PDA

View Full Version : Why a Z2103 move into steppes from the south doesnt seem plausible



alan
02-21-2015, 12:32 PM
There was an argument about whether L23 could have come from SW Asia on a thread that has since been closed.

IMO wherever their deeper origin, the total domination of one clade of R1b in a lot of different Yamnaya burial sites across a couple of Oblasts c. 3100BC means they simply had to be IEs of some sort. This is the sort of area where Afansievo probably left from so if they were Tocharians then it follows that they are an offshoot of what were Tocharian-like dialect c. 3400BC. So, if anyone is going to suggest L23 came from the south, they will have to see a migration in the period c. 5500-3400BC.

Indeed, it appears to me that the existence of the suggestion of the SW Asian origin is really about Z2103 more than anything else. So how old is Z2103. I believe Michal's last estimate centred on 4400BC. So that would further narrow the timeframe between the Z2103 SNP's existence and Yamnaya/Afansievo to between 4400BC and 3400BC. That range would be the optimum period in which anyone suggesting Z2103 as an external arrival from the south would have to squeeze this into.

I find it hard to believe that IE was simply learned by a male lineage from their wives so IMO anyone wanting to argue to idea of Z2103 coming into the steppes from the south somewhere between 4400 and 3400BC would have to resurrect some version of an Anatolian homeland. Anthony seems to believe Anatolian emerged by 4400BC and many of us agree it is the most likely R1 clade to be associated with Anatolians. Michal makes Z2103 date centred on 4400BC.

So this would seem to confirm the narrow 4400-3400 kind of window for any hypothetical Anatolian offshoot to the steppes by Z2103 would have had. One other clear consideration is that the Z2103 line totally dominated Yamnaya in the area tested. So we are talking about some group sitting at the top of the tree at least in that area, not some low visibility peasant level intrusion. One male line dominated and it is likely their language that dominated. This language almost had to be IE. So to argue that Z2103 came from the south 4400-3400BC is the same as trying to revive the Anatolian theory.

It would also be hard to believe that Z2103 come have been big enough to spread the language both in Anatolia and then the steppe until at least a few centuries after the SNP came into existence - c. 4400BC according to Michal. So its probably fair to continue this logic by saying an Z2103 from the south would surely have not much pre-dated 4000BC and almost had to be in the steppes by 3400BC. Now, the point of this exercise is to provide the most realistic window through trying to bookend it through constraints which anyone wanting to argue a southern origin of Z2103 would have to work within.

Here is another problem for any such theory. L51 is dated centred on 4700BC andd actually older than Z2103 according to Michal. This would mean it too would have to have come from SW Asia if anyone wants to argue Z2103 did. I dont think that is plausible. The distribution of L51xL11 and L11xP312xU106 looks very much like it bypassed SW Asia and SE Europe to the north as does the pattern of all L51 derived clades combined.

So, IMO there is a lot against the, already rather unlikely, concept of the Yamnaya R1b coming from the south.

rms2
02-21-2015, 12:55 PM
I think you are right for all the reasons you cited, but it seems to me the recovery of the ~7600-year-old R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer from Samara is the nail in the coffin to the idea that those seven R1b Yamnaya men were the products of a migration from Anatolia. His presence there signifies the likelihood that those seven men lived and died in an area their y-dna ancestors had already inhabited for millennia. I don't think it at all likely that a band of migrating R1b-Z2103 from Anatolia just happened to alight, serendipitously, in a place where an R1b1 hunter-gatherer had lived, died, and was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier.

R.Rocca
02-21-2015, 12:59 PM
Silesian was smart enough to remind us of David Anthony's video below, which deals with the migration of IE. Of course Anthony's migrations won't be 100% accurate, but I would say they are about as close as anyone could have predicted. When we take Anthony's points about words and technologies that need to be at the right place at the right time, together with the EHG components and the phylogeny of R1, we are pretty much left with a steppe origin for R1b's earliest subclades right down to L23.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d864bwyCAoA

rms2
02-21-2015, 02:13 PM
Silesian was smart enough to remind us of David Anthony's video below, which deals with the migration of IE. Of course Anthony's migrations won't be 100% accurate, but I would say they are about as close as anyone could have predicted. When we take Anthony's points about words and technologies that need to be at the right place at the right time, together with the EHG components and the phylogeny of R1, we are pretty much left with a steppe origin for R1b's earliest subclades right down to L23.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d864bwyCAoA

I just watched that whole video, which I had not seen before (I remember Silesian posting it, but I didn't have time to watch it then). It is excellent and really lays things out in a clear and easy-to-understand manner.

MJost
02-21-2015, 04:22 PM
From the paper:
"Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe"
Wolfgang Haak, et al

I noticed that several site were Calibrated BC and those dates seemed to me and others to be more recent as compaired to the HG's identified. These two had close date ranges and the entire five samples may have been paternally related, but I didnt review any aDNA.

I0438 Yamnaya Yamnaya EBA Luzhki I Samara River, Samara, Russia; SVP50 3021-2635 calBCE Russia M U5a1a1 R1b1a2a2

I0231 Yamnaya Yamnaya EBA Ekaterinovka,_Southern Steppe, Samara Russia, SVP3 2910-2875 calBCE Russia M U4a1 R1b1a2a2


"...The uniformity of R1b Y-chromosomes in this sample suggests a patrilineal organization of the
Yamnaya,.."

Looking at the I0438 (Yamnaya) individual is haplogroup R1b1a2a2 (CTS1078/Z2103:7186135G→C) a branch off of L51, and was dated 2910-2875 calBCE, and based on SNP counts and my 206 years per SNP R-tree calibration, it appears that this sample and he other would be around 10 to 11 SNPs down stream from node CTS1078/Z2103. That would be equivilant to just above the other L51 branch down to bottom of the L11 block just above P312.

