PDA

View Full Version : Chatter about a possible Afanasievo Culture link to R1b



R.Rocca
06-05-2014, 08:04 PM
This is what has been making the internet rounds in the last couple of days, and I would caution that it is not from a published source. Wanted to make folks aware of it more than anything...

http://pereformat.ru/2014/05/arbins-2/

As translated by a Russian that goes by "kosmonomad" on Eupedia...


Klejn:
I have a student, Aleksey Kovalev, He has been excavating many years in Mongolia and Xinjiang. He published in The Russian Archeology Yearbook 2011 a sensational article "The great Chemurchek migration" - about origin of Chemurchek culture of Altay and Xinjiang directly form Western and Southern France. It is the 3rd millenium b.c. He links this culture to Tochars. I have the impression that the migration is confirmed, but the link to Tochars calls for a line-up of questions...

I think you will be interested to know that my student Alexei Kovalev , the man who investigated Chemurchek culture of Altai , Mongolia and Xinjiang (apparently Tochars) and released two books about it, did DNA tests on afanasievans and okunevans. Two out of three afanasievans and one okunevan were R1b1 (M269), one afanasievan - R1b1. Kovalev has radiocarbon ages of many afanasievans: calibrated 3000-2600 b.c. Chemurchek culture very clearly is from France.


Klyosov:
I advise to A. Kovalev that he shows the data to me before the publication, to avoid an embarrassment. I hope he has data on inhumation? ...I don't exclude at all that ancient R1b were in Southern Siberia, I myself described it and dated based on DNA. Simply we have to exclude false attribution and we should know who determined these R1b and R1b1, what sort of haplotypes (if they were not done - it's a big miss) , and put it in historical context. I think you do not need to be explained, like A. Kovalev. I hope it is clear why A. Kovalev should contact me.

We already know the area to the east was already heavily populated by R1a-Z93 by the time the Bronze Age rolled around.

alan
06-05-2014, 09:05 PM
Interesting if the testing is true but the direct from France bit is nuts

alan
06-05-2014, 09:16 PM
I suppose its still fair to say that where M269 was hiding before 3000BC still remains completely unknown. Doesnt seem to have been among the first farming waves. Therefore is unlikely to have been at the origin or in the main path of farming.

Jean M
06-05-2014, 09:36 PM
I have seen articles by Kovalev on the Chemurchek culture. In fact I just cited one of them in something I'm writing, so I can lay hands right on it: Kovalev, A. A. and Erdenebaatar, D. 2009, Discovery of new cultures of the Bronze Age in Mongolia according to the data obtained by The International Central Asian Archaeological Expedition, In J. Bemmann, H. Parzinger, E. Pohl, D. Tseveendorzh (eds.), Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia: Papers from the First International Conference on “Archaeological Research in Mongolia” held in Ulaanbaatar, August 19th–23rd, 2007. Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology 4, 149-170. http://archaeology.itcwin.com/articles/A501.pdf

There is an illustration there (fig 3.3) of a Chemurchek culture anthropomorphic stele. The culture is called Qiemu’erqieke by other authors. Jia and Betts 2010 fig. 6 shows more stelae of that culture. http://www.clarkriley.com/JIES3834web/01Betts%28275-317%29.pdf

I ignored an article by Kovalev claiming an origin in Southern France. It's obvious enough that the stelae clusters in both regions have a common origin in Yamnaya.

Jean M
06-05-2014, 09:45 PM
We already know the area to the east was already heavily populated by R1a-Z93 by the time the Bronze Age rolled around.

Yes, but that most likely spread with Indo-Iranians. It seems perfectly possible that R1b-M73 spread east prior to Andronovo. That would explain why it is found in Turkic populations, but not to any really noticeable degree in India and Iran.

jeanL
06-05-2014, 09:47 PM
IMO it doesn't matter where R1b-L11 was hiding before 3000 BC, it could have been anywhere, what matters is where they were by the time the Bell Beaker expansions started. R1b was likely widespread throughout Eurasia since the Epipaleolithic, they weren't the big players of the time though, but they certainly became the big players alongside mt-DNA H when the Bell Beakers rolled around.

alan
06-05-2014, 10:14 PM
I was also about to post that the article is a lot more interesting if you reverse the direction suggested in the implausible France to Altai interpretation and of course look to an intermediate point. I

alan
06-05-2014, 10:29 PM
All the evidence is against this to date. Not even the new rather older SNP counting technique ages would place the main west European forms of R1b before 4500BC. What is more is west European R1b is all from the same young L11 lineage. So, yes R1b was somewhere in Eurasia since the upper palaeolithic but the vast majority of R1b in the western half of Europe is a single late Neolithic/copper age line. Also, dont take it for granted that there is an exact link between beaker and L11 or P312. We also dont know that. We just know that by 2600BC there was M269xU106 in Germany. Copper age ancient DNA from immediate pre-beaker times so far is not R1b. As it stands, all the evidence suggests R1b was new to western Europe in the beaker period and certainly the most likely SNP dating of western European type R1b suggests it can be no earlier than the late Neolithic. Also we dont know if all beaker using people were R1b from the start - all we know is German beaker people included M269xU106 c. 2600BC.

I dont understand the comment that its not important where L11 was in pre-beaker times. I certainly am not happy not having any knowledge between 22000BC at Mal'ta and 2600BC at Kromsdorf.


IMO it doesn't matter where R1b-L11 was hiding before 3000 BC, it could have been anywhere, what matters is where they were by the time the Bell Beaker expansions started. R1b was likely widespread throughout Eurasia since the Epipaleolithic, they weren't the big players of the time though, but they certainly became the big players alongside mt-DNA H when the Bell Beakers rolled around.

alan
06-05-2014, 10:33 PM
Another new development is that SNP counting suggests that M269 and M73 were old enough to have existed somewhere in Eurasia around the time when early farmers were spreading across Europe but the evidence suggests that they were not among them - both ancient DNA and the lack of old enough forms of R1b in the western half of Europe.

jeanL
06-05-2014, 11:09 PM
All the evidence is against this to date. Not even the new rather older SNP counting technique ages would place the main west European forms of R1b before 4500BC. What is more is west European R1b is all from the same young L11 lineage. So, yes R1b was somewhere in Eurasia since the upper palaeolithic but the vast majority of R1b in the western half of Europe is a single late Neolithic/copper age line. Also, dont take it for granted that there is an exact link between beaker and L11 or P312. We also dont know that. We just know that by 2600BC there was M269xU106 in Germany. Copper age ancient DNA from immediate pre-beaker times so far is not R1b. As it stands, all the evidence suggests R1b was new to western Europe in the beaker period and certainly the most likely SNP dating of western European type R1b suggests it can be no earlier than the late Neolithic. Also we dont know if all beaker using people were R1b from the start - all we know is German beaker people included M269xU106 c. 2600BC.

I dont understand the comment that its not important where L11 was in pre-beaker times. I certainly am not happy not having any knowledge between 22000BC at Mal'ta and 2600BC at Kromsdorf.

I never said in my quote that the R1b-L11 defining mutations took place before 4500 BC. The fact that the majority of R1b in Europe seats below the L11 node, doesn't discredit what I said about R1b-M269 being widespread, or even in Europe before the Neolithic, it simply shows that the expanding clades were below L11, nothing more nothing less. R1b-L11+ men did not have 23andme or FTDNA back then, so I doubt they went around typing people for their haplogroups, and annihilating them if they turned out not to be R1b+. Europe does have older clades of R1b, which are extremely rare, those clades in my opinion attest to the antiquity of the haplogroup in the region. Just as the rare C-V20 clades have been vindicated now with La Braña. What is more, mt-DNA attest to an expansion out of Iberia of haplogroup H, so the launch point of the Beakers was likely somewhere in there, or France. I feel I should point out, that the SNP counting method yields much older dates that the STRs, so yes, there is yet a possibility for R1b-L11 to have risen before 4500 BC. Also what I meant by my comment, was that R1b-L11 was likely widespread throughout Europe by the time the Beakers started.

jeanL
06-05-2014, 11:31 PM
Another new development is that SNP counting suggests that M269 and M73 were old enough to have existed somewhere in Eurasia around the time when early farmers were spreading across Europe but the evidence suggests that they were not among them - both ancient DNA and the lack of old enough forms of R1b in the western half of Europe.

