz79
07-01-2015, 09:18 PM
R1a doesn't come from Iran. It comes from Eastern Europe.

That's a new one (and surely one without a source).

Agamemnon
07-01-2015, 10:08 PM
So I'm mistaken in my belief that Antrogenica forum has something to do with anthropology and genetics? I can interpret 'Indo-European origins', as meaning the genetic origin(s) of populations who currently speak, what is classified as an Indo-European language. So my view is not solely based on linguistics, nor should it be. In this case, the evidence from genetics and archaeology, are far more reliable, then any linguistic-based conclusion one can arrive at, given the ambiguity one will face in their interpretation. This isn't to say that genetic evidence cannot be misleading - it certainly can, though this is far less likely in this case, given the sheer strength of the evidence. So I'm not sure why you take so much pride in linguistic analysis. But intuition precedes analysis: More evidence is better than some evidence. Good opinions are based on such evidence and parsimony. Refuting a model of history that is highly consistent with essential genetic and archaeological interpretations, is nothing but linguistic determinism.

It seems to me you have a hard time understanding what I just said (did you even read the posts I directed you to?). I find your use of the word "belief' quite telling, Anthrogenica is a place for serious debate, if you come up with a particular belief (no matter outlandish it is) you are to provide relevant data backing it. So far, all you've done is claim that the PIE urheimat was in Iran, in order to do so you completely discard linguistic evidence while relying almost entirely on your flawed interpretation of genomic data (such as R1a coming from Iran -a claim which directly contradicts all the ancient genomic data about R1a- or that J2 closely tracks IE dispersals -a claim which died with the recent discovery of J2 samples in Lengyel-).
I take no "pride" in linguistic analysis, I am just stating the obvious here: The PIE urheimat is a linguistic issue, therefore it can only be settled by the appropriate use of linguistic evidence (not genomic data, not archeological data: linguistic evidence). I sincerely fail to see what's so hard to understand about this. As I said, relying on genomic data in a linguistic debate is a bit like bringing a knife to a gunfight, while the knife (in this case, genomic data) can prove useful, it doesn't mean you can come without a gun (linguistic evidence), far from it.
Your "intuition precedes analysis" approach says a lot about your mindset here, you have already decided which hypothesis is correct, you're just hunting for facts at this point.

Personally, I find the fact that some are still able to come up with wild theories about the PIE homeland despite the fact that we have a clear consensus produced by several centuries of research in this field simply bewildering.

Generalissimo
07-01-2015, 10:13 PM
That's a new one (and surely one without a source).

Your sources are outdated. R1a is an Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) marker, and EHG had 0% Near Eastern ancestry.

Jean M
07-01-2015, 10:31 PM
Personally, I find the fact that some are still able to come up with wild theories about the PIE homeland despite the fact that we have a clear consensus produced by several centuries of research in this field simply bewildering.

Maybe it is a curse. You shall explain the steppe homeland theory every week for the rest of your life as a penance for choosing linguistics, rather than a nice, safe job, like alligator-wrestling. :\

Agamemnon
07-01-2015, 10:33 PM
Maybe it is a curse. You shall explain the steppe homeland theory every week for the rest of your life as a penance for choosing linguistics, rather than a nice, safe job, like alligator-wrestling. :\

This is certainly starting to look like that, and the funniest part is that IE isn't even my field of expertise!

vettor
07-02-2015, 07:23 AM
I still find it amazing that of the 461 ydna samples from this 2015 paper

Y-chromosome descent clusters and male differential reproductive success: young lineage expansions dominate Asian pastoral nomadic populations

Patricia Balaresque, Nicolas Poulet,

That R1a has 142 samples compared to R1b of 21 samples ...................that's a 7 to 1 ratio

the area tested was north and east of the Caspian sea.

yxc
07-02-2015, 08:23 PM
R1a doesn't come from Iran. It comes from Eastern Europe.

R1b isnt from Iran either except for the Caspian Coast at LGM. Just because Ashkenaz. J.(whose Neol. roots rather were in south Iberia ) have V88 ?