Reference dating:

YBPBegin BCE SNPsinBlock ChrY-HG

7711 5711 3 R1b1a2a - L23
7093 5093 4 R1b1a2a1 - L51
6268 4268 8 R1b1a2a1a - L11
4618 2618 2 R1b1a2a1a2 - P312

MJost

R.Rocca
02-21-2015, 04:28 PM
We still need to account for Proto-Anatolian as a pre-wheel PIE language, and Anthony associates it with the Suvorovo Culture migration from the steppe through the eastern Balkans ca.4300-4100 BC. Mallory also makes a migration through the Balkans more likely than through the Caucasus. Is there anything in the R-Z2103 tree that makes both a possibility? In this overlay of SNPs I made of Anthony's Yamnaya Balkan groups, there may not be a need to include Z2103 that late, or at least not all of it:

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Balkan_R1b.png

Tomasso29
02-21-2015, 04:30 PM
There was an argument about whether L23 could have come from SW Asia on a thread that has since been closed.

IMO wherever their deeper origin, the total domination of one clade of R1b in a lot of different Yamnaya burial sites across a couple of Oblasts c. 3100BC means they simply had to be IEs of some sort. This is the sort of area where Afansievo probably left from so if they were Tocharians then it follows that they are an offshoot of what were Tocharian-like dialect c. 3400BC. So, if anyone is going to suggest L23 came from the south, they will have to see a migration in the period c. 5500-3400BC.

Indeed, it appears to me that the existence of the suggestion of the SW Asian origin is really about Z2103 more than anything else. So how old is Z2103. I believe Michal's last estimate centred on 4400BC. So that would further narrow the timeframe between the Z2103 SNP's existence and Yamnaya/Afansievo to between 4400BC and 3400BC. That range would be the optimum period in which anyone suggesting Z2103 as an external arrival from the south would have to squeeze this into.

I find it hard to believe that IE was simply learned by a male lineage from their wives so IMO anyone wanting to argue to idea of Z2103 coming into the steppes from the south somewhere between 4400 and 3400BC would have to resurrect some version of an Anatolian homeland. Anthony seems to believe Anatolian emerged by 4400BC and many of us agree it is the most likely R1 clade to be associated with Anatolians. Michal makes Z2103 date centred on 4400BC.

So this would seem to confirm the narrow 4400-3400 kind of window for any hypothetical Anatolian offshoot to the steppes by Z2103 would have had. One other clear consideration is that the Z2103 line totally dominated Yamnaya in the area tested. So we are talking about some group sitting at the top of the tree at least in that area, not some low visibility peasant level intrusion. One male line dominated and it is likely their language that dominated. This language almost had to be IE. So to argue that Z2103 came from the south 4400-3400BC is the same as trying to revive the Anatolian theory.

It would also be hard to believe that Z2103 come have been big enough to spread the language both in Anatolia and then the steppe until at least a few centuries after the SNP came into existence - c. 4400BC according to Michal. So its probably fair to continue this logic by saying an Z2103 from the south would surely have not much pre-dated 4000BC and almost had to be in the steppes by 3400BC. Now, the point of this exercise is to provide the most realistic window through trying to bookend it through constraints which anyone wanting to argue a southern origin of Z2103 would have to work within.

Here is another problem for any such theory. L51 is dated centred on 4700BC andd actually older than Z2103 according to Michal. This would mean it too would have to have come from SW Asia if anyone wants to argue Z2103 did. I dont think that is plausible. The distribution of L51xL11 and L11xP312xU106 looks very much like it bypassed SW Asia and SE Europe to the north as does the pattern of all L51 derived clades combined.

So, IMO there is a lot against the, already rather unlikely, concept of the Yamnaya R1b coming from the south.

Alan, your haplogroup age calculations are merely based on pseudoscience so I'm not going to bother with that, however since you believe a migration out of southern places like Anatolia or the Caucasus is not possible, care to explain where those Yamna samples got their Near Eastern component from? Just to be clear, the paper makes it seem like the NE component found in these Yamna samples was different from that NE farmer component found in Neolithic Europe.

Unless you want to promote that these Near Easterners originated on the steppes, it seems likely that there was a movement from the south to the north. Whether this movement brought any R1b's with them or not is unknown which is why I said ancient DNA studies from West Asia is needed. Looking at modern distributions or made up SNP/STR calculations will not solve this.

R.Rocca
02-21-2015, 04:51 PM
Alan, your haplogroup age calculations are merely based on pseudoscience so I'm not going to bother with that, however since you believe a migration out of southern places like Anatolia or the Caucasus is not possible, care to explain where those Yamna samples got their Near Eastern component from? Just to be clear, the paper makes it seem like the NE component found in these Yamna samples was different from that NE farmer component found in Neolithic Europe.

Unless you want to promote that these Near Easterners originated on the steppes, it seems likely that there was a movement from the south to the north. Whether this movement brought any R1b's with them or not is unknown which is why I said ancient DNA studies from West Asia is needed. Looking at modern distributions or made up SNP/STR calculations will not solve this.

I'm generalizing here...
1. WHG were once the dominant genetic component throughout Central and Western Europe.
2. WHG lost that dominance at the expense of Early Neolithic farming populations from the Near East. This of course formed EEF in Central Europe.
3. WHG regained some of that dominance over EEF during the Middle Neolithic. During this period, it seems like haplogroup I2 makes a very important comeback, but WHG mtDNA like haplogroup U does not, thus the total autosomal is nowhere near as WHG dominant as is was pre-Neolithic.

This very same scenario seems to have played out on the Steppe, except the Near East component came from the Caucasus, and was therefore not the same as the one that made its way into the Balkans. This is by far the most obvious explanation and has an exact precedent in Central Europe.