We've been through the same story over and over again. For the hundredth time:

Myres.et.al.2011 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/)

Table-S4

R1b-M343*(xM73,M269)

Germany West(n=100), 1 sample or 1%.
Slovakia(n=276), 2 samples or 0.7%
Ukraine West(n=156), 1 sample or 0.64%

R1b-V88
France, Bouches du Rhone(n=207), 1 sample or 0.5%

R1b-M269(xL23)

Germany(n=19) 1 sample
Germany South(n=91) 1 sample
Germany West(n=100) 1 sample
Switzerland Northeast(n=32) 1 sample
Switzerland (Lower Rhone Valley) 1 sample
Slovenia(n=102) 1 sample
Poland(n=42) 1 sample
Hungary(n=113) 1 sample
Ukraine West(n=156) 1 sample

Adams.et.al.2008 Figure-1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668061/figure/fig1/)

This was pre-L11+ clades being mainstream, Valencia(n=73) has 2 R1b-P25(xM269).

Cruciani.et.al.2010 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n7/pdf/ejhg2009231a.pdf)

Page-5 ...The R-P25* paragroup was only foundin five subjects from Europe (3), western Asia (1), and eastern Asia (1)

That is R-P25(xV88, M73, M269)

So, again why must we endure the constant arguments of the older forms of R1b in the Western half of Europe, or in Europe. For once, we moved passed the stage that frequency doesn't indicate place of origin, however, it is the very same notion that leads us to repeat the same thing over and over again, just because they older clades of R1b are more numerous, and have a higher relative frequency outside of Europe, doesn't translate into a lack of older clades in Europe. This isn't the first time this is brought up, and this is rather tiresome, let's look at the C-V20 samples, which before the discovery of La Braña were likely deemed by many an East Asian recent introduction, given their small frequency, yet it is now proven that they have been in Europe for quite some time now.

PS: Statistically speaking the sample size of these studies while significant, are not even 1% of the European population, so if the older clades are already showing up in sample sizes like that, then it bears to assume that they are neither lacking nor are they that rare.

ADW_1981
06-06-2014, 01:08 AM
Interesting if the testing is true but the direct from France bit is nuts

I read the parts of his 2011 paper where he makes the link with France. From what I gathered was that he attributes the Chemurchek specifically to France, but not the cultural areas around it. As I understood it, Chemurchek and Afanasievo are different material cultures, the former resembling the ones from SW France, and he says the one in western Europe is dated a couple thousand years earlier than the Russian one. The other confusing part was that we've seen aDNA results from neolithic France and mesolithic Atlantic Europe and none of the results have been R1b, and we've had numerous specimens. Odd that the unrelated culture to western Europe would appear R1b if we believe his conclusions.

ADW_1981
06-06-2014, 01:17 AM
I never said in my quote that the R1b-L11 defining mutations took place before 4500 BC. The fact that the majority of R1b in Europe seats below the L11 node, doesn't discredit what I said about R1b-M269 being widespread, or even in Europe before the Neolithic, it simply shows that the expanding clades were below L11, nothing more nothing less. R1b-L11+ men did not have 23andme or FTDNA back then, so I doubt they went around typing people for their haplogroups, and annihilating them if they turned out not to be R1b+. Europe does have older clades of R1b, which are extremely rare, those clades in my opinion attest to the antiquity of the haplogroup in the region. Just as the rare C-V20 clades have been vindicated now with La Braña. What is more, mt-DNA attest to an expansion out of Iberia of haplogroup H, so the launch point of the Beakers was likely somewhere in there, or France. I feel I should point out, that the SNP counting method yields much older dates that the STRs, so yes, there is yet a possibility for R1b-L11 to have risen before 4500 BC. Also what I meant by my comment, was that R1b-L11 was likely widespread throughout Europe by the time the Beakers started.

I don't think R1b is older than the neolithic in Europe. To your point that people were not doing DNA tests and exterminating all the non-R1b, a similar argument can be made that R1b wouldn't have had any competitive advantage in foraging times. What would make a R1b male outcompete a I2a, or C-V20 male if they were side by side all these years? Absolutely nothing. There must have been a competitive advantage that both R1b and R1a had once they pressed into Europe, likely some form of farming/pastoralism or metal. Either case would give them breeding advantage, it's a clear male biased movement. We even saw this with the LBK folks but their migration was not as successful.

jeanL
06-06-2014, 01:28 AM
I don't think R1b is older than the neolithic in Europe. To your point that people were not doing DNA tests and exterminating all the non-R1b, a similar argument can be made that R1b wouldn't have had any competitive advantage in foraging times. What would make a R1b male outcompete a I2a, or C-V20 male if they were side by side all these years? Absolutely nothing. There must have been a competitive advantage that both R1b and R1a had once they pressed into Europe, likely some form of farming/pastoralism or metal. Either case would give them breeding advantage, it's a clear male biased movement. We even saw this with the LBK folks but their migration was not as successful.

Well assuming the R1b was pre-Neolithic(That is assuming it was a minority haplogroup such as C-V20) in Europe, then it wasn't I2a, or C-V20 who they had to outcompete, but the G2a males, in fact R1b might have been a survivor alongside I2a, or C-V20. I believe that the main driving force for R1b was likely the Beaker movement, but probably the Megalithic movement also played a part, but given the fact that the 1000 BC cave in Lichtenstein had a completely different picture haplogroup wise from nowadays, it is also possible that modern day frequencies were in partly achieved only recently. We have seen that many times in history, it is commoners, not the kindred of royalty who become the most powerful(i.e. Stalin, Hitler, etc), it's just a matter of being in the right place at the right time. I believe the picture is far more complex than what we are painting, that is, that haplogroups might have bounced back and forth from Europe to outside of it numerous times, if anything I've learned from aDNA is that our past is more tangled than we imagined it to be.

PS: To make my point even clearer in case it wasn't, I am saying that it is very possible for R1b-L11+ males to exterminate(that is outreproduce) its own cousins R1b-L23, R1b-M269, etc, or any other haplogroup for that matter if the right advantage appeared.

ADW_1981
06-06-2014, 01:36 AM
Well assuming the R1b was pre-Neolithic(That is assuming it was a minority haplogroup such as C-V20) in Europe, then it wasn't I2a, or C-V20 who they had to outcompete, but the G2a males, in fact R1b might have been a survivor alongside I2a, or C-V20. I believe that the main driving force for R1b was likely the Beaker movement, but probably the Megalithic movement also played a part, but given the fact that the 1000 BC cave in Lichtenstein had a completely different picture haplogroup wise from nowadays, it is also possible that modern day frequencies were in partly achieved only recently. We have seen that many times in history, it is commoners, not the kindred of royalty who become the most powerful(i.e. Stalin, Hitler, etc), it's just a matter of being in the right place at the right time. I believe the picture is far more complex than what we are painting, that is, that haplogroups might have bounced back and forth from Europe to outside of it numerous times, if anything I've learned from aDNA is that our past is more tangled than we imagined it to be.

I think in the absence of evidence your theory would be believable. However, far too much aDNA has been collected, even suggesting the upper class argument falls short when we consider the R1b burials and royalty testing we've seen to date. I think there will always be a segment of people in the hobby who will be naysayers when in comes to anything R1b and disassociating it with western Europe.

jeanL
06-06-2014, 02:10 AM
I think in the absence of evidence your theory would be believable. However, far too much aDNA has been collected, even suggesting the upper class argument falls short when we consider the R1b burials and royalty testing we've seen to date. I think there will always be a segment of people in the hobby who will be naysayers when in comes to anything R1b and disassociating it with western Europe.

Describing less than 10(6 samples to be exact, from 3 Burials, 4 coming from a single burial) samples as far too much evidence seems statistically illogical. That's assuming we are indeed talking about the published DNA data for Mesolithic Europe. Now, let's keep personal descriptions(that is the whole naysayers, etc,)of people beliefs outside of the arguments, it is disruptive and doesn't really accomplish any points, if you want to make your case, whatever it might be, let's do it so based upon evidence, and not based upon labeling people into certain categories. The one thing that ancient DNA has proven is that some forms of I-M170, and I2a1 were present in Europe pre-Neolithic, so like mt-DNA U derived forms, it seems unlike today, Y-DNA I was overrepresented in Mesolithic remains thus far from the sample data, which is very small though.

PS: Could you expand on the following:

"...when we consider the R1b burials and royalty testing we've seen to date..."

Silesian
06-06-2014, 05:33 AM
I read the parts of his 2011 paper where he makes the link with France. From what I gathered was that he attributes the Chemurchek specifically to France, but not the cultural areas around it. As I understood it, Chemurchek and Afanasievo are different material cultures, the former resembling the ones from SW France, and he says the one in western Europe is dated a couple thousand years earlier than the Russian one. The other confusing part was that we've seen aDNA results from neolithic France and mesolithic Atlantic Europe and none of the results have been R1b, and we've had numerous specimens. Odd that the unrelated culture to western Europe would appear R1b if we believe his conclusions.

