PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2

J1 DYS388=13
03-26-2014, 01:37 PM
Could a knowledgeable person please compare the FTDNA R1a project categories with those in this paper:
The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a
Peter A Underhill et al.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg201450s1.html?url=/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ejhg201450a.html

Tomasso29
03-26-2014, 02:46 PM
The Bedouins carrying Z282 at that amount is pretty interesting. But I'm going to assume that this is a random ancestor and all 5 samples are from that lineage.

Also it would have been nice to release all the Y-DNA information from the study. I really get irritated when they don't show the other frequencies.

ADW_1981
03-26-2014, 03:04 PM
Could a knowledgeable person please compare the FTDNA R1a project categories with those in this paper:
The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a
Peter A Underhill et al.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg201450s1.html?url=/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ejhg201450a.html

The R1a guys can't really complain after this one. Seems to be more thorough research and more data than anything I have seen for R1b so far.

Tomasso29
03-26-2014, 03:07 PM
The R1a guys can't really complain after this one. Seems to be more thorough research and more data than anything I have seen for R1b so far.

The R1b guys should not be complaining either, it could be worse ;)

J1 DYS388=13
03-26-2014, 03:12 PM
The R1a guys can't really complain after this one. Seems to be more thorough research and more data than anything I have seen for R1b so far.

I'm wondering if they'll say the paper is wrong.

Or maybe it's me misreading a diagram in the paper. That's why I asked for an interpretation.

DMXX
03-26-2014, 03:31 PM
The interpretation seems reasonable enough going through the supplementary. Particularly with respect to their conclusion;



we conclude that the initial episodes of haplogroup R1a diversification likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day Iran.


Note in Supplementary Figure 4 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg201450x4.pdf) that;

a) The upstream paragroups in R1a-M17 (R1a*-M420, R1a1*-SRY10831.2) all cluster fairly close together, and
b) The largely European-specific subclade Z282 (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/1371/) has drifted off (literally and figuratively) in its' own direction westwards

If R1a-M17 had its' origins elsewhere in Eurasia separated from this region by time and space, we'd expect some distance on the PCA between the basal markers (i.e. R1a1*-SRY10831.2 exactly intermediate between R1a*-M420 and some other location). We don't see that.

Instead, the map suggests most of R1a's prehistoric development happened in one core area and Z282 etc. (European), M582 (Ashkenazi-Middle Eastern) and Z2125 (Central Asia) sprouted out at various points in time. Of course, this is what the authors are alluding to.

I've only had time to consult with the first, second and fourth supplementary files properly, but I won't be surprised if the other data supports that scenario. I've been tentatively advocating an origin of R1a somewhere around West Asia (I included the Caucasus) for quite some time based on the parahaplogroup data from various papers. Looks like that perspective has just received some direct support.

J1 DYS388=13
03-26-2014, 03:41 PM
DMXX, when you interpret Figure 2, is Z95 (whatever that is in FTDNA terminology) the root of all those branches?

If so, Z2125 is not downstream of Z93, correct?

DMXX
03-26-2014, 03:50 PM
DMXX, when you interpret Figure 2, is Z95 (whatever that is in FTDNA terminology) the root of all those branches?

If so, Z2125 is not downstream of Z93, correct?

Partially; from examining the diagram it appears at the most basal level you have the root being between Z93* and Z95. I'm a little behind, but I do believe Z95 is an equivalent marker to Z94, which is under Z93 (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/).

Therefore, all of the markers shown in Supplementary Figure 2 have to be downstream of Z93. This agrees with the phylogeny shown above.

palamede
03-26-2014, 04:08 PM
For the table of frequencies per ethnic group I don't find the equivalence in the haplotrees (isogg,yfull,morley) for

M558 I suppose it is Z280
Z95
Z2125
M434
M780
M582
M560

Could you help me ?

RCO
03-26-2014, 04:20 PM
Very interesting paper, they could make the same for the other haplogroups. I think they would find the same geographical root in Eastern Turkey and in Iran also for the development of J1.

Rathna
03-26-2014, 05:45 PM
The origin of R1a between Iran and Turkey is likable, in fact we were waiting for the R1a-M420 haplotypes from Iran and Middle East beyond the known European ones, and the last finding of Haddad like R1a-M420 brought us to Middle East. But of course I should read the paper and exam everything. It seems to me interesting that in the samples tested in Europe the only R1a-M420 has been found in Italy, none in the Isles from where we had so far the most part of the samples.
To Ricardo Costa de Oliveira I'd want to say that I'll believe to his theory when someone shows me some R1b1* from Caucasus which is L388/L389+. Western Europe and above all Italy has.
To DMXX I'd want to say that the peoples with the highest presence of R1a-M420 are Indo-European speaking peoples and we don't know where they lived many thousands of years ago. For that I think that also in this case the aDNA is needed.
The authors says that R1a and R1b separated 25,000 years ago and the most ancient subclades of R1a are not more old than 6,000 years. What did in the meanwhile happen?

parasar
03-26-2014, 06:59 PM
In this paper's data set, 5 Azeris were negative for M417.

One Pakhtoon and one Uzbek from Afghanistan were found to be Z282+.

parasar
03-26-2014, 07:13 PM
...
I've only had time to consult with the first, second and fourth supplementary files properly, but I won't be surprised if the other data supports that scenario. I've been tentatively advocating an origin of R1a somewhere around West Asia (I included the Caucasus) for quite some time based on the parahaplogroup data from various papers. Looks like that perspective has just received some direct support.

Their data-set labelled Caucasus has no M420* though.
Caucasus
Armenians 427
Georgians 67
Abkhazians 162
Ossetians South 21
Ossetians North 134
Adyghe 160
Karachays 69
Abazins 89
Balkars 136
Cherkessians 125
Kabardin 141
Chamalals 27
Bagvalals 28
Andis 49
Tabasarans 43
Kumyks 76
Lezgins 31
Dargins 68
Ingush 105
Avars 42
Nogays 87
Karanogays 77

Plus the M420* look very close, and likely share a young SNP.

17 12 13 17 23 10 13 13 12 10 12 12 15 11 19 15 16 23 12
15 12 13 17 23 10 13 13 12 10 12 12 15 11 19 15 16 23 12
15 12 13 18 23 11 13 13 12 10 12 12 15 11 19 15 17 23 12
15 12 14 18 23 9 13 13 12 10 12 13 15 11 19 15 16 23 12
15 12 13 17 23 11 13 13 13 10 12 12 15 11 19 15 16 23 12
15 12 13 18 23 11 13 14 12 10 12 13 15 11 19 15 16 23 12

DMXX
03-26-2014, 07:21 PM
Their data-set labelled Caucasus has no M420* though.


Indeed, R1a*-M420 hasn't been found in the Caucasus. However, R1a1*-SRY10831.2 has been detected in places such as Armenia since at least 2001 (Weale et al. from memory).

I suppose this supports some sort of gradual south-to-north movement of R1a carriers with the passage of time through prehistory if progressively more downstream parahaplogroups are found from the vicinity of Iran upwards.

Are any confirmed R1a*-M420 around to compare with these STR haplotypes?

alan
03-26-2014, 10:14 PM
An earlier life for R1a around Iran/east Anatolian zone followed by much later expansion elsewhere is very interesting especially when combined with the lack of evidence for it in the early Neolithic of Europe. Certainly the western steppe area might have been penetrated by farmers from both eastern Anatolia and from the Balkans. The evidence for the latter is somewhat clearer.

It is also possible to point to the north Iran area as earlier home for R1b before expansion. Perhaps both R1a and b found some way of expanding with dairy pastoralism from Anatolia about 5500BC. Perhaps then it penetrated both into farming Europe and into the steppes over the next 500-1000 years. The more I have read into the steppe cultures including Sredny Stog, the more I am convinced an important farming element penetrated the steppes at that time. Perhaps it included R1a and b and if we are going down that road, could pre-proto-IE have penetrated too. If R1a and b arrived in Europe by a mid to later Neolithic spread from Anatolia associated with dairy pastoralism, then it is extremely tempting to look again at the IE story. While I dont think there can be any return to the first farmers model, I do not think it is beyond possible that Anatolian type dialects originated in NW Anatolia and spread into Europe while PIE itself may have developed as an offshoot of this, probably among Sredny Stog peoples, before spreading back west.

Generalissimo
03-26-2014, 10:38 PM
Figures and tables...

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg201450ft.html

lgmayka
03-26-2014, 10:50 PM
One Pakhtoon and one Uzbek from Afghanistan were found to be Z282+.
Table S4 appears to lump Z92 in with Z282+. (Notice that so-called Z282+ reaches over 20% in Belarusians--that is clearly Z92.) In other words, the authors apparently did not test for either Z280 or Z92.

Rathna
03-26-2014, 10:50 PM
Are any confirmed R1a*-M420 around to compare with these STR haplotypes?


17 12 13 17 23 10 13 13 12 10 12 12 15 11 19 15 16 23 12
15 12 13 17 23 10 13 13 12 10 12 12 15 11 19 15 16 23 12
15 12 13 18 23 11 13 13 12 10 12 12 15 11 19 15 17 23 12
15 12 14 18 23 9 13 13 12 10 12 13 15 11 19 15 16 23 12
15 12 13 17 23 11 13 13 13 10 12 12 15 11 19 15 16 23 12
15 12 13 18 23 11 13 14 12 10 12 13 15 11 19 15 16 23 12

To these haplotypes we may add:
English
14 12 13 29 24 10 13 13 11 na 12 12 14 11 20 15 18 na 11

Italian
14 12 13 28 24 10 13 13 13 na 12 13 14 na 20 na 18 na na
German
15 12 13 29 23 10 13 14 11 11 12 12 15 12 20 15 15 24 10

I wasn't able to do better.

lgmayka
03-26-2014, 10:53 PM
Are any confirmed R1a*-M420 around to compare with these STR haplotypes?
In the R1a* Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1Asterisk/default.aspx?section=yresults). Multiple families in the British Isles, plus one in Italy and one in Germany.

Rathna
03-26-2014, 11:16 PM
In the R1a* Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1Asterisk/default.aspx?section=yresults). Multiple families in the British Isles, plus one in Italy and one in Germany.

I posted them above.

And this is Haddad's haplotype:
13 23 14 11 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 16 9-9 11 11 26 15 19 31 12-12-15-17 10 11 19-23 15 17 17 17 35-37 12 11
in Underhill's sequence
14 12 13 16 23 11 13 13 12 na 12 12 15 11 19 15 16 na 11
perhaps the paper uses H4 in YHRD format, thus +1, then Haddad: H4= 12
It seems clearly linked to the Iranian haplotype, as Humanist supposed about his origin.

lgmayka
03-26-2014, 11:41 PM
If so, Z2125 is not downstream of Z93, correct?
Z2125 is slightly upstream from Z2123 (http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a1a1b2/). Z2124 splits into Z2122 and Z2125.

alan
03-26-2014, 11:44 PM
Anyone got any detailed thoughts on this?

Rathna
03-26-2014, 11:44 PM
Of course I would have been glad to see the haplotype of the Italian R-M420, but it hasn't been published: only 5 Azeris, 2 Turks and 1 Arab of UAE.

Generalissimo
03-27-2014, 12:41 AM
Am I missing something, or did these bozos really ignore Z280 and L664 in their analysis?

parasar
03-27-2014, 02:01 AM
Of course I would have been glad to see the haplotype of the Italian R-M420, but it hasn't been published: only 5 Azeris, 2 Turks and 1 Arab of UAE.

That Italian is from a different paper, only seven M420* were typed in this one. It appears that that import from Underhill's 2009 paper was not STR tested initially or retested.


Anyone got any detailed thoughts on this?

It appears for a good part to be a combination of Underhill's 2009 paper - http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n4/abs/ejhg2009194a.html - on M420 issue,
and the Ashkenazi paper - http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131217/ncomms3928/full/ncomms3928.html which tested Z2122 and M582.

I'm not sure why are they still talking about M434 (apparently under Z2125) but not testing Z2124 which unifies Z2125/Z2123 and Z2122.
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R/

Essentially the lines that are SNP sequenced, include:
9 P3 14.9x Ashkenazi R1a-M582
10 Burusho001 43.5x Pakistani: Burusho R1a-M560
12 Makrani002 227.8x Pakistan: Makrani R1a-Z2125
13 HGDP00243 3.6x Pakistani: Pashtun R1a-L657
14 Baloch001 194.4x Pakistani: Balochi R1a-L657
15 Cambodia191 7.2x Cambodian R1a-L657

20 20-230 173.7x European R1a-L1029
21 P0 9.1x European R1a-M558

The above with R1b sequences were used to calculate an R1a and R1b divergence time of 25000ybp.
I think they used SNPs to calculate the "coalescence" age of M417 as 5800ybp.

M420 Near/Middle East region total 7 9317 2571
is one the youngest

and after M417, M780 the oldest:

M780 South Asia region total 82 15465 4268


Overall pooled:

Lineage N Td (mut. rate 6.9×10-4); Td (mut. rate 2.5×10-3)

M420* 7 9317 2571
M417* 10 17754 4900
Z93 assemblage (incl 4 M560 samples) 576 11109 3066
Z93* 83 10695 3049 2952
Z95 assemblage (incl 4 M560 samples) 493 11178 3085
Z95* 24 14644 4042
Z2125 (incl M434) 261 9329 2575
Z2125* 251 9368 2586
M434 10 5072 1400
M780 164 11842 3268
M582 40 6612 1825
Z282 assemblage 621 10665 2944
Z282* 85 11424 3153
Z284 37 7736 2135
M458 189 8512 2891 2349
M558 310 9432 2000 2603


"Haplotype R1a-Z93 network of 394 samples associated with paragroups Z93* and Z95* as well as hgs M560, M582, M780 and Z2125 and 19 STR loci specified in Table S3. The R1a-Z93* and R1a-Z95* clusters are circled."
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg201450x2.pdf

Overall the surprise to me was the low frequency of M780 in N. Pakistan.

parasar
03-27-2014, 02:07 AM
Am I missing something, or did these bozos really ignore Z280 and L664 in their analysis?

Both ignored, but for Z280 at least Z282 is there.
L664 - for some reason that is not on the radar at all!

parasar
03-27-2014, 02:31 AM
...
Overall the surprise to me was the low frequency of M780 in N. Pakistan.

aka 21610995 (Y26/M780)
per Michał:


The only known Big Y result for the largest branch of R1a (Z93) is for kit 243297 from clade L657. He was initially classified in our project as a non-clustered member of category 9.C (9.C*). However, ss has already been noted by Semargl in anoother thread, the Big Y results place kit 243297 in a large subclade Y7 of clade Y9 (thus in category 9.C2A* in our project). More specifically, he is a member of a relatively large subclade within Y7 called Y30.

In accordance with his known L657 membership, his "known SNPs" detected in Big Y include, among others, Z93/F992, Z94/F3105 and L657.

His list of high quality "novel variants" includes 138 positions, but after eliminating all SNPs that are either non-reliable (probably false positive) or upstream of Z93, we are left with 23 "novel variants" only. However, this still includes some known SNPs at the Z93 level:

18985344 (Z2479)

at the L657 level:

6810936 (M605)
8439885 (Y27/M634)
17533368 (Y2/M723)
21610995 (Y26/M780)
22479856 (Y13)
22479878 (previously found in our FGC-tested colleague parasar, see: http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=463&start=176)

and downstream of L657:

18083234 (Y30)

Thus, after excluding all above known SNPs, the remaining group includes only 15 novel SNPs (probably downstream of L657, and mostly downstream of Y30). We are still waiting for a permission to reveal these new SNPs on this forum.

http://eng.molgen.org/posting.php?mode=quote&f=77&p=20052

parasar
03-27-2014, 02:37 AM
Dienekes has coverage on his blog:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/03/major-new-article-on-deep-origins-of-y.html
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U25KKODqD8M/UzN-UTI-ImI/AAAAAAAAJiE/rzY2454L22k/s1600/ejhg201450f1.jpg


Key point about the right Z95 portion of the tree.

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.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yo928Hon9Ww/UzN-U-aGWMI/AAAAAAAAJiM/3AE7m5bNwCY/s1600/ejhg201450f3.jpg

Generalissimo
03-27-2014, 02:47 AM
Hehe...they put Z280 above Z282, M458 and Z284 on the phylo tree.

And yeah, they didn't look at L664. So the M417 reported from Holland and Ireland is probably L664.

I'm losing hope in science with every new DNA paper that comes out.

parasar
03-27-2014, 03:16 AM
Hehe...they put Z280 above Z282, M458 and Z284 on the phylo tree.

And yeah, they didn't look at L664. So the M417 reported from Holland and Ireland is probably L664.

I'm losing hope in science with every new DNA paper that comes out.

No doubt, as (except for one who has seven repeats) they are DYS388=10.

Mehrdad
03-27-2014, 03:17 AM
So in the vicinity of modern day Iran, I wonder what the conclusion will be 5 years from today?

parasar
03-27-2014, 03:48 AM
So in the vicinity of modern day Iran, I wonder what the conclusion will be 5 years from today?

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.

Palisto
03-27-2014, 07:03 AM
Possible, but unlikely.
If you look at the Z93 map it clearly points to the South Siberia region as the place with max Z93*.

According to the paper Z93 is not very diverse and old in South Siberia.


Although haplotype diversity is generally very high (H>0.95) in all haplogroups (Supplementary Table 3), lower diversities occur in south Siberian paragroup R1a-Z93* (H=0.921), in Jewish R1a- M582 (H = 0.844) and in Roma R1a-M780 (H = 0.759), consistent with founder effects that are evident in the network patterns for these populations (Supplementary Figure 2).

Rathna
03-27-2014, 08:19 AM
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.

Hi Parasar, it is possible that your reconstruction is right and that it will be confirmed by ancient DNA, but...
1) We did know that there had been a first expansion of R1a to the Indian Sub-Continent more than 10,000 years ago, and a second one more recent probably linked with Indo-European languages. I state beforehand that I interested me much more to R1b than R1a, thus forgive me if I say something wrong.
I posted an analysis about an Indian R1a1a haplotype, an outlier, I calculated old more than 12,000 years also calculated with the usual methods and Mutation Rate. Nobody answered me, neither Anatole Klyosov I have invited to do it both on "Dienekes' Anthropology blog", on Worldfamilies and eng.molgen, but I was treated like a mad, because that haplotype was considered wrong, not believable, anyway not meaningful.
2) The R1a-M420 found massively in Iran and nearby, till Arabia, belong to an unique haplotype, very recent, and presuppose and unique ancestor, and I think that they cannot be considered the witness of a first expansion of R1a from Central Asia happened 25,000 years ago. And we cannot forget the European R1a-M420 which have more variance and ancientness. Of course we don't know where the German haplotype did came from, but the European R1a-M420 would merit to be tested for a Big Y or a Full Y, also to understand which amongst these R1a-M420 (the European and the Iranian one) is the ancestor by SNPs of the subclades.
3) If we look at R1b, we know that R1b1* is present in Western Europe and in the Caucasus or nearby. I have excluded that the Indian ones (Raza and Joshi), being L388/L389-, are the ancestor of the subclades and I am waiting that someone tests the Caucasian ones for these SNPs after many years I am asking for that.
4) I think you should exclude that a similar case there is for R1a-M420 before expecting that your hypothesis is accepted by we all.

alan
03-27-2014, 11:39 AM
Its good for us non-r1a expert folks to see maps though. I knew Z93 was eastern but I had no idea just how eastern. In north-central Eurasia it has very little presence west of the Aral Sea which is pretty surprising when you consider how many waves west into Europe happened from the areas wher its super-concentrated in eastern Khazak, western China, western Mongolia, Altai etc. It has a feeling of disconnect from the rest of R1a - a lot less wave like than I thought. I had got it into my head that R1a was a lot more wave-like than R1b but these maps have made me think that R1a, like R1b, seems to owe a lot to very widely separated bursts of expansion after very thin initial spreading out.


Dienekes has coverage on his blog:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/03/major-new-article-on-deep-origins-of-y.html
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U25KKODqD8M/UzN-UTI-ImI/AAAAAAAAJiE/rzY2454L22k/s1600/ejhg201450f1.jpg


Key point about the right Z95 portion of the tree.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yo928Hon9Ww/UzN-U-aGWMI/AAAAAAAAJiM/3AE7m5bNwCY/s1600/ejhg201450f3.jpg

alan
03-27-2014, 11:56 AM
So does the paper give an age for these early SRY 10831.2 folks around Iran?

alan
03-27-2014, 12:11 PM
In terms of the rest of R1a other than the very early branch in Iran etc, I have to say that the M417 node shared by most European and central Asian R1a being dated to around 3800BC seems reasonable and not far removed from the expected dates. Archaeology would indicate some sort of split in groups ancestral to Afansievo heading east and Yamnaya may have occurred around 3600-3400BC. This ties in well with the existing evidence. It also ties in well with my feeling that the real rise of R1a is connected to Yamnaya and perhaps Afansievo. It ties in well with my feeling that Sredny Stog culture of c. 4500BC was more R1b related, something that fits pretty well the SNP dating of M269*, L23xL51 etc.

alan
03-27-2014, 12:32 PM
It does kind of seem that R1a may have an north Iran concentration of its very early clade rather like R1b does. I assume that like R1b, R1a has a huge gap between these early clades in Iran and the big copper age expansion clades. Anyway, its another interesting link between the two R1 divisions.

It is estimated in this paper that the two R1 lines split back 23000BC but yet somehow have this Iran pattern in common with its early clades. That estimate is pretty close to the one Michal gave for the origin of R1 c. 24000BC if I remember correctly. All of this before the Mal'ta boy was born c. 22000BC too it should be noted. So, the R1 lines may have potentially put some distance between it and the Mal'ta boy during the LGM - its worth noting that the LGM began c. 25000BC. So, there is a lot to chew over.

The one thing I have not been able to find is any archaeological evidence of an LGM flight from south-central Siberia towards Iran. This put me off the idea despite the fact that the DNA has been pointing to Iran for a long time. However, it is possible the evidence is under the Caspian Sea where the shorelines of the LGM lie today.

DMXX
03-27-2014, 12:33 PM
One very important observation from Figure 4 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg201450f4.html#figure-title) is that the Iranian Azeri R1a is closest to the other Iranians (coupled directly with the Kerman samples). There was some speculation on other forums that the Y-DNA R1a found among Iran's Azeri population can be partially/mostly derived from Central Asian Turks. This study seems to negate that premise completely.

I do find it interesting the South Siberia sample sits in the North Caucasian cluster. An early eastern offshoot independent of later developments... Afanasievo/Tocharians, anyone? :)

Jean M
03-27-2014, 12:53 PM
An earlier life for R1a around Iran/east Anatolian zone followed by much later expansion elsewhere is very interesting .... Perhaps both R1a and b found some way of expanding with dairy pastoralism from Anatolia about 5500BC.

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.

Rathna
03-27-2014, 01:04 PM
One very important observation from Figure 4 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg201450f4.html#figure-title) is that the Iranian Azeri R1a is closest to the other Iranians (coupled directly with the Kerman samples). There was some speculation on other forums that the Y-DNA R1a found among Iran's Azeri population can be partially/mostly derived from Central Asian Turks. This study seems to negate that premise completely.

I do find it interesting the South Siberia sample sits in the North Caucasian cluster. An early eastern offshoot independent of later developments... Afanasievo/Tocharians, anyone? :)

The same could be hypothesized for Azeri R1a-M420, i.e. an origin from Tocharians or others come from West, i.e. these R1a-M420 couldn't demonstrate anything, just for their recent origin from one person alone, and the European samples could be more meaningful. The lack of this old subclade in India is meaningful. For that I said that other analyses are needed.

Generalissimo
03-27-2014, 01:57 PM
Word is, those Near Eastern M420 are probably the result of a recent founder effect. Maybe someone can comment on the specifics?

Palisto
03-27-2014, 02:28 PM
So in the vicinity of modern day Iran, I wonder what the conclusion will be 5 years from today?

Same conclusions as before?
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/womb-of-nations-how-west-eurasians-came.html
http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2012/07/genetic-impact-of-biggest-cultural.html

parasar
03-27-2014, 03:03 PM
Hi Parasar, it is possible that your reconstruction is right and that it will be confirmed by ancient DNA, but...
1) We did know that there had been a first expansion of R1a to the Indian Sub-Continent more than 10,000 years ago, and a second one more recent probably linked with Indo-European languages. I state beforehand that I interested me much more to R1b than R1a, thus forgive me if I say something wrong.
I posted an analysis about an Indian R1a1a haplotype, an outlier, I calculated old more than 12,000 years also calculated with the usual methods and Mutation Rate. Nobody answered me, neither Anatole Klyosov I have invited to do it both on "Dienekes' Anthropology blog", on Worldfamilies and eng.molgen, but I was treated like a mad, because that haplotype was considered wrong, not believable, anyway not meaningful.
2) The R1a-M420 found massively in Iran and nearby, till Arabia, belong to an unique haplotype, very recent, and presuppose and unique ancestor, and I think that they cannot be considered the witness of a first expansion of R1a from Central Asia happened 25,000 years ago. And we cannot forget the European R1a-M420 which have more variance and ancientness. Of course we don't know where the German haplotype did came from, but the European R1a-M420 would merit to be tested for a Big Y or a Full Y, also to understand which amongst these R1a-M420 (the European and the Iranian one) is the ancestor by SNPs of the subclades.
3) If we look at R1b, we know that R1b1* is present in Western Europe and in the Caucasus or nearby. I have excluded that the Indian ones (Raza and Joshi), being L388/L389-, are the ancestor of the subclades and I am waiting that someone tests the Caucasian ones for these SNPs after many years I am asking for that.
4) I think you should exclude that a similar case there is for R1a-M420 before expecting that your hypothesis is accepted by we all.


Their map below gives a scenario for the two inputs - Z93 which gave rise to M780 in South Asia, and then Z2125.
The eastern sections of the Subcontinent are lacking in Z2125
India North East 0.0 (Z2125) 26.5 (M780)
Nepal Tharu 0.0 (Z2125) 8.2 (M780)
Nepal Hindu 0.0 (Z2125) 64.0 (M780)
Raza and Joshi L388/L389- rather than being ancestral would be some early divergent lines (much like M420 on the R1a side) that are present in the subcontinent.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yo928Hon9Ww/UzN-U-aGWMI/AAAAAAAAJiM/3AE7m5bNwCY/s1600/ejhg201450f3.jpg


There is one M417* from southern India with quite a unique haplotype:
Last defining Y-chr marker DYS19 D388 DYS389I DYS389b DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS439 DYS461=A7.2 DYS385 a DYS385 b DYS437 DYS438 DYS448 DYS456 DYS458 DYS635 Y GATA H4

M417 15 12 14 17 24 11 11 13 10 10 14 14 14 11 20 17 15 23 12

Mehrdad
03-27-2014, 03:19 PM
R1a found among the Chenchu and other tribals, which sub group do they belong to?

alan
03-27-2014, 03:27 PM
I agree. There are lots of possibilities of explaining R* at Mal'ta but most very upstream R1a and b and being in and around Iran today. I think you were right to look to the Caspian as a potential LGM home for R1 because that is where the oldest clades are located - well the south Caspian anyway. There are also a few scattered very old R1* and R1b people along the countries bordering the southern part of Kazakhstan from near Altai towards Iran which I suppose could be some sort of trail.