I can imagine Z2103 from Yamnaya horizon in Thracia played a role in Sumerian and BA Armenia where they and Writing got from Europe through Anatolia . seriously

postneo
07-03-2015, 10:09 PM
The central asian urhemiat hypothesis will forever remain so till there is linguistic evidence. The evidence is far is based on the distribution of modern languages not actual inscriptional evidence such hittite luwian, mittanni etc. In fact apart from he indo-uralic hypothesis if you sample languages in central asia you get altaic and turkic as far as time stretches back. So its a massive exercise of the imagination. I am not not necessarily a non "believer" in a steppe urheniat for PIE .. sure its a possibility ..........but we should recognize it for what it is -- a massive leap of faith.

Ral
07-03-2015, 10:33 PM
Together they show that R1a and R1b arrived on the European steppe with pottery from Lake Baikal and that both were spread from Yamnaya to descendant cultures Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Afanasievo, Sintashta and Andronovo.
But Yamnaya-r1b, Corded Ware- R1a- and both are PIE? There is no migration from yamnaya to corded ware.

Agamemnon
07-03-2015, 10:42 PM
The central asian urhemiat hypothesis will forever remain so till there is linguistic evidence. The evidence is far is based on the distribution of modern languages not actual inscriptional evidence such hittite luwian, mittanni etc. In fact apart from he indo-uralic hypothesis if you sample languages in central asia you get altaic and turkic as far as time stretches back. So its a massive exercise of the imagination. I am not not necessarily a non "believer" in a steppe urheniat for PIE .. sure its a possibility ..........but we should recognize it for what it is -- a massive leap of faith.

What you're saying here isn't exactly clear. I understand you believe that the Pontic Caspian steppe urheimat is a matter of "faith" (you're entitled to your own opinion after all), but what I don't understand here is why you invoke Altaic (which has nothing to do here, since "Altaic" is a genetically-invalid phylum). Care to explain?

postneo
07-08-2015, 07:56 AM
The invalidity of Altaic is irrelevant. The fact is that there is no IE continuity east of the black sea all the way to tajikistan .. a huge chasm. You have to fill in that gap with your imagination. If you traverse the caucasus Armenia iran syria into the indian subcontinent you have better coverage albeit patchy but still there. As for for ancient language samples you again have it from Anatolia syria, Iran etc and again the central asian situation is something that has to be imagined.

Agamemnon
07-08-2015, 11:47 AM
The invalidity of Altaic is irrelevant. The fact is that there is no IE continuity east of the black sea all the way to tajikistan .. a huge chasm. You have to fill in that gap with your imagination. If you traverse the caucasus Armenia iran syria into the indian subcontinent you have better coverage albeit patchy but still there. As for for ancient language samples you again have it from Anatolia syria, Iran etc and again the central asian situation is something that has to be imagined.

Then why did you bring up Altaic? Also, I could just as well argue that there is no IE continuity west of the black sea all the way to the British Isles and Iberia... So again, I fail to see the point you're trying to make here.

parasar
07-08-2015, 03:18 PM
Your sources are outdated. R1a is an Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) marker, and EHG had 0% Near Eastern ancestry.

While I agree with you, just to be clear, the EHG paper itself also says:

Thus, it can be designated as belonging to haplogroup R1a1*(xR1a1a) and it occupied a basal position to the vast majority of modern Eurasian R1a-related Y-chromosomes4, although more basal (R1a-M420*) Y-chromosomes have been detected in Iran and eastern Turkey4. Overall, our detection of haplogroup R1a1 in a northwest Russian hunter-gatherer establishes the early presence of this lineage in eastern Europe, and is consistent with a later migration from eastern Europe into central Europe which contributed such haplogroups to the Corded Ware population.

postneo
07-11-2015, 07:28 AM
I could just as well argue that there is no IE continuity west of the black sea all the way to the British Isles and Iberia... So again, I fail to see the point you're trying to make here.

No you cannot: It is common knowledge and statistical reality that IE languages dominate Europe with small patches of non IE. But they suddenly fall off and become sparse as you go east of ukraine

Then why did you bring up Altaic?
I could bring up xyz the point is that the languages in central asia are non IE today and also for known history.

jeremybattle
09-28-2015, 03:21 PM
I know this post is old, but there are a couple of f posts worth critiquing:

"If you look at the Z93 map it clearly points to the South Siberia region as the place with max Z93*. So we have to assume that the South Siberia Mal'ta/Baikal folk (pre R derivative) moved to Iran where M420 was born and then moved back to Baikal/South Siberia region where Z93 was born."