The connection is not only to Southern France but to Lower Rhone and Italian border; dry masonry techniques, , bottom of page 13.. The skulls were also classified as brachycephalic europoid page 10.
https://www.academia.edu/4970951/Kovalev_A.A._The_Great_Migration_of_the_Chemurchek _People_from_France_to_the_Altai_in_the_Early_3rd_ Millenium_BCE_International_Journal_of_Eurasian_St udies._Vol._1_11_._2011._P._1-58

A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe


Although it is likely that additional sub-haplogroups within the more numerous L23*(xM412) assemblage currently remain hidden, it is instructive that these chromosomes often exceed 10% frequency in the Caucasus, Turkey and some SE Europe and Circum-Uralic populations (Supplementary Table S4; Figure 1e), whereas conversely they typically display frequencies ≤5% in Western Europe (except for an instance of 27% in Switzerland's Upper Rhone Valley) in contrast to the prominent spread of derived M412 varieties in West Europe

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html?message=remove&a_aid=3598aabf

alan
06-06-2014, 08:49 AM
I tend to think though that the apparent connection with copper working, beaker and P312 would indicate that the deeper history of P312 and L11 was probably among other pre-beaker copper using groups. If you track back copper working skills much before 3000BC then you end up heading east in steps i.e. Liguria etc c. 3600BC then the Balkans before that. Certainly that is the general trajectory of the first wave west of developed copper working across Europe. Its also complicated by the fact that by the time copper working spread west of the Balkans they had experienced the Suvorovo type steppe intrusions from c. 4200BC which had led to hybrid cultures and which also means that any group moving west from the Balkans could have had steppe elements within them. That IMO is the best scenario for explaining the apparent link between R1b, copper and IE languages as well as the general phylogenic east to west pattern and of course the absence of R1b from the DNA of Neolithic farmers.

I dont buy the idea of R1b being widespread across Europe from Neolithic or even pre-Neolithic times. If an R* guy who was only a few thousand years of SNPs down from the R SNP lived in Baikal c. 22000BC during the LGM then that places R itself in the early LGM. The cultural context of the Mal'ta boy was a culture that was located only in south-central Siberia and spanned the period 30000BC-22000BC. So, it is likely that R, R1a and R1b all arose in this culture. Shortly after Mal'ta this cultural group was probably trapped in a refuge around Altai and adjacent. While in theory it could have travelled along the mammoth steppe, cultural remains suggest it didnt and that Gravettian groups covered Europe instead. Indeed populations were trapped in widely separated refugia during the LGM so it is not surprising that a south-central Siberian y line did not make it into Europe at this period. There is no suggestion in the record of an out of south-central Siberia movement west until the 10000-6000BC period when microblade technology spreads to Europe but only as far west as a line from the Baltic to Moldova. So, IMO the starting point in LGM south-central Siberia, the effect of the LGM/driving of humans into refugia for c. 10000 years and the prior occupation of most of Europe by Gravettian groups is the reason why R doesnt show up in Europe until late. I think the first suggestions of eastern derived groups entering Europe are basically in the period when we were passing into the Mesolithic and probably indicated by pressure microblade technology in eastern and northern Europe and perhaps the pointed based pre-farming pottery too. Those things in generic terms do point east as there are far earlier forerunners of them in Siberia.


I never said in my quote that the R1b-L11 defining mutations took place before 4500 BC. The fact that the majority of R1b in Europe seats below the L11 node, doesn't discredit what I said about R1b-M269 being widespread, or even in Europe before the Neolithic, it simply shows that the expanding clades were below L11, nothing more nothing less. R1b-L11+ men did not have 23andme or FTDNA back then, so I doubt they went around typing people for their haplogroups, and annihilating them if they turned out not to be R1b+. Europe does have older clades of R1b, which are extremely rare, those clades in my opinion attest to the antiquity of the haplogroup in the region. Just as the rare C-V20 clades have been vindicated now with La Braña. What is more, mt-DNA attest to an expansion out of Iberia of haplogroup H, so the launch point of the Beakers was likely somewhere in there, or France. I feel I should point out, that the SNP counting method yields much older dates that the STRs, so yes, there is yet a possibility for R1b-L11 to have risen before 4500 BC. Also what I meant by my comment, was that R1b-L11 was likely widespread throughout Europe by the time the Beakers started.

lgmayka
06-06-2014, 09:41 AM
This isn't the first time this is brought up, and this is rather tiresome, let's look at the C-V20 samples, which before the discovery of La Braña were likely deemed by many an East Asian recent introduction, given their small frequency, yet it is now proven that they have been in Europe for quite some time now.
C-V20 has never been found outside Europe--it appears to be exclusively European.

Your argument will be stronger if you can find an R-M343xL23 subclade that is found almost only in Europe.

alan
06-06-2014, 09:53 AM
A lot of the interpretation sound dubious and I think the dating sounds a little shaky too. Nevertheless, lets say for fun he has a point and its not all just bad interpretation. It is interesting that around the time beaker was sweeping the earlier copper using groups in temperate Europe, a culture with some western European parallels and a brachycephalic Europoid population might have existed in Altai. Its more than far fetched to see a direct link. However, networks of contact and trade existed in the beaker era that did indirectly link France and western Europe to Yamnaya areas in Hungary and through Yamnaya another chain existed that linked as far as Altai. Two cultures/networks met in Hungary c. 2700BC or so that between them had links from Altai to Iberia. I think I recall the Hungarian Csepel culture as being thought of as having origins in SW Europe and some unusually early RC dates. So, it could have been a two way conduit for ideas to head west and east.

Migration though is incredibly hard to imagine. I did briefly wonder if Afansievo elements might have taken some metal experts from other cultures on their journey east to Altai around 3500BC. That was early enough to have pre-dated the steppes mining in the Urals of c. 3000BC so on that score its not implausible that they may have had elements from other societies that did have those skills and who came along with them - albeit that the Caucasus or Balkans seem a much more logical area for them to acquire such experts from than western Europe. However, the dates at the moment do not stack up - the Afanasievo population had headed west 1000 years earlier c. 3500BC (not the much later date he quotes) but the dates of this culture seem to look post-2500BC. Mining had probably commenced in the Urals c. 3000BC so by 2500BC there would be no real need to look to external cultures to supply that knowledge to the steppes or Altai. As far as I am aware Altai was within the CMP metal tradition zone too rather than anything exotic and western.

Nevertheless, it is interesting although baffling that an apparently Europoid population of a similar skull type to beaker people (and Remedello type groups) but different from Afansievo was present in Altai around the height of the time beaker was being used in western Europe. Who knows what missing links there are in that story and how the dating aspect might alter if there are future finds. Recall too that the classic beaker skull type was not present in the earliest beakers in SW Europe and only seems to have entered the beaker culture c. 2600BC in central and northern Europe. This has always remained somewhat unexplained. Around the same time there was a similar skulled Europoid group in Altai. So, was there an intermediate population who had gene-flow into both cultures? The clue might be Remedello type groups who seem to have had some Balkans links c. 3600BC and who apparently had people with beaker-like skulls. The Balkans with their two-way connections with Ukraine c. 4200-2600BC seems a pretty logical intermediate point and also is an interesting area in terms of R1b.


The connection is not only to Southern France but to Lower Rhone and Italian border; dry masonry techniques, , bottom of page 13.. The skulls were also classified as brachycephalic europoid page 10.
https://www.academia.edu/4970951/Kovalev_A.A._The_Great_Migration_of_the_Chemurchek _People_from_France_to_the_Altai_in_the_Early_3rd_ Millenium_BCE_International_Journal_of_Eurasian_St udies._Vol._1_11_._2011._P._1-58

A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe



http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html?message=remove&a_aid=3598aabf

RCO
06-06-2014, 11:24 AM
We can also presuppose the R1a and R1b Northern European "invasions or migrations" from Central Asia considering one relevant fact. In Northwestern and Northeastern Europe there was an extremely "soft target" still with a hunter-gatherer phylogenetic structure: I1 ! Just compare the Northern Middle Eastern/Caucasus/Anatolia/Iran J (J1/J2) phylogenetic tree with a Neolithic structure full of long different basal ramifications since the LGM with the Northern European I1 structure. Actually I1 only begun to seriously ramificate only with the "modernization" brought by the new European R1b and R1a major NW and NE Euro branches while J1/J2 had "old" ramifications since the Mesolithic Ages and R1b and R1a could never prevail in J/J1 Lands because they were already "modern and developed in a complex demography of bushy agro-pastoralist branches " to be completely invaded or to had a new strong migration in order to completely (or substantially) change the proportions of the haplogroups presente there since the LGM like what happened in North Europe and let's remember that area was covered with ice during the glaciation.

jeanL
06-06-2014, 12:27 PM
C-V20 has never been found outside Europe--it appears to be exclusively European.

Your argument will be stronger if you can find an R-M343xL23 subclade that is found almost only in Europe.