Tomasso29
02-21-2015, 05:00 PM
I'm generalizing here...
1. WHG were once the dominant genetic component throughout Central and Western Europe.
2. WHG lost that dominance at the expense of Early Neolithic farming populations from the Near East. This of course formed EEF in Central Europe.
3. WHG regained some of that dominance over EEF during the Middle Neolithic. During this period, it seems like haplogroup I2 makes a very important comeback, but WHG mtDNA like haplogroup U does not, thus the total autosomal is nowhere near as WHG dominant as is was pre-Neolithic.

This very same scenario seems to have played out on the Steppe, except the Near East component came from the Caucasus, and was therefore not the same as the one that made its way into the Balkans. This is by far the most obvious explanation and has an exact precedent in Central Europe.

I'm not going to argue all those points since that's the speculation you believe in, but at least you acknowledge that a Near Eastern movement from the south is indeed possible.

R.Rocca
02-21-2015, 05:55 PM
I'm not going to argue all those points since that's the speculation you believe in, but at least you acknowledge that a Near Eastern movement from the south is indeed possible.

Speculation? Read Lazaridis from last year, that is exactly what they found in Central Europe. Step no. 1 has been confirmed in the two early EHG as well, so steps 2 and 3 are the only ones that need confirmation, and if the makeup of modern day European is indication, it is extremely easy to infer that steps 2 and 3 played out in a similar way in the Yamnaya.

Joe B
02-21-2015, 05:58 PM
Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if you guys were as humble as the authors of this study.

R1b-Z2103 could have come up the Volga, Ural or Don rivers from the south.....or it could have developed on the steppe. We just don't know. Could a warmer climate change pulled R1b-Z2103 north or did a cold climate change send them south? Seems to me that a good discussion of "Why a Z2103 move into steppes from the south doesnt seem plausible" would include some ideas as to why we have so much R1b-Z2103 (STR and clade) diversity to the south in Anatolia, the Caucuses and the Balkens. Geography and climate may have played a big part.

Supplementary Information 4 Sex determination and Y chromosome analysis Page 46

I0231 (Yamnaya)
It is not possible to determine whether the appearance of R-Z2103 in the Yamnaya individual is due to (i) gene flow from the south to the steppe and related to the autosomal signal of “dilution” of Eastern European hunter-gatherers, or (ii) gene flow from the steppe to the south. Modern Armenians have a
signal of admixture from the Yamnaya, as when we test f3-statistics of the form f3(Armenian; Yamnaya, X) we find the lowest Z-score for f3(Armenian; Yamnaya, BedouinB ) = -0.00296 (Z=-7.1). However, the lowest Z-score of statistics of the form f3(Armenian; X, Y) involves the (X, Y) =
(LBK_EN, Sindhi) pair (value -0.00575, Z=-15.3), so the signal of admixture from the Yamnaya is not the strongest one for Armenians. Moreover, as shown in SI 7, the Yamnaya have a negative f3- statistic with (X, Y) = (Karelia_HG, Armenian). A negative statistic for both Armenians and Yamnaya
with each other as a reference population may suggest that a third (unsampled) population admixed into both the Yamnaya and to Armenians. The question of directionality can only be furthered elucidated by the study of additional ancient samples from the Caucasus, Near East and the steppe.


Supplementary Information 11
Relevance of ancient DNA to the problem of Indo-European language dispersals Page 137

4. The Armenian plateau hypothesis gains in plausibility by the fact that we have discovered
evidence of admixture in the ancestry of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists, including gene flow
from a population of Near Eastern ancestry for which Armenians today appear to be a
reasonable surrogate (SI4, SI7, SI9). However, the question of what languages were spoken
by the “Eastern European hunter-gatherers” and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral
population remains open. Examining ancient DNA from the Caucasus and Near East may be
able to provide further insight about the dynamics of the interaction between these regions
and the steppe. Our results show that southern populations diluted the ancestry of populations
from the steppe, but also that ancestry related to Ancient North Eurasians forms a major
ancestral component of the populations of the present-day Caucasus25. Thus, both south-north
and north-south genetic influence across the Caucasus is plausible.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3815&d=1424465971

MJost
02-21-2015, 06:01 PM
In this overlay of SNPs I made of Anthony's Yamnaya Balkan groups, there may not be a need to include Z2103 that late, or at least not all of it:


My version of your map.
3820

MJost

Silesian
02-21-2015, 06:15 PM
Wouldn't it be a wonderful world.................if you guys were as humble as the authors of this study.

I'd just settle for a little footnote in the news section.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=news

R1b1a2 (P312- U106-) DNA Project (aka ht35 Project) - News

If
R1b1a2 (P312- U106-) DNA Project (aka ht35 Project) - News
Additions/Changes to the ISOGG Y-DNA Haplogroup R and its Subclades - 2015

Added CTS7340/Z2107, CTS9416, PF7575/Z2104, PF7585, Y4371/Z8128, Z8127 to tree on 29 January 2015.




Additions/Changes to the ISOGG Y-DNA Haplogroup R and its Subclades - 2014


Added PF7558, PF7562, PF7563 to tree on 14 November 2014.

Added CTS4528/S1200, DF100/S1203 to tree on 26 October 2014.

Added L943 to tree on 18 October 2014.

Added CTS9219 to tree on 18 September 2014.

Added CTS11824/PF7592 to tree on 14 September 2014.

Added CTS6889/S1161, CTS7822/Z2110, PF7589/Z2118 to tree on 27 August 2014.