My only issue with that has been that I personally have never been able to track down archaeological evidence of that movement from Siberia to the Caspian during the LGM which is why I have looked for alternatives. I reserve judgement because the Caspian was tiny at that time and its shores are under the sea. The late upper palaeolithic/mesolithic microblade spread from around Altai is an intriguing alternative possibility. If it really is some sort of demographic expansion indicator then it would suggest broadly related hunters from Siberia settled Europe from the Urals to a line from the Baltic to Moldova as well as parts of SW Asia c. 10000-7000BC. I am not sure what to make of the implications of that for linguistics etc although perhaps it does explain some deep root commonality which as most convincingly been argued between IE, Uralic, types of Caucasian and Altaic IMO.

I agree too that modern population as a proxy for prehistory is particularly problematic on the steppe. It seems clear that modern populations tell us very little about who lived on the steppe 5-6000 today ago as most of the y clades are too young or descend just one guy living around then. My impression is that most steppe populations struggled to even maintain size in pre-Yamnaya times and extinction of y lines was the norm. I think this would have been especially true for the area east of the Dnieper (and especially east of the Don) where farming was less important and the Khvalynsk people seem to have been glorified fisher-hunters who kept a few domestic animals for status, ritual and burial and as far as I am aware did not grow crops. I tend to think they were influenced by the Sredny Stog trade network which clearly supplied them with Balkans metal and some finished objects too and who had a bigger agricultural aspect to their economy.


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.

Rathna
03-27-2014, 04:06 PM
There is one M417* from southern India with quite a unique haplotype:
Last defining Y-chr marker DYS19 D388 DYS389I DYS389b DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS439 DYS461=A7.2 DYS385 a DYS385 b DYS437 DYS438 DYS448 DYS456 DYS458 DYS635 Y GATA H4

M417 15 12 14 17 24 11 11 13 10 10 14 14 14 11 20 17 15 23 12

The haplotype I examined was this:
DYS19=18
DYS385=14-17
DYS389=15-30
DYS390=28
DYS391=12
DYS392=14
DYS393=13
DYS437=17
DYS439=13
DYS448=22
DYS456=17
DYS458=17
compared with that:
M417 15 12 14 17 24 11 11 13 10 10 14 14 14 11 20 17 15 23 12
M17 18 xx 15 15 28 12 14 13 13 xx 14 17 17 xx 22 17 17 xx xx
Of course I have always thought absurd any calculation based upon the usual methods, without taking into account the Mutation Rate (which I think should be multiplied for at least a 2.5 factor as to the aDNA and the SNPs count) and the fact that many mutations are hidden in their mutating forwards and backwards, anyway these two haplotypes would be at about 10,000 years of distance (MR 0,0022; 25 years for generation).

Jean M
03-27-2014, 04:52 PM
My only issue with that has been that I personally have never been able to track down archaeological evidence of that movement from Siberia to the Caspian during the LGM

Not during the LGM. You found it after the LGM. Afontova Gora was a pressure-flaking site c. 17,000 years ago with people related to Mal'ta boy. Then pressure flaking arrives north of the Caspian about 10,000 years ago. The earliest petroglyphs of boats which would have been used on the Caspian are from 12,000-8,000 BC at Gobustan, Azerbaijan. So people could cross the Caspian at the time pressure flaking arrived. Indeed there are geometric flints at Gobustan, which I'm assuming are the result of pressure flaking.

1654

vettor
03-27-2014, 05:54 PM
Their map below gives a scenario for the two inputs - Z93 which gave rise to M780 in South Asia, and then Z2125.
The eastern sections of the Subcontinent are lacking in Z2125
India North East 0.0 (Z2125) 26.5 (M780)
Nepal Tharu 0.0 (Z2125) 8.2 (M780)
Nepal Hindu 0.0 (Z2125) 64.0 (M780)
Raza and Joshi L388/L389- rather than being ancestral would be some early divergent lines (much like M420 on the R1a side) that are present in the subcontinent.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yo928Hon9Ww/UzN-U-aGWMI/AAAAAAAAJiM/3AE7m5bNwCY/s1600/ejhg201450f3.jpg


There is one M417* from southern India with quite a unique haplotype:
Last defining Y-chr marker DYS19 D388 DYS389I DYS389b DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS439 DYS461=A7.2 DYS385 a DYS385 b DYS437 DYS438 DYS448 DYS456 DYS458 DYS635 Y GATA H4

M417 15 12 14 17 24 11 11 13 10 10 14 14 14 11 20 17 15 23 12


the isobars tells the story of Z93 all

Its origins are north-indian/south pakistan area , it moved firstly westward but then moved northwards later. Its early movement westwards coincides with the lack of populace of this marker in those ancient times.
The closer the isobars the more recent in time is its arrival.

Mehrdad
03-27-2014, 06:16 PM
M780 is most probably from Northern India, however Z93 I doubt has South Asian origins.

Tomasso29
03-27-2014, 06:26 PM
M780 is most probably from Northern India, however Z93 I doubt has South Asian origins.

Based on what I see from this study there's a good possibility that Z93's origin fits anywhere between Central/South/West Asia. I suggested this in another thread and it seems to make sense.

alan
03-27-2014, 06:42 PM
You have more confidence in my theory than I do lol. Seriously I do like that idea as it makes a lot of sense in terms of archaeology and demographics. My only concern is that the most upstream forms of R1b are in places like Iran although I totally agree that modern population studies can be very misleading, especially in areas like the steppe, central Asia etc where nomadism was common. Its not easy to feel huge confidence in much with so few solid ancient DNA points for R predating 3000BC.


Not during the LGM. You found it after the LGM. Afontova Gora was a pressure-flaking site c. 17,000 years ago with people related to Mal'ta boy. Then pressure flaking arrives north of the Caspian about 10,000 years ago. The earliest petroglyphs of boats which would have been used on the Caspian are from 12,000-8,000 BC at Gobustan, Azerbaijan. So people could cross the Caspian at the time pressure flaking arrived. Indeed there are geometric flints at Gobustan, which I'm assuming are the result of pressure flaking.

1654

alan
03-27-2014, 07:07 PM
So, the bulk of European and Asia R1a shares an M417 ancestor around 3800BC give or take some centuries? That doesnt seem very weird to me. Seems not too much different from the sort of picture suggested before. The really ancient R1a clades in Iran etc is also not that huge a surprise as the phenomenon of really upstream clades being around in SW Asia and north Iran had been noted before as a location for upstream R1b.

We must be looking at two very different phases of the R1a story -

1. A pre-farming phase where it spread (among other places?) into the northern fringes of SW Asia but was not involved in the big initial farming expansion into Europe. Perhaps it settled somewhere peripheral to the earliest farming area - somewhere like Caspian Iran, the Caucasus etc.

2. A far later phase where it expanded dramatically west and east from the western steppes in the copper age - probably related to the Afansievo and Yamnaya expansions IMO.

Big mystery is what happened in between?

A very similar situation applies to R1b although this time its copper age take off is somewhat older and the direction is apparently unidirectional, something that fits the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka offshoot off Sredny Stog into the Balkans c. 4200BC.

Jean M
03-27-2014, 07:44 PM
You have more confidence in my theory than I do

Certainly do. I used that image in one of my WDYTYA Live talks. :)


My only concern is that the most upstream forms of R1b are in places like Iran

Why is that a problem? Pressure flaking arrived both north and south of the Caspian.

Palisto
03-27-2014, 07:46 PM
In the supplementary data they show a lot of Indo-Iranians with the last defining Y-chr marker SNP M576. What is M576??? Basically absent in Europe...

Here are all M576


Caucasus Armenian M576 16 12 13 19 25 12 11 14 10 10 11 15 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Hazara M576 16 12 13 17 24 11 11 13 11 10 11 15 14 12 20 15 15 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Pachtoun M576 15 12 14 17 24 10 11 13 10 10 12 14 14 11 20 15 17 24 11
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Pachtoun M576 15 12 14 19 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 9 19 15 15 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Pachtoun M576 15 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 10 11 11 15 14 11 21 15 17 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Pachtoun M576 15 12 14 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 17 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Pachtoun M576 15 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 13 14 9 20 15 16 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Pachtoun M576 15 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 13 14 9 20 15 16 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Pachtoun M576 16 12 14 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 17 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Pachtoun M576 16 12 13 16 25 11 11 13 11 10 11 15 14 11 19 15 15 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 16 12 13 18 24 10 9 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 15 12 14 16 24 11 11 13 10 10 11 15 14 9 20 15 16 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 14 12 13 17 25 10 11 12 10 10 11 14 14 11 21 15 15 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 15 12 12 17 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 18 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 16 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 16 16 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 15 12 13 19 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 15 14 11 20 15 16 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 17 12 12 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 16 12 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 16 12 13 19 25 11 ND 13 11 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 16 12 14 17 24 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 17 24 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 15 ND 14 18 25 10 11 13 11 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 17 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 15 12 13 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 15 12 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 15 14 11 20 15 16 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 15 12 13 18 24 11 11 13 11 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Tajik M576 16 12 13 18 25 9 11 14 11 10 11 14 14 11 19 15 16 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Turkmen M576 15 12 14 17 24 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 14
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Uzbek M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Uzbek M576 16 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 14 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Uzbek M576 15 12 14 18 26 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 14 23 11
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Uzbek M576 15 12 13 19 25 11 11 12 10 10 11 14 ND 11 20 15 16 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Uzbek M576 15 12 14 18 26 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 9 20 15 16 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Uzbek M576 15 13 12 17 25 11 11 13 10 9 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 12
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Uzbek M576 16 12 13 18 24 11 11 13 10 10 12 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Uzbek M576 16 12 13 16 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 17 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Uzbek M576 15 12 14 17 26 10 11 13 10 10 11 15 14 11 20 15 16 24 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Afghanistan, Uzbek M576 15 12 14 18 26 11 11 13 10 10 11 13 14 9 20 15 16 23 13
Central Asia/Southern Siberia Kyrgyz Southern M576 16 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 9 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Near/Middle East Esfahan, Iran M576 16 12 14 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 17 17 23 13
Near/Middle East Golestan, Iran M576 15 12 14 18 25 10 11 13 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East Golestan, Iran M576 16 12 14 17 24 10 11 13 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East Hormozgan, Iran M576 16 12 13 18 24 11 11 13 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East Hormozgan, Iran M576 16 12 13 17 26 10 11 13 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East Iranian M576 15 12 13 18 24 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 17 23 12
Near/Middle East Iranian Azeri M576 16 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 15 14 11 19 16 16 23 13
Near/Middle East Iranian Azeri M576 16 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 10 10 12 14 14 11 20 15 18 23 13
Near/Middle East Iranian Azeri M576 16 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 10 10 12 14 14 11 20 15 18 23 14
Near/Middle East Iranian Azeri M576 15 12 14 16 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 16 16 23 13
Near/Middle East Iranian Azeri M576 16 12 13 17 24 10 11 13 11 10 11 15 14 12 20 15 16 23 12
Near/Middle East Iranian Azeri M576 15 12 13 18 25 10 11 14 10 10 11 15 14 11 20 17 16 23 13
Near/Middle East Khorasan, Iran M576 16 12 14 17 25 9 11 13 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East Khorasan, Iran M576 16 12 13 19 25 11 11 13 11 10 11 16 14 11 20 16 15 23 13
Near/Middle East Kordestan, Iran M576 16 12 13 18 24 11 11 13 10 11 11 15 14 11 20 16 16 ND 12
Near/Middle East Mazandaran, Iran M576 15 12 13 17 25 10 11 12 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East Omani M576 16 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 10 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East Omani M576 16 12 13 18 24 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East Turk M576 17 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East Turk M576 16 12 13 17 23 11 11 13 11 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East United Arab Emirates M576 16 12 13 18 24 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East United Arab Emirates M576 16 12 12 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East United Arab Emirates M576 15 12 13 17 24 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East United Arab Emirates M576 15 12 14 17 22 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Near/Middle East unknown, Iran M576 15 12 14 16 25 10 11 13 10 10 12 14 14 11 20 15 16 25 12
Near/Middle East YAZD M576 16 12 14 19 24 11 11 13 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Roma Croatian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Croatian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Croatian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Croatian Roma M576 15 12 13 19 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Croatian Roma M576 15 12 13 19 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Croatian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Croatian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 15 23 12
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 11 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 12
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 11 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 24 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 24 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 ND 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 11 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 9 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 12
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 12
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 16 16 23 12
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Hungarian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Slovakian Roma M576 15 12 13 19 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Slovakian Roma M576 15 12 13 19 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
Roma Slovakian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 15 23 13
Roma Slovakian Roma M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
South Asia Gujarat, India M576 16 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 11 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 11
South Asia Gujarat, India M576 15 12 14 18 27 10 11 13 11 10 11 15 14 11 20 15 17 23 12
South Asia Gujarat, India M576 17 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 12 14 11 20 18 17 23 13
South Asia Gujarat, India M576 16 12 13 17 25 10 11 13 9 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
South Asia India (I) M576 16 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 12 20 15 16 23 12
South Asia India (I) M576 15 12 12 17 23 10 11 13 10 10 11 15 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
South Asia India (I) M576 15 12 13 19 24 10 11 14 10 10 11 15 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
South Asia India (I) M576 15 12 14 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 16 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
South Asia India (I) M576 15 14 14 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 15 23 13
South Asia India (I) M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 17 14 11 20 15 16 23 14
South Asia India (I) M576 16 12 14 18 24 10 11 13 10 11 11 15 14 11 20 15 17 23 13
South Asia India (I) M576 15 12 14 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
South Asia India (I) M576 16 12 13 18 26 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 15 11 20 15 16 23 13
South Asia India (I) M576 15 12 14 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 13 14 11 20 16 17 23 13
South Asia India (I) M576 15 12 14 18 25 10 11 13 11 10 11 15 14 11 20 15 16 23 14
South Asia India (I) M576 16 12 13 17 24 11 11 13 11 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 17 23 12
South Asia India (I) M576 15 12 13 17 25 10 12 13 10 10 12 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 12
South Asia India (I) M576 16 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 13
South Asia India (I) M576 15 12 13 17 25 10 12 13 10 10 12 14 14 11 20 15 16 23 12
South Asia India (I) M576 16 12 14 17 25 11 11 13 10 10 11 11 14 11 20 15 15 23 12
South Asia India/Andhra Pradesh M576 15 12 14 17 25 10 12 13 10 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/Andhra Pradesh M576 15 12 14 19 23 10 12 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/Andhra Pradesh M576 15 ND 14 19 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/Andhra Pradesh M576 16 13 14 18 ND 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/Hindu/New Delhi M576 16 12 14 17 25 10 11 14 11 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/Hindu/New Delhi M576 15 12 12 17 25 11 11 13 10 9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/Hindu/New Delhi M576 16 12 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/Hindu/New Delhi M576 16 12 14 17 25 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/New Delhi M576 16 12 13 17 25 10 11 12 ND 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/New Delhi M576 16 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/New Delhi M576 15 12 14 18 25 11 12 13 10 9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/New Delhi M576 16 12 14 18 25 12 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/New Delhi M576 14 12 14 17 25 ND 11 13 11 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia India/New Delhi M576 15 12 14 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 16 12 12 18 25 11 11 13 11 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 16 12 13 18 25 11 12 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 14 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 11 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 14 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 14 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 16 12 12 16 ND 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 14 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 11 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 14 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 11 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 15 12 13 19 25 11 11 14 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 14 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 11 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 14 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 11 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 16 12 14 20 25 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 14 12 13 18 25 10 11 13 11 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Hindu M576 16 12 12 17 25 11 11 13 14 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 15 12 14 18 25 10 11 13 10 9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 15 12 14 18 25 10 11 13 10 9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 16 13 13 17 24 10 11 13 12 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 15 13 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 15 13 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 15 13 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 16 12 12 18 25 11 11 13 ND 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 16 12 14 19 25 10 9 13 10 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 16 12 13 16 26 11 11 13 12 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 16 12 13 16 26 11 11 13 12 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 15 13 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 15 13 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 15 12 ND 31 23 10 11 13 10 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Nepal Tharu M576 16 12 13 16 26 11 11 13 12 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 14 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 14 18 24 10 11 12 11 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 14 19 24 10 11 12 11 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 14 18 24 10 11 12 11 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 14 16 25 11 11 13 12 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 14 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 14 18 24 10 11 12 11 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 14 18 25 10 11 13 10 9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 13 12 17 25 11 11 13 11 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 17 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 17 12 13 17 26 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 14 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 17 12 14 18 25 10 12 13 10 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 17 12 13 17 25 10 11 13 12 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 17 12 13 17 24 12 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 17 12 13 18 24 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 14 18 24 10 11 12 11 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan M576 15 12 14 18 24 10 11 12 11 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Punjab, India M576 15 12 15 17 25 10 11 13 10 11 11 14 14 11 20 15 15 23 12
South Asia Punjab, India M576 16 12 13 19 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 19 16 16 23 12
South Asia Punjab, India M576 17 12 14 17 24 10 12 13 10 10 10 15 14 11 19 15 18 23 13
South Asia Punjab, India M576 16 12 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 12 14 14 11 20 15 17 23 13
South Asia Punjab, India M576 15 12 13 17 24 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 15 10 20 15 17 23 13
South Asia Punjab, India M576 15 12 15 17 25 10 11 13 10 11 11 14 14 11 20 15 15 23 12
South Europe Cretan M576 15 12 13 18 25 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Jean M
03-27-2014, 07:53 PM
We must be looking at two very different phases of the R1a story -

1. A pre-farming phase where it spread (among other places?) into the northern fringes of SW Asia but was not involved in the big initial farming expansion into Europe. Perhaps it settled somewhere peripheral to the earliest farming area - somewhere like Caspian Iran, the Caucasus etc.

I'm not looking at any such picture. :) It's pretty plain already from aDNA that R1a spread from the steppe with Afanasievo, Andronovo and Corded Ware. We don't have the Y-DNA from Yamnaya, but the mtDNA from Yamnaya checks out. OK, so we step back from there to the origins of Yamnaya and we get a mix of farmers and hunter-gatherers. We can already deduce that R1a1a was from the hunter-gatherer component at the east end of the steppe that ties in with pressure-flaking, that ties in with Afontava Gora.

There is no mystery at all about the long phase of population stasis. Hunter-gatherers have limited population sizes. Unless they are suddently able to spread out to new territory (as in the Mesolithic) their populations don't expand.

alan
03-27-2014, 11:22 PM
Good to hear it lol. Every so often I try and get more info on the pressure flaking spread but I think I have pretty well stripped the internet of free stuff on it. What I like about the theory is that pressure blade groups really are seen (usually in literature dealing with Siberia) seen as a major demographic expansion caused by a new more flexible and mobile approach to hunting. It appeared to me that effectively it was being linked to the spread of haplogroup Q, possibly from Altai, so it does seem plausible that it could be linked to R too and Afontova Gora if not an R guy was probably Q and autosomally similar enough to Mal'ta who was R. What obscured this for me for so long was that pressure microblade technology and its demographic significance tends to overwhelmingly be discussed in terms of the far east of Eurasia and the spread to America etc.

There is a lot of devil in the detail with pressure microblades - different techniques and I do think that there is a big difference between using pressure to form microblade to use as flexible composite tool kit pieces and the use of pressure to modify and shape large flakes. The significance of the pressure microblades and cores for maximum efficiency for creating flexible took kits for very mobile living to me is the crux of its importance. It also clearly allowed people to expand into more northern environments in Siberia. So, it does seem to be a major demographic phenomenon. I think there is a significant amount of its spread which is a demographic advance athough I dont think this is true in every case. In some cases it may have resulted from obsidian lending itself to that sort of technique. What I havent really got my head around yet is just how much of it is a demographic wave and how much isnt. I am pretty comfortable that the spread in the Mesolithic as far as a line from the Baltic to the east Carpathians was potentially part of a new hunter gatherer wave and could well be R related. I am not sure I really understand its context in SW Asia though as its complicated by early farming there. I need to try and get my head around that zone.


Certainly do. I used that image in one of my WDYTYA Live talks. :)



Why is that a problem? Pressure flaking arrived both north and south of the Caspian.

alan
03-27-2014, 11:47 PM
That is definately a strong possibility. Do you then reckon that the preservation of modest amounts of very early clades of R1a and b in Iran and adjacent is simply a result of their ancestor happening to land off the steppe area 'lineage-death zone' and being preserved while their steppe brothers early lines perished? I have argued that in the past but it wasnt popular and was practically accused of being northern biased :0(.

I would still feel in terms of P25 that the element that headed into SW Asia remained a small P25* group that eventually spawned V88 while other P25 led to P297*. I think there are two big bits of indirect negative evidence that P297 was more northern. Firstly no P297* survives while P25* does (in SW Asia). That suggests to me P297 was in the lineage death zone of the steppes or adjacent areas. Secondly M73, the brother clade of M269, really does not look like it originated in SW Asia. This makes me think that the major branch of R1b, P297, originated in the steppe or nearby rather than SW Asia. So, I would still tend to feel that P297 is a relatively northern lineage and its expansion (or perhaps better described as its survival of the general lineage extinction) may correlate with the contact of farming. Perhaps that is the reason why two P297 clades arise allegedly at similar times but with very different distributions. Perhaps the survival of M73 results from contact with farming coming from the east side of the Caspian around 5-6000BC while the survival of M269 relates to contact with farming around the western edge of the steppe around the Dniester or Dnieper c. 5000BC or so. I am suggesting that this contact led to just enough economic progress for lineage preservation to happen. In between that pincer movement of farming contact there may have been a zone where farming remained very token and therefore lineage preservation didnt happen. I would guess that this fits the archaeology and suggested relatively late lineage take-off of R1a-M417 derived clades and links the late take off to mobile pastoralism.

Certainly even just looking at the microblade groups in eastern Europe there is plenty of room to see both R1a and b there in the Mesolithic. There is the group that headed for the Baltic. There are groups that remained around the Urals etc and there are a number of groups in places like Crimea and west Ukraine. There are probably others I have forgotten posting about because it was a bit of a rush digging them out.


I'm not looking at any such picture. :) It's pretty plain already from aDNA that R1a spread from the steppe with Afanasievo, Andronovo and Corded Ware. We don't have the Y-DNA from Yamnaya, but the mtDNA from Yamnaya checks out. OK, so we step back from there to the origins of Yamnaya and we get a mix of farmers and hunter-gatherers. We can already deduce that R1a1a was from the hunter-gatherer component at the east end of the steppe that ties in with pressure-flaking, that ties in with Afontava Gora.

There is no mystery at all about the long phase of population stasis. Hunter-gatherers have limited population sizes. Unless they are suddently able to spread out to new territory (as in the Mesolithic) their populations don't expand.

AJL
03-27-2014, 11:55 PM
In the supplementary data they show a lot of Indo-Iranians with the last defining Y-chr marker SNP M576. What is M576??? Basically absent in Europe...

The "M"-prefix means Underhill's lab found it.

Until, however, we know its position -- unless I missed something it's not listed in the data table (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg201450x6.txt) -- we won't know if it's equivalent to something like Z2123 or L657 (which it could very well be).

alan
03-28-2014, 12:14 AM
This paper has a nice map showing the Kukrek and Grebeniki pressure microblade groups in the later Mesolithic in and around the Ukraine

http://www.arheolog-ck.ru/Smyntyna_07_Late_Mesolithic.pdf

parasar
03-28-2014, 01:15 AM
The "M"-prefix means Underhill's lab found it.

Until, however, we know its position -- unless I missed something it's not listed in the data table (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg201450x6.txt) -- we won't know if it's equivalent to something like Z2123 or L657 (which it could very well be).

Same level as L657. The sample numbers for M780 and M576 match, eg 31 Roma are both.

parasar
03-28-2014, 02:06 AM
Good to hear it lol. Every so often I try and get more info on the pressure flaking spread but I think I have pretty well stripped the internet of free stuff on it. What I like about the theory is that pressure blade groups really are seen (usually in literature dealing with Siberia) seen as a major demographic expansion caused by a new more flexible and mobile approach to hunting. It appeared to me that effectively it was being linked to the spread of haplogroup Q, possibly from Altai, so it does seem plausible that it could be linked to R too and Afontova Gora if not an R guy was probably Q and autosomally similar enough to Mal'ta who was R. What obscured this for me for so long was that pressure microblade technology and its demographic significance tends to overwhelmingly be discussed in terms of the far east of Eurasia and the spread to America etc.

...


alan,
How would you put the Yana, Mal'ta, and AGII assemblages in terms of the movement and genesis of R and Q (and perhaps P).


In eastern Siberia before 11,000 BP, there appear to have been two distinct lithic traditions,
one dominated by microblades (Dyuktai) and one without microblades (Mal'ta-Afontova).
Clovis may have been a descendant of the latter people, who crossed Beringia
in pursuit of big game between 20,000 and 15,000 years ago when steppe-tundra united
the two northern continents.

http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/Susitna/23/APA2305.pdf

Wikipedia:
The use of flint flaking and the absence of pressure flaking used in the manufacture of tools, as well as the continued use of earlier forms of tools seem to confirm the fact that the site belongs to the early Upper Paleolithic. Yet, it lacks typical skreblos (large side scrapers,) that are common in other Siberian Paleolithic sites. Additionally, other common characteristics such as pebble cores, wedge-shaped cores, burins, and composite tools have never been found. The lack of these features, combined with an art style found in only one other nearby site, make Mal'ta culture unique in Siberia.



At Afontova Gora II were bifaces, side scrapers, end scrapers, flaked points, notches, backed blades, burins, borers, retouched flakes, and blades. Bone points, polishers, awls, needles, ivory spheres, and antler shafts were also found. Kokorevo II had mammoth remains, with borers, end scrappers, flake points, wedge-shaped cores, plano-convex biface scrappers, and other bone tools. Both sites had grooved bone points characteristic of microblade cultures, though no microblades were found. Mal'ta and Buret I on the upper Angara River contained evidence of structures, cache pits, a grave with red ocher and ivory, as well as flaked tools and blades. Beveled bone projectile points were found here, along with art objects. No microblades, edge-shaped cores nor slotted bone points were found at either site. Since Mal'ta, Buret I, and Tomsk are lacking both microblades and wedge-shaped cores, it makes them a possible pre-Clovis candidate. Interestingly, the use of red ocher is found at Mal'ta and at the Clovis grave site of Anzick, Montana (Haynes 1982).