Well, there hasn't really been much insight into the few R-M343(xV88, P297) found in Europe, so hence I agree, they need to be explored further. Just because the SNP hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean it isn't there. C-V20, would not have looked exclusively European had they not typed it for the new SNP V20, so that's my point.

R.Rocca
06-06-2014, 12:32 PM
We can also presuppose the R1a and R1b Northern European "invasions or migrations" from Central Asia considering one relevant fact. In Northwestern and Northeastern Europe there was an extremely "soft target" still with a hunter-gatherer phylogenetic structure: I1 ! Just compare the Northern Middle Eastern/Caucasus/Anatolia/Iran J (J1/J2) phylogenetic tree with a Neolithic structure full of long different basal ramifications since the LGM with the Northern European I1 structure. Actually I1 only begun to seriously ramificate only with the "modernization" brought by the new European R1b and R1a major NW and NE Euro branches while J1/J2 had "old" ramifications since the Mesolithic Ages and R1b and R1a could never prevail in J/J1 Lands because they were already "modern and developed in a complex demography of bushy agro-pastoralist branches " to be completely invaded or to had a new strong migration in order to completely (or substantially) change the proportions of the haplogroups presente there since the LGM like what happened in North Europe and let's remember that area was covered with ice during the glaciation.

There are many examples throughout history and pre-history where advanced societies collapse due to incoming invaders that were less "civilized".

ADW_1981
06-06-2014, 12:46 PM
PS: Could you expand on the following:

"...when we consider the R1b burials and royalty testing we've seen to date..."

Sure. You were the one who made the very bold statement to the contrary. I am at work, and cannot source them at this very second, but anyone who has been actively following any aDNA testing. The 4 Bavarian knights, who were coupled with the 2 G2a several years back were not commoners. Second, several west European royal families have turned up R1b - Wettin, Habsburg, Oldenburg. I was never suggesting R1b was superior to anyone, or some sort of "Royal Lineage", I'm just shooting down your point which had more holes than swiss cheese.

jeanL
06-06-2014, 03:59 PM
Sure. You were the one who made the very bold statement to the contrary. I am at work, and cannot source them at this very second, but anyone who has been actively following any aDNA testing. The 4 Bavarian knights, who were coupled with the 2 G2a several years back were not commoners. Second, several west European royal families have turned up R1b - Wettin, Habsburg, Oldenburg. I was never suggesting R1b was superior to anyone, or some sort of "Royal Lineage", I'm just shooting down your point which had more holes than swiss cheese.

Could you possibly refrain from the "color commentary"(i.e. Swiss cheese, holes, etc). Here is my original statement:

...We have seen that many times in history, it is commoners, not the kindred of royalty who become the most powerful(i.e. Stalin, Hitler, etc), it's just a matter of being in the right place at the right time... (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2658-Chatter-about-a-possible-Afanasievo-Culture-link-to-R1b&p=41865&viewfull=1#post41865)

What I meant by that, was that R1b-L11 did not need to be amongst the Indo-European invaders coming from the Steppe, instead they could have been one of the commoners who lived in Europe, who happened to pick up the technology and become a very successful player in the field. Again, all it takes is being in the right place at the right time. For example during the times of Al-Andalus in the Iberia peninsula the Jewish population prospered greatly, even though they were neither the invading force, nor part of the royalty, they simply took advantage of the system in place.

nuadha
06-07-2014, 12:12 PM
Yes, but that most likely spread with Indo-Iranians. It seems perfectly possible that R1b-M73 spread east prior to Andronovo. That would explain why it is found in Turkic populations, but not to any really noticeable degree in India and Iran.

Does this mean you are changing your position on the Tarim mummies (2,000 bc), high in r1a, as being largely descended from Afanasievo people?

If Afanasievo turns out to have much more r1b than r1a, I will take this as strong support for my theory about r1b dominating the early IE stepple and r1a spreading into the PC steppe from the northwest (maybe with the Cucuteni-Trypillian or Catacomb culture) AFTER r1b people had left for Anatolia, the Altai, and the Italo-Celtic West.

DMXX
06-07-2014, 02:20 PM
As scintillating as the possibilities are, I admit my deficits as a human being by honing in on this particular extract of the translation:



I have a student, Aleksey Kovalev, He has been excavating many years in Mongolia and Xinjiang. He published in The Russian Archeology Yearbook 2011 a sensational article "The great Chemurchek migration" - about origin of Chemurchek culture of Altay and Xinjiang directly form Western and Southern France.


That scenario is highly implausible. I am only roughly familiar with Afanasievo archaeology, but am not aware of any commonly accepted links with that part of Europe. I am fully aware this student's publications only serve as a context here, but can't help comment on that. Even if something has been lost in translation, I can't reconcile what France has anything to do with Afanasievo or the Tocharians.

rms2
06-07-2014, 03:18 PM
I have seen articles by Kovalev on the Chemurchek culture. In fact I just cited one of them in something I'm writing, so I can lay hands right on it: Kovalev, A. A. and Erdenebaatar, D. 2009, Discovery of new cultures of the Bronze Age in Mongolia according to the data obtained by The International Central Asian Archaeological Expedition, In J. Bemmann, H. Parzinger, E. Pohl, D. Tseveendorzh (eds.), Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia: Papers from the First International Conference on “Archaeological Research in Mongolia” held in Ulaanbaatar, August 19th–23rd, 2007. Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology 4, 149-170. http://archaeology.itcwin.com/articles/A501.pdf

There is an illustration there (fig 3.3) of a Chemurchek culture anthropomorphic stele. The culture is called Qiemu’erqieke by other authors. Jia and Betts 2010 fig. 6 shows more stelae of that culture. http://www.clarkriley.com/JIES3834web/01Betts%28275-317%29.pdf

I ignored an article by Kovalev claiming an origin in Southern France. It's obvious enough that the stelae clusters in both regions have a common origin in Yamnaya.

Thanks for pointing that out. It seems to have been missed by just about everyone.

I read somewhere to expect some surprises in the Yamnaya y-dna results. Wish I could remember where I read it; it was from someone in the know. I think we will see some results that directly link R1b to IE expansions into Europe beyond the Dnieper.

Jean M
06-07-2014, 04:24 PM
Does this mean you are changing your position on the Tarim mummies (2,000 bc), high in r1a, as being largely descended from Afanasievo people?


No. My position is unchanged. The earliest Tarim mummies are too early to be Iranian-speaking. However we really need to understand that ethnic groups could be composed of more than one Y-DNA haplogroup. I guessed that the predominant one in Afanasievo (and therefore in the earliest Tarim mummies) would be R1a1. I was right. Whether that is R1a-Z93 remains to be seen.

R1b-M73 was always a puzzle, as it is not found much in Europe, Iran or South Asia, but is found in Turkic speakers. There have been a lot of attempts on forums such as this one over the years to make sense of this particular branch of R1b. It is unlikely to have been in Andronovo, so at one time I guessed that it moved east later along the Silk Road, but another possibility was that it went east earlier with Afanasievo. Another possibility is that it was actually born in the Altai. We really need solid facts, not rumour, to work out what actually happened.

parasar
06-07-2014, 05:05 PM
No. My position is unchanged. The earliest Tarim mummies are too early to be Iranian-speaking. However we really need to understand that ethnic groups could be composed of more than one Y-DNA haplogroup. I guessed that the predominant one in Afanasievo (and therefore in the earliest Tarim mummies) would be R1a1. I was right. Whether that is R1a-Z93 remains to be seen.
...

I think they are very likely all R1a1-Z93 of the modal type:
DYS19 DYS388 DYS385 DYS389I DYS389II DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS437 DYS438 DYS439 DYS448 DYS456 DYS458 DYS635 YGATA
16 12 11/14 14 32 25 11 11 13 14 11 10 20 16 15 23 12

They could be Z2124/Z2125, but are not L657.

Jean M
06-07-2014, 09:27 PM
Thanks for pointing that out. It seems to have been missed by just about everyone.