Diversity, is a stronger indicator of origin. The modern distribution of a haplogroup is not a perfect reflection of it's history. Given that in regions like Central Asia/Siberia, genetic drift is common among the numerous, small founder populations, the idea that Z93 originated there, should only be considered with skepticism. But someone else has already reminded us, that Underhill's paper detected R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) in Iran, so really, there is little reason for such complexity in a Z93 hypothesis. It's likely it was already present in Iran before it's ampflification outside of the region. However, if one wishes to entertain the idea, their is no reason to assume the distribution of Z93 and it's later R1a haplotypes, support anything, but the scattering of Iranian peoples into Central Asia, Europe, India, and back into Iranian plateau (such as Scythians settling into Eastern Iran).





"Again, you fail to provide linguistic evidence, your approach is thus inherently flawed and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Relying on genomic data in a linguistic debate is a bit like bringing a knife to a gunfight, I'm sure even you can realise this."


There is no reason why linguistics and genetics can't compliment each other. In fact, they should compliment each other, as does evidence, in a court of law. A NW Iranian hypothesis, in line with Ivanov (Urmia), is certainly not out of the question. Especially, considering Underhills conclusion of an R1a origin in Iran, and the Grungi study (2012), which found the ultra-rare R1b-M269 in NW Iran, and suggested an R1b origin there. As for Z93, it seems to have grabbed much attention among amateurs, but given the precesnse of it's ancesteral haplotypes in West Asia, and it's distribution through central Asia and Eastern Europe, it is really more consistent with the scattering of Eastern Iranian tribes in the historical period: Scythians, Alans, Bactrians, Saka, Sogdians. Nowadays, the Central Asian hypotheis for Indo-Europeans or Indo-Iranians, is dead as ever, but apparently lives on.

parasar
09-28-2015, 04:25 PM
I know this post is old, but there are a couple of f posts worth critiquing:

"If you look at the Z93 map it clearly points to the South Siberia region as the place with max Z93*. So we have to assume that the South Siberia Mal'ta/Baikal folk (pre R derivative) moved to Iran where M420 was born and then moved back to Baikal/South Siberia region where Z93 was born."

Diversity, is a stronger indicator of origin. The modern distribution of a haplogroup is not a perfect reflection of it's history. Given that in regions like Central Asia/Siberia, genetic drift is common among the numerous, small founder populations, the idea that Z93 originated there, should only be considered with skepticism. But someone else has already reminded us, that Underhill's paper detected R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) in Iran, so really, there is little reason for such complexity in a Z93 hypothesis. It's likely it was already present in Iran before it's ampflification outside of the region. However, if one wishes to entertain the idea, their is no reason to assume the distribution of Z93 and it's later R1a haplotypes, support anything, but the scattering of Iranian peoples into Central Asia, Europe, India, and back into Iranian plateau (such as Scythians settling into Eastern Iran).





"Again, you fail to provide linguistic evidence, your approach is thus inherently flawed and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Relying on genomic data in a linguistic debate is a bit like bringing a knife to a gunfight, I'm sure even you can realise this."


There is no reason why linguistics and genetics can't compliment each other. In fact, they should compliment each other, as does evidence, in a court of law. A NW Iranian hypothesis, in line with Ivanov (Urmia), is certainly not out of the question. Especially, considering Underhills conclusion of an R1a origin in Iran, and the Grungi study (2012), which found the ultra-rare R1b-M269 in NW Iran, and suggested an R1b origin there. As for Z93, it seems to have grabbed much attention among amateurs, but given the precesnse of it's ancesteral haplotypes in West Asia, and it's distribution through central Asia and Eastern Europe, it is really more consistent with the scattering of Eastern Iranian tribes in the historical period: Scythians, Alans, Bactrians, Saka, Sogdians. Nowadays, the Central Asian hypotheis for Indo-Europeans or Indo-Iranians, is dead as ever, but apparently lives on.

What date would you put for the scattering of the these Iranian peoples - Scythians, Alans, Bactrians, Saka, Sogdians - assuming they all were 'Iranian'?

Z93 is present in:
Mongolia: ~ 1400bc
Sintashta: ~ 2300bc
Andronovo: ~ 1400bc

Hardly historical 'Iranians' wouldn't you agree?

chris2000mendel
09-28-2015, 05:24 PM
What date would you put for the scattering of the these Iranian peoples - Scythians, Alans, Bactrians, Saka, Sogdians - assuming they all were 'Iranian'?