A Look at the Evidence Supporting a Late Pleistocene Migration to the New World from Europe Michael A. Arbuthnot



Bones on the floodplain (and thus in secondary context) have been direct-dated between 25,800 and 27,600 RCYBP. They include a partly burnt piece of mammoth ivory, Pleistocene lion and brown bear bones, and horse bones with butchering and/or cooking marks. One rhinoceros horn and two mammoth ivory atlatl foreshafts were also recovered from the beach deposits. The rhinoceros horn foreshaft was direct-dated using AMS at 28,250 +/- 170 RCYBP.
Stone artifacts from Yana RHS include core tools, bifacially-flaked pebbles, choppers, side and angle-scrapers, end scrapers, and a hammerstone. Raw material for these tools is local flinty slate and granite and non-local quartz. Red ochre, bone fragments, and additional flakes were recovered from the excavations.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/yterms/qt/yana_rhs.htm


the foreshaft first found in Yana bears a striking resemblance to others used by the Clovis people, believed by many archeologists to be the first humans in North America.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0114_040114_siberianhumans_2.html

alan
03-28-2014, 02:23 PM
Well Mal'ta is an R*/R3 south central Siberian hunter of the early LGM with a macroblade middle upper palaeolithic technology (not Gravettian as some keep stating) while AG2 is an early post-LGM hunter using a late upper palaeolithic microblade technology. They lived in the same sort of area but separated by c. 10000 years of the LGM. I presume from the autosomal that there was some kind of continuity genetically between the two and therefore the group had survived the LGM in refugia nearby - probably towards Altai before re-expanding in post-LGM times with microblade technology.

There is also strong evidence that microblade groups were the first into the Americas and they were Q. The closest Q clades to the Americas have been found in south Altai and Altai is also one of the earliest areas of microblade technology as well as a known LGM reguge. So, I would tend to think there was a mix of R and Q and maybe P in the south-central Siberia area during the LGM.

The question that is not totally answered is where did R1 originate and what were its movements. R1 seems to have already existed when the Mal'ta R*/r3 boy lived. His line died out. There is a good case for Q overwintering the LGM in Altai IMO. As for R1, the archaeological evidence does not show any suggestion of south central Siberian moving into eastern Europe or SW Asia during the LGM even though modern DNA might have suggested this given the oldest R1a and b clades seem to survive around Iran. The microblade tradition after the LGM is the first reasonable signal of movements from Siberia towards Europe.

So you could say the archaeological evidence suggests a post-LGM movement west into eastern Europe and parts of SW Asia but the modern genetics suggest that older clades survive around Iran. It is fascinating and IMO significant that both R1a and b show the same pattern of the earliest clades around Iran. As has been discussed many times, this may be an illusion caused by the norm of lineage extinction on the steppe prior to 5000-3500BC while lineage survival may have been established much earlier in Iran where farming was within at least parts of the country at a very early date.

Obviously we need some more ancient DNA for R1 clades as there is nothing between Mal'ta C. 22000BC and much later R1b and R1a after 3000BC - a nearly 20000 year gap. I think pushing further interpretation is speculative.



alan,
How would you put the Yana, Mal'ta, and AGII assemblages in terms of the movement and genesis of R and Q (and perhaps P).


http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/Susitna/23/APA2305.pdf

Wikipedia:


A Look at the Evidence Supporting a Late Pleistocene Migration to the New World from Europe Michael A. Arbuthnot


http://archaeology.about.com/od/yterms/qt/yana_rhs.htm


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0114_040114_siberianhumans_2.html

alan
03-28-2014, 03:20 PM
I didnt answer your question on Yana. I cant say I know much about it but generally when their are odd very early dates it often transpires later that there is some explanation - for example low collagen effecting the dates or re-use of very old bone preserved in arctic conditions or perhaps simply a much older bone mixed up with much later human modified bones. The reuse of bones, tusks etc must be a major concern when dating archaeological sites in arctic/permafrost conditions. When they say 'if the dates hold up' presumably they realise that other dates would need to be obtained to make a stronger case. Exceptional dates need exceptional confirmation and cross checking.

As far as I am aware, the most widely held view is that the first settlers brought microblades and that some of their descendants developed the very different Clovis implements. There are many parallels for a change from microblades to macroblades all over Europe so it doesnt require a population change. However, there are other opinions and I cannot claim to be well read or bang up to date on this debate.

One thing I will say is that as far as I am aware the latest dates for the non-microlithic Siberian culture is from Mal'ta c. 22000BC and that is a lot earlier than any Clovis remains. Also, as far as I am aware the Mal'ta type tools are nothing like the bifaces like Clovis. In old literature you will see Mal'ta and Afontova Gora cultures being dated to similar periods and talked about together but they are now known to e nothing like each other technologically and date to before/start of the LGM and post-LGM respectively with c. 10000 years of an age difference.

My advice is to avoid pre-millenium papers and books on this subject as ideas and dating evidence has really moved on in the last 15 years.



alan,
How would you put the Yana, Mal'ta, and AGII assemblages in terms of the movement and genesis of R and Q (and perhaps P).


http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/Susitna/23/APA2305.pdf

Wikipedia:


A Look at the Evidence Supporting a Late Pleistocene Migration to the New World from Europe Michael A. Arbuthnot


http://archaeology.about.com/od/yterms/qt/yana_rhs.htm


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0114_040114_siberianhumans_2.html

alan
03-28-2014, 03:42 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.

alan
03-28-2014, 04:17 PM
Here is a very new paper that touches on the pressure microblade spread west - in this case as far as Norway. Its just an abstract though

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104061821400113X


and another paper discussing the spread of microblades into Finland from Russia

http://www.academia.edu/982797/First_evidence_of_eastern_Preboreal_pioneers_in_ar ctic_Finland_and_Norway

vettor
03-28-2014, 07:55 PM
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.

recently in the ftdna Y test , some R1a-L664 have been found and noted to be from the low countries/kentish area with a sub group in norway. We also know definitely that R1a-L664 is far much older than R1a-M458 "ukrainian/crimea" area .
With this information, clearly R1a must have moved through the Balkans to NW Europe before traveling/migrating via the steppes ............is this logical.

AJL
03-28-2014, 08:47 PM
^ Seems very logical to me. We also have traces of E-V13 in Britain that might have been part of the same movement.

Jean M
03-28-2014, 09:03 PM
recently in the ftdna Y test , some R1a-L664 have been found and noted to be from the low countries/kentish area with a sub group in norway. We also know definitely that R1a-L664 is far much older than R1a-M458 "ukrainian/crimea" area .
With this information, clearly R1a must have moved through the Balkans to NW Europe before traveling/migrating via the steppes ............is this logical.

I'm afraid not. We have to understand that the people now living in Ukraine are not the genetic representatives of the people who lived there in the Copper Age. This is the big problem with using just modern DNA.

R1a-M458 is pretty clearly Slavic i.e. it spread with Slavs c. AD 500 from the Middle Dnieper in pretty much all directions, including south onto the steppe. (They got evicted by Avars, but returned later.) The current population of Ukraine is Slavic. This was not the case in the Copper Age. The Yamnaya culture of the steppe c. 3500 BC, whom we suppose was the material manifestation of Proto-Indo-European, was most likely carrying a mixture of M417 and Z648. I cannot be certain (and neither can anyone else) whether CTS4385 is actually a separate lineage derived from those pressure-blade makers who entered Lapland c. 7000 years ago, or whether it derives from Corded Ware, which is a descendant of Yamnaya. We need to wait for ancient DNA.

vettor
03-28-2014, 10:43 PM
I'm afraid not. We have to understand that the people now living in Ukraine are not the genetic representatives of the people who lived there in the Copper Age. This is the big problem with using just modern DNA.

R1a-M458 is pretty clearly Slavic i.e. it spread with Slavs c. AD 500 from the Middle Dnieper in pretty much all directions, including south onto the steppe. (They got evicted by Avars, but returned later.) The current population of Ukraine is Slavic. This was not the case in the Copper Age. The Yamnaya culture of the steppe c. 3500 BC, whom we suppose was the material manifestation of Proto-Indo-European, was most likely carrying a mixture of M417 and Z648. I cannot be certain (and neither can anyone else) whether CTS4385 is actually a separate lineage derived from those pressure-blade makers who entered Lapland c. 7000 years ago, or whether it derives from Corded Ware, which is a descendant of Yamnaya. We need to wait for ancient DNA.

ok

But still, R1a was in Britain long long time before the origins of slavs ( as we know them today) began.

Its a pity we cannot find any named ancient tribes which "became" slavs and have too rely on linguistic terminology of slavic to gather any information. Maybe somewhere in the polesian ( border of ukraine and belarus) might be a tribe.

alan
03-28-2014, 11:08 PM
The early offshoot of R1a in NW Europe could relate to the Mesolithic microblade and pointed pottery eastern element that penetrated into Scandinavia and adjacent perhaps as far as Holland. However, pressure microblade groups did not make it across the channel to Britain and so I think it arrived in Britain in much later times.


recently in the ftdna Y test , some R1a-L664 have been found and noted to be from the low countries/kentish area with a sub group in norway. We also know definitely that R1a-L664 is far much older than R1a-M458 "ukrainian/crimea" area .
With this information, clearly R1a must have moved through the Balkans to NW Europe before traveling/migrating via the steppes ............is this logical.

bolek
03-28-2014, 11:14 PM
From Underhill et al. 2014:

To put our frequency distribution maps, PCA analyses, and autocorrelation results in archaeological context, we note that the earliest R1a lineages (genotyped at just SRY10381.2) found thus far in European ancient DNA date to 4600 years before present (YBP), a time corresponding to the Corded Ware Culture, whereas three DNA sample extracts from the earlier Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture (7500–6500 YBP) period were reported as G2a-P15 and F-M89(xPM45) lineages. This raises the possibility of a wide and rapid spread of R1a-Z282-related lineages being associated with prevalent Copper and Early Bronze Age societies that ranged from the Rhine River in the west to the Volga River in the east including the Bronze Age Proto-Slavic culture that arose in Central Europe near the Vistula River. It may have been in this cultural context that hg R1a-Z282 diversified in Central and Eastern Europe. The corresponding diversification in the Middle East and South Asia is more obscure. However, early urbanization within the Indus Valley also occurred at this time and the geographic distribution of R1a-M780 (Figure 3d) may reflect this.

But from the correlations between Y-DNA and languages it follows that if R1a-Z93 is considered to be a Proto-Indo-Iranian marker, then R1a-Z282 should be considered a Proto-Slavic marker as it correlates with Slavic languages very well and Slavic languages are closely related to Indo-Iranian languages:

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

Many recent papers on genetics and anthropology suggest population continuity in Poland and Ukraine since the Bronze Age till today. So Poland and Ukraine were populated by Proto-Slavs in the Bronze Age.

alan
03-28-2014, 11:29 PM
I wonder if it is really possible to nicely correlate R1a's major divisions with linguistic branches. For example if R1a-Z93 is considered to be a Proto-Indo-Iranian marker and R1a-Z282 is perhaps considered Balto-Slavic then that would mean that the common upstream M??? node (dated to 3800BC) shared by both should correlate with the common upsteam linguistic node. I am not sure what the latest version of branching is in terms of the first shared linguistic node shared by indo-iranian and balto-slavic- is there one between PIE and them. I hesitate to say satem branch as it always causes a big war about aerial spread etc.

It also strikes me if we are looking for a perfect lineage correlation between language branching and R1a divisions then Tocharian should be represented by an upstream branch off and perhaps more relating to the European than the Asian branch.

Of course the story is complicated by the fact that R1a is not very convincing for some of the apparently earliest branching of IE and R1b seems to fit in there or certainly have a role.

alan
03-28-2014, 11:44 PM
I badly need this table at all times when talking about R1a

http://s22.postimg.org/5loobmfrl/ra1_treee.jpg

Can anyone explain what the oldest branch 'old European' means - who is it found among?

Jean M
03-28-2014, 11:49 PM
But still, R1a was in Britain long long time before the origins of slavs.

I am not so sure of that. Almost all of the R1a1a in Britain will have arrived with the Germani in the Post-Roman period and with the Vikings even later. It is possible that a bit of Asian-type R1a1a arrived earlier with Sarmatians among the Roman forces, and maybe even a teeny bit with the Celts (from Cimmerian and Scythian movements up the Danube.) But it looks like most of the R1a1a in Britain is the Scandinavian type L448.

alan
03-29-2014, 12:01 AM
I agree. While a case could be made for pressure microblade elements and maybe pre-farming pottery relating to eastern, perhaps early R1a groups spreading into Scandinavia and perhaps as far as Holland, neither made it across to the isles before the North Sea barrier had blocked a further move to the isles. So, I think its likely the early R1a in the isles moved with Germanics to the isles from Scandinavia and the north European plain.

It does raise an interesting but probably impossible to answer question - what did the early R1a/ANE element that spread into northern Europe in the Mesolithic speak? I imagine some sort of distant root language that led to both IE and other language branches. Similarly if very early R1a and R1b settlers made it to Iran bringing their upstream branches they must have made it at the time of some very deep root language. Its such deep time it would be very hard to imagine but its not impossible one of the later languages around Iran had a root in this - although perhaps the numbers of the very early R1a and b folks who made it to Iran were simply too low to do anything other than integrate with existing groups and lose their original language.

I am not so sure of that. Almost all of the R1a1a in Britain will have arrived with the Germani in the Post-Roman period and with the Vikings even later. It is possible that a bit of Asian-type R1a1a arrived earlier with Sarmatians among the Roman forces, and maybe even a teeny bit with the Celts (from Cimmerian and Scythian movements up the Danube.) But most of the R1a1a in Britain is the Scandinavian type.

RCO
03-29-2014, 12:48 AM
The basal types of R1a in Europe (negative to M417) should test the Y DNA full genomes. In our J1 case, the Western European J1 basal types (negative to P58) are far older than the entire R1a coalescence time and I think we have an Iranian origin with a recent arrival (< 2k years) in Europe.

Generalissimo
03-29-2014, 02:17 AM
I think it's pretty easy to see the correlation on these maps between the most likely expansion points of Z282 and Z93 (in between their present-day hotspots), and a modern genome-wide component that peaks today near the Volga, which is obviously heavy in ANE because it shows up in the Mal'ta genome at a relatively high level of 34.45%.

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/East_Euro_K15.png~original

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Underhill_Z282.png~original

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Underhill_Z93.png~original

Rathna
03-29-2014, 08:03 AM
The basal types of R1a in Europe (negative to M417) should test the Y DNA full genomes. In our J1 case, the Western European J1 basal types (negative to P58) are far older than the entire R1a coalescence time and I think we have an Iranian origin with a recent arrival (< 2k years) in Europe.

Of course to test European R1a-M420* for a Full Y and even a Big Y it would be useful and probably risolutive, but I let you note that we know now that the Iranian/Azeri/Arab cluster of R1a-M420* (which could have come also recently from Central Asia with Turks, we don't know) is an unique and recent cluster, whereas the European ones are more varied, above all German Yeagers, thus your thinking is all to be demonstrated, and I should deepen yours:
you too should test the other J1-M365 for Full Y or Big Y to know the time they separated from the Caucasian ones. If there are more than 1500 years, your Alan hypothesis would be falsified.

Rathna
03-29-2014, 08:21 AM
Of course to test European R1a-M420* for a Full Y and even a Big Y it would be useful and probably risolutive, but I let you note that we know now that the Iranian/Azeri/Arab cluster of R1a-M420* (which could have come also recently from Central Asia with Turks, we don't know) is an unique and recent cluster, whereas the European ones are more varied, above all German Yeagers, thus your thinking is all to be demonstrated, and I should deepen yours:
you too should test the other J1-M365 for Full Y or Big Y to know the time they separated from the Caucasian ones. If there are more than 1500 years, your Alan hypothesis would be falsified.

Unfortunately I don't know anyone of the English or of the Italian cluster tested for more than 67 markers like the Yeager, but who understands a little of markers values may judge already from this:
140814 Yeager Germany R1
14 23 15 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 15 9-9 11 12 25 15 20 31 11-12-15-16 11 10 19-23 15 16 16 18 36-37 12 12 9 8 15-16 8 11 10 8 11 11 12 20-20 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 21 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12 35 15 9 15 12 28 24 19 12 12 12 12 10 9 13 11 10 11 11 30 12 12 24 13 11 9 18 15 18 16 23 15 11 16 25 12 24 19 10 15 18 9 11 11
73823 Pickering England R1
13 24 14 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 21 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 30 12-13-15-16 11 11 19-22 15 16 18 16 33-40 12 11 11 8 15-16 8 12 11 8 12 11 12 22-22 15 10 12 12 15 8 14 24 21 13 12 11 12 11 11 12 12

lgmayka
03-29-2014, 08:32 AM
Can anyone explain what the oldest branch 'old European' means - who is it found among?
It is extremely rare. A few cases have been found in England (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=mpwey&viewuid=HRHJ9&p=1), Scotland (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=mpwey&viewuid=YGHJ3&p=1), Wales (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=mpwey&viewuid=CJW99&p=1), France (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=6jb2v&viewuid=BMPF4&p=1), Puerto Rico (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=wwwzv&viewuid=WWWZV&p=1), Germany (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=&viewuid=MPWEY&p=1), Austria, and Macedonia (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=&viewuid=9QNN2&p=1). In the R1a Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/default.aspx?vgroup=r1a&section=yresults) they are in the category labeled 1. A. M420+ SRY10831.2+ M198+ M417-, R1a1a*.

Rathna
03-29-2014, 08:39 AM
Unfortunately I don't know anyone of the English or of the Italian cluster tested for more than 67 markers like the Yeager, but who understands a little of markers values may judge already from this:
140814 Yeager Germany R1
14 23 15 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 15 9-9 11 12 25 15 20 31 11-12-15-16 11 10 19-23 15 16 16 18 36-37 12 12 9 8 15-16 8 11 10 8 11 11 12 20-20 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 21 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12 35 15 9 15 12 28 24 19 12 12 12 12 10 9 13 11 10 11 11 30 12 12 24 13 11 9 18 15 18 16 23 15 11 16 25 12 24 19 10 15 18 9 11 11
73823 Pickering England R1
13 24 14 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 21 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 30 12-13-15-16 11 11 19-22 15 16 18 16 33-40 12 11 11 8 15-16 8 12 11 8 12 11 12 22-22 15 10 12 12 15 8 14 24 21 13 12 11 12 11 11 12 12

Yeager
8 11 10 8 11 11
11 13 11 11 12 12
Pickering
8 12 11 8 12 11
11 12 11 11 12 12

4 mutations in these two series could also mean more than 16,000 years of separation.

vettor
03-29-2014, 09:41 AM
I agree. While a case could be made for pressure microblade elements and maybe pre-farming pottery relating to eastern, perhaps early R1a groups spreading into Scandinavia and perhaps as far as Holland, neither made it across to the isles before the North Sea barrier had blocked a further move to the isles. So, I think its likely the early R1a in the isles moved with Germanics to the isles from Scandinavia and the north European plain.

It does raise an interesting but probably impossible to answer question - what did the early R1a/ANE element that spread into northern Europe in the Mesolithic speak? I imagine some sort of distant root language that led to both IE and other language branches. Similarly if very early R1a and R1b settlers made it to Iran bringing their upstream branches they must have made it at the time of some very deep root language. Its such deep time it would be very hard to imagine but its not impossible one of the later languages around Iran had a root in this - although perhaps the numbers of the very early R1a and b folks who made it to Iran were simply too low to do anything other than integrate with existing groups and lose their original language.

didn't the Liechtenstein cave ( near Switzerland) have R1a skeletons ( with majority being I HG ).........wasn't it said to be pre ertruscan, pre celtic basically middle bronze-age. they would have lived together, maybe even once migrated together.

vettor
03-29-2014, 09:44 AM
I think it's pretty easy to see the correlation on these maps between the most likely expansion points of Z282 and Z93 (in between their present-day hotspots), and a modern genome-wide component that peaks today near the Volga, which is obviously heavy in ANE because it shows up in the Mal'ta genome at a relatively high level of 34.45%.

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/East_Euro_K15.png~original

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Underhill_Z282.png~original

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Underhill_Z93.png~original

The coloured or darker shades only give you the number of people with that marker, it does not indicate origin of that marker

Generalissimo
03-29-2014, 10:09 AM
The coloured or darker shades only give you the number of people with that marker, it does not indicate origin of that marker

I'd say most people here were aware of that fact, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.

So considering that Z282 and Z93 are sister clades, where do you think their ancestral clade expanded from so that today they're most common in Eastern Europe and South Central Asia, respectively? How about the area in between, around the middle Volga?

alan
03-29-2014, 11:10 AM
It is interesting how they are no wave-like. By that I mean they found two places at great distance apart in which they really blossomed with a gap in between. That seems to be a common pattern in yDNA.

I dont really follow post-Yamnaya archaeology in Asia but I am curious as to whether there is a good match with the Z93.


I think it's pretty easy to see the correlation on these maps between the most likely expansion points of Z282 and Z93 (in between their present-day hotspots), and a modern genome-wide component that peaks today near the Volga, which is obviously heavy in ANE because it shows up in the Mal'ta genome at a relatively high level of 34.45%.

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/East_Euro_K15.png~original

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Underhill_Z282.png~original

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Underhill_Z93.png~original

alan
03-29-2014, 11:15 AM
What I find interesting too is the big drop in either of those big R1a groups in the area of south Russia immediately east of the Ukraine border and along the north Caspian area. That would include the area around the Don, Volga etc. Anyone have any thoughts on the cause of this?


The coloured or darker shades only give you the number of people with that marker, it does not indicate origin of that marker

alan
03-29-2014, 11:31 AM
I would say it still looks compatible with the traditional model of a major expansion originating in Volga area c. 3300BC.

However it does raise interesting questions that I dont have the knowledge to answer. The dichotomy within R1a does suggest that they parted company by some distance not long after their last shared ancestor. That must have linguistic implication that need thought through.



I'd say most people here were aware of that fact, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.

So considering that Z282 and Z93 are sister clades, where do you think their ancestral clade expanded from so that today they're most common in Eastern Europe and South Central Asia, respectively? How about the area in between, around the middle Volga?

alan
03-29-2014, 11:46 AM
You know when I think of the likely date of the Z93 split soon after 3800BC and look at its location of its concentration, I cannot lie that it puts me hugely in mind of Afansievo. Its in approximately the right area, it has a similar distant offshoot with a gap between it and the rest of R1a and the date of Z93 seems close enough to that of Afansievo around 3400-3500BC or so. In fact its a very good match in some ways. Now I am well aware that this doesnt work when the whole Indo-Iranian angle is looked at but I still think its striking. As an aside I have always said that Afansievo and the Tarim mummies are on different routeways and may be unrelated.

Generalissimo
03-29-2014, 11:54 AM
What I find interesting too is the big drop in either of those big R1a groups in the area of south Russia immediately east of the Ukraine border and along the north Caspian area. That would include the area around the Don, Volga etc. Anyone have any thoughts on the cause of this?

I'd say that ancient groups carrying sister clades were often culturally related. So it was difficult for them to push into each other because neither one had much of an advantage, and as a result they pushed out in opposite directions, in other words, towards weaker points, and then expanded there. It's not difficult to imagine that such expansions might have resulted in major founder effects some distance away from the original dispersal area of the ancestral clade.

DMXX
03-29-2014, 12:17 PM
You know when I think of the likely date of the Z93 split soon after 3800BC and look at its location of its concentration, I cannot lie that it puts me hugely in mind of Afansievo. Its in approximately the right area, it has a similar distant offshoot with a gap between it and the rest of R1a and the date of Z93 seems close enough to that of Afansievo around 3400-3500BC or so. In fact its a very good match in some ways. Now I am well aware that this doesnt work when the whole Indo-Iranian angle is looked at but I still think its striking. As an aside I have always said that Afansievo and the Tarim mummies are on different routeways and may be unrelated.

My thinking is similar. An idea I've entertained (and I know others have) postulate Z282 and Z93 as contemporary markers determined more by geography than anything else. Z93 in Asia encompasses all associated migrations that took place during the Bronze Age (i.e. Indo-European speaking). Thus, Z93 would've been carried by both speakers of early Tocharian and Indo-Iranian dialects despite the sizeable linguistic (and dimensional) differences between both.

This idea's also received some support from this paper; please note that the location around where Afanasievo is situated (the Altai) is completely deficient in Z282 and all R1a1a-M17 is represented by Z93.

The question now is, what branch of Z93 could be assigned to Afanasievo? I suspect none of the downstream SNPs (e.g. Z2125, M780) fit the bill. A possibility is the large number of Z93* found around the Altai belong to a distinct branch not covered in this study.

alan
03-29-2014, 12:21 PM
What the maps show in the west is how much Corded Ware some way or other became a crucial vector for explaining much of the spread of Z282. Only a surprisingly limited area of the high Z282 area overlaps with Yamnaya, even if Yamanaya was the source of this. Z282 is much higher in the areas to the north and north-west of the Yamanaya zone than in the Yamnaya expansion areas in the Balkans for instance.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GzVccvk8X6c/T_vX5xpLjYI/AAAAAAAAAo8/x36jowr7Esw/s1600/Corded_Ware_culture.bmp

alan
03-29-2014, 12:30 PM
The weird thing is the Z93 concentration north of the inner Asian mountains is a far better match for Afansievo than Andronovo

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_GeographyMaps/BC3500_AndronovoAfanasevo_culture.gif

However as has been commented many times before, the steppes is problematic in using modern populations as proxies for the remote past




My thinking is similar. An idea I've entertained (and I know others have) postulate Z282 and Z93 as contemporary markers determined more by geography than anything else. Z93 in Asia encompasses all associated migrations that took place during the Bronze Age (i.e. Indo-European speaking). Thus, Z93 would've been carried by both speakers of early Tocharian and Indo-Iranian dialects despite the sizeable linguistic (and dimensional) differences between both.

This idea's also received some support from this paper; please note that the location around where Afanasievo is situated (the Altai) is completely deficient in Z282 and all R1a1a-M17 is represented by Z93.

The question now is, what branch of Z93 could be assigned to Afanasievo?

lgmayka
03-29-2014, 01:13 PM
A possibility is the large number of Z93* found around the Altai belong to a distinct branch not covered in this study.
From this Z93 haplotree (http://yfull.com/tree/R1a1a1b2/), the authors' so-called Z93* could be any of

Z93*
Z94*
Y40
Z2124*
Z2122(xCTS6)

alan
03-29-2014, 01:37 PM
Its always been a very interesting thing that Afanasievo made a beeline for Altai and skipped over everything in between. The position must have had something to do with the metals there. Regardless its a perfect scenario for a yDNA founder effect

Jean M
03-29-2014, 04:15 PM
It does raise an interesting but probably impossible to answer question - what did the early R1a/ANE element that spread into northern Europe in the Mesolithic speak?

Something related to Paleo-Laplandic perhaps? We have only a few words of that borrowed into Saami, so that might not get us very far.

alan
03-29-2014, 04:42 PM
Probably the best bet although Finn's have a mania for trying to claim Finnish as indigenous a place as possible and I have seen some claim to link it to the post-Swiderian type microblade groups. Doesnt make sense in terms of modern interpretations of Finno-Ugric branching or proto date which is no earlier than PIE, maybe younger.