Was that irony? It hasn't even been missed by Kovalev. He wrote a paper in 1999 about the Chemurchek stelae, in which he showed some images of Yamnaya stelae. https://www.academia.edu/4963986/Kovalev_A._Die_Altesten_Stelen_am_Ertix._Das_Kultu phanomen_Xemirxek_Chemurchek_Eurasia_Antiqua_5._Be rlin_1999_135-178

So why he suddenly looped the loop in 2011 I'm unsure. I'm reading the paper again. He helpfully makes his papers available here (in German, English and Russian): https://spbu.academia.edu/AlexeyKovalev

rms2
06-08-2014, 12:56 PM
Was that irony? It hasn't even been missed by Kovalev. He wrote a paper in 1999 about the Chemurchek stelae, in which he showed some images of Yamnaya stelae. https://www.academia.edu/4963986/Kovalev_A._Die_Altesten_Stelen_am_Ertix._Das_Kultu phanomen_Xemirxek_Chemurchek_Eurasia_Antiqua_5._Be rlin_1999_135-178

So why he suddenly looped the loop in 2011 I'm unsure. I'm reading the paper again. He helpfully makes his papers available here (in German, English and Russian): https://spbu.academia.edu/AlexeyKovalev

No irony from me. I wasn't aware of Kovalev's 1999 paper, just of the weird idea of an origin in France, and I did not see any posts other than yours mentioning the stelae, and they seem like a big smoking gun to me.

alan
06-09-2014, 09:12 AM
The big question of course is what are the details of the ancient samples? Has it been done in a scientifically acceptable manner? If they are real they would probably be the most ancient R1b sample other than perhaps Kromsdorf.

Jean M
06-09-2014, 10:27 AM
Two out of three afanasievans and one okunevan were R1b1 (M269), one afanasievan - R1b1. .

I have just taken this is in. If they were M269, then they were not M73. I find this all rather strange.

alan
06-09-2014, 10:43 AM
I am a bit short of time but I would like to read a bit more into the alternative to the unlikely conclusions of a west European origin. I do think Afanasievo people might well have been accompanied by people from the Balkans or steppes on their travels. They themselves were limited in metal skills and no tradition of mining- they left for Altai at a period 300 years or more before the steppes had developed metal extraction such as at Kargaly. I have wondered before why Afanasievo headed to a place like Altai (which is a different area to the Tarim basin). The main pull factor of Altai would seem to me to be metals and also access into the trade routes through Dzungari. However, what would be the point in heading there is you didnt have a tradition of prospecting, mining and primary production of copper? The nearest people with these skills that were mixing with steppe groups were the Maykop elements and some Balkans cultures in the Carpathians. It seems logical to me that if any prospecting was done and there was a marrying of one groups metal skills to another groups nomadic ways then it happened in a context where steppe people blended with Balkans or Maykop people. Date wise that process probably went on from 4000-3000BC until the Yamnaya groups gained control of the primary copper production processes and opened the Kargaly mines in the Urals. Anyway if Afanasievo headed to Altai c. 3500BC and if they did have an interest in metals, it seems likely to me that they might have had a companion group from a metal using area. Perhaps Afanasievo people in Altai soon gained a general idea that there were metals in the mountains of Altai and sent word back home to the western steppes. At that sort of time in the immediate pre-Yamnaya centuries and pre-Kargaly times the most natural thing would have been to contact either Maykop or Balkans groups

The paper that is the subject of the thread needs taken with a mountain of salt. I also doubt that the understanding of the date ranger of the culture is good - it could easily be older. Anyway I think when it comes to the development of burial monuments on the steppe, this is a good starting point

http://www.academia.edu/1870168/Rassamakin_Y.Y._2011._Eneolithic_Burial_Mounds_in_ the_Black_Sea_Steppe_From_the_First_Burial_Symbols _to_Monumental_Ritual_Architecture._In_S._Muller-Celka_ed._._Ancestral_Landscapes._TMO_61_Maison_de _lOrient_et_la_Mediterranee_Lyon_293-306

parasar
06-10-2014, 04:29 PM
I have just taken this is in. If they were M269, then they were not M73. I find this all rather strange.

If you recall that India has 0 M73, but indeed has sporadic but widespread M269, so M269 makes more sense on that count.

In the Russian report (http://pereformat.ru/2014/05/arbins-2/) I also saw this:
Google translated:
There are fragmentary data on the testing of skeletal remains in the lower reaches of the Don, in the village of Tanais at Rostov, who gave again haplogroup R1a ( Kornienko and Vodolazhsky, 2013 ), dating more than 4 thousand years (private communication authors) ... Two of the three and one afanasevtsev okunevets were R1b1 (M269), and one afanasevets - R1b ... Several months passed, Kovalev has not contacted me, and did not answer questions...


Does anyone know what was the type of R1a found on lower Don?

This looks to be the source paper:

Kornienko I.V., Vodolazhsky D.I. The application of non-recombinant markers of the Y-chromosome
in the study of ancient populations: The case of Tanais.
http://ssc-ras.ru/files/files/Southerns%20Regions%20Population.pdf

Установлена
принадлежность исследуемых останков человека
к Y-гаплотипу R1a, корреллирующему с индоев-
ропейской языковой группой.

Bernard
06-10-2014, 06:42 PM
This is what has been making the internet rounds in the last couple of days, and I would caution that it is not from a published source. Wanted to make folks aware of it more than anything...

http://pereformat.ru/2014/05/arbins-2/

As translated by a Russian that goes by "kosmonomad" on Eupedia...





We already know the area to the east was already heavily populated by R1a-Z93 by the time the Bronze Age rolled around.
If it is true, it is interesting. The Afanasevo culture is often linked with Tocharian languages and Tocharian languages are centum languages.

Jean M
06-10-2014, 08:28 PM
This looks to be the source paper:

Kornienko I.V., Vodolazhsky D.I. The application of non-recombinant markers of the Y-chromosome
in the study of ancient populations: The case of Tanais.
http://ssc-ras.ru/files/files/Southerns%20Regions%20Population.pdf

Wow! And only now do we find out about it!

Jean M
06-10-2014, 09:09 PM
Does anyone know what was the type of R1a found on lower Don?

This looks to be the source paper:

Kornienko I.V., Vodolazhsky D.I. The application of non-recombinant markers of the Y-chromosome
in the study of ancient populations: The case of Tanais.


Translation reveals a disapointing state of affairs. They did not test SNPs at all. They tested 17 Y-STR loci. They say, I think (I'm attempting to tidy up a Google translation of a languague I don't know):

"This study opens up good prospects for molecular genetic studies of skeletal remains of ancient people in southern Russia not only on mitochondrial DNA, but also nuclear DNA that are at least 3000 years old. Affiliated human remains studied are of the Y-haplogroup R1a, which correlates with the Indo-European language group." (Or something like this.)

alan
06-10-2014, 09:43 PM
There is M269 and well as M73 in Central Asia

http://vaedhya.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/a-hidden-gem-in-central-asia-previously.html

There is no real reason to think the genetics of modern central Asia and Altai are similar to what they were around the time M269 or even L23 was born (and they now look a lot older with SNP counting).

One strong feeling I get is that there is such a lack of a strong language association of any consistency with M269xL23 and L23xL51 that the original language associations have been long lost. It seems to me that the current mix of Armenians, Turks, IE Balkans groups, Assyrians, Iranians, Caucasus people, Bashkirs, Turkmen etc is just so extreme that I think the original core has been shattered, displaced and its original language associations have been lost.

The reason may simply be age. Michal came up these SNP based calculations

8.6 (7.3-11.3) R1b-M269
8.3 (7.1-10.9) R1b-L23
7.4 (6.3-9.7) R1b-Z2105
7.2 (6.1-9.5) R1b-M269(xL23)

Those early clades seem to have been around at the east end of the R1b range somewhere before the big upheavals that we see in eastern Europe and central Asia c. 3500-2800BC and even before earlier upheavals like the fall of the Balkans cultures and the earliest steppe groups entering the Balkans c. 4200BC. They were likely either part of or certainly affected by those earlier upheavals. The sheer age of these clades (and M73 too) and the crazy mix of languages associated with them are testament to a longer period of existence and displacement IMO. They dont have the neater patterns associated with R1a clades and languages. That suggests that the expansion of the latter has had a major role in the obscuring of the earlier pattern of R1b distribution and language associations. These older R1b clades look like they have a shattered distribution where the original core no longer remains and original linguistic identity is incredibly obscured today.

On the other hand there seems to be growing evidence that these R1b clades we not in the Neolithic farming core, on the main paths of the spread west of farming or among those farmers that headed west. Its not conclusive but looks more and more likely. This suggests that the earlier R1b clades now found in early farming areas like Anatolia, the Balkans, SW Asia etc have entered those areas after the main spread of farming. Note that even in Michal's calculations, the main surviving M269xL51 clades only formed 1000-1500 years after the M269 and L23 SNPs. This again indicates that they remained at survival level while others were taking off in the Neolithic expansion and experienced expansion later at some point between c. 5400-4200BC. Now, all of that seems to point to somewhere peripheral to farming that underwent an expansion around that time after being at bare survival levels for a very long tie in the early Neolithic era. Then whatever distribution these clades had in this period of their initial expansion and whatever linguistic identity they had was clearly scattered and shattered - the most obvious cause being the expansion of the R1a clades which appears more likely to have taken place within the c. 3500-2800BC kind of era. The details remain uncertain IMO there was a period where a barely surviving M269 emerged as a player within the period c. 5500-4500BC at a time when R1a remained in bare survival mode. It seems to have had a late Neolithic/copper age rise and probably became a visible entity and as far as I can tell from the dates was most probably not challenged by R1a until after 3500BC.