Z93 is present in:
Mongolia: ~ 1400bc
Sintashta: ~ 2300bc
Andronovo: ~ 1400bc

Hardly historical 'Iranians' wouldn't you agree?

Though the the dating for R1a, has long been questioned, a proposed estimate of 1400 bc, is actually nicely in line with the widely accepted figure of 1000bc - 600bc for the history of Scythians.

But more importantly, the dating of these haplotypes, does not suggest the time when a population dispersed, but when the haplotype evolved. A considerable amount of genetic information in modern Europeans, is identical to chimpanzees. This does not mean chimps colonized Europe, wouldn't you agree?

Coldmountains
09-28-2015, 05:34 PM
I know this post is old, but there are a couple of f posts worth critiquing:

"If you look at the Z93 map it clearly points to the South Siberia region as the place with max Z93*. So we have to assume that the South Siberia Mal'ta/Baikal folk (pre R derivative) moved to Iran where M420 was born and then moved back to Baikal/South Siberia region where Z93 was born."

Diversity, is a stronger indicator of origin. The modern distribution of a haplogroup is not a perfect reflection of it's history. Given that in regions like Central Asia/Siberia, genetic drift is common among the numerous, small founder populations, the idea that Z93 originated there, should only be considered with skepticism. But someone else has already reminded us, that Underhill's paper detected R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) in Iran, so really, there is little reason for such complexity in a Z93 hypothesis. It's likely it was already present in Iran before it's ampflification outside of the region. However, if one wishes to entertain the idea, their is no reason to assume the distribution of Z93 and it's later R1a haplotypes, support anything, but the scattering of Iranian peoples into Central Asia, Europe, India, and back into Iranian plateau (such as Scythians settling into Eastern Iran).





"Again, you fail to provide linguistic evidence, your approach is thus inherently flawed and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Relying on genomic data in a linguistic debate is a bit like bringing a knife to a gunfight, I'm sure even you can realise this."


There is no reason why linguistics and genetics can't compliment each other. In fact, they should compliment each other, as does evidence, in a court of law. A NW Iranian hypothesis, in line with Ivanov (Urmia), is certainly not out of the question. Especially, considering Underhills conclusion of an R1a origin in Iran, and the Grungi study (2012), which found the ultra-rare R1b-M269 in NW Iran, and suggested an R1b origin there. As for Z93, it seems to have grabbed much attention among amateurs, but given the precesnse of it's ancesteral haplotypes in West Asia, and it's distribution through central Asia and Eastern Europe, it is really more consistent with the scattering of Eastern Iranian tribes in the historical period: Scythians, Alans, Bactrians, Saka, Sogdians. Nowadays, the Central Asian hypotheis for Indo-Europeans or Indo-Iranians, is dead as ever, but apparently lives on.

It is out of question. We should now discuss were exactly in North Eurasia Z93 was born and not this outdated Paleolithic continuity theories. The earliest Z93 was found in Sintashta and Sintashta was just like the rest of Corded Ware folks ironically more western shifted than some earlier Corded Ware people in Germany and much more western shifted than Yamnaya which was earlier in the Transural region. Sintashta was derived from Abashevo and Abashevo was close linked to Corded Ware which was also R1a just like Sintashta. Nevertheless I have not seen yet any evidence for an origin of Z93 or Indo-Iranians in Iran.

parasar
09-28-2015, 05:41 PM
Though the the dating for R1a, has long been questioned, a proposed estimate of 1400 bc, is actually nicely in line with the widely accepted figure of 1000bc - 600bc for the history of Scythians.

But more importantly, the dating of these haplotypes, does not suggest the time when a population dispersed, but when the haplotype evolved. A considerable amount of genetic information in modern Europeans, is identical to chimpanzees. This does not mean chimps colonized Europe, wouldn't you agree?

I did not understand the chimp point you were making with respect to Iranians and Z93 spreading from W. Asia - perhaps you could clarify.

Z93 is dated to just about 5000ybp. http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/
Sintashta Rise386 Z2124, a Z93 derivative is dated 4300ybp.
In the Sintashta time-frame, south of Sintashta from Yamna through Armenia in Haak and Rise samples Z93 is absent.

To me these facts do not support a West Asian origin for Z93 at present.