Wiki- Yamnaya:- already has the study posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture
Genetics
DNA from the remains of nine individuals assiciated with the Yamna culture from Samara Oblast and Orenburg Oblast has been analyzed. The remains have been dated to 2700-3339 BCE. Y-chromosome sequencing revealed that one of the individuals belonged to haplogroup R1b1-P25, one individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1a2a-L23 and five individuals belonged to R1b1a2a2-Z2103. The individuals belonged to mtDNA haplogroups U4a1, W6, H13a1a1a, T2c1a2, U5a1a1, H2b, W3a1a and H6a1b.[5]

Unless of course you disagree with the results?

alan
02-21-2015, 06:40 PM
Alan, your haplogroup age calculations are merely based on pseudoscience so I'm not going to bother with that, however since you believe a migration out of southern places like Anatolia or the Caucasus is not possible, care to explain where those Yamna samples got their Near Eastern component from? Just to be clear, the paper makes it seem like the NE component found in these Yamna samples was different from that NE farmer component found in Neolithic Europe.

Unless you want to promote that these Near Easterners originated on the steppes, it seems likely that there was a movement from the south to the north. Whether this movement brought any R1b's with them or not is unknown which is why I said ancient DNA studies from West Asia is needed. Looking at modern distributions or made up SNP/STR calculations will not solve this.


My arguments were only relative to L23. They dont mean other groups could not have come through the Caucasus from the south or along the Caspian shores and I agree they must have. I have created a thread on the origins of the mystery non-Euro farmer component that joined with EHG to form Yamnaya but there havent been much takers.

R.Rocca
02-21-2015, 06:50 PM
My version of your map.
3820

MJost

Could be as well, but the core areas of the brother clades of L51+L11 (Z2113) and L11+P312 & L11+U106 (DF100) are so far removed from the Eastern Balkans, that it seems less likely that L51 and L11 developed so far east.

parasar
02-21-2015, 07:12 PM
Alan, your haplogroup age calculations are merely based on pseudoscience so I'm not going to bother with that, however since you believe a migration out of southern places like Anatolia or the Caucasus is not possible, care to explain where those Yamna samples got their Near Eastern component from? Just to be clear, the paper makes it seem like the NE component found in these Yamna samples was different from that NE farmer component found in Neolithic Europe.

Unless you want to promote that these Near Easterners originated on the steppes, it seems likely that there was a movement from the south to the north. Whether this movement brought any R1b's with them or not is unknown which is why I said ancient DNA studies from West Asia is needed. Looking at modern distributions or made up SNP/STR calculations will not solve this.

Yamna does not have a Near Eastern component. Yamna has a component also seen in present Near Easterners.

Megalophias
02-21-2015, 07:30 PM
Hopefully this thread won't get closed. :D


So this would seem to confirm the narrow 4400-3400 kind of window for any hypothetical Anatolian offshoot to the steppes by Z2103 would have had. One other clear consideration is that the Z2103 line totally dominated Yamnaya in the area tested. So we are talking about some group sitting at the top of the tree at least in that area, not some low visibility peasant level intrusion. One male line dominated and it is likely their language that dominated. This language almost had to be IE. So to argue that Z2103 came from the south 4400-3400BC is the same as trying to revive the Anatolian theory.

The Anatolian theory would have Indo-Iranian languages coming from the west out of Cucuteni-Tripolye, and non-Anatolian languages entering Europe via the Balkans much earlier. I don't know how Y haplogroups would fit into it, but it doesn't invoke IE languages moving north from Anatolia, and in fact the early languages of the steppe zone would have been non-IE. So I don't see how this is connected to the Anatolian theory.

Are you referring to the Southwest Asian homeland associated with the glottalic theory? That had the Northwest Indo-European languages enter the steppe zone from the south along one or the other side of the Caspian in that time period.


Here is another problem for any such theory. L51 is dated centred on 4700BC andd actually older than Z2103 according to Michal. This would mean it too would have to have come from SW Asia if anyone wants to argue Z2103 did. I don't think that is plausible. The distribution of L51xL11 and L11xP312xU106 looks very much like it bypassed SW Asia and SE Europe to the north as does the pattern of all L51 derived clades combined.
Probably L51 also spread into Europe with Yamnaya - it was just from a different part of the Yamnaya horizon. If L23 originated with southern farmers, then L51 and Z2103 would both have spread, with the former predominating in the north and the latter in the south.

But I get the feeling I am standing on shaky ground here. I am not down with the latest R1b news from private testing, I have to rely on the old scientific literature. I was under the impression that West Asia had a high basal diversity of R1b clades, which makes an origin there plausible. However, in the other thread before it was closed, some people were posting to the effect that this is not so. Does anyone know the latest on the modern phylogeography of R1b-M269? Because if it favours the steppe over West Asia, then this debate is kind of pointless.

alan
02-21-2015, 07:33 PM
Yamna does not have a Near Eastern component. Yamna has a component also seen in present Near Easterners.

What is that component

parasar
02-21-2015, 07:45 PM
What is that component

As to where that mystery component come from:

1. Yamna can be modelled as Karelian + Armenian like.

2. Eliminating Karelian as the source, we are left with Armenians.

3. Armenians can be modelled as Neolithics + Sindhi or similarly N. Levantine + Central South Asian
f3: Central and South Asians North Levantines -0.000484051 -6.95695 3908.52 ± 682.08 2.10E-07 Table 1. Source populations and admixture time for Armenians http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf
"the lowest Z-score of statistics of the form f3(Armenian; X, Y) involves the (X, Y) = (LBK_EN, Sindhi) pair (value -0.00575, Z=-15.3)" http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

4. Since Yamna has little or no affinity for Neolithics - it is the Sindhi/Central South Asian Component.

5. The Sindhi/Central South Asian has a lot of ANE, but plain ANE only cannot be the mystery component as it was already chock full in Karelians. So it is something that has ANE, but is not only ANE.