To me, of all the sort of Nostratic level groupings, the one people seem most confident on is the Eurasiatic group consisting of IE, Uralic and Altaic. I am just guessing here but it would make a lot of sense if that group essentially represents the main historic period remnants of the peoples who had overwintered the LGM together in south-central Siberia and scattered with the microblade groups. However, these are just the survivors and there could have been many other non-recorded branches IMO. With no common ancestor for 10000 years and most languages (in parallel to most lineages) gone extinct it would be beyond recovery. However, I think it is a fair guess that they were Eurasiatic speakers of some extinct branch that made it into the Baltic and Scandinavia with the microblade groups taking a northern trajectory. Perhaps a sequence of distantly related languages of northern Eurasia moved into the same area rather than a total change as might have happened in other areas where farmers settled in more numbers.


Something related to Paleo-Laplandic perhaps? We have only a few words of that borrowed into Saami, so that might not get us very far.

vettor
03-29-2014, 05:59 PM
It is interesting how they are no wave-like. By that I mean they found two places at great distance apart in which they really blossomed with a gap in between. That seems to be a common pattern in yDNA.

I dont really follow post-Yamnaya archaeology in Asia but I am curious as to whether there is a good match with the Z93.

Z93 looks like north Indian origin as the northern part by the closeness of its contour lines looks like a stop in its northern migration, the southern from india westwards seems like constant migration.
But the southern had more people/markers to deal with, which means Z93 was diluted by numbers from other markers.

parasar
03-29-2014, 06:00 PM
My thinking is similar. An idea I've entertained (and I know others have) postulate Z282 and Z93 as contemporary markers determined more by geography than anything else. Z93 in Asia encompasses all associated migrations that took place during the Bronze Age (i.e. Indo-European speaking). Thus, Z93 would've been carried by both speakers of early Tocharian and Indo-Iranian dialects despite the sizeable linguistic (and dimensional) differences between both.

This idea's also received some support from this paper; please note that the location around where Afanasievo is situated (the Altai) is completely deficient in Z282 and all R1a1a-M17 is represented by Z93.

The question now is, what branch of Z93 could be assigned to Afanasievo? I suspect none of the downstream SNPs (e.g. Z2125, M780) fit the bill. A possibility is the large number of Z93* found around the Altai belong to a distinct branch not covered in this study.

I think Z2125, but anyway all the main branches of Z93 are just a few SNPs apart, and the main European line parallel to Z93 also branches out at about the same time.


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.


http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/ejhg201450f5.jpg
Y-chromosome phylogeny inferred from 13 ~10-Mb sequences of hg R individuals. Branches are drawn proportional to the number of derived variants. Each of the 24 branches is labeled by an index, and the number of SNPs assigned to the branch is shown in brackets. The tips of the tree are labeled with sequencing coverage, population, ID, and the most derived commonly known SNP observed in the corresponding sample.

vettor
03-29-2014, 06:03 PM
I'd say most people here were aware of that fact, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.

So considering that Z282 and Z93 are sister clades, where do you think their ancestral clade expanded from so that today they're most common in Eastern Europe and South Central Asia, respectively? How about the area in between, around the middle Volga?

since Z93 is older, then North India............

alan
03-29-2014, 06:10 PM
Where Eurasiatic language family is concerned, this is the most recent and IMO credible paper. It has critics but I think these are answered. It suggest all this group of language families go back to a common ancestor around 15000 years ago who lived in some refuge. I think that also fits rather well the idea of a south-central Siberian reguge and expansion with the microblade groups post LGM. The most convincing grouping is IE, Uralic and Altaic but others are suggested too.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/01/1218726110.full.pdf+html?sid=e30fc880-2480-487c-a614-5a04f0fce7e6

parasar
03-29-2014, 06:41 PM
The coloured or darker shades only give you the number of people with that marker, it does not indicate origin of that marker

I think you mean frequency.

Numerically, the region where L657/M780 peaks (right about my village near the Bihar/Nepal border region) has immense population.
Population (2011) 103,804,637 Overall Density 1,102/km2 (2,850/sq mi). The rural areas have an almost urban like density of as much as 5000/sq mile.
Historically too the area was heavily populated with perhaps 20,000,000 people in 600bc
An exaggeration, but still indicates the immense population: "In the Buddha's time, Rājagaha had a population of eighteen crores, nine in the city and nine outside, and the sanitary conditions were not of the best. SA.i.241; DhA.ii.43; it was because of the city's prosperity that the Mettiya-Bhummajakas made it their headquarters (Sp.iii.614). The city was not free from plague (DhA.i.232)." http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/r/raajagaha.htm


http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/ejhg201450f3.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/India_Bihar_locator_map.svg/1574px-India_Bihar_locator_map.svg.png

Jean M
03-29-2014, 06:52 PM
Probably the best bet although Finn's have a mania for trying to claim Finnish as indigenous a place as possible

Paleo-Laplandic is not Finnish. It is not Uralic. It is the language spoken in Lapland before the arrival of Saami speakers.

alan
03-29-2014, 07:33 PM
Oh I realise that. What I am saying is that Finn tend to look to claim the Finnish language as a local Mesolithic one out of the usual nationalistic feelings when it really looks very improbably that that was the case.


Paleo-Laplandic is not Finnish. It is not Uralic. It is the language spoken in Lapland before the arrival of Saami speakers.

Generalissimo
03-30-2014, 01:21 AM
since Z93 is older, then North India............

You must be one of the last people on the planet after this study to still believe in an Indian origin for R1a.

BMG
03-30-2014, 10:15 AM
I wonder why the authors left out important SNPs like L664,Z2122 etc .
Also any one have idea where M582 and M434 stand in the R1a tree?

Parasar, it is interesting as the majority of the nepal samples belonged to L657 as you have guessed before while new delhi hindus are a mix of L657 and Z2125

Jean M
03-30-2014, 12:31 PM
By that I mean they found two places at great distance apart in which they really blossomed with a gap in between.

The gap in between is largely the result of population replacement on the steppe - not just the European steppe (where we now have the Slavic R1a), but on the Asian steppe, where we still have the impact of Asian nomads diluting the quota of R1a. If you look at the archaeology, Andronovo ran all the way from the Urals to the Altai. Some R1a1a managed to move even further east, as we know from aDNA. But the tide turned around the 7th century BC, as Asian nomads pushed west, driving the Scythians before them. Some Scythians actually moved into South Asia, reinforcing the R1a1a that had already moved there earlier.

Even so neither Scythians nor the first arrivals of Indo-Europeans totally replaced existing farming populations in Iran or South Asia. So R1a1a never completely overwhelmed the existing Y-DNA in Iran or India.

Jean M
03-30-2014, 12:49 PM
Oh I realise that. What I am saying is that Finns tend to look to claim the Finnish language as a local Mesolithic one out of the usual nationalistic feelings when it really looks very improbable that that was the case.

The claim that Proto-Uralic was ancient in Europe was made by Kalevi Wiik in the 1990s, and has been dismissed by several Finnish linguists in this century. Matti Tirkkonen in Aikio and Palviainen 2013 discusses the decline into pseudoscience of the “Revolutionary Paradigm in Uralic studies” of which Wiik was a part i.e. periglacial theory, in which Proto‐Uralic was spoken in the whole of Northern Europe during and after the LGM. It's old stuff in short. The Finnish Jaakko Häkkinen even wants to cut down the date at which Proto-Uralic appeared/developed in Europe below the usual 4000 BC.

It is Finnish linguists who came up with the idea of a Palaeo-Laplandic substrate in Saami in the first place (back in the 19th century) and who have revived in this century, chiefly Ante Aikio. So let's not tar all Finns with the Wiik brush. ;)

Generalissimo
03-30-2014, 01:26 PM
The gap in between is largely the result of population replacement on the steppe - not just the European steppe (where we now have the Slavic R1a), but on the Asian steppe, where we still have the impact of Asian nomads diluting the quota of R1a. If you look at the archaeology, Andronovo ran all the way from the Urals to the Altai. Some R1a1a managed to move even further east, as we know from aDNA. But the tide turned around the 7th century BC, as Asian nomads pushed west, driving the Scythians before them. Some Scythians actually moved into South Asia, reinforcing the R1a1a that had already moved there earlier.

As I said, the gap in between the current Z282 and Z93 hotspots is because of founder effects away from the source of the migrations, and also because Z282 and Z93 will cancel each other out where they bifurcate.

If such founder effects didn't happen away from the migration source, but within it, then we'd be seeing a lot of Z282 in India and a lot of Z93 in Europe, but obviously we don't. It's not rocket science Jean.

The fact that the Ancient North Eurasian component still peaks in that zone that includes far Eastern Europe, Western Siberia and Northeast Caucasus means that there wasn't a total population replacement there.

Jean M
03-30-2014, 01:38 PM
As I said, the gap in between the current Z282 and Z93 hotspots is because of founder effects away from the source of the migrations, and also because Z282 and Z93 will cancel each other out where they bifurcate.

If such founder effects didn't happen away from the migration source, but within it, then we'd be seeing a lot of Z282 in India and a lot of Z93 in Europe, but obviously we don't.

Yes I agree with you on that David.


The fact that the Ancient North Eurasian component still peaks in that zone that includes far Eastern Europe, Western Siberia and Northeast Caucasus means that there wasn't a total population replacement there.

Bear in mind that Slavs have moved into far Eastern Europe, Western Siberia and North Caucasus, as indeed the Scythians/Alans did before them.

Mehrdad
03-30-2014, 02:42 PM
The gap in between is largely the result of population replacement on the steppe - not just the European steppe (where we now have the Slavic R1a), but on the Asian steppe, where we still have the impact of Asian nomads diluting the quota of R1a. If you look at the archaeology, Andronovo ran all the way from the Urals to the Altai. Some R1a1a managed to move even further east, as we know from aDNA. But the tide turned around the 7th century BC, as Asian nomads pushed west, driving the Scythians before them. Some Scythians actually moved into South Asia, reinforcing the R1a1a that had already moved there earlier.

Even so neither Scythians nor the first arrivals of Indo-Europeans totally replaced existing farming populations in Iran or South Asia. So R1a1a never completely overwhelmed the existing Y-DNA in Iran or India.

If you're saying that 7th Century BC is when the rest of R1a1a moved into South Asia, that would be pretty recent. Again we just have to wait for ancient DNA from the Harappan sites to confirm, no?

Rathna
03-30-2014, 03:05 PM
I have said above that it seems that the R1a-M420 of the Middle Eastern area come all from the same source, which seems linked to Azeri above all and which could come even from Central Asia in recent times. I have also said that it seems that these R1a-M420 presuppose a recent ancestor and that they have a low variance whereas the European haplotypes have an higher variance and, calculated by the mutations in the two series of slow mutating markers, that it could presuppose a MRCA also older than 16,000 years. Unfortunately the Arab tested R1a-M420 from Geno 2.0 hasn't a STRs test and the two Haddads (father and son) have only 37 markers. But we have this sample, probably from the same area, which has been tested for 67 markers:
M8363 R1a R-M420 M173+, M420+, M417-, M198-, SRY10831.2-, V88-, M343-
M8363 Unknown Origin R1a
13 23 17 11 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 30 16 9-9 11 12 26 15 19 32 12-12-16-17 11 11 19-23 15 17 19 16 34-37 12 11 9 8 15-16 8 11 10 8 10 11 12 22-22 14 10 12 12 14 8 12 23 21 14 12 12 13 11 11 12 12
298933 Haddad Lebanon R1b1a2
13 23 14 11 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 16 9-9 11 11 26 15 19 31 12-12-15-17 10 11 19-23 15 17 17 17 35-37 12 11
310205 Al-Haddad Iraq R1
13 23 14 11 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 16 9-9 11 12 26 15 19 31 12-12-15-17 10 11 19-23 15 17 17 17 35-37 12 11
They belong clearly to the same haplotype and the DYS454=12 seems the original value changed to 11 in Haddad son (298933). The difference in DYS19 (14 and 17) may be due to a multistep mutation. Thus probably these haplotypes have the series:
8 11 10 8 10 11
12 13 11 11 12 12
which, compared with the European ones,:
Yeager
8 11 10 8 11 11
11 13 11 11 12 12
Pickering
8 12 11 8 12 11
11 12 11 11 12 12
it seems that the Middle Eastern R1a* (and perhaps of Central Asian origin) is closer to the Yeagers one and that it has derived from a common ancestor of it which lived Eastwards the Western European one, here witnessed from the English haplotype.
I think it is more difficult to understand the European haplotypes as derived from the Central Asian ones, but of course other data may change this hypothesis.
Anyway 2 mutations between them may mean more than 8,000 years. (Of course this result could be divided for 2, etc., and also that a mutation may happen every 4.000 years is only a rough hypothesis, but in this case, beyond the dates, is the principle that should be worth).

Jean M
03-30-2014, 03:36 PM
If you're saying that 7th Century BC is when the rest of R1a1a moved into South Asia...

No. I'm talking about the movement of Scythians westward. Some went into South Asia in the 2nd century BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians

As I said that reinforced the R1a1a that had already moved there earlier i.e. the first Indo-European speakers to enter South Asia, about 1600 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swat_culture

parasar
03-30-2014, 03:58 PM
I wonder why the authors left out important SNPs like L664,Z2122 etc .
Also any one have idea where M582 and M434 stand in the R1a tree?

Parasar, it is interesting as the majority of the nepal samples belonged to L657 as you have guessed before while new delhi hindus are a mix of L657 and Z2125

M434 is under Z2125.
M582 is under Z2122 (not tested) parallel to Z2125, and both are united under Z2124 (not tested) parallel to L657 and Y40.

Most of the Nepalese STRs looked to be of the L657 kind and since we have long term relations with the Nepalis (even now the border is only in name), my guess was that they were L657.

Thankfully L664 is recognized by DYS388=10 so the L664 in the dataset are the European M417*.

alan
03-30-2014, 05:15 PM
I think Jean and David are both right on this. Population replacement, inevitable drop in frequency of each clade where both overlap and the fact that founder effects and in general expansion opportunities for offshoot lineages will tend to be beyond the origin point in pastures new. Afanasievo is a really extreme example of the latter effect.

One thing I think is clear is that the eastern version of R1a could not have expanded until it was well to the east and must have been a very minor lineage until it moved substantially eastwards. I say that because when you consider all the movement from east to west across the steppe and into eastern Europe over the centuries then surely if the eastern version had ever had much in the way of numbers in the western and central part of the steppe then far more would have entered eastern Europe. It makes more sense to consider that the eastern version passed into positions way off the main steppe belt and the main flow west. Obviously somewhere like north Altai is a location that might restrict input into later flows west. Another obvious barrier is the Caspian - if a culture was located in the Stan countries east of the Caspian and south of the main steppe belt to the north then this may have restricted flow west but not south.

Rathna
03-30-2014, 05:35 PM
Of course I'd be glad to know a deep SNP test of this haplotype:

203239 A Qatar R1 [R-M173 M173+]
13 25 14 10 12-12 12 12 11 13 14 30 16 9-9 11 11 25 15 19 31 12-12-12-12-15-15 12 11 19-20 15 16 16 16 33-36 12 11 11 8 15-16 8 11 10 8 11 13 12 22-22 15 11 12 13 15 9 13 23 21 14 12 11 13 10 11 12 12

Whether it were R-M420* everything I said should be changed, with its series:

8 11 10 8 11 13
11 13 10 11 12 12

parasar
03-30-2014, 05:44 PM
...


Bear in mind that Slavs have moved into far Eastern Europe, Western Siberia and North Caucasus,as indeed the Scythians/Alans did before them.
So this was after the Huns as the Alans had moved west with the Huns?
There was a paper that posited this based on IBD:

southeastern Europeans share large numbers of common ancestors which date to the era of the Slavic and
Hunnic expansions around 1500 years ago... The inclusion of (non-Slavic speaking)
Hungary and Romania in the group of eastern populations sharing high IBD could indicate the effect of
other groups (e.g. the Huns) on ancestry in these regions, or because some of the same group of people who
elsewhere are known as Slavs adopted different local cultures in those regions. Greece and Albania are also
part of this putative signal of expansion, which could be because the Slavs settled in part of these areas (with
unknown demographic eect), or because of subsequent population exchange.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3815v5.pdf

This IBD looks be the represented by the close Slavic cluster, inset that includes Greeks and Hunnic groups (eg. the Chuvash The World of the Huns. Chapter IX. Language
O. Maenchen-Helfen ):
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/ejhg201450f4.jpg

bolek
03-30-2014, 06:20 PM
As I said, the gap in between the current Z282 and Z93 hotspots is because of founder effects away from the source of the migrations, and also because Z282 and Z93 will cancel each other out where they bifurcate.

If such founder effects didn't happen away from the migration source, but within it, then we'd be seeing a lot of Z282 in India and a lot of Z93 in Europe, but obviously we don't. It's not rocket science Jean.

The fact that the Ancient North Eurasian component still peaks in that zone that includes far Eastern Europe, Western Siberia and Northeast Caucasus means that there wasn't a total population replacement there.

In addition to it population continuity in the western part of Eastern Europe based on Neolithic, Eneolithic, Bronze Age and modern DNA samples from Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and the southwest of the Russian Federation was tested by Wilde et al. 2014:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/05/1316513111.abstract



Coalescent simulations based on the mtDNA data, accommodating uncertainty in the ancient sample age, failed to reject population continuity under a wide range of assumed ancestral population size combinations (Fig.1).
Conversely, continuity between early central European farmers and modern Europeans has been rejected in a previous study..

Tests based on ancient and modern Eastern European DNA failed to reject population continuity.

There is no evidence for population replacement in Eastern Europe.

Those who claim that there was population replacement on the steppe have no evidence for it.

Surely southern steppes were conquered by Turkic tribes in the early Middle Ages. But they didn’t exterminate all the older steppe populations which moved north and survived and later returned. There is plenty of archeological evidence for it. We today know that they were not R1a-Z93 Iranians but R1a-Z282 Slavs.

This is why I wrote:


From Underhill et al. 2014:

To put our frequency distribution maps, PCA analyses, and autocorrelation results in archaeological context, we note that the earliest R1a lineages (genotyped at just SRY10381.2) found thus far in European ancient DNA date to 4600 years before present (YBP), a time corresponding to the Corded Ware Culture, whereas three DNA sample extracts from the earlier Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture (7500–6500 YBP) period were reported as G2a-P15 and F-M89(xPM45) lineages. This raises the possibility of a wide and rapid spread of R1a-Z282-related lineages being associated with prevalent Copper and Early Bronze Age societies that ranged from the Rhine River in the west to the Volga River in the east including the Bronze Age Proto-Slavic culture that arose in Central Europe near the Vistula River. It may have been in this cultural context that hg R1a-Z282 diversified in Central and Eastern Europe. The corresponding diversification in the Middle East and South Asia is more obscure. However, early urbanization within the Indus Valley also occurred at this time and the geographic distribution of R1a-M780 (Figure 3d) may reflect this.

But from the correlations between Y-DNA and languages it follows that if R1a-Z93 is considered to be a Proto-Indo-Iranian marker, then R1a-Z282 should be considered a Proto-Slavic marker as it correlates with Slavic languages very well and Slavic languages are closely related to Indo-Iranian languages:

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

Many recent papers on genetics and anthropology suggest population continuity in Poland and Ukraine since the Bronze Age till today. So Poland and Ukraine were populated by Proto-Slavs in the Bronze Age.

vettor
03-30-2014, 06:21 PM
So this was after the Huns as the Alans had moved west with the Huns?
There was a paper that posited this based on IBD:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3815v5.pdf

This IBD looks be the represented by the close Slavic cluster, inset that includes Greeks and Hunnic groups (eg. the Chuvash The World of the Huns. Chapter IX. Language
O. Maenchen-Helfen ):
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/ejhg201450f4.jpg

why does Italy and Tatars overlap?

vettor
03-30-2014, 06:23 PM
You must be one of the last people on the planet after this study to still believe in an Indian origin for R1a.

I don't see R1a in my text, only Z93all

lgmayka
03-30-2014, 06:26 PM
M582 is under Z2122 (not tested) parallel to Z2125, and both are united under Z2124 (not tested) parallel to L657 and Y40.
This article (https://sites.google.com/site/levitedna/origins-of-r1a1a-ashkenazi-levites/2013-paper-on-origins-of-r1a1a-ashkenazi-levites), referencing Rootsi 2013 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131217/ncomms3928/full/ncomms3928.html) as well as the work of Vladimir Tagankin (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-b3KeGG3Un1VTRRQ09yWWFRN1k/edit?pli=1), says that M582 is phylogenetically equivalent to CTS6.

parasar
03-30-2014, 06:38 PM
why does Italy and Tatars overlap?

This is a comparison of only R1a subclades.
"Principal component analysis of hg R1a subclades. The plot was obtained by collapsing the 126 populations into 49 regionally/culturally defined groups and calculating R1a subclade frequencies relative to R1a-M198. We excluded one population with small overall sample size and all populations in which fewer than 5 R1a Y-chromosomes were observed.

Italy has very limited R1a (13/287 in the sample set) to begin with and the shared Z280-CTS3607 with the Tatars is aligning them.


M458 for some reason has had minimal impact on Italy, even less so than Z93 branches:
Italy 287 13 4.5 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.7 0 0.0 7 2.4 0 0.0 1 0.3 1 0.3 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.72

Shaikorth
03-30-2014, 06:53 PM
So this was after the Huns as the Alans had moved west with the Huns?
There was a paper that posited this based on IBD:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3815v5.pdf

This IBD looks be the represented by the close Slavic cluster, inset that includes Greeks and Hunnic groups (eg. the Chuvash The World of the Huns. Chapter IX. Language
O. Maenchen-Helfen ):

Chuvash are perhaps just a local Volga people that got Turkified without significant Y-DNA exchange. Their R1a clustering seems indistinguishable from other East Europeans, this is not the case with Tatars who live nearby but seem to have received a greater eastern R1a contribution.

parasar
03-30-2014, 06:56 PM
This article (https://sites.google.com/site/levitedna/origins-of-r1a1a-ashkenazi-levites/2013-paper-on-origins-of-r1a1a-ashkenazi-levites), referencing Rootsi 2013 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131217/ncomms3928/full/ncomms3928.html) as well as the work of Vladimir Tagankin (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-b3KeGG3Un1VTRRQ09yWWFRN1k/edit?pli=1), says that M582 is phylogenetically equivalent to CTS6.
Thanks, yes that does look to be the case at present.

Z2469=CTS6=2657349
M582=M12371/CTS2253=14236070
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg201450x6.txt

Jean M
03-30-2014, 07:58 PM
I don't see R1a in my text, only Z93all

The problem with looking at Z93all is that it includes subclades specific to India. The map for Z93* is liable to be more informative on origins. That is the parent haplogroup. Of course people move about, so it is always tricky using just modern DNA to figure out origins. Even so it is very striking that there is next to nothing of the parent Z93* in South Asia.

parasar
03-30-2014, 08:15 PM
The problem with looking at Z93all is that it includes subclades specific to India. The map for Z93* is liable to be more informative on origins. That is the parent haplogroup. Of course people move about, so it is always tricky using just modern DNA to figure out origins. Even so it is very striking that there is next to nothing of the parent Z93* in South Asia.

One is not necessarily parent of the other, we do not even know that Z93* is paraphyletic anywhere. Z2124 may well be the oldest Z93 sub-lineage followed closely by L657. As DMXX had speculated, there is the "possibility is the large number of Z93* found around the Altai belong to a distinct branch not covered in this study." While I do think, based on pre-R MA1 and potential R1a1 AG2, that the South Siberia region was the likely place of genesis of Z93, the Z93* seen the Altai and Khakassia, respectively, are not conclusive, as each likely share a much more recent SNP.

lgmayka
03-30-2014, 09:34 PM
While I do think, based on pre-R MA1 and potential R1a1 AG2, that the South Siberia region was the likely place of genesis of Z93, the Z93* seen the Altai and Khakassia, respectively, are not conclusive, as each likely share a much more recent SNP.
If one places the actual origin of Z93 so far east, it becomes difficult to explain the multivarious Z93* (that is, Z93+ Z94-) across Europe, from England to Poland.

parasar
03-30-2014, 09:53 PM
...
The authors says that R1a and R1b separated 25,000 years ago and the most ancient subclades of R1a are not more old than 6,000 years. What did in the meanwhile happen?


A consensus has not yet been reached on the rate at which Y-chromosome SNPs accumulate within this 9.99Mb sequence. Recent estimates include one SNP per: ~100 years,⁵⁸ [Xue] 122 years,⁴[Poznick] 151 years[Francalacci]⁵ (deep sequencing reanalysis rate), and 162 years.⁵⁹[Mendez] Using a rate of one SNP per 122 years, and based on an average branch length of 206 SNPs from the common ancestor of the 13 sequences, we estimate the bifurcation of R1 into R1a and R1b to have occurred ~25,100 ago (95% CI: 21,300–29,000). Using the 8 R1a lineages, with an average length of 48 SNPs accumulated since the common ancestor, we estimate the splintering of R1a-M417 to have occurred rather recently, ~5800 years ago (95% CI: 4800–6800). The slowest mutation rate estimate would inflate these time estimates by one third, and the fastest would deflate them by 17%.


From FG's more than twice the sequence length we get (per Michał):
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=833&d=1382725531

parasar
03-30-2014, 10:36 PM
If one places the actual origin of Z93 so far east, it becomes difficult to explain the multivarious Z93* (that is, Z93+ Z94-) across Europe, from England to Poland.

There are numerous avenues, my guess is some may have come in early - say with pre Z645 lines in western Europe, others could be historical movements of the Huns and Turks, to even the Mongols.

Similarly in the other direction we have Indic R1a1 as east as in "2,000-year-old Xiongnu elite cemetery in Duurlig Nars of Northeast Mongolia."
The Di Christofaro, J. et al. Hindu Kush, Afghanistan MG3 sample set has L657 in Mongolia, again perhaps as part of the historical movement of Buddhist monks.

alan
03-30-2014, 10:43 PM
Well I still think its very striking that the Altai sort of area looks like the core of expansion of both Z93 as a whole and Z93*. It looks like a spectacular founder effect after a massive leap east. It is dated to the 4th millenium BC by various methods. It has an uncanny resemblance to Afanasievo if you look at this in an isolated way and dont allow yourself to be influenced by other considerations and need to fit into large models.

However, I admit that it is possible to see this as an Andronovo thing too if one imagines that the associated lineages of that culture were later swept away by non-R1a peoples moving east to west along the steppe. I think one would really need to be an expert in central Asian history to assess this.

Does anyone know what ethnic groups that the Z93* concentration near Altai in this study would have come from? Also if they are non-IE, does anyone know anything about the history that would explain why this group of R1a folks were absorbed rather than driven out as they largely were elsewhere on the steppe.