So, I think a lot of the difference between R1b and R1a is chronological and that to some extent R1a may have displaced R1b. Roughly speaking I tend to think Sredny Stog is a reasonable fit for the early years of M269 derived clades while R1a is a better fit for Yamnaya. Another thing that fits such a model is the Sredny Stog/Suvorovo phase of expansion west was unidirectional while Yamnaya had derivates that went both west and east. The chronology fits well too with the relative ages of R1a and b.

As for Afansievo, this is a tricky one because it seems to be clearly post-Sredny Stog and more related to Yamnaya but at the same time it has been reconstructed as pre-dating classic Yamnaya type living on wagons/moving on wheels. It also dates to a time when the R1a clades associated with movement east may have barely come into existence. So, for me it remains an open question as to whether it was R1a, R1b or both. I would strongly warn against feeling too sure that mummies is the Tarim basin and Afansievo in Altai much earlier are the same people. For me Afansievo, the Tarim mummies and Tocharian cannot be linked together in a safe way. Until a day comes, if it ever does, that finds allow certain linking of those separate things then Tocharian should be considered more of a problem than a solution to the IE issue. What would be very interesting is DNA from Afanasievo burials rather than Tarim mummies as I think Afanasievo does provide a good case of western steppe isolate group far to the east at an early date that would correlate with Tocharians separation. I think the linguistic identity of the Tarim mummies, lying as they do on a long used west-east trade route, is much less certain.

nuadha
06-12-2014, 09:51 AM
No. My position is unchanged. The earliest Tarim mummies are too early to be Iranian-speaking.

I was trying to point out that if you accept a significant presence of r1b in Afanasievo then its hard to simultaneously hold the position that the tarim mummies, dominated by r1a and lacking r1b, are the descendants of Afanasievo.


However we really need to understand that ethnic groups could be composed of more than one Y-DNA haplogroup.

Im not sure who this is directed at.


I guessed that the predominant one in Afanasievo (and therefore in the earliest Tarim mummies) would be R1a1. I was right.

That most definitely remains to be seen! You cannot assume that Afanasievo=Tarim mummies. Again, im wondering if you think that Afanasievo had r1b and that the Tarim mummies are Afanasievo derived, even though r1b has failed to show up in all the tested tarim mummies.

I expect that we will find a sizable amount of r1b in afanasievo and if we do, the theory that the tarim mummies are the descendants of Afanasievo should become an untenable position.

ADW_1981
06-12-2014, 12:54 PM
I was trying to point out that if you accept a significant presence of r1b in Afanasievo then its hard to simultaneously hold the position that the tarim mummies, dominated by r1a and lacking r1b, are the descendants of Afanasievo.



Im not sure who this is directed at.



That most definitely remains to be seen! You cannot assume that Afanasievo=Tarim mummies. Again, im wondering if you think that Afanasievo had r1b and that the Tarim mummies are Afanasievo derived, even though r1b has failed to show up in all the tested tarim mummies.

I expect that we will find a sizable amount of r1b in afanasievo and if we do, the theory that the tarim mummies are the descendants of Afanasievo should become an untenable position.

I was also wondering about Jean's statement. There is no doubt that these later Iranian cultures are R1a1, but I don't believe we have any aDNA from central Asia in the 3500-3000 BC range do we? Does anyone know if Cherchen man specifically yielded any YDNA results, or are these results coming from generic Tarim mummies?

alan
06-12-2014, 04:58 PM
It is amazing after all this time that we have no R1b anywhere until bell beaker central Germany. I am now tending to think for a variety of reasons it did come from the steppes with the Suvorovo type Sredny Stog pre-Yamnaya intrusions in the Balkans from around the Dnieper and from there west into Europe c. 3500BC-3000BC as well as south-east into Anatolia etc. I personally dont think the chronology of movements has to very exactly match the branch shedding of the IE language tree. It should have some similarity but there is clearly a geographical as well as chronological factor. Its a long way from the Balkans to the Volga-Urals area. Probably more importantly, pre-c. 3300BC the cultures and the rise of Yamnaya living on wheels, the interconnectivity between the various river valleys in the western steppes must have had a different nature and more restricted to elite and trading minorities who would bridge the areas of dry steppe that were untapped before Yamnaya. That would surely have meant language divergence was well under way. I suspect the period between 4000-3300BC sometimes called the Steppe hiatus when the Stredny Stog-Survorovo type network diminished but the Yamnaya culture of pastoralists on wheels had not yet risen could have seen a lot more complex shades of divergence than the simple Antotolian-full PIE split that Anthony suggests. There was a myriad of cultures in the western steppes and steppe derived/partly derived cultures in the Balkans in that period 4000-3300BC. They probably had a complex of varying shades of interconnectivity. I see that as a likely dialect forming period. I dont really like the over-simplicity of the model that just sees Anatolian around 4000BC and full PIE with Yamnaya. Its a desktop construct with a lack of imaginative thinking about the probably reality on the ground implied by the cultural mozaic IMO.

I also think when considering a possible steppes origin of R1b in Old Europe and my current theory it is steppe originated but pre-Yamnaya that it should be remembered that pre-Yamnaya steppes people of Sredny Stog cultural roots were not, repeat not, nomadic pastoralists on wheels. They were more likely relatively settled pastoralists with a small agricultural component whose main mobility was to do with elite and trading contacts. They also had heavy contacts with the farming world going back deep into the 5th millenium. They had a different lifestyle and modus operandi to the later Yamnaya culture people. I suspect that this chronological and lifestyle difference is the root of the different distribution outside the steppes of R1b and R1a. R1b may have moved east at a time when there was a long tradition of trade and mixing with farmers just to their west and there was not yet a tradition of mobile pastoralism on wheels. Several archaeologists see the Stedny Stog network as an elite controlling trade of Balkans metal who ultimately invaded the Balkans c. 4000BC or even earlier. Perhaps when they came to the Balkans they continued this interest in control of trade and metals.

Recall too in the period 5000-3300BC the people of the Volga Urals where R1a seems likely to have expanded from had no native mining and were dependent and at the tail end of metal trading coming from the Balkans and Caucasus. They were living in a relatively peripheral zone at the end of the trade networks of the Balkans and Caucasus until after 3300BC when the Urals Kargaly pure copper works started up. All of this changed when they got wheels and their own metals after 3300BC.

So, I can see a scenario of a Sredny Stog derived R1b elite in the Balkans c. 4200-3300BC followed by R1a dominated Yamnaya intrusions across the western steppes c. 3300BC and into the Balkans around 3000BC. I tend to think the first group and the 2nd group may have had different preferences with Yamanaya tending to repeat its new found mobile pastoralism on wheels in steppe-like areas of Old Europe while the older R1b element may have chased the metal.

alan
06-12-2014, 05:10 PM
I would still say that we are taking Afansievo and two different chance survivals - the Tarim mummies and records of Tocharian and forcing them all together as one when in fact who knows how many lost IE dialects there are. I have said it before and I will say it again - DNA from Afanasievo burials would tell us a lot more than the Tarim mummies. That is why IMO its important to get some clarification on the rumours of R1b-M269 in Afanasievo. Afansievo is significantly to the north of Tarim and on a different kind of route. The Afansievo is the pastoralist mobile route with an end at Dzungari while Tarim is on a trading route to the south. The odd thing is today R1b is rare around the Afansievo area compared to the Tarim area which is kind of the opposite of what we would expect if the Afansievo R1b results are real. However, the level of displacement on the steppes should mean nothing should surprise us.

I suspect there may have been a number of groups of pre or non- Iranian branch IE cultures in central Asia and Altai.


I was trying to point out that if you accept a significant presence of r1b in Afanasievo then its hard to simultaneously hold the position that the tarim mummies, dominated by r1a and lacking r1b, are the descendants of Afanasievo.



Im not sure who this is directed at.



That most definitely remains to be seen! You cannot assume that Afanasievo=Tarim mummies. Again, im wondering if you think that Afanasievo had r1b and that the Tarim mummies are Afanasievo derived, even though r1b has failed to show up in all the tested tarim mummies.

I expect that we will find a sizable amount of r1b in afanasievo and if we do, the theory that the tarim mummies are the descendants of Afanasievo should become an untenable position.

alan
06-15-2014, 07:51 PM
This is an interesting recent paper on the Okunevo

http://www.clarkriley.com/JIES4034web/07Sokolova(434-456).pdf

parasar
06-16-2014, 01:32 AM
This is an interesting recent paper on the Okunevo

http://www.clarkriley.com/JIES4034web/07Sokolova(434-456).pdf

Interesting read.
The Rsyasrnga (horned deity) is of the oldest traditions of India.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4DZYbWQbKAsC&pg=PA141

Jean M
06-16-2014, 01:34 PM
I was also wondering about Jean's statement.