6. So it is Sindhi/South Central Asian minus South Indian. The closest component to this would be ANI.

alan
02-21-2015, 07:50 PM
As to where that mystery component come from:

1. Yamna can be modelled as Karelian + Armenian.

2. Eliminating Karelian as the source, we are left with Armenians.

3. Armenians can be modelled as Neolithics + Sindhi or similarly N. Levantine + Central South Asian
f3: Central and South Asians North Levantines -0.000484051 -6.95695 3908.52 ± 682.08 2.10E-07 Table 1. Source populations and admixture time for Armenians http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf
"the lowest Z-score of statistics of the form f3(Armenian; X, Y) involves the (X, Y) = (LBK_EN, Sindhi) pair (value -0.00575, Z=-15.3)" http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

4. Since Yamna has little or no affinity for Neolithics - it is the Sindhi/Central South Asian Component.

5. The Sindhi/Central South Asian has a lot of ANE, but plain ANE only cannot be the mystery component as it was already chock full in Karelians. So it is something that has ANE, but is not only ANE.

6. So it is Sindhi/South Central Asian minus South Indian. The closest component to this would be ANI.

Is this anything to do with Gedrosia etc

parasar
02-21-2015, 08:08 PM
Is this anything to do with Gedrosia etc

Yes, and Metspalu's k5.

Joe B
02-21-2015, 08:36 PM
I'd just settle for a little footnote in the news section.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=news

R1b1a2 (P312- U106-) DNA Project (aka ht35 Project) - News

If

Wiki- Yamnaya:- already has the study posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture
Genetics
DNA from the remains of nine individuals assiciated with the Yamna culture from Samara Oblast and Orenburg Oblast has been analyzed. The remains have been dated to 2700-3339 BCE. Y-chromosome sequencing revealed that one of the individuals belonged to haplogroup R1b1-P25, one individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1a2a-L23 and five individuals belonged to R1b1a2a2-Z2103. The individuals belonged to mtDNA haplogroups U4a1, W6, H13a1a1a, T2c1a2, U5a1a1, H2b, W3a1a and H6a1b.[5]

Unless of course you disagree with the results? The news section will be updated in the next couple of days. Disagree with the results? You know me well enough to know that I don't believe in conspiracy theories. The results are solid, just not deep enough.

Silesian
02-21-2015, 08:59 PM
The news section will be updated in the next couple of days. Disagree with the results? You know me well enough to know that I don't believe in conspiracy theories. The results are solid, just not deep enough.
When are you going to start our Yamnaya r1b project ?
I'll pm you with my 23andme account. Can you add me?

R.Rocca
02-21-2015, 09:28 PM
It would be nice if we had an R-Z2103/Z2105 section here on Anthrogenica as well.

Generalissimo
02-21-2015, 11:03 PM
As to where that mystery component come from:

1. Yamna can be modelled as Karelian + Armenian like.

2. Eliminating Karelian as the source, we are left with Armenians.

3. Armenians can be modelled as Neolithics + Sindhi or similarly N. Levantine + Central South Asian
f3: Central and South Asians North Levantines -0.000484051 -6.95695 3908.52 ± 682.08 2.10E-07 Table 1. Source populations and admixture time for Armenians http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf
"the lowest Z-score of statistics of the form f3(Armenian; X, Y) involves the (X, Y) = (LBK_EN, Sindhi) pair (value -0.00575, Z=-15.3)" http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

4. Since Yamna has little or no affinity for Neolithics - it is the Sindhi/Central South Asian Component.

5. The Sindhi/Central South Asian has a lot of ANE, but plain ANE only cannot be the mystery component as it was already chock full in Karelians. So it is something that has ANE, but is not only ANE.

6. So it is Sindhi/South Central Asian minus South Indian. The closest component to this would be ANI.

There's no mystery component.

The problem is that EHG doesn't have enough ANE to cover the ANE in Yamnaya. So the population that also gave Yamnaya their Near Eastern admixture also gave them some ANE.

Hence the speculation that this "third source" population also gave ANE to Armenians and other Near Easterners. There is also speculation that it came from the north Caucasus.

Btw, ANI is just Near Eastern/ANE, and it has no relevance to anything in the Haak et al. paper.

Megalophias
02-21-2015, 11:33 PM
There's no mystery component.

The problem is that EHG doesn't have enough ANE to cover the ANE in Yamnaya. So the population that also gave Yamnaya their Near Eastern admixture also gave them some ANE.

Hence the speculation that this "third source" population also gave ANE to Armenians and other Near Easterners. There is also speculation that it came from the north Caucasus.

Btw, ANI is just Near Eastern/ANE, and it has no relevance to anything in the Haak et al. paper.

If ANI is ANE + Near Eastern, and the population that admixed with Yamnaya was also ANE + Near Eastern, then it does seem kind of relevant.

Jean M
02-22-2015, 12:17 AM
The problem is that EHG doesn't have enough ANE to cover the ANE in Yamnaya. So the population that also gave Yamnaya their Near Eastern admixture also gave them some ANE.

Not sure about this, having read the paper now. EHG seems to be a mixture of ANE and WHG, which could be explained by early arrivals from Siberia taking wives from WHG bands they encountered. If bands continued to arrive in the Samara region from Siberia over the next two thousand years, then that would boost the ANE level, while at the same time there was mixing with farming neighbours. That would explain the Yamnaya mix I think.

Generalissimo
02-22-2015, 12:49 AM
Not sure about this, having read the paper now. EHG seems to be a mixture of ANE and WHG, which could be explained by early arrivals from Siberia taking wives from WHG bands they encountered. If bands continued to arrive in the Samara region from Siberia over the next two thousand years, then that would boost the ANE level, while at the same time there was mixing with farming neighbours. That would explain the Yamnaya mix I think.