Generalissimo
03-30-2014, 10:58 PM
There are numerous avenues, my guess is some may have come in early - say with pre Z645 lines in western Europe, others could be historical movements of the Huns and Turks, to even the Mongols.

So these Turkic and Mongol invaders just happened to spread European (Z282+) and ancestral Z93 lineages to Europe, and somehow couldn't do the same for their most common lineages which are distinct from those found in Europe, and often Z94+.

Parasar, your theories are often not very parsimonious. Have you ever noticed this yourself?

vettor
03-30-2014, 11:28 PM
The problem with looking at Z93all is that it includes subclades specific to India. The map for Z93* is liable to be more informative on origins. That is the parent haplogroup. Of course people move about, so it is always tricky using just modern DNA to figure out origins. Even so it is very striking that there is next to nothing of the parent Z93* in South Asia.

correct

As I did not state origin of R1a
We all know that all subclades of R1a did not begin where R1a originated.

My call is as i stated, you can also see by the closeness of the contour lines that Z93all ( what is Z93all any way, a mix of different subclades) is not where the darkest mass is

parasar
03-30-2014, 11:29 PM
So these Turkic and Mongol invaders just happened to spread European (Z282+) and ancestral Z93 lineages to Europe, and somehow couldn't do the same for their most common lineages which are distinct from those found in Europe, and often Z94+.

Parasar, your theories are often not very parsimonious. Have you ever noticed this yourself?

I had not mentioned Z282+ as being spread by Turkics and Mongols. But if the the spread of Z282 was effected by them, it would have to be a domino effect. Z282 has nothing to do with South Siberia or even Central Asia, otherwise we would have seen a few of those in India.

vettor
03-30-2014, 11:34 PM
I had not mentioned Z282+ as being spread by Turkics and Mongols. But if the the spread of Z282 was effected by them, it would have to be a domino effect. Z282 has nothing to do with South Siberia or even Central Asia, otherwise we would have seen a few of those in India.

Z282 seems more moscow/novgorod areas

M458 seems russia/ukrain/belarus border junction

Generalissimo
03-30-2014, 11:38 PM
I had not mentioned Z282+ as being spread by Turkics and Mongols. But if the the spread of Z282 was effected by them, it would have to be a domino effect. Z282 has nothing to do with South Siberia or even Central Asia, otherwise we would have seen a few of those in India.

The Z282 vs. Z93 dichotomy is what dictates the results on this PCA (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg201450f4.html#figure-title).

In other words, the Chuvash and other Volga groups have European R1a, that's why they're placed where they are. It has nothing to do with the Huns, but with European expansions to the Volga and beyond.

Jean M
03-30-2014, 11:39 PM
you can also see by the closeness of the contour lines that Z93all ( what is Z93all any way, a mix of different subclades) is not where the darkest mass is

The closeness of contour lines tells us nothing except that there is a steep difference between the frequencies in adjacent regions. That could be for various reasons.

Z93all = Z93* + all its subclades.

Generalissimo
03-30-2014, 11:41 PM
M458 seems russia/ukrain/belarus border junction

M458 reaches highest frequencies and SNP/STR diversity in Poland.

Poles also can't be described as a subset of the genetic variation found in Belarus or Ukraine. The other way around works much better.

vettor
03-30-2014, 11:42 PM
This is a comparison of only R1a subclades.
"Principal component analysis of hg R1a subclades. The plot was obtained by collapsing the 126 populations into 49 regionally/culturally defined groups and calculating R1a subclade frequencies relative to R1a-M198. We excluded one population with small overall sample size and all populations in which fewer than 5 R1a Y-chromosomes were observed.

Italy has very limited R1a (13/287 in the sample set) to begin with and the shared Z280-CTS3607 with the Tatars is aligning them.


M458 for some reason has had minimal impact on Italy, even less so than Z93 branches:
Italy 287 13 4.5 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.7 0 0.0 7 2.4 0 0.0 1 0.3 1 0.3 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.72

Thanks

Maybe this R1a is only from medieval times as the Venetians and Genoese traded white slaves from Tana ( Azov) to Italy and southern France.
But, Venice stopped all slavery in 1435 by law and the Genoese stopped black sea slavery in 1470 when the ottomans threw them out of the Black Sea.

Jean M
03-30-2014, 11:45 PM
One is not necessarily parent of the other ... As DMXX had speculated, there is the "possibility is the large number of Z93* found around the Altai belong to a distinct branch not covered in this study."

I agree entirely. I wouldn't place reliance on the map of Z93* to precisely indicate the origin point of Z93. (I agree with David that the origin is far more likely to be close to the Urals.) But what that map does tell us is that there is next to no Z93* in South Asia, so that is unlikely to be its origin point.

parasar
03-30-2014, 11:57 PM
Z282 seems more moscow/novgorod areas

M458 seems russia/ukrain/belarus border junction

Z282-M458 appears to have hit a brick wall on its western margin, indicating a much later period of spread when western Europe was already quite heavily populated.

parasar
03-31-2014, 12:11 AM
The Z282 vs. Z93 dichotomy is what dictates the results on this PCA (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg201450f4.html#figure-title).

In other words, the Chuvash and other Volga groups have European R1a, that's why they're placed where they are. It has nothing to do with the Huns, but with European expansions to the Volga and beyond.

Huns are a very old population on the eastern margins of Europe so I would not call Chuvash and Volga R1a1 European, unless you mean in terms of modern geography. I would sure like to see some Hunnic ancient DNA which was likely quite 'Europoid.' Many of their elites seem to have been cremated though. "graves of poor people. The prominent Huns, or, to be more cautious, some of them, cremated their dead." http://books.google.com/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&pg=PA367

parasar
03-31-2014, 12:24 AM
I agree entirely. I wouldn't place reliance on the map of Z93* to precisely indicate the origin point of Z93. (I agree with David that the origin is far more likely to be close to the Urals.) But what that map does tell us is that there is next to no Z93* in South Asia, so that is unlikely to be its origin point.

The proportions I see are trace everywhere except in populations where a common SNP has not yet been found.

Pakistan South 91 30 33.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.2 0 0.0 3 3.3 7 7.7 18 19.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.59 updated from 13
India North 98 19 19.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 0 0.0 16 16.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.30 This study
India East 124 5 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 3 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.70 This study
India Northeast 68 19 27.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 26.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.11 This study

Generalissimo
03-31-2014, 12:25 AM
Z282-M458 appears to have hit a brick wall on its western margin, indicating a much later period of spread when western Europe was already quite heavily populated.

The "brick wall" you see there is due to recent German colonization of eastern Germany. Only the Sorbs remain in that area and they have around 40-60% of M458. Their ancestors, the Polabian Slavs, would've carried similar frequencies and they ranged all the way to what are now Hamburg and the Danish islands.

parasar
03-31-2014, 12:40 AM
The "brick wall" you see there is due to recent German colonization of eastern Germany. Only the Sorbs remain in that area and they have around 40-60% of M458. Their ancestors, the Polabian Slavs, would've carried similar frequencies and they ranged all the way to what are now Hamburg and the Danish islands.

The brick wall runs to the south of Germany too, right to Italy's eastern border.

Generalissimo
03-31-2014, 12:56 AM
The brick wall runs to the south of Germany too, right to Italy's eastern border.

No, there's a clear bifurcation area in the Czech Republic and Austria, where Corded Ware, Unetice and Bell Beaker cultures mingled, and population movements during the Middle Ages and just after WWII weren't as massive as on the North European Plain.

parasar
03-31-2014, 01:14 AM
No, there's a clear bifurcation area in the Czech Republic and Austria, where Corded Ware, Unetice and Bell Beaker cultures mingled, and population movements during the Middle Ages and just after WWII weren't as massive as on the North European Plain.

My question is simple - why does M458 drop to ~0% in Italy?

Rathna
03-31-2014, 02:19 AM
My question is simple - why does M458 drop to ~0% in Italy?

I premit that I am not an expert of hg. R1a and subclades, but I think that to answer this question needs to answer the question about R1a-M420, as for hg. R1b it needs to answer the question about R1b1-L389+.
This for saying that this separation between R1a and R1b may be ancient, very ancient, i.e. the separation between the Indo-European languages: centum and satem. If centum-languages are linked above all to R1b and the satem ones to R1a, the Italian border is just the expression of this: Italian is a centum language and Slovenian a satem one. And everywhere we find hg. R1a Eastwards, till Central Asia and India and Iran, we have descendants of the satem languages speakings. Of course we should reconstruct all the moves of these peoples in these last thousands of years, but the expansion of Slavs after the fall of the Roman Empire stopped just at the limits of Italy.
I doubt about what Parasar says (even though I often agree with him): to attribute a large genetic impact to Hunns is probably wrong, if even in Hungary "Asiatic" impact is very low.
I think that when we answer my questions (where the place of origin of R1a-M420 and of R1b1-L389+ was?), we'll have more elements for answering these questions.

parasar
03-31-2014, 02:55 AM
I premit that I am not an expert of hg. R1a and subclades, but I think that to answer this question needs to answer the question about R1a-M420, as for hg. R1b it needs to answer the question about R1b1-L389+.
This for saying that this separation between R1a and R1b may be ancient, very ancient, i.e. the separation between the Indo-European languages: centum and satem. If centum-languages are linked above all to R1b and the satem ones to R1a, the Italian border is just the expression of this: Italian is a centum language and Slovenian a satem one. And everywhere we find hg. R1a Eastwards, till Central Asia and India and Iran, we have descendants of the satem languages speakings. Of course we should reconstruct all the moves of these peoples in these last thousands of years, but the expansion of Slavs after the fall of the Roman Empire stopped just at the limits of Italy.
I doubt about what Parasar says (even though I often agree with him): to attribute a large genetic impact to Hunns is probably wrong, if even in Hungary "Asiatic" impact is very low.
I think that when we answer my questions (where the place of origin of R1a-M420 and of R1b1-L389+ was?), we'll have more elements for answering these questions.

To be clear, I was only proposing that the spread was effected by them by a domino effect, not genetic. Plus the Huns themselves were not Asiatic as in Mongoloid, but Europoid+Mongoloid.

M420 is quite distant from Z93 which is only 5556 years old (5800-244) per Underhill, and if this dating is correct Z93 is very close to the date of 5500ybp Afanasevo.

parasar
03-31-2014, 03:00 AM
To be clear, I was only proposing that the spread was effected by them by a domino effect, not genetic. Plus the Huns themselves were not Asiatic as in Mongoloid, but Europoid+Mongoloid.

M420 is quite distant from Z93 which is only 5556 years old (5800-244) per Underhill, and if this dating is correct Z93 is very close to the date of 5500ybp Afanasevo.

244 years at 122 per SNP.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/ejhg201450f5.jpg
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9505/8q7z.png

Rathna
03-31-2014, 06:41 AM
If I understand well your diagram, with Jewish haplotypes in red, you do mean that Jews get both R1a and R1b as their own haplotypes from before the diaspora, and perhaps from thousands of years, but this is just what had to be demonstrated and whom many of us weren't convinced about. You too were one of the few on the forum to not exclude a Khazar (or Eastern European) origin for the Levite R1a.
I think that it is dangerous to use the genetics of a people like Jews who have had so many and different vicissitudes in his history. You know that many scholars (above all the Jew Behar) don't accept the conclusions of the last paper of Costa et alii (I don't speak of me, who am saying these things from many years, because many could say that I didn't publish on peer reviews, but, with the many papers that are published, that couldn't be a demerit).
Whatever R1 haplogroup entered the Jewish pool (before the diaspora from Hittites, Sea Peoples, Iranians) or after the diaspora (Western Europeans, Indians), their haplogroups R1a and R1b couldn't disprove what I have said above, and you know I am waiting for next tests:
1) is it true that L584 descend from PF7580*?
2) is the Tuscan NA20532 an hg. R-L277?
3) is Mattoli (then all the other Italians with the highest variance of L277) just L277? We are waiting for his test from 1.19.2014.
4) Is Mangino R1b1-L389+ and not R-M269? We are waiting for his Geno 2.0 from the beginning of the year.
5) Are the PF SNPs found in Federighi and the Sardinians the proof that R-M269 was born in Italy?

vettor
03-31-2014, 09:05 AM
My question is simple - why does M458 drop to ~0% in Italy?

Because it migrated from ukraine to german/polish border and stopped there.

a scenario would be .........arrived in the polish/german coastal area around 800AD .......stopped and attacked by the wendish crusade ~1000AD ( but a few centuries to cross-marry left many still around)

Italy has older R1a like the type found in Caio 2013 paper

alan
03-31-2014, 10:18 AM
Just repeating a question I asked earlier and am very interested in knowing the answer to -

Does anyone know what ethnic groups that the Z93* and indeed Z93 'all' concentration near Altai in this study are likely to have been sampled from? Also if they are non-IE, does anyone know anything about the history that would explain why this group of R1a folks were absorbed rather than driven out as they largely were elsewhere on the steppe.

bolek
03-31-2014, 10:41 AM
In my opinion ‘Sarmatians’ in Poland around 43 AD were very likely heavy in R1a-M458 :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Europa_by_Pomponiusz_Mela_1st_century.jpg

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

parasar
03-31-2014, 02:36 PM
Just repeating a question I asked earlier and am very interested in knowing the answer to -

Does anyone know what ethnic groups that the Z93* and indeed Z93 'all' concentration near Altai in this study are likely to have been sampled from? Also if they are non-IE, does anyone know anything about the history that would explain why this group of R1a folks were absorbed rather than driven out as they largely were elsewhere on the steppe.

Altaians (Russia)
Tuvas (Russia)
Khakassians (Russia)

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n4/images/ejhg2009194f1.jpg

alan
03-31-2014, 03:49 PM
So they are Turkic peoples today who some time in the past encorporated a lot of R1a or are simply tribes that became Turkic at some point due to their location a huge distance from their compatriots and their taking of local women. The ethnogenesis of these heavily R1a Turkic tribes is very interesting.

It indicates a willingness to absorb or amalgamate with other male lines rather than strict exclusive clannishness. There is ancient DNA evidence too for this sort of thing in both corded ware and in the far east. Its interesting that there are a number of strands of evidence for R1a being in mixed groups in the copper and bronze age.

There is a contrasting impression that R1b operated in a more non-inclusive way like male descent was the be all and end all and they kept themselves almost like a male lineage caste who didnt mix or include while at the same time massively expanding through serial monogamy and polygamy. I admit this is based almost entirely on studies of modern DNA but I would suggest there is a hint of this. However to prove this we would need a good few more burial complexes dna tested relating to beaker, corded ware and steppe groups in the copper and bronze age.


Altaians (Russia)
Tuvas (Russia)
Khakassians (Russia)

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n4/images/ejhg2009194f1.jpg

alan
03-31-2014, 04:10 PM
That map is very good for demonstrating the way that with the non-IE waves of peoples movingg west from the east end of the steppes throughout history, the R1a rich groups ended up pushed towards the mountains in Asia - Altai, Himalyias, Urals etc and were somewhat decimated in large parts of the eastern steppes.

I suppose in this way it reflects the near disappearance of pre-Slavic IE languages in the Asian steppes and their survival in India to the south. However, Altai is odd in that high R1a remained but the language didnt - I suppose it was a heck of an outpost.

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.

The contrast between India and Iran is very interesting. Surely that has something to do with social structure? How was R1a able to expand so dramatically in India but not Iran?


Altaians (Russia)
Tuvas (Russia)
Khakassians (Russia)

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n4/images/ejhg2009194f1.jpg

parasar
03-31-2014, 04:11 PM
So they are Turkic peoples today who some time in the past encorporated a lot of R1a or are simply tribes that became Turkic at some point due to their location a huge distance from their compatriots and their taking of local women. The ethnogenesis of these heavily R1a Turkic tribes is very interesting.

It indicates a willingness to absorb or amalgamate with other male lines rather than strict exclusive clannishness. There is ancient DNA evidence too for this sort of thing in both corded ware and in the far east. Its interesting that there are a number of strands of evidence for R1a being in mixed groups in the copper and bronze age.
...

The theory used to be that there was movement from Eastern Europe to the Baikal in the Upper Paleolithic and then in the Bronze age and that the folk then admixed with Turks and were Turkified. But many of the newer ancient DNA discoveries are proving long held paradigms to be wrong.


the highest paternal contribution resulted
from Eastern European descent is revealed. Yet, our
data on Y-chromosome STRs variation demonstrate the
clear differences between the South Siberian and Eastern
European R1a1-lineages ... East Asian features thought to have been derived from
early modern East Asians exist in the tooth from the
Denisova Cave [this we now know is Denisovan] in the Altai region and in human s from the Afontova Gora II site and indicate
that the East Asians had moved into southwestern
Siberia by 21,000 B.P. ... the Upper Paleolithic artifacts from the 23,000-
year-old Mal’ta site near Lake Baikal in south-central
Siberia (Medvedev et al. 1996) have been found in
association with skeletal remains that bear similar
morphology with contemporary anatomically modern
humans teeth from Europe [we now know AG2 leans more towards Europeans than MA1]...

European features among steppe zone
inhabitants of Tuva, Altai, Khakassia, and West
Mongolia became the most significant since the
Bronze Age or even earlier (Alexeev and Gohman
1984; Alexeev 1989). The boundary of the Eastern
European influence is clearly fixed at Lake Baikal. To
the east of Baikal no palaeoanthropological find bears
any traces of European admixture (Alekseev 1998)...

Teleuts and Shors exhibit the highest frequencies of haplogroup
R1a1, which represents one of the most common male
components of Altai–Sayan region populations. It looks
like that R1a1-lineages probably originated in South
Russia/Ukraine region around 5,000 years ago and
associated with further Indo-European movements into
Central Asia

http://www.zgms.cm.umk.pl/prace/591-604.pdf

Mehrdad
03-31-2014, 05:40 PM
That map is very good for demonstrating the way that with the non-IE waves of peoples movingg west from the east end of the steppes throughout history, the R1a rich groups ended up pushed towards the mountains in Asia - Altai, Himalyias, Urals etc and were somewhat decimated in large parts of the eastern steppes.

I suppose in this way it reflects the near disappearance of pre-Slavic IE languages in the Asian steppes and their survival in India to the south. However, Altai is odd in that high R1a remained but the language didnt - I suppose it was a heck of an outpost.

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.

The contrast between India and Iran is very interesting. Surely that has something to do with social structure? How was R1a able to expand so dramatically in India but not Iran?

I am not an expert in South Asian culture, but the reason I think R1a1 flourished in India is during the Vedic period. Where the R1a1 Brahmins were revered and flourished. Please correct me if I'm wrong Parasar.

Palisto
03-31-2014, 06:33 PM
I made R1a-SNP frequency figures for various world regions based on genetic data from Underhill et al. 2014.
http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2014/03/underhill-et-al-2014.html

BMG
03-31-2014, 06:34 PM
Since the pakistani samples are essentially HDGP i was able to make out the samples from different groups

Balochi-7 L657-3 M434(downstream of L657?)-4
Brahui-6 L657-5 Z2125-1
Burusho-2 M560(downstream of Y40?)-2
Kalash-4 Z2125-4
Makrani-5 L657-1 M434-2 Z93-2
Pathan-8 Z2125-6 L657-2
Sindhi-11 L657-7 Z2125-3 M434-1

vettor
03-31-2014, 06:40 PM
In my opinion ‘Sarmatians’ in Poland around 43 AD were very likely heavy in R1a-M458 :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Europa_by_Pomponiusz_Mela_1st_century.jpg

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

And we also see that Belgae ( celts) on the coastla vistula river representing Venedi and Aestii tribes

bolek
03-31-2014, 06:50 PM
And we also see that Belgae ( celts) on the coastla vistula river representing Venedi and Aestii tribes
No, you are wrong. Belgae (Celts) are in Belgium.
http://s28.postimg.org/3ojeqs9jx/screenshot_750.png (http://postimage.org/)

alan
03-31-2014, 07:03 PM
So if all the ancient non-Slavic western steppe peoples in the Bronze and Iron Ages were Iranian speakers, does this mean that the present state of affairs of low Z93 in the old western steppes and lands just west is a relatively recent thing? After all in general Z93 has been linked with Indo-Iranians. Is the present dominance of Z282 in eastern Europe potentially a result of the Slavic expansion.

vettor
03-31-2014, 07:10 PM
No, you are wrong. Belgae (Celts) are in Belgium.
http://s28.postimg.org/3ojeqs9jx/screenshot_750.png (http://postimage.org/)

look at the map, there are 2 places for Belgae, who are celtic people

Generalissimo
03-31-2014, 08:32 PM
look at the map, there are 2 places for Belgae, who are celtic people

One is spelled with a C, and probably refers to Balts.

Jean M
03-31-2014, 08:50 PM
One is spelled with a C, and probably refers to Balts.

That map is simply wrong. It is a modern reconstruction and very faulty.

The term "Balts" was unknown in antiquity. It is a modern linguistic label.

Jean M
03-31-2014, 08:59 PM
In my opinion ‘Sarmatians’ in Poland around 43 AD were very likely heavy in R1a-M458 :

There were no Sarmatians in Poland. Roman geographers simply labelled Europe east of the Vistula as "Sarmatian Europe" after the Sarmatians in the south of Eastern Europe.


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

The maps on the Wikipedia page were not drawn up in the Roman period. They are attempts of different dates (1898 and 1911) to make sense of the geographically inaccurate textual description by Pomponius Mela. Here is another such attempt made in 1540 for an English translation of De Situ Orbis, the writings of the first century AD Roman geographer Pomponius Mela. The maps that illustrate the work are a fusion of the Portolan chart tradition, and the Ptolemaic* world view.

1669

From http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/unvbrit/a/001hgv000000399u00029000.html

*Ptolemy was a far better geographer than Pomponius Mela. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy

bolek
03-31-2014, 09:35 PM
There were no Sarmatians in Poland. Roman geographers simply labelled Europe east of the Vistula as "Sarmatian Europe" after the Sarmatians in the south of Eastern Europe.
No, you are wrong. There were Sarmatian (Slavic) tribes in Poland. Pliny the Elder calls them the Sarmatian Venedi (Latin Sarmatae Venedi).
And we know from Jordanes and others that Venedi, Sclavenes and Antes were all Slavs.
Sarmatians and Scythians were really the names applied to various Slavic tribes of the region as we are quite sure now (from genetics) that there were no Iranian tribes there.

Jean M
03-31-2014, 10:31 PM
There were Sarmatian (Slavic) tribes in Poland. Pliny the Elder calls them the Sarmatian Venedi (Latin Sarmatae Venedi). And we know from Jordanes and others that Venedi, Sclavenes and Antes were all Slavs.

This question of nomenclature is complicated, and has caused a lot of debate among historians, so I gave a lot of attention to sorting it out.


Sarmatians were not Slavs. Sarmatians were related to or descended from Scythians and ancestors of Alans. They spoke an Eastern Iranian language. East Iranian comes from a completely different branch of the Indo-European family from Slavic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
The Sarmatian Venedi (for the Romans) were simply those Venedi who lived in Sarmatia (i.e. Eastern Europe), as opposed to the peoples of similar name who lived in Brittany and Northern Italy. They were not Sarmatians.
Jordanes tells us that the Antes and Sclavenes were both originally called Venedi. He may be right, but this does not mean the Vistula Venedi, who were clearly Balts. Henry of Livonia in his Latin chronicle of c. 1200 described a clearly non-Slavic tribe of the Vindi (German Winden, English Wends) which lived in Courland and Livonia in what is now Latvia. The tribe’s name is preserved in the river Windau (Latvian Venta), with the town of Windau (Latvian Ventspils) at its mouth, and in Wenden, the old name of the town of Cēsis in Livonia. They could not be Slavs. Proto-Slavic had no word for amber, or maritime terms.
The Slavs and Balts were sufficiently related to make it quite likely that the same name would be used for both in the early days of Roman exploration. So I don't have a problem with the statement by Jordanes, but I think it relates to peoples further south than the Visula Venedi. The name appears on the only map that actually does survive from (late) Roman times - in two places, once on the Baltic, and once near the Danube, where some Slavs had arrived by that time.

bolek
03-31-2014, 11:11 PM
This question of nomenclature is complicated, and has caused a lot of debate among historians, so I gave a lot of attention to sorting it out.
[/LIST]

You should take into consideration also genetic evidence i.e. genetic continuity in Poland and Ukraine:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2347-New-R1a-paper-by-Underhill-et-al&p=35514&viewfull=1#post35514

There is no evidence of Iranian speakers in the western steppe. It has been ‘deduced’ in modern times from the fact that Ossetians are Iranian speakers and from the fact that in Persian influenced areas like the Kingdom of Pontus some possibly ‘Iranian’ names were recorded.

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

All that ‘evidence’ is really pseudoscience.
Genetics does not confirm Iranian presence in the western steppe in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Jean M
03-31-2014, 11:43 PM
You should take into consideration also genetic evidence i.e. genetic continuity in Poland and Ukraine

We do not have ancient DNA showing Y-DNA continuity in Poland. In fact the only Y-DNA indicates lack of continuity from Funnel Beaker to Corded Ware. Ukraine is another matter. It was the Slavic homeland c. 500 AD (though not as far south as the steppe) and has Slavs living there now.

The genetic evidence from IDB shows Slavs expanded hugely from a relatively small homeland at the time that linguists, historians and archaeologists had already deduced that they did.


There is no evidence of Iranian speakers in the western steppe.

We know that Scythians were Iranian-speakers from the recorded languages of their descendants in Asia. We know from Herodotus that Scythians from Asia took over the European steppe from the Cimmerians. That fits the archaeological evidence of people arriving on the European steppe with a culture comparable to those identified as Scythian in Asia. The Scythians on the European steppe were described by ancient authors from Herodotus onwards. They were known to be related to Scythians in Asia.


Genetics does not confirm Iranian presence in the western steppe in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

If you are talking about R1a1-Z93, then we would would need to get ancient DNA from Scythian kurgans on the Western steppe. So far we don't have it. Modern DNA is useless for this purpose because of population replacement.


All that ‘evidence’ is really pseudoscience.

No. Pseudo-science is something rather different i.e. dressing up wishful thinking and fantasy in clothing suggestive of science to those unable to tell the difference.

alan
04-01-2014, 12:25 AM
I am no expert but the major rivers that flow through the western steppe like Dniester, Don, Dnieper, dniester etc are Iranian. Normally in hydronomy the larger the river the older the substrate.


You should take into consideration also genetic evidence i.e. genetic continuity in Poland and Ukraine:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2347-New-R1a-paper-by-Underhill-et-al&p=35514&viewfull=1#post35514

There is no evidence of Iranian speakers in the western steppe. It has been ‘deduced’ in modern times from the fact that Ossetians are Iranian speakers and from the fact that in Persian influenced areas like the Kingdom of Pontus some possibly ‘Iranian’ names were recorded.