Ignore my musings about R1b-M73. I was confused. It wasn't M73 that was reputedly found. Not that we really know what (if anything) really was found. I've drawn a blank in a search for it.

parasar
06-16-2014, 02:53 PM
Ignore my musings about R1b-M73. I was confused. It wasn't M73 that was reputedly found. Not that we really know what (if anything) really was found. I've drawn a blank in a search for it.

Found where? In Afanasievo?
My guess is R1a1 was in Afanasievo too, but unfortunately among the Krasnoyarsk, Siberia samples only one of them was attributed to Afanasievo, and that one could not be typed.


The typing always failed for 2 samples, the oldest sample belonging to the Afanasievo culture (3,500– 2,500 B.C.) ...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17534642
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/03/y-chromosome-haplogroups-of-ancient.html

Generalissimo
06-17-2014, 04:47 AM
It's very difficult to imagine R1b being present among Afanasevo culture remains considering that...

1) the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies lacked R1b in two different studies

2) the recent Hollard et al. paper suggested that before R1a made it to south Siberia and the Altai Mountains during the Bronze Age, this region was dominated by Y-HG Q.

In order to get around these problems, we'd have to assume that the Tarim Basin mummies weren't related to Afanasevo groups, or even to Indo-Europeans, because which migration east would they represent? They're certainly too early to be related to Indo-Iranians.

Also, we'd have to assume that it's just a fluke that not a single R1b has been caught in any of the Eurasian steppe aDNA studies so far, despite the fact that R1a, Q, N and C have all made many appearances now.

Clearly there's something very strange going on if we are to believe that R1b and J were both frequent markers among the ancient steppe groups, like the early Indo-Europeans and their descendants such as the Scythians, as has been suggested by many people online. I'd say that right now it's impossible to predict what we'll learn about the early histories of these two haplogroups. Maybe some major surprises are ahead, so I'd keep an open mind.

Ian B
06-17-2014, 11:50 AM
My understanding is that recent tests have linked R1a to Neanderthals and/or Denisovans.

Is that correct?

jdean
06-17-2014, 12:16 PM
My understanding is that recent tests have linked R1a to Neanderthals and/or Denisovans.

Is that correct?

Some possibly, but definitely not all : )

Generalissimo
06-17-2014, 01:01 PM
My understanding is that recent tests have linked R1a to Neanderthals and/or Denisovans.

Is that correct?

I thanked this post, simply because I didn't know how to reply...??

rms2
06-17-2014, 01:38 PM
Is this paper (https://mcidublin.conference-services.net/reports/template/onetextabstract.xml?xsl=template/onetextabstract.xsl&conferenceID=3958&abstractID=814052) available yet?



O-11

Genotyping of 390,000 SNPs in more than forty 3,000-9,000 year old humans from the ancient Russian steppe

David Reich 1 ,2, Nadin Rohland1 ,2, Swapan Mallick1 ,2, Iosif Lazaridis1, Eadaoin Harney1, Susanne Nordenfelt1, Qiaomei Fu3, Matthias Meyer3, Dorcas Brown4, David Anthony4, Nick Patterson2
1Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA, 2Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA, 3Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, 4Hartwick College, Oneonta, NY, USA

A central challenge in ancient DNA research is that for many bones that contain genuine DNA, the great majority of molecules in sequencing libraries are microbial. Thus, it has been impractical to carry out whole genome analyses of substantial numbers of ancient individuals. We report a strategy for in-solution capture of ancient DNA from approximately 390,000 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) targets, adapting a method of Fu et al. PNAS 2013 who enriched a 40,000 year old DNA sample for the entire chromosome 21. Of the SNPs targets, the vast majority overlap the Affymetrix Human Origins array, allowing us to compare the ancient samples to a database of more than 2,700 present-day humans from 250 groups.

We applied the SNP capture as well as mitochondrial genome enrichment to a series of 65 bones dating to between 3,000-9,000 years ago from the Samara district of Russia in the far east of Europe, a region that has been suggested to be part of the Proto-Indo-European homeland. We successfully extracted nuclear data from 10-90% of targeted SNPs for more than 40 of the samples, and for all of these samples also obtained complete mitochondrial genomes. We report three key findings:

Samples from the Samara region possess Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) admixture related to a recently published 24,000 year old Upper Paleolithic Siberian genome. This contrasts with both European agriculturalists and with European hunter-gatherers from Luxembourg and Iberia who had little such ancestry (Lazaridis et al. arXiv.org 2013). This suggests that European steppe groups may have been be implicated in the dispersal of ANE ancestry across Europe where it is currently pervasive.
The mtDNA composition of the steppe population is primarily West Eurasian, in contrast with northwest Russian samples of this period (Der Sarkissian et al. PLoS Genetics 2013) where an East Eurasian presence is evident.
Samara experienced major population turnovers over time: early samples (>6000 years) belong primarily to mtDNA haplogroups U4 and U5, typical of European hunter-gatherers but later ones include haplogroups W, H, T, I, K, J.

We report modeling analyses showing how the steppe samples may relate to ancient and present-day DNA samples from the rest of Europe, the Caucasus, and South Asia, thereby clarifying the relationship of steppe groups to the genetic, archaeological and linguistic transformations of the late Neolithic and Bronze ages.

Piquerobi
06-17-2014, 02:07 PM
^ What about the yDNA? That would be really interesting! Somehow I feel R1b could have been present.

lgmayka
06-17-2014, 06:43 PM
My understanding is that recent tests have linked R1a to Neanderthals and/or Denisovans.

Is that correct?
Uh, no. R1a is an ordinary Homo sapiens sapiens haplogroup. It is no more related to Neanderthals or Denisovans than any other ordinary modern human haplogroup is.

alan
06-17-2014, 10:37 PM
That sounds like it will be a great read. I havent seen anyone comment on the contents yet though


Is this paper (https://mcidublin.conference-services.net/reports/template/onetextabstract.xml?xsl=template/onetextabstract.xsl&conferenceID=3958&abstractID=814052) available yet?

alan
06-17-2014, 10:58 PM
I would also be surprised but then again anything is possible and there have been a lot of surprises.

In terms of yDNA and the steppes I see huge gaps in our understanding

1. Testing seems to focus on post-3000BC period

2. A lot of the testing seems to relate to the eastern part of the story

3. Combined, testing seems to focus on the more easterly part of the IE story in its post-Yamanaya phase.

4. Pre-Yamnaya cultures in the western steppe are untested. We know for example the first steppe wave was asymmetrical and headed west only, not east. This dated to 4200BC and on for a few centuries. This derived from the Sredny Stog groups around the Dnieper. Studies of Sredny Stog skulls show they included at least a couple of different elements and hybrids of proto-Europoid and 'farmer' types. They may well have been a mix of different y lineages.

5. Groups like Lower Mikhaylovka and Novosvobodnaya on the western steppe in the time between the post-Sredny Stog steppe hiatus and the Yamnaya phenomenon also showed cranial attributes that were not the typical proto-Europoid types and might have had connections to the Caucasus and beyond.

There were in general a lot of different groups in the western steppes in pre-Yamnaya times. There seems to have been complicated interactions between the western steppes, the Carpatho-Balkans area and the Caucasus going on between 4500 and the rise of Yamnaya. It is suggestive of a complex mix of male lines to me. Unfortunately the Yamnaya story of pastoralists in wagons tends to get too much press. Its clear that while a group heading east into empty spaces might make a simple impact, the western direction was a lot more complex.

It's very difficult to imagine R1b being present among Afanasevo culture remains considering that...

1) the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies lacked R1b in two different studies

2) the recent Hollard et al. paper suggested that before R1a made it to south Siberia and the Altai Mountains during the Bronze Age, this region was dominated by Y-HG Q.

In order to get around these problems, we'd have to assume that the Tarim Basin mummies weren't related to Afanasevo groups, or even to Indo-Europeans, because which migration east would they represent? They're certainly too early to be related to Indo-Iranians.

Also, we'd have to assume that it's just a fluke that not a single R1b has been caught in any of the Eurasian steppe aDNA studies so far, despite the fact that R1a, Q, N and C have all made many appearances now.

Clearly there's something very strange going on if we are to believe that R1b and J were both frequent markers among the ancient steppe groups, like the early Indo-Europeans and their descendants such as the Scythians, as has been suggested by many people online. I'd say that right now it's impossible to predict what we'll learn about the early histories of these two haplogroups. Maybe some major surprises are ahead, so I'd keep an open mind.