The model with EHG as a mixture of WHG and ANE fails. This might be because EHG weren't recently admixed, and instead part of an EHG/ANE continuum. In fact, MA-1 might be a mixture of EHG and ANE. It's really hard to say until we see more UP and Mesolithic samples from across northern Eurasia.

In any case, even if the EHG were admixed, then they only had around 38% of ANE, which doesn't appear to be enough to cover the high ANE in Yamnaya. So either there was admixture into Yamnaya from an as yet unsampled source, which is what Haak et al. suggest, or maybe there was substructure within the EHG, and those that helped to produce the Yamnaya had higher levels of ANE, or at least ANE-like ancestry, than Karelia_EHG and Samara_EHG.

Jean M
02-22-2015, 01:04 AM
The model with EHG as a mixture of WHG and ANE fails. This might be because EHG weren't recently admixed

I suspect so. Mixing had been happening on the Asian steppe, witness the mixture of mtDNA at Lokomotiv, Irkutsk.


In any case, even if the EHG were admixed, then they only had around 38% of ANE, which doesn't appear to be enough to cover the high ANE in Yamnaya. So either there was admixture into Yamnaya from an as yet unsampled source, which is what Haak et al. suggest, or maybe there was substructure within the EHG, and those that helped to produce the Yamnaya had higher levels of ANE, or at least ANE-like ancestry, than Karelia_EHG and Samara_EHG.

The second option is pretty much what I was saying, but in different words. Haak et al propose a single unsampled source. I'm suggesting both more of the MA1 type providing the ANE, plus an admixture with farmers, rather than one admixture providing both.

rms2
02-22-2015, 01:31 AM
My version of your map.
3820

MJost

I think it's also a possibility that the northern movement that fed into Globular Amphora and Corded Ware and also led to Fatyanovo could have contained the branch of L11 that led to U106, as well as containing R1a-Z282. That would explain the distinctly different distributions of U106 and P312, the latter of which was a consequence of the Yamnaya trek up the Danube valley to eastern Hungary. There the branch of L11 leading to P312 probably arose, P312 was born, and P312 entered the successor cultures that became eastern Beaker.

In this scenario, P312 and Italo-Celtic began and were launched into Beaker via that southern Yamnaya move up the Danube valley, and Germanic and Balto-Slavic came by way of that northern movement into Corded Ware and included U106, which has not shown up yet, but I think it will - in Corded Ware.

P312: Beaker and Italo-Celtic
U106: Corded Ware and Germanic (with maybe some involvement in Balto-Slavic, as well)

I am not purposely leaving R1a out. Obviously it was present in Corded Ware in a big way and no doubt got there via that northern migration stream. Just my opinion.

Chad Rohlfsen
02-22-2015, 01:55 AM
Bohemian and Moravian Beakers were pretty important too. U106 might be in one of those two.

rms2
02-22-2015, 02:00 AM
Bohemian and Moravian Beakers were pretty important too. U106 might be in one of those two.

You could be right, but I suspect a long-running connection between U106 and Germanic, and there are no signs of such a connection between it and Italo-Celtic. That would make Beaker an unlikely candidate as a vehicle for U106, and indeed thus far Beaker y-dna is three-for-three U106-.

P312 is a better fit for Italo-Celtic and Beaker, and now we have at least one P312+ Beaker man.

That's not much, I know, but I think it's a sign of things to come and consistent with what we know of archaeology and the spread of Italo-Celtic.

ADW_1981
02-22-2015, 02:19 AM
Yamna does not have a Near Eastern component. Yamna has a component also seen in present Near Easterners.

Agreed. Yamnaya doesn't have the component typically found in the Early European farmers of the LBK, and the reasonable arguments suggests these folks arrived from the fertile crescent or thereabouts. If the Armenian highland, or Caucasus region was some sort of origin for this proxy Near Eastern 'Yamnayan' population, the movement would have had to pre-date the movement of farmers into the Caucasus. It doesn't seem to add up.

Generalissimo
02-22-2015, 02:32 AM
Agreed. Yamnaya doesn't have the component typically found in the Early European farmers of the LBK, and the reasonable arguments suggests these folks arrived from the fertile crescent or thereabouts. If the Armenian highland, or Caucasus region was some sort of origin for this proxy Near Eastern 'Yamnayan' population, the movement would have had to pre-date the movement of farmers into the Caucasus. It doesn't seem to add up.

These components are modern variation imposed on the ancient samples.

The early European farmer component is Near Eastern + WHG + modern drift in the southwest Mediterranean. The Yamnaya component is Near Eastern + ANE + modern drift in the north Caucasus and the Hindu Kush.

In order to get rid of these confusing results and the so called "mystery component" we'd need to run just the ancient samples, and then project modern samples onto their variation.

Chad Rohlfsen
02-22-2015, 03:03 AM
You could be right, but I suspect a long-running connection between U106 and Germanic, and there are no signs of such a connection between it and Italo-Celtic. That would make Beaker an unlikely candidate as a vehicle for U106, and indeed thus far Beaker y-dna is three-for-three U106-.

P312 is a better fit for Italo-Celtic and Beaker, and now we have at least one P312+ Beaker man.

That's not much, I know, but I think it's a sign of things to come and consistent with what we know of archaeology and the spread of Italo-Celtic.


U106 spreads to Eastern Europe, like Beaker. Someone took it to SE Poland, NW Belarus. P312 doesn't match that so well.

Chad Rohlfsen
02-22-2015, 04:31 AM
3823

I'm not sure how useful or accurate this is, but it does show some L11 in Central and Eastern Europe.

alan
02-22-2015, 10:16 AM
These components are modern variation imposed on the ancient samples.