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

All that ‘evidence’ is really pseudoscience.
Genetics does not confirm Iranian presence in the western steppe in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

AJL
04-01-2014, 01:57 AM
You should take into consideration also genetic evidence i.e. genetic continuity in Poland and Ukraine:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2347-New-R1a-paper-by-Underhill-et-al&p=35514&viewfull=1#post35514

There is no evidence of Iranian speakers in the western steppe. It has been ‘deduced’ in modern times from the fact that Ossetians are Iranian speakers and from the fact that in Persian influenced areas like the Kingdom of Pontus some possibly ‘Iranian’ names were recorded.

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

All that ‘evidence’ is really pseudoscience.
Genetics does not confirm Iranian presence in the western steppe in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Your reasoning is badly flawed. You are asking us to take a presumed genetic continuity on faith, when toponyms offer evidence to the contrary? Who is the pseudoscientist here?

(See Mallory, 1994, for ample evidence of Iranian hydronyms across what is now Ukraine.)

{EDIT}
Oops, I see alan made the same point before I read on.

vettor
04-01-2014, 02:12 AM
No, you are wrong. There were Sarmatian (Slavic) tribes in Poland. Pliny the Elder calls them the Sarmatian Venedi (Latin Sarmatae Venedi).
And we know from Jordanes and others that Venedi, Sclavenes and Antes were all Slavs.
Sarmatians and Scythians were really the names applied to various Slavic tribes of the region as we are quite sure now (from genetics) that there were no Iranian tribes there.

first of all, No Greek or Roman historian ever used 2 words to describe 1 tribe

secondly, from slavic historians
The original and therefore very precious information provided by Jordanes was that the territory of Moesia, once the habitat of the Getae and then the Goths, was now under the control of the Sclaveni; Sclaveni a civitate Novietunense et laco qui appellatur Mursiano. To this he made two additions, since he associated the classical Venedae (= his Venethae) with the Sclaveni and Antes of his time. One insertion relates to the habitat of the Antes: usque ad Danastrum (cf. Antes. . . a Danastro extenduntur § 35), and the second insertion connects the information on the Sclaveni with that on the Venethae: in boream Viscla (cf. ab ortu Vistulae. . . Venetharum natio. . . consedit § 34).

Jordanes associated the classical Venedae with Vinid-, the Gothic designation for the Latin/Byzantine Sklavin-, on the same «linguistic» grounds that he identified the Goths with the Getae: simple similarity in sound [64]. On the other hand, he included the group he called Venethae = Vinid- in his introductory section for good reason: it was part of the Gothic tradition, where the great ruler Hermanarich (§ 119) had dealings with the Venethae. We assume, then, that Jordanes in this case is not speaking of his own time, but is merely putting together information from his heterogeneous sources. We cannot trust his remarks about the Venethae (= classical Venedae). Further, Jordanes had learned about the populous band of the Venedae from classical sources, especially Ptolemy, who connected them with the Vistula River, even giving the Gulf of Danzig the designation κόλπος Οὐενεδικός. Tacitus wrote that the Venedi's «plundering forays take them over all that wooded and mountainous country» (§ 46) [65]. It was apparently on that basis that Jordanes gave his description of the habitat of the Venethae: hi paludes silvasque pro civitatibus habent (§ 35). Jordanes here is not providing contemporary, sixth-century, data, but a rehash of material from older sources.
The word Vinid- is of Old Germanic origin; it is related to Old Norse vinr-, which had the meaning (established by Jost Trier) «der Genosse im Ring» (' comrade in the ring [of the warriors ']) [66]. But there was still another reason why Jordanes identified Venetae (= classical Venedae) with the Germanic term Vinid-. Like the Goths, who took over the former habitat of the Getae, the Vinid-, of his time lived on the territory of the ancient Venedae. Jordanes's data on the Vinid- (~ Vindi) are original and extremely important.
He tells us that the Vidivarii (this word has correctly been recognized as Vindivarii) live «on the shores of the ocean (Baltic Sea) where the waters of the Vistula river stream through three throats». They are not an ethnic unit, but people «congregated from different bands (or races)» (ex diversis nationibus adgregati, § 36). It is certain that in Jordanes' Vi[n]divarii we are dealing with a form of a name which Jordanes incorrectly took to be a supposed illustration of the original name of the people concerned: Vindi = Sclavi, plus the Latin word varii, meaning 'different'.

It is fortunate that Jordanes provides another form of this name: Viuidarii, gens Viuidaria (§ 96, which specialists have also corrected to Vinidarii). The second element in the name, -varii > -arii, stands for the Germanic *vari-ōs 'defender' [67]. The term *vinid-[v]ari-ōs, therefore, should be translated as «defender of the comrades in the [warriors'] ring» (or possibly: «inhabitant of the ring ») [68]. The remaining information that Jordanes furnishes corroborates this proposed etymology. He writes:
«The same Gepidae were bursting with envy as long as they lived in the region of Spesis (Spesis provincia, unidentified hapax) [69] on the island surrounded by spits of the Vistula which in their own language they called Gepedoios (Germ. ojos «island »). Now, I was told, this island is inhabited by the kind (gens) *Vinid-ari, since the [the Gepidae] left (ca. 250) for better lands.
It is well known that the *Vinidarii [are those] who had congregated together from different bands [or races] (ex diversis nationďbus) as if to one refuge and had formed one kind (in unum asylum collecti sunt et gentem fecisse noscuntur, § 96)» [70].
This definition of the Vinid-ari- is of profound importance for European history. Jordanes was in large part a compiler, and he patched together facts or statements from many different sources with no regard at all for the times and places these sources were written. Yet when he reports about groups and events for which he has contemporary information, he seems to have been accurate and therefore we can trust his statements.
During his lifetime, an institution that would subsequently have worldwide importance was in the process of formation. In Germanic it was called Vinid-, in the Byzantine cultural sphere Σκλαβην-/Sclavīn-, and (later) in the Islamic world aṣ-Ṣaqlab. From Jordanes we can deduce that these terms were originally neither ethnic nor linguistic in meaning, but organizational. What was involved was a new kind of military organization, but one similar to groups which repeatedly were formed in the course of the rise of steppe or sea paces. Paesants from different hamlets, often diverse in ethnic origin but always similar in parochial outlook, after having spent some time together in a refuge - like the Vinidarii - and having undergone military training, developed into a band of professional warriors using the same lingua franca.
Let us recall two other equivalent terms used by Jordanes: the phrases vagina nationum and officina gentium, i.e., 'the vagina of bands', and the 'factory of tribes' (§ 25). These are revealing metaphors, surely, meaning the whole system of attracting raw recruits, gathering them into a training ground whose location was, for the observers in the sedentary empires, mysterious or even fantastic, and then se[n]ding out terrifying masses of trained soldiers in sudden and devastating attacks against distant territories. Even from Jordanes's data, it is evident that Scandinavia was not the original home (Urheimat) of the Goths. Berig had assembled his people there to train them for his planned military campaigns on the European continent. Both Scandinavia and the Vistula delta - like Mongolia earlier and later, and like the Zaporogian Sič in the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries - were training centers for the transformation of peasants (or pasturalists, or even fishermen) from the surrounding territories into a class of professional warriors.

This is, then, another instance of a phenomenon which kept repeating in Eurasian history. The non-historical pastoralists or peasants beyond the limes of the existing historical empires (Rome, Iran, China), who had no experience with the larger world, and whose parochial interests therefore did not in any way predispose them to larger political bodies, were more often than not forced into undergoing a period of training that absorbed them into one larger body. This process, which usually lasted over successive generations for at least one century, created an upper class among the trainees that was cognizant of larger political bodies. That class became ready to take part in strengthening a pax and in forging the parochial dialects into a standard medium of communication for the entire pax. Linguae francae developed that embraced diverse linguistic entities into a «common language», whether based on Turkic or Slavic (or other) materials. Upon the demise of the pax, it was possible for several full-fledged «daughter languages» to emerge. This involves a concept of language development often ignored by those who take too literally the model of the genealogical tree of language as it was elaborated during the age of Romanticism. Rather than seeing only branches that continually sprout new branches, we are saying that a lingua franca which has evolved in order to serve large areas itself becomes a new and fairly uniform «tree» that then slowly puts forth new branches.
I spent four decades studying all twenty-two living Turkic languages, along with all the extinct forms that are known, with the aim of uncovering a Proto-Turkic stage (or perhaps more than one). I could not escape the conclusion that the oldest reconstructable common Turkic is the stage which directly preceded the oldest Turkic written texts, about 550-650, that is to say the time when the Turkic pax with its lingua franca, essentially free of dialectal diversities, was created.
My friend and colleague, Horace G. Lunt, has recently told me that he has had essentially the same experience with Slavic material. The oldest reconstructable Slavic differs so little from attested Old Church Slavonic, whose normalized form can be put in the ninth century, that OCS itself must be considered a dialect form of Common Slavic, and a dialect-free stage could be envisaged for as late as 750-800.

Historians have generally used linguistic abstractions, such as the notion of Common Slavic, for their own purposes, without trying to discover what objective reality was behind them. We need to try rather to study concrete peoples in concrete situations, insofar as this is possible. It is my conviction that only a method of historical sociolinguistics, such as we are suggesting here, can produce valid answers to our valid questions.
Let us turn to another equation made by Jordanes in his introduction (§ 35). He presents the Antes as the same, apparently meaning the same society, as the Sclaveni, although they are stronger than the Sclaveni. There are two points to be considered before we turn to the etymology of this name. The first is the minor but perhaps significant fact that Jordanes has the plural form Antes [71] (Antium), which is unexpected as an equivalent of the Greek Ἄνται (sg. Ἄντης) of all other sources [72]. The second is that this group appears and disappears during the brief span between 535 and 602 in Procopius, Menander, Agathias, Pseudo-Mauricius, Theophylact Simocattes and Theophanes [73]; it is only Jordanes that mentions Antes outside this period. He brings them up in connection with the Ostrogoths at the end of the fourth century. In a passage explicitly derived from old sources (and perhaps we may assume here the Gothic songs Jordanes mentions in his introduction), Jordanes relates how the resistance of the Antes was crushed by the Gothic king Vinitharius (fl. about 400). He captured Boz, «rex» of the Antes, and crucified him along with his sons and seventy nobles (primates, § 247). At that time, namely during the «third habitat», the Goths lived super limbum Ponti, « above an arm of the Pontic Sea », that is, in the curve north of the Black Sea, between the Dniester and Dnieper rivers (§ 82), called the Lukomorie in sources from Kievan Rus' [74]. Hence Jordanes never actually defines the current habitat of the Antes in his own time, but merely recounts at second hand tales about the glorious past of the Goths. A reasonable hypothesis is that the Antes/Antai, like the Vinid- (who, as we already know, merged in Jordanes's mind with the Venedae of classical times) were present in the Gothic oral traditions. The Vinid- were linked with the great Ostrogothic king Hermanarich (d. 375) who, having overpowered the Heruli, forced them and the Baltic Aesti to submit to his rule (§ 119) [75].
As for the other historians, speaking of near-contemporary events of the sixth century, their statements are remarkably vague. In Pseudo-Mauricius Σκλάβοι and Ἄνται are always linked, in that order, while Procopius has Σκλαβηνοί and Ἄνται four times, but Ἄνται and Σκλαβηνοί three times, though does mention the Ἄνται alone in two extensive passages. In fact, it appears that this name had no precise meaning to the sixth-century historians.
This analysis shows clearly that §§ 35-36 do not contain precious information about the topography of the putative three branches of the Slavs, contrary to the belief of many scholars. Rather, apart from the current location of the Sclaveni in Jordanes's former homeland, Pannonian Moesia (a civitate Novietunense et laco qui appellatur Mursiano, § 35) and the information on the non-Slavic Vistula Vinidarii, all the data are only various insertions the compiler took from different sources, whether classical writings or oral traditions, of the Goths themselves. Jordanes put the Vinid-, Sclaveni and Antes together not on the basis of ethnic or linguistic criteria, but because all three terms refer to institutions of military colonists on frontier territories. Although this findings may dismay Slavists, it will help historians understand the process of nation-building in medieval Europe and Asia [76].
(75) In § 36 in the introduction, the Vinid- (Vidivarii) are mentioned just before the Aesti; surely this is part of the traditional association with Hermanarich.

And lastly, The Venedi along with its baltic coastal "amber finders" neighbours, the Aestii disappeared from history after the Goths annexed them ~200AD

parasar
04-01-2014, 02:32 AM
There were no Sarmatians in Poland. Roman geographers simply labelled Europe east of the Vistula as "Sarmatian Europe" after the Sarmatians in the south of Eastern Europe.


...

We have had this discussion before. Pomponius Mela's description looks correct. He not only puts the Sarmatians in the modern Poland region, but also describes them in detail.
He clearly know his geography well as he places the Sarmatians at the Danube too.



I am no expert but the major rivers that flow through the western steppe like Dniester, Don, Dnieper, dniester etc are Iranian ...

The only historical Iranians are people of modern Afghanistan and perhaps modern eastern Iran. Saklab/Sak/Slav, IMO, is a better name for what is now-a-days deemed Iranian, who by Iranians were called Turanians.
Don, etc. is more likely a Keltic name indicating an older presence of Kelts in the Ukraine region prior to the Slavs. Danmark, Don (England), Doncaster, are all of Keltic origin.

parasar
04-01-2014, 03:15 AM
I am not an expert in South Asian culture, but the reason I think R1a1 flourished in India is during the Vedic period. Where the R1a1 Brahmins were revered and flourished. Please correct me if I'm wrong Parasar.

True, Brahmins were very respected. Perhaps when they moved east from the Indus post the demise of IVC, they carried R1a1 to the relatively forested Gangetic plains, which they cleared, and where R1a1 spread rapidly due to the growth of agriculture. It is amazing how R1a1 in India shows presence along those two rivers. But this scenario could be completely wrong if Indus remains don't reveal presence of R1a1.

It is interesting to read the Greek accounts of Alexander's return from India (modern Pakistan) and Greek interaction with Brahmins - it was a bloody affair all along the way down the Indus.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jYLuvdSxUmQC&pg=PA94

When the British came into India from the east, the East India Company put a booty on of one my (collateral line, not direct paternal) ancestors. He had to be captured, dead or alive, to get the reward, but no one did it, perhaps as speculated by Company officials, because he was a Brahmin.

The outlaw made several unsuccessful attempts to regain Husepur, and for many years led the life of a free-booter, making frequent raids into Saran. In the course of these raids he murdered several rent-collectors, and also his cousin Basant Sahi, whom he beheaded at Jadopur, a village 5 miles to the north of Gopalganj, where a big pipal tree marks the scene of his death. Basant Sahi had helped the Company's troops in getting information of the movements of Fateh Sahi, for whose capture, dead or alive, a reward of Rs. 10,000 had been offered. Enraged at the treachery of his cousin, Fateh Sahi, learning that he was in camp at Jadopur with Mir Jamal, the rent-colleotor of the Company, sallied forth at night from the jungle of Charakhia at the head of 1,000 horsemen, and at day-break attacked Mir Jamal, killed him and Basant Sahi, and sent the head of the latter to his widow at Husepur. The widow of Basant Sahi there upon immolated herself on the funeral pyre, with thirteen of her hand-maids, holding the head of her deceased husband in her lap. A big banyan tree in the jungle to the east of the ruined fort at Husepur still marks the site of her death; and there are 14 small mounds of earth under the tree held sacred to the memory of the sati

http://books.google.com/books?id=dhUmAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA156

"Futee Saw [Fateh Sahi] ... the circumstances of his being a Bramin may also be a cause which restrains the inhabitants from taking part against him"
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ck4jmD7H34UC&pg=PA66

parasar
04-01-2014, 03:28 AM
Since the pakistani samples are essentially HDGP i was able to make out the samples from different groups

Balochi-7 L657-3 M434(downstream of L657?)-4
Brahui-6 L657-5 Z2125-1
Burusho-2 M560(downstream of Y40?)-2
Kalash-4 Z2125-4
Makrani-5 L657-1 M434-2 Z93-2
Pathan-8 Z2125-6 L657-2
Sindhi-11 L657-7 Z2125-3 M434-1

Looks correct as Z2125 is more common in the north and L657 in the south.
M434 though, as per the body of the paper is downstream of Z2125 and not L657.
"the Z2125 sub-hg M434, Figure 1"

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U25KKODqD8M/UzN-UTI-ImI/AAAAAAAAJiE/rzY2454L22k/s1600/ejhg201450f1.jpg

Generalissimo
04-01-2014, 04:49 AM
If you are talking about R1a1-Z93, then we would would need to get ancient DNA from Scythian kurgans on the Western steppe. So far we don't have it. Modern DNA is useless for this purpose because of population replacement.

I really can't see Z93 in Ukraine prior to the Turkic invasions from Asia. At best, it was a minority marker there, because its main expansions were clearly always east of the Volga-Ural region.

The Scythian tribes in Eastern Europe most likely belonged to subclades that are now most common around the Volga and Danube.

The Slavic expansions were massive, but most of what we see on this PCA had to be there before them. It's obvious because there aren't any clear linguistic or even geographic correlations in that European box, which includes all sorts of populations all the way from Germany to the Urals, and from Greece to Finland.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/ejhg201450f4.jpg

Jean M
04-01-2014, 08:55 AM
I really can't see Z93 in Ukraine prior to the Turkic invasions from Asia. At best, it was a minority marker there, because its main expansions were clearly always east of the Volga-Ural region.

So you recognise the invasions from Asia of Turks who had assimilated some Z93 from Scythians en route, but not the prior invasion of Scythians from whom they has assimilated the Z93? We know that Scythians had arrived on the European steppe from Asia. Their descendants are not there now. They were chased deeper into Europe by the Turkic and Mongol nomads. They moved up the Danube and were scattered. Then the Slavs pushed back the peoples of East Asian nomadic origin from the steppe, so that Ukraine is now Slavic. Modern DNA is not a substitute for ancient DNA.

Generalissimo
04-01-2014, 10:26 AM
So you recognise the invasions from Asia of Turks who had assimilated some Z93 from Scythians en route, but not the prior invasion of Scythians from whom they has assimilated the Z93? We know that Scythians had arrived on the European steppe from Asia. Their descendants are not there now. They were chased deeper into Europe by the Turkic and Mongol nomads. They moved up the Danube and were scattered. Then the Slavs pushed back the peoples of East Asian nomadic origin from the steppe, so that Ukraine is now Slavic. Modern DNA is not a substitute for ancient DNA.

The Turks assimilated groups in Asia as well as Europe, that's why, for instance, some of the Turkic groups from around the North Caucasus carry quite a bit of European M458.

But that's beside the point. There's nothing to suggest that Z93 was common in Eastern Europe, even when the Turkic tribes moved up and down the steppe, because they were never really numerous anyway.

The subclades of the pre-Slavic expansion Eastern Europeans look like Z280 and to a lesser degree M458. On the other hand, Z93's home turf is clearly much further to the east. The results we've just seen would have to be very different for your arguments to look convincing. They're not backed by anything.

Jean M
04-01-2014, 11:44 AM
The subclades of the pre-Slavic expansion Eastern Europeans look like Z280 and to a lesser degree M458. On the other hand, Z93's home turf is clearly much further to the east.

Yes I know. :) No problem at all with that. It is wonderfully clear that R1a1a split into an Asian branch (Z93) and a European branch (Z283) at around the time that we have linguistic and archaeological evidence for the expansion of Proto-Indo-European speakers east and west from the European steppe i.e. c. 3500 BC. That was clear from the excellent work of the FTDNA R1a1a and Subclades project before the Underhill et al 2014 paper came out. https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?section=results

The point is that the Scythians obviously fall into the Asian branch. They lived on the Asian steppe for thousands of years. Some of them (not all) moved onto the European steppe c. 700 BC. They were replaced there by Sarmatians/Alans who were also Iranian speakers. They were replaced by Huns, Avars, Turks, Mongols etc. Then they were replaced there by Slavs. There is plenty of archaeological and historical evidence of all this. The descendants of Scythians are not living on the European steppe any more. They were scattered around Europe long ago. You can expect no more than trace elements of them anywhere - tiny, tiny amounts of Z93 which we can link to Sarmatians in the Roman army, or Alans allied to the Vandals or whatever.

Jean M
04-01-2014, 12:02 PM
DNA testing will be carried out on the bones from an impressively rich Sarmatian burial mound excavated last summer in Russia’s Southern Ural steppes. I don't want to raise false hopes. So often Y-DNA has not been retrieved, but let's keep our fingers crossed.

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/09/2013/extraordinary-kurgan-burial-shines-new-light-on-sarmatian-life


Under the eastern mound an undisturbed burial chamber was discovered measuring approximately 4x5m and 4m deep. At the bottom of the chamber several stratified layers of debris were excavated to reveal exceptionally rich and varied grave goods accompanying a human skeleton. The material associated with the burial seemed to belong to a woman as it contained what is regarded as representing typically female artefacts and jewellery. However, initial osteological examination of the skeletal morphology revealed the occupant of the burial to be male; though DNA-analysis is still to be carried out.

alan
04-01-2014, 01:01 PM
I must admit I am in the camp that Scythian DNA would have been Z93 and that would mean that discontinuity on the steppes in the rule which is hardly surprising given the history of the area and the nature of nomadism. It does mean modern genetics give us no idea whatsoever of the distribution of y lineages in the western steppes 2000 years ago, let alone 5-6000 years ago.

It does also raise for me the question as to why were the R1a and R1b groups who spread across Europe an exception? How is it that they were able to establish permanence. Assuming they derived from the steppes then why were those lineages spreading into a relatively alien farming world so successful? In their success and massive demographic growth they seem at odds with the temporary nature or demographically modest impact of all the steppe groups who penetrated into Old Europe in recorded history. Assuming they were of steppe origin, what is of note in terms of ancient European R1a and b is its greatest and most permanent impact was off-steppe in a world where farming was long established and the cultures (beaker, corded ware and others) that drove these lineages across most of Europe were by no means nomadic pastoralist ones. If the lineages were steppe-originated they underwent a unique transformation in nature and society. That to me remains a bit of a mystery as this feat was never again repeated by steppe groups in historic times.

Mehrdad
04-01-2014, 02:10 PM
But this scenario could be completely wrong if Indus remains don't reveal presence of R1a1.

I have been thinking about that a lot lately. What would happen if the Indus remains do not have R1a1, what then? What dates will we be looking at for our ancestors migration into South Asia. I'm still really bummed that the farmana remains were too damaged for DNA testing.

alan
04-01-2014, 04:14 PM
I would be amazed if the Indus Valley Civilisation had R1a unless we are talking about some stray very upstream forms that had drifted there in the late upper palaeolithic and are non-ancestral to most modern R1a in the area.

Jean M
04-01-2014, 04:40 PM
What would happen if the Indus remains do not have R1a1, what then? What dates will we be looking at for our ancestors migration into South Asia.

Same date that archaeologists proposed years ago: c. 1900 BC. Here's a paper from 1966 by Ahmad Hasan Dani, Professor of Archaeology, University of Peshawar, that suggested that the Gandhara Grave Complex in West Pakistan was the material manifestation of the Aryans arriving. http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/16781/AP-v11n1-99-110.pdf

Elena E. Kuz'mina, The Origins of the Indo-Iranians (2007) has gone into most detail, as far as I know, starting on p. 324.


Burials in the post-Harappan cultures of North-Western India Burials dating from after 1900 BC belong to an epoch of turbulent movements when one culture was replacing another (Piggott 1950: 214-243; Gordon 1958: 77-97). Post-Harappan burials have been excavated in the Punjab—cemetery H at Harappa, in Sind—at Jhukar and Chanhu-Daro, in Baluchistan—in Rana-Ghundai, in Nal-Shahi-Tump, and in Makran in Khurab.

BMG
04-01-2014, 04:46 PM
I would be amazed if the Indus Valley Civilisation had R1a unless we are talking about some stray very upstream forms that had drifted there in the late upper palaeolithic and are non-ancestral to most modern R1a in the area.
why ? At least the precursors should be a possibility .

Jean M
04-01-2014, 04:54 PM
why ? At least the precursors should be a possibility .

So I always thought. Like Alan, I felt that some hunter-gatherer R1a1a could have drifted south into South Asia long before the arrival of Indic speakers c. 1900 BC. But (as far as I know - correct me if I'm wrong) none of this has turned up in testing since the new SNPs have been available to test. That doesn't absolutely rule out trace amounts at a level that would only be picked up by testing far larger percentages of the population. But I'd say the crucial point is that most R1a1a in India seems to be much more recent - Z93 and subclades.

DMXX
04-01-2014, 05:06 PM
The only historical Iranians are people of modern Afghanistan and perhaps modern eastern Iran. Saklab/Sak/Slav, IMO, is a better name for what is now-a-days deemed Iranian, who by Iranians were called Turanians.


So - Using arguably more important historical examples than the Soghdians and Bactrians - the Medians, Persians and other ancient Iranian tribes who settled across the north and west of the Iranian plateau shouldn't be considered Iranian, yet the modern people of Iran who live in the same territory as said Medians and Persians are "Saklab/Sak/Slav"?

I've read some rather odd things on this forum, but nothing that reverses history greater than that quote. Unless you are referring exclusively to those ancient Iranic-speaking nomadic populations, in which case I would agree they weren't the same "sort" of Iranians as the Persians, Medians, Bactrians etc. and were most certainly Turanians.

vettor
04-01-2014, 05:24 PM
Yes I know. :) No problem at all with that. It is wonderfully clear that R1a1a split into an Asian branch (Z93) and a European branch (Z283) at around the time that we have linguistic and archaeological evidence for the expansion of Proto-Indo-European speakers east and west from the European steppe i.e. c. 3500 BC. That was clear from the excellent work of the FTDNA R1a1a and Subclades project before the Underhill et al 2014 paper came out. https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?section=results

The point is that the Scythians obviously fall into the Asian branch. They lived on the Asian steppe for thousands of years. Some of them (not all) moved onto the European steppe c. 700 BC. They were replaced there by Sarmatians/Alans who were also Iranian speakers. They were replaced by Huns, Avars, Turks, Mongols etc. Then they were replaced there by Slavs. There is plenty of archaeological and historical evidence of all this. The descendants of Scythians are not living on the steppe any more. They were scattered around Europe long ago. You can expect no more than trace elements of them anywhere - tiny, tiny amounts of Z93 which we can link to Sarmatians in the Roman army, or Alans allied to the Vandals or whatever.

you left out the important part of the Goths absorbed the Sarmatians for 2 centuries prior to the goths invasion of the Roman empire

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ziZX5M6glLMC&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=goths+absorbed+sarmatians&source=bl&ots=5KkHc5JiDL&sig=FhPkHwQSa9unjZVsnzL8ptL396A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-_Q6U4yZPIW7kAWx64D4Dw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=goths%20absorbed%20sarmatians&f=false

The Huns pushed the Goths to invade , because the Huns invaded Gothic lands on the north of the black sea. Too many people forget that the Goths where living for over 200 years in the black sea and crimea lands

alan
04-01-2014, 05:29 PM
I would still think those excellent distribution maps tell us something clear. Z93 could not have been any sort of player west of the Volga-Urals in the period say 4200BC-3000BC. I say that because if it had been of any size or importance in that area it would have been swept into Old Europe in that period. A lack of Z93 on the western steppes today may not be significant given its colourful history of population change but IMO a lack of Z93 in the non-steppe parts of the eastern half of Europe is significant and would be impossible to imagine in Z93 was a significant sized clade and located in the western steppe before 3000BC. This points to Z93 to have only become of any size at all at some location east of the Volga-Urals how far east I do not know. It must have put a significant amount of distance between it and the western steppes before it became any sort of player or it surely would have spread into Europe.