Jean M
06-17-2014, 11:12 PM
Is this paper (https://mcidublin.conference-services.net/reports/template/onetextabstract.xml?xsl=template/onetextabstract.xsl&conferenceID=3958&abstractID=814052) available yet?

No. An eager party emailed David Reich, who said that it was in preparation, and ""Our results on the Samara samples are so preliminary that I don’t feel I want to say any more about them, but I will try to prepare a final analysis and manuscript as quickly as is practical." http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/coming-soon-genome-wide-data-from-more.html

Generalissimo
06-18-2014, 03:17 AM
There were in general a lot of different groups in the western steppes in pre-Yamnaya times. There seems to have been complicated interactions between the western steppes, the Carpatho-Balkans area and the Caucasus going on between 4500 and the rise of Yamnaya. It is suggestive of a complex mix of male lines to me. Unfortunately the Yamnaya story of pastoralists in wagons tends to get too much press. Its clear that while a group heading east into empty spaces might make a simple impact, the western direction was a lot more complex.

As far as I know from my reading, Proto-Indo-European probably developed in a small geographic area, within a very specific patriarchal and patrilineal society. So I don't think we can expect a complex mix of male lines among the genuine early Indo-Europeans. Unless of course, we call this period of development Pre-Proto-Indo-European, but then we're just talking semantics.

In any case, it seems that this small area was the Samara Valley, because that's where the archeological spread of the suspected Proto-Indo-European culture began. So it looks like the Samara Valley remains, once they're properly tested, will be the deal breaker for R1b as the Proto-Indo-European marker.

I have no idea if R1b will be there? It might. But in any case, it's a good bet that R1a will show up, considering that it has already made an appearance in an early Indo-European context in Copper Age remains from Germany and middle Bronze Age remains from the Altai, South Siberia and the Tarim Basin.

Also, I'm not sure if Central Asia and India were more empty during the Bronze and Iron Ages than Western and Central Europe? The BMAC and Indus Valley settlements were probably more populous than anything in Europe at the time.

alan
06-18-2014, 06:01 AM
I personally no longer buy the idea that PIE emerged in a specific area like that. There were exceptional pre-Yamnaya groups like Stredny Stog/Skelya that clearly had a wide network that linked between the otherwise empty open steppe between the river valleys in pre-Yamnaya times, probably through its control of the metal trade. I suspect that they were PIE or the immediate root of it. In fact they were probably the only culture or elite group capable of spreading a dialect both east as far as the Volga and west deep into the Balkans slightly later in pre-Yamnaya times. Anthony certainly thinks they were archaic PIE speakers or Anatolian. So the Sredny Stog groups do seem to be the most likely to have spread archaic PIE across the steppes, with further development into dialects probably taking place in the period after. I think its not a valid idea to see the PIEs and the archaic PIE/pre-PIEs as different people. Just because one group slightly distances itself geographically before wheel vocab comes in doesnt make them a different people as such. Also it is worth remembering that wheels were probably known in parts of the steppe close to the Caucasus and Balkans a century or two before the rise of Yamnaya pastoralism on wheels so the wheel in itself is not absolutely indicative of Yamnaya connections. Also, let say a group split off into the Balkans in the period say 4000BC and picked up wheel vocab c. 3500BC through their contacts, would we be able to tell its a borrowing? I doubt it. So, for me the wheel vocab thing can be stretched too far as a cultural-chronological indicator. In fact its very curious that Anatolian dialect didnt gain wheel vocab as the wheel was known widely around 3500BC in the Caucasus and in east central Europe. That suggests to me that the Anatolians were peculiarly isolated and its not just because they entered the Balkans early.

Then following that steppe hiatus period but before Yamnaya there was the rise of a lot of complexity seen in burials, ritual and subsistence base among westernmost steppe groups like Lower Mikaeolvka. Now as far as I recall Jean links them and their stelae and related Kemi Oba to movements west and stele that tend to have Remedello dagger symbols in the Alps and beyond. I personally think in such a model an immediately pre-Yamnaya period c. 3500BC fits best in tying that all together and linking it to Italo-Celtic peoples. Again, that would be pre-Yamnaya IMO.

In a nutshell I dont really believe the concept of PIE arising in what was essentially a fairly backwards part of the steppe in the Volga area. Recent linguistic papers put a huge question mark over the idea of PIE borrowings into proto-Uralic too so the need to place the PIE homeland in a confined area towards the Volga seems unwarranted linguistically.


As far as I know from my reading, Proto-Indo-European probably developed in a small geographic area, within a very specific patriarchal and patrilineal society. So I don't think we can expect a complex mix of male lines among the genuine early Indo-Europeans. Unless of course, we call this period of development Pre-Proto-Indo-European, but then we're just talking semantics.

In any case, it seems that this small area was the Samara Valley, because that's where the archeological spread of the suspected Proto-Indo-European culture began. So it looks like the Samara Valley remains, once they're properly tested, will be the deal breaker for R1b as the Proto-Indo-European marker.

I have no idea if R1b will be there? It might. But in any case, it's a good bet that R1a will show up, considering that it has already made an appearance in an early Indo-European context in Copper Age remains from Germany and middle Bronze Age remains from the Altai, South Siberia and the Tarim Basin.

Also, I'm not sure if Central Asia and India were more empty during the Bronze and Iron Ages than Western and Central Europe? The BMAC and Indus Valley settlements were probably more populous than anything in Europe at the time.

Generalissimo
06-18-2014, 06:20 AM
In a nutshell I dont really believe the concept of PIE arising in what was essentially a fairly backwards part of the steppe in the Volga area. Recent linguistic papers put a huge question mark over the idea of PIE borrowings into proto-Uralic too so the need to place the PIE homeland in a confined area towards the Volga seems unwarranted linguistically.

From my reading it would appear that the really interesting stuff did happen around the middle Volga (Samara, Khvalynsk, Abashevo etc.) and then soon after just east of the Urals (Sintashta).

The Sintashta Genesis: the roles of climate change, warfare, and long-distance trade (https://www.academia.edu/2494243/The_Sintashta_Genesis_the_roles_of_climate_change_ warfare_and_long-distance_trade)

So I can't see why this can't be the region where all of the cultural hallmarks of the Indo-Europeans were initially developed? Indeed, this is why its archeology, and now also ancient DNA, are being studied so carefully.

Archaeologists digging a Bronze Age site on the Russian steppes are using evidence from language and mythology to understand a remarkable discovery (https://www.academia.edu/5121799/Archaeologists_digging_a_Bronze_Age_site_on_the_Ru ssian_steppes_are_using_evidence_from_language_and _mythology_to_understand_a_remarkable_discovery)

Piquerobi
07-16-2014, 04:56 PM
No updates?

rms2
08-17-2014, 09:07 PM
No updates?

I am wondering about that, too, about a month after your post.

This is a very important topic.

rms2
08-17-2014, 09:59 PM
I guess I could try writing to Anatole Klyosov and asking him about this, but I aggravated him a couple of years ago by disagreeing with something he wrote, so I'm not sure he will answer me. I have a great deal of respect for him, and he could be right about most of what he says, but I just don't agree with all of it.

GailT
08-17-2014, 10:44 PM
I guess I could try writing to Anatole Klyosov and asking him about this, but I aggravated him a couple of years ago by disagreeing with something he wrote, so I'm not sure he will answer me. I have a great deal of respect for him, and he could be right about most of what he says, but I just don't agree with all of it.

He is wrong about much of what he says and, in my experience, he gets very angry at anyone who points out his mistakes.

parasar
08-17-2014, 11:36 PM
I guess I could try writing to Anatole Klyosov and asking him about this, but I aggravated him a couple of years ago by disagreeing with something he wrote, so I'm not sure he will answer me. I have a great deal of respect for him, and he could be right about most of what he says, but I just don't agree with all of it.

From what I read in the report in Russian, Dr. Klyosov is quite skeptical.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2658-Chatter-about-a-possible-Afanasievo-Culture-link-to-R1b&p=42228&viewfull=1#post42228

Agamemnon
08-18-2014, 01:04 AM
He is wrong about much of what he says and, in my experience, he gets very angry at anyone who points out his mistakes.

Exactly the same impression I had after watching a Russian-language interview of Klyosov, looks short-tempered.

ADW_1981
08-18-2014, 02:19 AM
Wouldn't it be wiser to reach out to the actual researcher/team behind the excavations?

alan
08-19-2014, 08:52 PM
I kind of agree that AK seems like the sort of person who would tend to be skeptical if something didnt fit his model. R1b in Afanasievo doesnt fit his model.

alan
05-04-2015, 07:32 AM
Its a shame this still hasnt been clarrified because it makes a lot of sense now that we know L23 was a big player in the extreme east of the European steppe.