The early European farmer component is Near Eastern + WHG + modern drift in the southwest Mediterranean. The Yamnaya component is Near Eastern + ANE + modern drift in the north Caucasus and the Hindu Kush.

In order to get rid of these confusing results and the so called "mystery component" we'd need to run just the ancient samples, and then project modern samples onto their variation.

I personally dont think it was helpful of them to create a component called EHG when it is likely that that is just WHG plus ANE. Because both components were already known to varying degrees across Europe, this surely will have an impact on their attempts to work out Yamnaya input.

alan
02-22-2015, 10:27 AM
3823

I'm not sure how useful or accurate this is, but it does show some L11 in Central and Eastern Europe.

One important thing I would ask people to do when reading this map is reaslise that M269xL23, L23xL51, L51xL11, L11xP312xU106, U106 and P312 all existed by 3000BC. So one form is not older than the other - that is a wrong headed way of looking at it. If these clades were moved around by steppe movements then what we are seeing is founder effects where offshoots from the motherland only bring a portion of the mix back at source. So, its wrong headed to look for what are called 'ancestral' on this map and in fact its probably more likely that the motherland of all of this R1b is where many clades are found in one place.

alan
02-22-2015, 10:42 AM
One one accepts most of the M269 clade divisions existed by 3000BC and there is no evidence for any outside the steppe before that then you look at that map very differently. It makes the south-east of Europe, Anatolia etc look like a selective offshoot or founder effect. It makes western Europe largely also look like a founder effect where only L51 derived stuff made it west. Most importantly there is a zone where all the clades are found together. This roughly runs from Ukraine to Hungary at the north end of the Balkans and the Danube.

rms2
02-22-2015, 12:48 PM
U106 spreads to Eastern Europe, like Beaker. Someone took it to SE Poland, NW Belarus. P312 doesn't match that so well.

Or spread from Eastern Europe. I think it was part of that movement north of the Carpathians that fed into Globular Amphora and Corded Ware, or the L11 line that led to it was.

P312 doesn't fit that well at all, but U106 does.

U106 does not fit Italo-Celtic at all, but P312 fits it well, and a number of scholars over the years, from Hubert to David Anthony, have tied Italo-Celtic to Beaker.

Of course, I could be wrong, but thus far U106 has struck out with Beaker, and that in Germany, where U106 is frequent today.

It also seems to me that Beaker is a real strong candidate for having been the vehicle for the spread and propagation of P312>L21 to the British Isles. If U106 were part of that, it would have a distribution in the Isles more like that of L21, but it does not. Instead, U106 is a real good proxy for the entry and advancement of the Anglo-Saxons in the immediate post-Roman period and the Danish Vikings during the early medieval period. On the Continent, U106 looks like it spread with Migration Period Germans. It does not fit Beaker well at all.

Hok
02-22-2015, 12:54 PM
I agree with Rms2 and i find it unlikely that R1b U106 will be found in Bohemian/Moravian beakers. I am convinced that R1b U106 will be found in Western Corded ware groups. However it would be interesting to know how R1b U106 became quite dominant in the Southern regions around the North Sea.(Especially Netherlands)

rms2
02-22-2015, 01:47 PM
I agree with Rms2 and i find it unlikely that R1b U106 will be found in Bohemian/Moravian beakers. I am convinced that R1b U106 will be found in Western Corded ware groups. However it would be interesting to know how R1b U106 became quite dominant in the Southern regions around the North Sea.(Especially Netherlands)

My own view (and naturally I could be wrong) is that U106 became involved in the evolution of Germanic very early and did not get to the Lower Rhine until the 8th century BC with the Germans. Prior to that time, that area was in Celtic hands.

A weakness in my argument which I recognize as a valid criticism is that Corded Ware made it pretty far west and was there in the Netherlands in the Bronze Age. If U106 was in Corded Ware, as I think it was, obviously it could have made it to the Netherlands when Corded Ware did. I don't have a real good answer for that except to say that either U106 was still too far east and was not present in the Corded Ware groups that far west, or that U106 did not really become populous until its arrival with the Germans around 700 BC.

Corded Ware did not make it to the British Isles, and we have those two bodies from Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, circa AD 1 (Iron Age, long after Corded Ware and Beaker), who were P312>L21+. That's only two bodies, obviously, but it's an early indication perhaps. Bell Beaker Folk settled in the Isles, and they were across the water in the Netherlands. Had U106 been there that early, why does its distribution in what is now England fit the arrival and spread of the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings so well? It does not look like a y haplogroup that arrived in the Bronze Age with Beaker.

newtoboard
02-22-2015, 02:38 PM
U106 spreads to Eastern Europe, like Beaker. Someone took it to SE Poland, NW Belarus. P312 doesn't match that so well.

There are numerous Germanic migrations that could explain U106+ in that region rather than it being some sort of ancient presence.

newtoboard
02-22-2015, 02:40 PM
I think it's also a possibility that the northern movement that fed into Globular Amphora and Corded Ware and also led to Fatyanovo could have contained the branch of L11 that led to U106, as well as containing R1a-Z282. That would explain the distinctly different distributions of U106 and P312, the latter of which was a consequence of the Yamnaya trek up the Danube valley to eastern Hungary. There the branch of L11 leading to P312 probably arose, P312 was born, and P312 entered the successor cultures that became eastern Beaker.

In this scenario, P312 and Italo-Celtic began and were launched into Beaker via that southern Yamnaya move up the Danube valley, and Germanic and Balto-Slavic came by way of that northern movement into Corded Ware and included U106, which has not shown up yet, but I think it will - in Corded Ware.