Now I accept that the Indo-Iranians are probably strongly linked Z93 and therefore that Andronovo probably is too. I think after 2nd thoughts it is probably best to see the Z93 pattern of today as only a remanant or refuge of a lineage that once dominated the Asian steppes, probably from fairly early on in the movement east of people from the European steppe. The lack of Z93 makes much more sense if it was associated with the Indo-Iranian branch and that evolved somewhere from the Urals eastwards - Indo-Iranian speakers appearance in the European steppe being a later east to west invasion associated with Scythians, Sarmations etc. As to what was the first distinct IE dialect branch to evolve in the western steppes, I suspect it was a non-Z93, non-Indo-Iranian group who moved before history and are probably first recorded somewhere like the Balkans etc. I believe Cimmerians are the first recorded people and their language is still guesswork. I personally think they were probably more likely linked to some language better attested in the Balkans like Thracian.

BMG
04-01-2014, 05:30 PM
So I always thought. Like Alan, I felt that some hunter-gatherer R1a1a could have drifted south into South Asia long before the arrival of Indic speakers c. 1900 BC. But so far (as far as I know - correct me if I'm wrong) none of this has turned up in testing since the new SNPs have been available to test. That doesn't absolutely rule out trace amounts at a level that would only be picked up by testing far larger percentages of the population. But I'd say the crucial point is that most R1a1a in India seems to be much more recent - Z93 and subclades.
Actually we should say Z94 and subclades . Of All i know the Z94- samples comes from the peripheries ie one PJL sample for 1000 genomes ,a kashmiri from geno 2.0 project and the two from this study which i presume to be from makrani samples .Apart from L657 and Z2125 only other subclade seems to be a few Y40 .
I feel the tribals or some isolated groups would have best preserved the earlier lines .The three tribal samples in this study came out as Z2125 and Z95 and if the Z95 is actually Y40 then there is nothing new .

DMXX
04-01-2014, 07:52 PM
I feel the tribals or some isolated groups would have best preserved the earlier lines .The three tribal samples in this study came out as Z2125 and Z95 and if the Z95 is actually Y40 then there is nothing new .

With the above in mind, have the Chenchu R1a been assessed with any of these new post-2009 SNPs, anyone?

Jean M
04-01-2014, 08:01 PM
Saklab/Sak/Slav

Why do you think Saka equates to Slav? Simply because the names both start with S? Neither historians nor linguists agree with you.

Saka - Scythian. Herodotus actually says this. Scythians were Eastern Iranian speakers. We know this.

Slavs = speakers of Slavic languages. The earliest ethnonym which we can be sure came from Slavs themselves is Slověne, which appears in Old Church Slavonic. It is recognisably related to Sclaveni. This has nothing to do with Scythians/Saka or Sarmatians.

vettor
04-01-2014, 08:20 PM
Why do you think Saka equates to Slav? Simply because the names both start with S? Neither historians nor linguists agree with you.

Saka - Scythian. Herodotus actually says this. Scythians were Eastern Iranian speakers. We know this.

Slavs = speakers of Slavic languages. The earliest ethnonym which we can be sure came from Slavs themselves is Slověne, which appears in Old Church Slavonic. It is recognisably related to Sclaveni. This has nothing to do with Scythians/Saka or Sarmatians.

I agree...they are more like modern kazahs

As per word association, Sclaveni is said to be slav, but then Skalvini are curonians/Lithuanians from ancient times...........There is no proof sclaveni are who they are, except from Jordanes , a person who most modern historians ridicule..............I have serious doubts that these people are purely slavs and slavs only

Jean M
04-01-2014, 08:34 PM
Pomponius Mela's description looks correct. He not only puts the Sarmatians in the modern Poland region, but also describes them in detail. He clearly know his geography well as he places the Sarmatians at the Danube too.

From the time that Greek colonies settled on the north coast of the Black Sea, Greek geographers were well-informed about the people living around those colonies. Herodotus tells us a lot about the Scythians, for example. But he knew nothing about the Baltic. He said that, despite his efforts, he had yet to encounter anyone who had actually seen the sea that was reported to exist north of Europe. It looks as though as least one Greek traveller ventured as far as the Baltic, but left us only confusing scraps of information. Once the Romans had conquered Gaul, they had much better information. Ptolemy even manages to give us the names of tribes east of the Vistula. Mela does not. He simply gives the Vistula as the western boundary of what was called Sarmatia (after the nomads at the south end of eastern Europe that the Greeks and Romans actually knew about.) This was the geographical convention that Ptolemy follows, but he does not make the mistake of thinking that Sarmatians actually lived east of the Vistula along the Baltic.

See http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/arctic37-4-347.pdf


It is interesting to compare Mela’s impression of the North, at times rhetorical and somewhat naive, with the more scientific approach of Ptolemy, working from Alexandria between AD. 127 and 150.


Don, etc. is more likely a Keltic name indicating an older presence of Kelts in the Ukraine region prior to the Slavs. Danmark, Don (England), Doncaster, are all of Keltic origin.

The word (dehnu) can be reconstructed in PIE, with the meaning "river" (as we know from Iranian e.g. Av. danu = "river"). It is most famously attested in the river names "Danube" and "Don". The River Don in Britain comes from the same root, but the assumption there is that it passed into Britain via Celtic. See Mallory and Adams (2006), p. 127.

I can't imagine why you would think Denmark is either from Celtic or from "river". The etymology is discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Denmark

Jean M
04-01-2014, 08:36 PM
Skalvini are curonians/Lithuanians from ancient times.

Who says this? Are you getting mixed up with Venedi?

parasar
04-02-2014, 12:52 AM
Actually we should say Z94 and subclades . Of All i know the Z94- samples comes from the peripheries ie one PJL sample for 1000 genomes ,a kashmiri from geno 2.0 project and the two from this study which i presume to be from makrani samples .Apart from L657 and Z2125 only other subclade seems to be a few Y40 .
I feel the tribals or some isolated groups would have best preserved the earlier lines .The three tribal samples in this study came out as Z2125 and Z95 and if the Z95 is actually Y40 then there is nothing new .

There is one M417* sample:

South India M417 DYS385a,b 14,14



...But I'd say the crucial point is that most R1a1a in India seems to be much more recent - Z93 and subclades.

Much more recent compared to what? You can see the 0s at 11, and 18 and 9,10,12 and 17 are at exactly the same SNP level.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/ejhg201450f5.jpg

vettor
04-02-2014, 01:16 AM
Who says this? Are you getting mixed up with Venedi?

no, not the west-baltic, future baltic -prussian Venedi

I am talking about the samogitians and their many sub-tribes ( skalvini tribe and others which eventullay formed into Lithuanians)
The very term "Samogitians" is a Latinized form of the ancient Lithuanian name for the region's lowlanders, who dwelt in Central Lithuania's lowlands. The original subethnic Samogitia, i.e. the Central Lithuania's flat burial grounds culture, was formed as early as the 5th-6th centuries.

Mehrdad
04-02-2014, 01:27 AM
With the above in mind, have the Chenchu R1a been assessed with any of these new post-2009 SNPs, anyone?

Thanks for bringing that up, I've been wondering the same thing.

parasar
04-02-2014, 02:03 AM
The only historical Iranians are people of modern Afghanistan and perhaps modern eastern Iran. Saklab/Sak/Slav, IMO, is a better name for what is now-a-days deemed Iranian, who by Iranians were called Turanians.


So - Using arguably more important historical examples than the Soghdians and Bactrians - the Medians, Persians and other ancient Iranian tribes who settled across the north and west of the Iranian plateau shouldn't be considered Iranian, yet the modern people of Iran who live in the same territory as said Medians and Persians are "Saklab/Sak/Slav"?

I've read some rather odd things on this forum, but nothing that reverses history greater than that quote. Unless you are referring exclusively to those ancient Iranic-speaking nomadic populations, in which case I would agree they weren't the same "sort" of Iranians as the Persians, Medians, Bactrians etc. and were most certainly Turanians.

Yes I am talking about nomadic populations who in my frame of reference would not be "Iranic"-speaking.
They were never historically Iranic until Europeans termed them Iranic.

So, as they were most certainly Turanians, we can call them Turanic-speaking.

As to why I brought in the term Saka? It was used for a large component of the Turanians, as was the Arabic Sakalab/Saqaliba
eg.
"Itil [Volga], the river of the as-Saqaliba"
"The Ṣaqáliba — the Rús: — their waters"
"This range has Kashmír in its centre, and runs by Tibet, Turk, Khazar, and Sakáliba, to the sea of Jurján and Khwárasm."
"Japhet was the father of the Saḳâlib"

Looks to me that the Sklaboi, Sakalib, Saka are the same people spread from Turkestan to Eastern Europe.

parasar
04-02-2014, 02:31 AM
Thanks for bringing that up, I've been wondering the same thing.

I looked at the Chenchu haplotypes - with limited STRs typed nothing looks to be out of the ordinary.

I would bet though that a large proportion of Saharia R1a1-M17 are M417- or M417*(xZ93, xZ283) if these STRs are correct.
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032546.s003

Edit: The above dataset has been noticed by Rathna a number of times in different forums.

Jean M
04-02-2014, 10:33 AM
I am talking about the samogitians and their many sub-tribes ( skalvini tribe and others which eventually formed into Lithuanians)
The very term "Samogitians" is a Latinized form of the ancient Lithuanian name for the region's lowlanders, who dwelt in Central Lithuania's lowlands. The original subethnic Samogitia, i.e. the Central Lithuania's flat burial grounds culture, was formed as early as the 5th-6th centuries.

Samogitian simply refers to people living in the region Samogitia (Lithuanian Žemaitija) meaning "lowlands". It is not a tribal name.

The earliest ethnonyms recorded for the peoples we now call Balts seem to be Neuri (in Herodotus 5th century BC) and Aestii (Tacitus AD 98). Both references are vague and confusing. The Balts were a far distant, almost unknown people for people writing in the Mediterranean civilizations. Herodotus starts one description at the mouth of the Dnieper and moves up the river until he reaches the Neuri, beyond whom the land is uninhabited "as far as anyone knows" (IV, 17). He thought that the Dniester rose from a great lake in the north which formed the border between Scythia and the land of the Neuri (IV, 51). There is no such lake, but we get the picture that the Neuri lay north of the source of the Dniester i.e. the territory in which we find Baltic hydronyms.

Tacitus (Germania, 45) refers to Aestii as amber-collectors on the Baltic coast who resembled the Suebi in rites and customs, but whose language was closer to Brittanic (!). That is obviously wrong, but his informant probably only knew that they did not speak Germanic, and was hazarding a guess at what their language sounded like. This may have been a name just for the people collecting amber around the Vistula Lagoon - Aistmarės in Lithuanian. Jordanes (6th century A.D.) locates the Aestii to the east of the mouth of the Vistula.

Ptolemy (c. 150 AD) was the first to record specific tribes: Soudinoi and Galindai.

They appear again in the list of Prussian tribes made in 1326 by Dusburg, the annalist of the Teutonic Order:
Sudovians (Sudowite)
Galindians (Galindite).
Pomesani
Pogesani
Varmienses
Nattangi
Sambite
Nadrowite
Barthi
Scalowite


Could Scalowite be your skalvini?

Baltic tribes and provinces c. 1200 AD from Gimbutas, The Balts (1963), fig. 1:

1676

Click to enlarge.

vettor
04-02-2014, 11:08 AM
Samogitian simply refers to people living in the region Samogitia (Lithuanian Žemaitija) meaning "lowlands". It is not a tribal name.

The earliest ethnonyms recorded for the peoples we now call Balts seem to be Neuri (in Herodotus 5th century BC) and Aestii (Tacitus AD 98). Both references are vague and confusing. The Balts were a far distant, almost unknown people for people writing in the Mediterranean civilizations. Herodotus starts one description at the mouth of the Dnieper and moves up the river until he reaches the Neuri, beyond whom the land is uninhabited "as far as anyone knows" (IV, 17). He thought that the Dniester rose from a great lake in the north which formed the border between Scythia and the land of the Neuri (IV, 51). There is no such lake, but we get the picture that the Neuri lay north of the source of the Dniester i.e. the territory in which we find Baltic hydronyms.

Tacitus (Germania, 45) refers to Aestii as amber-collectors on the Baltic coast who resembled the Suebi in rites and customs, but whose language was closer to Brittanic (!). That is obviously wrong, but his informant probably only knew that they did not speak Germanic, and was hazarding a guess at what their language sounded like. This may have been a name just for the people collecting amber around the Vistula Lagoon - Aistmarės in Lithuanian. Jordanes (6th century A.D.) locates the Aestii to the east of the mouth of the Vistula.

Ptolemy (c. 150 AD) was the first to record specific tribes: Soudinoi and Galindai. They appear again in the list of Prussian tribes made in 1326 by Dusburg, the annalist of the Teutonic Order: Sudovians Sudowite) and the Galindians (Galindite). The others were:
Pomesani
Pogesani
Varmienses
Nattangi
Sambite
Nadrowite
Barthi
Scalowite


Could Scalowite be your skalvini?

Baltic tribes and provinces c. 1200 AD from Gimbutas, The Balts (1963), fig. 1:

1676

Click to enlarge.

correct,
but the point I am aiming for is that from ~2000AD archeologists discovered ancient "Lithuanians" had only Flat burial ground Culture (ancient prussians/venedi/aestii and "samogitians" also used the same Flat BG culture) from 500AD onwards, clearly this is before "slavs" appeared south of these "lithuanians". Since ptolemy, also named Fenni to the east and SE of these Lithuanians and also noted Bastanae and Peucini ( some say Peucini are the same as Bastanae) due south of these "Lithuanians" .........plus the Bastanae also nearly reached the black sea in territory.........where do we put these Sarmatians........I see no room.
If, as some say that the sarmatians are a branch of the scythians, then we might have clue on this R1a.

Then again the Cimmerians lived in modern south ukraine as well ....but IIRC it was earlier.

Since R1a and R1b split 25000BP years ago........and we see R1b clearly more western and R1a clearly more eastern, then the logical conclusion is that R1a stayed put for many many centuries, while R1b began its migrations. So, I cannot see a R1a moving via the south caucasus .

Jean M
04-02-2014, 11:13 AM
As per word association, Sclaveni is said to be slav, but then ..........There is no proof sclaveni are who they are, except from Jordanes , a person who most modern historians ridicule....

The Sclaveni are mentioned by other Byzantine sources, not just Jordanes. They are described in Maurice's Stratigicon. Procopius recorded the attacks of Antae and Sclaveni on Byzantine territory, starting some time before AD 531. After thousands of years of living quietly around the Middle Dnieper, out of sight of most Greeks and Romans, the Slavs came into view in the 6th century AD as some of them moved south onto the steppe near the Danube. Some of them raided into Byzantine territory. Some of them entered the Byzantine army.

Jean M
04-02-2014, 11:21 AM
but the point I am aiming for is that from ~2000AD archeologists discovered ancient "Lithuanians" had only Flat burial ground Culture (ancient prussians/venedi/aestii and "samogitians" also used the same Flat BG culture) from 500AD onwards, clearly this is before "slavs" appeared south of these "lithuanians".

The Slavs expanded from around the Middle Dnieper c. 500 AD +. They did not enter Lithuania. So what is the problem?



Since ptolemy, also named Fenni to the east and SE of these Lithuanians and also noted Bastanae and Peucini ( some say Peucini are the same as Bastanae) due south of these "Lithuanians" .........plus the Bastanae also nearly reached the black sea in territory.........where do we put these Sarmatians........I see no room..

The Sarmatians took over the territory that had been called Scythia, north of the Black Sea. They were not left to enjoy it all by themselves forever. Germani moved south into it even before the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Sarmatians moved up the Danube to what is now Hungary. There are Sarmatian burials there. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians#Decline_in_the_4th_century

The Fenni (Uralic speakers) at that time inhabited an area that stretched further south than present-day Estonia.

vettor
04-02-2014, 11:23 AM
The Sclaveni are mentioned by other Byzantine sources, not just Jordanes. They are described in Maurice's Stratigicon. Procopius recorded the attacks of Antae and Sclaveni, starting some time before AD 531. After thousands of years of living quietly around the Middle Dnieper, out of sight of most Greeks and Romans, the Slavs came into view in the 6th century AD as some of them moved south onto the steppe near the Danube. Some of them raided into Byzantine territory. Some of them entered the Byzantine army.

Still, thats 400 years after Ptolemy named the West and east baltic tribes as per your post. The Sklavini are then more older than the Sclaveni...............Jordanes was the only one to name these Sclaveni until the byzantines did so much later.

Since I cannot find any ancient slav tribes, I figure that the "Slavs" originated in the polesia , had a far superior language for its time, and taught different ethnical and cultural tribes the slavic language............over time, the term Slavic appeared , not as a linguistic race but an ethnical race

vettor
04-02-2014, 11:27 AM
The Slavs expanded from around the Middle Dnieper c. 500 AD +. They did not enter Lithuania. So what is the problem?




The Sarmatians took over the territory that had been called Scythia, north of the Black Sea. They were not left to enjoy it all by themselves forever. Germani moved south into it even before the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Sarmatians moved up the Danube to what is now Hungary. There are Sarmatian burials there.

The Fenni (Uralic speakers) at that time inhabited an area that stretched further south than present-day Estonia.

the Germanic Bastanae arrived on the black sea, 1AD...before the Romans even conquered Illyia in 9AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae

The sarmatians, could not have been there , unless you mean that the sarmatians already arrived in Poland and where cut off by this germanic migration to the black sea

History also states, that the Bastanae supplied Philip V of Macedonian ~180BC , 40000 troops ( the number was 80000 with Baggage train ). They did have to fight through the Dacians , which they did.

The Bastarnae first appear in the historical record in 179 BC, when they crossed the Danube in massive force. They did so at the invitation of their long-time ally, king Philip V of Macedon, a direct descendant of Antigonus, one of the Diadochi, the generals of Alexander the Great who had shared out his empire after his death in 323 BC. The Macedonian king had suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of the Romans in the Second Macedonian War (200-197 BC),

vettor
04-02-2014, 11:46 AM
The Slavs expanded from around the Middle Dnieper c. 500 AD +. They did not enter Lithuania. So what is the problem?




The Sarmatians took over the territory that had been called Scythia, north of the Black Sea. They were not left to enjoy it all by themselves forever. Germani moved south into it even before the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Sarmatians moved up the Danube to what is now Hungary. There are Sarmatian burials there. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians#Decline_in_the_4th_century

The Fenni (Uralic speakers) at that time inhabited an area that stretched further south than present-day Estonia.

The sarmatians where absorbed by the goths
The Sarmatians declined in the 4th century with the incursions connected to the Migration period (Huns, Goths). The descendants of the Sarmatians became known as the Alans during the Early Middle Ages, and ultimately gave rise to the modern Ossetic ethnic group.[4]

Jordanes correctly names the Antes which I presume he meant the Alans...........the sclaveni .......well, we have no history for them, unless they are the older Skalvini from ancient lithuanian people.

Jean M
04-02-2014, 11:59 AM
The sarmatians, could not have been there , unless you mean that the sarmatians already arrived in Poland and where cut off by this germanic migration to the black sea


Sarmatians did not arrive in Poland. Forget Poland. It's a red herring. The European steppe is quite a big place. While Scythians were living there, the Greeks founded colonies along the coast. They did not oust the Scythians. In fact the two seem to have inter-married or created some mixed communities, going by how Herodotus describes the situation. It seems to be a similar case with the Bastarnae.

The Bastarnae are described by Tacitus (Germania, 46) as a mixed Germani-Sarmatian people. Greek evidence suggests that they were living near the Black Sea as early as the late 3rd century BC. 50 years later they served as allies of the Macadonian kings in their wars with Rome (Polybius, History, 25.6.2). In the first century BC they twice crossed the Danube into Thrace, and were defeated by the Roman on the second occasion. (Dio, 51.23-4). Polybius and other early sources classify them as Gauls. That seems perfectly possible. Gauls moved down the Danube onto the steppe in the late Iron Age.

That does not mean the Sarmatians moved out. We have references to them still there until pushed out in the 4th century AD. Once again see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians#Decline_in_the_4th_century

Jean M
04-02-2014, 12:01 PM
Jordanes correctly names the Antes which I presume he meant the Alans.

No he did not. Trying to link peoples simply because their names start with the same letter is an amateurish approach.


..the sclaveni .......well, we have no history for them

I just explained that we do have a history for them. Here is the summary again.


The Sclaveni are mentioned by other Byzantine sources, not just Jordanes. They are described in Maurice's Stratigicon. Procopius recorded the attacks of Antae and Sclaveni on Byzantine territory, starting some time before AD 531. After thousands of years of living quietly around the Middle Dnieper, out of sight of most Greeks and Romans, the Slavs came into view in the 6th century AD as some of them moved south onto the steppe near the Danube. Some of them raided into Byzantine territory. Some of them entered the Byzantine army.

Jean M
04-02-2014, 12:08 PM
Here is the description of the early Slavs (Sclaveni) from Procopius:



These barbarian nations, the Sklavenoi and Antae, are not ruled by one man, but live from of old in "democracy" and because of this they always manage their profitable and difficult affairs in common. Similarly, all other matters, so to speak, are common to each of them and were handled according to custom by these same barbarians. They believe there is one god, that of lightning, creator of all; they believe him to be sole lord, and they sacrifice oxen and all sacrifical animals to him. They neither acknowledge fate nor that it has some decisive influence in human affairs. Whenever death is already close to them, or they are seized by illness, or they are arrayed for battle, they promise, if they escape, to make a sacrifice immediately in return for their life. When they have escaped they sacrifice, that which they promised and think that the salvation was purchased for them with this sacrifice. Moreover they revere both rivers and nymphs and some other daemons, and they sacrifice to all of them. They carry out their divinations in these sacrifices. They dwell in pitiful huts, living far from one another, changing frequently all, and each severally, the location of habitation. Arrayed for battle the majority advance on foot against the enemies, with small shields and javelins, nor do they in any way don corselets. Some have neither a chiton nor a short cloak, but having put on only trousers up to and including the genitals, they are thus arrayed for a clash with enemies. And there is, simply, one barbarian language for each of the two nations.

They do not differ even in shape from one another. All are particularly tall and stout; their bodies and hair are neither very white nor blond nor are they very dark, but all are ruddy. Just as the Massagetae so they also have a harsh and careless way of life, and just as the Massagetae, they are full of filth. They are rarely knavish or base, even maintaining the Hunnic characteristic of simplicity. In past times the Sklavenoi and Antae had one name. In former times they called both Sporoi because, I think, they inhabit the land scattered about sporadically. Thus they have much land. They inhabit the greater part of the other bank of the Ister. And as regards this people it is thus.

And here is one from Maurice's Strategicon


Leading a life of banditry, they like to carry out undertakings against their enemies in the forests, passes, and precipitous regions. They utilize skillfully ambushes and surprise attacks and thefts, at night and in daytime, devising many methods. They are experienced beyond all men in the crossing of rivers and bravely endure in the waters. Often some of them, while in their own land, are surprised by trouble and, diving into the depth of the water, hold canes in their mouths, made long especially for this and hollowed throughout, reaching up to the surface of the water; lying on their backs in the deep, they breathe through them. And it is sufficient for many hours, so that no suspicion of them arises. But even if it should transpire that the canes are seen from outside it is supposed by the inexperienced that they are one with the water. Wherefore those who are experienced in this, recognizing the cut and position of the cane, either stab their mouths with them or, taking them away, bring them up from the water as they are no longer able to remain in it.

They are armed with short javelins, two to a man, and some of them with stout shields that are cumbersome. They use wooden bows and short arrows smeared with a poisonous drug, and this kills if a man wounded by it is not safeguarded in time by a draught of antidote, by other aids known to the science of the doctors, or if the wound is not cut away immediately so that it does not spread to the rest of the body. Being without leadership and hating one another, they do not know order nor do they practice closed battle, nor do they appear in open and level places. Or, if it should happen to them to venture into an open clash, shouting, at the same time they advance a little. And if those opposed to them give in to their voice, they attack violently. But if not, at that same moment they turn, not attempting to test by hand the strength of their enemies; they flee toward the forests, having much success therefrom as knowing suitably how to battle in narrow places. Often when bearing booty, in the face of ordinary disturbance they disregard the booty and hasten into the forests, and while the attackers are roaming about the booty, they turn about and easily inflict damage upon them.

Procopius, Gothic Wars III, 26:


But twenty days after the city and harbour of Portus were captured, Martinus and Valerian arrived, bringing with them sixteen hundred horsemen, the most of whom were Huns and Sclaveni and Antae, who are settled above the Ister [Danube] River not far from its banks.

Jean M
04-02-2014, 12:40 PM
Still, that's 400 years after Ptolemy named the West and east baltic tribes as per your post.

No. Ptolemy named only two tribes who seem to be Balts. The Scalowite first appear in a list of Prussian tribes made in 1326.


Jordanes was the only one to name these Sclaveni until the byzantines did so much later.

Jordanes was Byzantine. The earliest references to the Slavs (Sclaveni) by that ethnic name are from Byzantine sources. This is not because the Slavs did not exist earlier. This is because they were illiterate themselves and were not in contact with people who wrote things down until they came in contact with the Byzantines. Until people write things down we have no history, only prehistory. We learn about prehistory from archaeology and linguistics, including place-name evidence, and nowadays from ancient DNA.

alan
04-02-2014, 03:31 PM
It has often struck me how much, apart from the paganism, the descriptions of Slavic lifestyle, warfare and social structure resemble those of the native Irish of the Medieval and Elizabethan period.


Here is the description of the early Slavs (Sclaveni) from Procopius:




And here is one from Maurice's Strategicon


Procopius, Gothic Wars III, 26:

Palisto
04-02-2014, 04:30 PM
Samogitian simply refers to people living in the region Samogitia (Lithuanian Žemaitija) meaning "lowlands". It is not a tribal name.


This reminds me of Kurdish nižim = low.

alan
04-02-2014, 04:45 PM
Does anyone know if the Slavs had a kind of clan system? The descriptions make it sound like they operated like that to me.

Rathna
04-02-2014, 05:01 PM
This reminds me of Kurdish nižim = low.

Lithuanian Žemaitija presupposes "Žeme" "earth" (Latin humus, homo, Russian zemlja, Albanian dhe etc.) In the Indo-Iranian languages we have Sanskrit ksam, and I doubt that an Indo-Iranian language like Kurd has the same word in (ni)žim, but I don't know. Anyway see Mallory-Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, p. 120.
Glottology and ethymology are hard sciences.

Palisto
04-02-2014, 05:22 PM
Lithuanian Žemaitija presupposes "Žeme" "earth" (Latin humus, homo, Russian zemlja, Albanian dhe etc.) In the Indo-Iranian languages we have Sanskrit ksam, and I doubt that an Indo-Iranian language like Kurd has the same word in (ni)žim, but I don't know. Anyway see Mallory-Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, p. 120.
Glottology and ethymology are hard sciences.

Low:
nižim Kurdish
nica Sanskrit
nízký Czech
niski Polish
нізкі (nizki) Belorussian
низкий (nizkiy) Russian
žemas Lithuanian
zems Latvian
semmai Old-Prussian
humilis Latin

The earth is on the ground, it is low. In Lithuanian the word for earth "Žeme" and low "Žemas" have the same origin.
"Earth" in Kurdish is "zewi" or "zevi", in Persian it is zami(n).

Rathna
04-02-2014, 05:47 PM
Low:
nižim Kurdish
nica Sanskrit
nízký Czech
niski Polish
нізкі (nizki) Belorussian
низкий (nizkiy) Russian
žemas Lithuanian
zems Latvian
semmai Old-Prussian
humilis Latin

The earth is on the ground, it is low. In Lithuanian the word for earth "Žeme" and low "Žemas" have the same origin.
"Earth" in Kurdish is "zewi" or "zevi", in Persian it is zami(n).

I found this on a site, where someone spoke of the influence of the Slav upon Kurdish, because he says that Kurds lived Northwards the Black Sea, where we find the Slavs now.
Low
Slavic: nizik
Kurdish: nizim
Persian: paeen
Anyway it doesn't seem that "nižim" is linked with "žemas" as it doesn't seem that in the Slavic words there is the name for "earth"
nízký Czech
niski Polish
нізкі (nizki) Belorussian
низкий (nizkiy) Russian
whereas it is probably in Lithuanian. Also in Latin "humi" does mean "on the floor" and gets the name of the earth, like homo, hominis, homini, hominem, homo, homine Plural homines hominum hominibus homines homines hominibus does mean who is linked to the earth. English human etc. Also in Lithuanian they say zmuones if I remember well.

Palisto
04-02-2014, 06:04 PM
I found this on a site, where someone spoke of the influence of the Slav upon Kurdish, because he says that Kurds lived Northwards the Black Sea, where we find the Slavs now.
Low
Slavic: nizik
Kurdish: nizim
Persian: paeen

In Persian you can find nizm as well. DMXX can correct me if I am wrong.


Anyway it doesn't seem that "nižim" is linked with "žemas" as it doesn't seem that in the Slavic words there is the name for "earth"
I don't get your comment.


nízký Czech
niski Polish
нізкі (nizki) Belorussian
низкий (nizkiy) Russian
whereas it is probably in Lithuanian. Also in Latin "humi" does mean "on the floor" and gets the name of the earth, like homo, hominis, homini, hominem, homo, homine Plural homines hominum hominibus homines homines hominibus does mean who is linked to the earth. English human etc. Also in Lithuanian they say zmuones if I remember well.

If Lithuanian Žemaitija means "lowlands", which part of the word means "low"???


Samogitian simply refers to people living in the region Samogitia (Lithuanian Žemaitija) meaning "lowlands". It is not a tribal name.

vettor
04-02-2014, 06:51 PM
No. Ptolemy named only two tribes who seem to be Balts. The Scalowite first appear in a list of Prussian tribes made in 1326.



Jordanes was Byzantine. The earliest references to the Slavs (Sclaveni) by that ethnic name are from Byzantine sources. This is not because the Slavs did not exist. This is because they were illiterate themselves and were not in contact with people who wrote things down until they came in contact with the Byzantines. Until people write things down we have no history, only prehistory. We learn about prehistory from archaeology and linguistics, including place-name evidence, and nowadays from ancient DNA.

I stand corrected, the alans where sarmatians from ossetia and the Antae and Sklaveni where ?, not slavs if the history states that they belong to modern Romania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SEE520AD.png

The Antes were based between the Prut and lower Dniester during the 1st to 2nd centuries AD. From the 4th century, their center of power shifted northward toward the southern Bug. In the fifth and sixth centuries they settled in Volhynia and subsequently in the middle Dnieper region near the present-day city of Kiev.[20] As they moved north from the open steppe to the forest steppe, they mixed with Slavic tribes. They organised the Slavic tribes and the name Antes came to be used for the mixed Slavo-Alanic body.[20]

Note: slavo-alanic and antae to some seem the same


.......................................
Sclaveni

The Byzantines broadly grouped the numerous Slav tribes living in proximity with the Eastern Roman Empire into two groups: the Sklavenoi and the Antes.[1] The Late Roman historians, Jordanes and Procopius both locate the Sklavenoi in the lower Danube (modern Wallachia and Moldavia),

So, Antes where not slavs, Sklaveni a name created to refer to Slavs from Moldovia and Wallachia.

It seems at best the slavs never existed until ~500AD and was a confederation of other tribes or parts of other tribes to form a "slavic" confederation.

IIRC from the many books I read, Jordanes was a Goth from Pannonia who wrote for Byzantine. Since he plagiarised cassiodorus and his history...and alter the history of cassiodorus..........what do we really expect from this "historian"?
As the only surviving work on Gothic origins, the Getica has been the object of much critical review. Jordanes wrote in Late Latin rather than the classical Ciceronian Latin. According to his own introduction, he had only three days to review what Cassiodorus had written,

bolek
04-02-2014, 07:18 PM
I really can't see Z93 in Ukraine prior to the Turkic invasions from Asia. At best, it was a minority marker there, because its main expansions were clearly always east of the Volga-Ural region.

The Scythian tribes in Eastern Europe most likely belonged to subclades that are now most common around the Volga and Danube.

It is quite obvious that there was no Z93 on the western steppe. From Mallory’s Encyclopedia :
http://s28.postimg.org/67er2bqzh/screenshot_754.png (http://postimage.org/)
http://s28.postimg.org/f3pj69hlp/screenshot_755.png (http://postimage.org/)
Steppe nomads form Penkov culture were not assimilated Iranians and there is no Z93 in the area. Only Slavic Z282 was present on western steppe.
There are plenty of Scythian and Sarmatian influences in Poland, Ukraine and Russia but no Z93. It agrees with what Herodotus wrote. Scythian tribes from the steppe and Scythian farmers were all intermingled, spoke similar languages, had similar customs, Neuri were settling among Budini etc., and for sure were similar genetically but they were not Z93 Iranians, it is a XIX century hoax.
It is quite obvious to me that Greek and Roman historians referred to Z282 populations of Poland, Ukraine and Russia as Scythians and Sarmatians.
Dniester, Don, Dnieper are not Iranian names , there are no such rivers in Iran. Those names are considered to be Indo-European by linguists. Here is a Mallory’s map of Slavic river names from Wikipedia:
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w443/priwas/Slavic_distribution_origin.png (http://s1076.photobucket.com/user/priwas/media/Slavic_distribution_origin.png.html)
Vistula, Dniester and Dnieper belong to the core Slavic areas, and it means they are the oldest.
Most of the river names were formed long ago, maybe in Mesolithic, and it is difficult to reconstruct exactly the meaning, but roots like dni-, don-, ster-/str-, per/pr-- are common in Slavic languages and can refer to water flowing and light etc. Prof. Alinei uses Slavic river names to prove his Paleolithic Continuity Theory. I was not his follower, but now with new discoveries in genetics I think that we should look into it. What was the language of Mesolithic substratum of Eastern Europe as it seem that it was dominated by R1a during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition?
Anyway I think this map shows that most likely Slavs originated as a result of mixing of Eastern Neolithic cultures, such as Eastern TRB, Tripolye and Baden, with local Eastern European Mesolithic substratum of Vistula-Dniester-Dnieper area, which probably spoke pre-Proto-Slavic languages.

What is really important is that Wilde et al. 2014 and others argue for population continuity in this area:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2347-New-R1a-paper-by-Underhill-et-al&p=35514&viewfull=1#post35514

Jean M
04-02-2014, 07:30 PM
if the history states that they belong to modern Romania


Not exactly. The prehistory of the Slavs has to be pieced together from archaeology and linguistics including river and place-names. There is no written record of what they were doing all those long years before they started to spread out from the Middle Dnieper. Once they started attacking the literate Byzantines, then records of them got kept. By then some were living near the Danube. That has allowed the Romanian-born scholar Florin Curta to argue that Romania is the Slavic homeland, but he is pretty much on his own. ;) The evidence indicates that their homeland was the Middle Dnieper.

If you are interested, why not read a good modern history of the early Slavs?

AJL
04-02-2014, 08:50 PM
Dniester, Don, Dnieper are not Iranian names , there are no such rivers in Iran. Those names are considered to be Indo-European by linguists. Here is a Mallory’s map of Slavic river names from Wikipedia:
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w443/priwas/Slavic_distribution_origin.png (http://s1076.photobucket.com/user/priwas/media/Slavic_distribution_origin.png.html)
Vistula, Dniester and Dnieper belong to the core Slavic areas, and it means they are the oldest.

You are either stupid, or disingenuous. That is not Mallory's map but one you have simply copied from this Wikipedia page on present Slavic linguistic distribution (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Slavic_distribution_origin.png).

Instead of engaging with what educated and knowledgeable people actually have to say here, you simply reiterate your non-point, which seems to be one of Slavic ultra-nationalism. Consider this your one free informal warning before formal measures are taken.

DMXX
04-02-2014, 09:10 PM
Please don’t say you are educated and knowledgeable, it is not true.

The point is this map is not directly from any texts authored by Mallory or Adams. At best, it is based on their work and interpreted by some unknown contributor. Please note the following in the link AJL provided:



This file is lacking author information.


So, we have a disputed map made by an unknown enthusiast from Wikipedia that's apparently based on Mallory & Adams (1997). To insinuate it is directly from Mallory certainly is ingenuous.

Humanist
04-02-2014, 09:15 PM
Dniester, Don, Dnieper are not Iranian names , there are no such rivers in Iran. Those names are considered to be Indo-European by linguists.

I do not know a great deal about Indo-European studies, and Wikipedia is not always the best source, but if we take the Wikipedia article on the Dnieper, this is the first sentence under the subheading of etymology:



The name Dnieper is derived from Sarmatian Dānu apara "the river on the far side".[6]


[6] Mallory, J.P. and Victor H. Mair. The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West. London: Thames and Hudson, 2000. p. 106

Sarmatian links to the below Wikipedia page:


The Scythian languages were a family of Iranian languages of the classical and late antiquity (Middle Iranian) period, spoken in a vast region of Eurasia named Scythia.

Also, I do not follow your logic when you say that there are no rivers in Iran with those names, therefore Dniester, Don, and Dnieper cannot be Iranian names.

bolek
04-02-2014, 09:19 PM
{EDITED BY MODERATOR}

[DMXX @ 00:53]: Administration removed this content and temporarily suspended user due to complete ignoring of co-administrator's warning.

AJL
04-02-2014, 09:22 PM
In any case, The Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine, which could hardly be viewed as some kind of Iranian propaganda organ, clearly says "Iranian peoples...in ancient times...inhabited southeastern Europe."

vettor
04-02-2014, 09:55 PM
Not exactly. The prehistory of the Slavs has to be pieced together from archaeology and linguistics including river and place-names. There is no written record of what they were doing all those long years before they started to spread out from the Middle Dnieper. Once they started attacking the literate Byzantines, then records of them got kept. By then some were living near the Danube. That has allowed the Romanian-born scholar Florin Curta to argue that Romania is the Slavic homeland, but he is pretty much on his own. ;) The evidence indicates that their homeland was the Middle Dnieper.

If you are interested, why not read a good modern history of the early Slavs?

I have read it, .........I have time for Florin Curta ..........no opinion either way on his conclusions.

I guess is they ( slav or many minor unkown tribes ) originated in the Polesia, then this might suit you.

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

But, where they known as slavs in the Polesia!. And as i previously mentioned , the slavs got numerous as many minor tribes/peoples joined this Polesian area and adaopted the proto-slavic language.
In the end the migrational map in the site below seems the more accurate to distribute the R1a
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml

alan
04-03-2014, 12:42 AM
I wonder where Newtoboard is? Normally he would be very interested in this thread but no sign of him.

parasar
04-03-2014, 12:58 AM
In any case, The Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine, which could hardly be viewed as some kind of Iranian propaganda organ, clearly says "Iranian peoples...in ancient times...inhabited southeastern Europe."

So what would it take to prove (or disprove) this notion using genetics on the Y side? If say, there is no Z93 found but the R1a type is all Z283, do we then associate Z283 with Iranian peoples?

DMXX
04-03-2014, 01:06 AM
So what would it take to prove (or disprove) this notion using genetics on the Y side? If say, there is no Z93 found but the R1a type is all Z283, do we then associate Z283 with Iranian peoples?

It would, in my opinion, complicate things somewhat. If we manage to find more evidence to comfortably support the idea those groups living in what is now Eastern Europe did indeed speak Iranic languages, one possibility is as you've stated. However, the age of Z93 does seem to pair coincidentally rather well with the overall dispersal of Indo-European languages in Asia. It is this, together with the sparse nature of non-Z93 R1a in Asia, which diminishes the likelihood of this, in my opinion.

An alternative could be that any potential R1a-Z283+ in Eastern European remains with cultural motifs that archaeologists confidently assign as being "Iranian" (referring to the Scythian Triad here) may be the result of a process that created a disconnect between the other Iranians further east. Perhaps a rather demarcated form of elite dominance (R1a-Z93 carriers imparted their "Iranian" culture and language to nearby pastoral nomads speaking some other form of Indo-European).

AJL
04-03-2014, 01:14 AM
So what would it take to prove (or disprove) this notion using genetics on the Y side? If say, there is no Z93 found but the R1a type is all Z283, do we then associate Z283 with Iranian peoples?

It is possible -- recall that there is some Z280 in Kazakhstan, for example.

But it's also very possible and indeed likely that Scythians and their descendants largely left the area partly because they were nomads, and partly because of Slavicization/Russification.

In any event we do have some Z93 in Poland and Ukraine and Adygea. The undertested area of eastern Ukraine would have been densely Scythian at one point but look at Crimea: like eastern Ukraine, the native inhabitants have been mainly displaced with Russians over the last two-and-a-half centuries.

alan
04-03-2014, 01:14 AM
Seeing those maps I can certainly see Newtoboards point about how the apparent R1a spread that went through the westernmost steppes to corded ware, middle dnieper and fatyanovo that have been linked with pre-proto-Balto-Slavic and perhaps some extinct north European dialects is very distinctive from the Andronovo/Iranian link in terms of R1a. So, in R1a clade terms, Anthony's idea that Fatyanovo (Baltic) led to Abashevo (dialect uncertain) which led to Sintashta (Indo-Iranian) doesnt work at all. There might have bee contact but its clear that a different R1a line that is very rare in Europe was responsible for Andronovo, Iranian etc.

Generalissimo
04-03-2014, 03:00 AM
The point is that the Scythians obviously fall into the Asian branch.

Where are you getting this from? What is it based on? Do you have any solid data? I feel like I'm missing something that hasn't been posted in this thread.

You said yourself that there are clear parallels between the Turkic groups of the Western Steppe and the Scythians who preceded them in the region. Well, Turkic groups of the Volga-Ural carry a lot of Z280, while those of the North Caucasus a high ratio of M458.

You're aware of this right? I assume you had a close look at the data in the supp info from this paper?

Generalissimo
04-03-2014, 03:13 AM
It would, in my opinion, complicate things somewhat. If we manage to find more evidence to comfortably support the idea those groups living in what is now Eastern Europe did indeed speak Iranic languages, one possibility is as you've stated. However, the age of Z93 does seem to pair coincidentally rather well with the overall dispersal of Indo-European languages in Asia. It is this, together with the sparse nature of non-Z93 R1a in Asia, which diminishes the likelihood of this, in my opinion.

An alternative could be that any potential R1a-Z283+ in Eastern European remains with cultural motifs that archaeologists confidently assign as being "Iranian" (referring to the Scythian Triad here) may be the result of a process that created a disconnect between the other Iranians further east. Perhaps a rather demarcated form of elite dominance (R1a-Z93 carriers imparted their "Iranian" culture and language to nearby pastoral nomads speaking some other form of Indo-European).

Maybe there was a dichotomy in terms of R1a between Indo-Iranians in Europe and Asia, just like there is today between Turkics in Europe and Asia. For instance, the levels of Z280 and M458 among the Chuvash and Nogay, respectively, are not seen among any Turkic groups from Asia.

Perhaps there was something about the migration routes across the Southern Urals that complicated things not just for the early Indo-Europeans, but also later groups, well into recent history?

Mamluk
04-03-2014, 04:20 AM
But it's also very possible and indeed likely that Scythians and their descendants largely left the area partly because they were nomads, and partly because of Slavicization/Russification.

In any event we do have some Z93 in Poland and Ukraine and Adygea. The undertested area of eastern Ukraine would have been densely Scythian at one point but look at Crimea: like eastern Ukraine, the native inhabitants have been mainly displaced with Russians over the last two-and-a-half centuries.

I'd like to reiterate that this region was subject to population disruption multiple times throughout history. Some major instances include when Sviatoslav I put an end to the Khazar kingdom, and when the Mongols invaded and massacred their way past the Carpathians, thus changing the demographics of the region forever. Modern towns are actually situated atop former Scythian and Turkic settlements. For example, the town of Hacibey was annexed by Empress Catherine, to become Odesa. The Russian empire (and the Soviet one too, I might add) did their best to erase the Turkic (and Judaic, and Kavkaz) footprint by way of massacre, mass exile, or forced assimilation of people, and then also by destruction of artifacts, buildings, and cemeteries. Here is an example of that: Itil, the capital of Khazaria (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3072167/Jewish-city-feared-by-Stalin-is-rediscovered.html)

Z93 seems to have been present here for at least a millenium... It was conspicuous in Poland and Ukraine within the R1a minority of the Ashkenazi Levites. It's also present in the Szekely clans of Hungary and Romania, and in the Lipka Tatars of the Baltic states too. Downstream F1345/Z2742 appears mysteriously scattered in Scotland, Ireland, Ukraine and Poland (and one outlier in Ottoman Palestine. ...;) )

So I can't help but post this (again):

Taken from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 7, by Edward Gibbon (b. 1737 - d. 1794)

In regards to the 13th century Mongol invasions of Eastern Europe:

The whole country north of the Danube was lost in a day, and depopulated in a summer; and the ruins of cities and churches were overspread with the bones of the natives, who expiated the sins of their Turkish ancestors.

In regards to the 13th century mamluks freshly arrived from Eastern Europe:

Egypt was lost, had she been defended only by her feeble offspring; but the Mamalukes had breathed in their infancy the keenness of a Scythian air: equal in valour, superior in discipline, they met the Moguls in many a well-fought field; and drove back the stream of hostility to the eastward of the Euphrates.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe), describing an example of the severity of the change in demographics here:

At least 20%-40% of the population died, by slaughter or epidemic. Rogerius of Apulia, an Italian monk and chronicler who witnessed and survived the invasion, pointed out not only the genocidal element of the occupation, but also that the Mongols especially "found pleasure" in humiliating local women.[18] But while the Mongols claimed control of Hungary, they could not occupy fortified cities such as Fehérvár, Esztergom, Veszprém, Tihany, Győr, Pannonhalma, Moson, Sopron, Vasvár, Újhely, Zala, Léka, Pozsony, Nyitra, Komárom, Fülek and Abaújvár. Learning from this lesson, fortresses came to play a significant role in Hungary. King Béla IV rebuilt the country and invested in fortifications. Facing a shortage of money, he welcomed the settlement of Jewish families, investors, and tradesmen, granting them citizenship rights. The King also welcomed tens of thousands of Kun (Cumans) who had fled the country before the invasion.

What would also be of interest is to figure out how and when the Scythians and their descendants made the transition from being Iranic speaking to Turkic speaking, if there even was such a transition.

alan
04-03-2014, 09:34 AM
Or perhaps the Scythians and other Indo-Iranian speakers on the western steppe were Z93 but they are relative latecomers. The Cimmerians who seem to have preceded them may not have been Iranian speakers at all although perhaps under their influence.


Maybe there was a dichotomy in terms of R1a between Indo-Iranians in Europe and Asia, just like there is today between Turkics in Europe and Asia. For instance, the levels of Z280 and M458 among the Chuvash and Nogay, respectively, are not seen among any Turkic groups from Asia.

Perhaps there was something about the migration routes across the Southern Urals that complicated things not just for the early Indo-Europeans, but also later groups, well into recent history?

Jean M
04-03-2014, 10:44 AM
Where are you getting this from? What is it based on?

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:


We are finding frequent correlations between Y-DNA haplogroup and language. That is because people usually learn their first language from their biological parents. A correlation is not the same as a one-to-one match. Some children are adopted, or have parents of two different languages, and some adults adopt a new language if they move into a different language community, so a Y-DNA haplogroup is not invariably passed down with the same language. But it happens often enough for us to see patterns.
Z93 correlates with people today speaking Indo-Iranian languages.
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.
Scythians were the descendants of people from Andronovo who remained on the steppe, around the Altai, instead of moving south around 1900 BC into Iran or South India.
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.
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.

Volat
04-03-2014, 12:18 PM
Don't you think that all this could be in favor of the theory that Indo-Europeans, comprised Indo-Iranians, formed Westwards what is thought, i.e. between Balkans and Eastern Europe and that the separation between R1b and R1a is more ancient and all European?

Some Indo-Europeans have comprised some Indo-Iranians in eastern and south-eastern Europe. There's evidence from archaeologists, linguists, ethnologists and historians to support the hypothesis. The amount of genes IE of eastern Europe inherited from Indo-Iranians is another question.

alan
04-03-2014, 12:46 PM
Do you know of a good y dna breakdown for Pashtuns and Ossetians.


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:


We are finding frequent correlations between Y-DNA haplogroup and language. That is because people usually learn their first language from their biological parents. A correlation is not the same as a one-to-one match. Some children are adopted, or have parents of two different languages, and some adults adopt a new language if they move into a different language community, so a Y-DNA haplogroup is not invariably passed down with the same language. But it happens often enough for us to see patterns.
Z93 correlates with people today speaking Indo-Iranian languages.
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.
Scythians were the descendants of people from Andronovo who remained on the steppe, around the Altai, instead of moving south around 1900 BC into Iran or South India.
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.
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.

Jean M
04-03-2014, 01:00 PM
Do you know of a good y dna breakdown for Pashtuns and Ossetians.

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. They have some R1b (M269), which seems to have arrived with the influx of Eastern Iranian speakers. The rest is predominantly G2a1 (P18). See Balinovsky 2011. I think an FTDNA project has one or more of the Ossetian R1b men.

Pastuns are about 50% R1a1a. Are they not included in this latest paper by Underhill?

Rathna
04-03-2014, 01:19 PM
They have some R1b (M269), which seems to have arrived with the influx of Eastern Iranian speakers.

What makes you think that this unique R-L23 haplotype (probably CTS9219, descendant from my Z2110*) amongst Ossets is important and of East Iranian origin, when CTS9219 is overall in Eastern Europe till the Isles?

159888 Kubatiev Kubatiev, Digor Ossetian Russian Federation R1b1a2a1
12 24 14 11 11-14 12 12 11 12 13 29 16 9-9 11 11 25 15 19 30 14-15-16-19 11 11 19-23 16 16 18 18 35-37 12 12 11 9 15-16 8 10 10 8 10 11 12 22-23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 21 22 14 12 11 13 11 11 12 11 35 15 9 16 12 26 26 20 12 11 12 12 10 9 12 11 10 11 11 31 12 13 24 14 10 10 19 15 20 12 24 17 13 15 25 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11

alan
04-03-2014, 01:26 PM
That is an interesting thing to say - what made you deduce that?


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. They have some R1b (M269), which seems to have arrived with the influx of Eastern Iranian speakers. The rest is predominantly G2a1 (P18). See Balinovsky 2011. I think an FTDNA project has one or more of the Ossetian R1b men.

Pastuns are about 50% R1a1a. Are they not included in this latest paper by Underhill?

Jean M
04-03-2014, 01:28 PM
What makes you think that this unique R-L23 haplotype (probably CTS9219, descendant from my Z2110*) amongst Ossets is important and of East Iranian origin, when CTS9219 is overall in Eastern Europe till the Isles?


Thank you for reporting the R1b haplotype of the Ossets in the FTDNA project, which I could not recall exactly. I thought it was some form of L23. The only reason for thinking that it arrived in the Caucasus with the Alans is the dating of it by Balanovsky 2011. I do not claim that it was East Iranian in origin. I have no idea where they picked it up. It is one of the unsolved mysteries.

Jean M
04-03-2014, 01:28 PM
That is an interesting thing to say - what made you deduce that?

See my post above.

Rathna
04-03-2014, 01:44 PM
That you for reporting the R1b haplotype of the Ossets in the FTDNA project, which I could not recall exactly. I thought it was some form of L23. The only reason for thinking that it arrived in the Caucasus with the Alans is the dating of it by Balanovsky 2011. I do not claim that it was East Iranian in origin. I have no idea where they picked it up. It is one of the unsolved mysteries.

We are writing a lot in "R1b phylogeny" and linked threads about R-L23. So far we know that R-Z2110* is in Italy (perhaps the most part of R-L23), in the Balkans and in the Isles (the wrong cluster of L150- in the "ht 35 FTDNA Project", actually R-Z2110*). If Ware sent me his novel SNPs from Big Y I could say more about that. It seems that the Jewish R-Z2110* in the Rootsy et al. about the Levites R1a is separated from Bulgarian Nochev from many thousands of years, but we don't know how far he is from Italian and English Z2110.
I signaled two important SNPs for Z2110: CTS7556 and PF5973.

vettor
04-03-2014, 05:58 PM
Or perhaps the Scythians and other Indo-Iranian speakers on the western steppe were Z93 but they are relative latecomers. The Cimmerians who seem to have preceded them may not have been Iranian speakers at all although perhaps under their influence.

Herodotus claims the cimmerians where a branch of or related to the Thracians

He also stated .............the most numerous people in the world after the Indians are the Thracians

DMXX
04-04-2014, 12:35 AM
For the specific discussion on the Veneti, the Vistula river and other salient points concerning historical accounts of the Slavs and/or Balts, please see this split thread: Historical Attestations in Eastern Europe (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2366-Historical-Attestations-in-Eastern-Europe-Split/page6). Thank you.

Agamemnon
04-04-2014, 03:31 AM
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.