P312: Beaker and Italo-Celtic
U106: Corded Ware and Germanic (with maybe some involvement in Balto-Slavic, as well)

I am not purposely leaving R1a out. Obviously it was present in Corded Ware in a big way and no doubt got there via that northern migration stream. Just my opinion.

You are not leaving R1a out but there does seem to be a trend to see R1b everywhere even in places where it likely does not exist. Nobody is stating that R1a had anything to do with Celtic or Anatolian but your posts and Piquerobis do seem to look like some people are trying really really hard to find R1b among Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian speakers.

newtoboard
02-22-2015, 02:43 PM
I agree with Rms2 and i find it unlikely that R1b U106 will be found in Bohemian/Moravian beakers. I am convinced that R1b U106 will be found in Western Corded ware groups. However it would be interesting to know how R1b U106 became quite dominant in the Southern regions around the North Sea.(Especially Netherlands)

Western or Southern Corded Ware sounds right to me. I believe Michal also believes this to be true or at least thinks it is unlikely U106 originated outside of Western Europe.

alan
02-22-2015, 03:18 PM
There are numerous Germanic migrations that could explain U106+ in that region rather than it being some sort of ancient presence.

The age some are coming up with now for U106 and P312 together with absence in Old Europe farmers does raise the likelihood that both existed for some centuries in the steppe before expanding west. I agree, a branch of L11 or even fully formed U106 or both could have come with Corded Ware to the Baltic but I think we may be looking at the eastern U106 wrongly as a late reflux by Germanics when it could in fact be the start of its trail. If, as many feel seems intuitive, U106 or its immediate L11 ancestor moved into east central and northern Europe through being within Corded Ware then it follows that such a branch had to have been located in the genesis zone of corded ware, middle Dnieper, Dniester etc c. 3000BC or just after. That makes perfect sense in the big picture because L51, almost all L11 in reality, had to have been at the west end of the steppe to have had the 'first out' advantage while heading west and to match the early branching of the language groups that most people carrying L51 clades carry i.e. Celtic, Italic and Germanic. A position for L11 at the western end of the steppe around the Dnieper or even towards the Dniester by 3000BC would allow to split with one branch to go into corded ware heading west and another branch to use the Danubian route. Both of course shared Yamnaya genes.

newtoboard
02-22-2015, 03:27 PM
The age some are coming up with now for U106 and P312 together with absence in Old Europe farmers does raise the likelihood that both existed for some centuries in the steppe before expanding west. I agree, a branch of L11 or even fully formed U106 or both could have come with Corded Ware to the Baltic but I think we may be looking at the eastern U106 wrongly as a late reflux by Germanics when it could in fact be the start of its trail. If, as many feel seems intuitive, U106 or its immediate L11 ancestor moved into east central and northern Europe through being within Corded Ware then it follows that such a branch had to have been located in the genesis zone of corded ware, middle Dnieper, Dniester etc c. 3000BC or just after. That makes perfect sense in the big picture because L51, almost all L11 in reality, had to have been at the west end of the steppe to have had the 'first out' advantage while heading west and to match the early branching of the language groups that most people carrying L51 clades carry i.e. Celtic, Italic and Germanic. A position for L11 at the western end of the steppe around the Dnieper or even towards the Dniester by 3000BC would allow to split with one branch to go into corded ware heading west and another branch to use the Danubian route. Both of course shared Yamnaya genes.

Are there any subclades of U106 specific to Eastern Europe? Are the more upstream lineages found there? I just think there was a stronger separation of R1b than R1a than some people seem to think. We don't see R1a and R1b U106 expanding together. I know people will throw out the Scandinavia thing but that looks like a layer of U106 arriving during Jastorf or the Nordic Bronze Age overlaying R1a and I1. And that doesn't apply to Eastern Europe.

I'll keep my mind open but I think people are looking for reasons to see R1b and R1a as two sides of the same coin when in reality there was likely a strong geographical and chronological separation between them (and within them as well). I see no reason to associate R1a with Anatolian, Italo-Celtic, and the Balkan group or R1b with Balto-Slavic or Indo-Iranian. Germanic and Tocharian might differ in that they might be mixed. But I would assume this was due to these languages forming from two different layersn rather than one mixed R1a and R1b layer (In Tocharians case maybe it could have formed as a result of Botai and Afanasievo?).

newtoboard
02-22-2015, 03:38 PM
The model with EHG as a mixture of WHG and ANE fails. This might be because EHG weren't recently admixed, and instead part of an EHG/ANE continuum. In fact, MA-1 might be a mixture of EHG and ANE. It's really hard to say until we see more UP and Mesolithic samples from across northern Eurasia.

In any case, even if the EHG were admixed, then they only had around 38% of ANE, which doesn't appear to be enough to cover the high ANE in Yamnaya. So either there was admixture into Yamnaya from an as yet unsampled source, which is what Haak et al. suggest, or maybe there was substructure within the EHG, and those that helped to produce the Yamnaya had higher levels of ANE, or at least ANE-like ancestry, than Karelia_EHG and Samara_EHG.

If MA-1 was a mixture of EHG-ANE where does the ANE only end of that continuum begin? NE Kazakhstan?

And are we associating R* with ANE and R1 with EHG? How would the R* proxy have EHG in that scenario? Female mediated flow across Siberia all the way to Lake Baikal? The mixing in that zone seems to be with East Eurasian type Siberians rather than Eastern Europeans at least according to mtDNA.

lgmayka
02-22-2015, 04:01 PM
One important thing I would ask people to do when reading this map is reaslise that M269xL23, L23xL51, L51xL11, L11xP312xU106, U106 and P312 all existed by 3000BC.
That's not so clear. YFull's TMRCAs (http://yfull.com/tree/R1b1a2a1a/) (based only on full-Y samples available to YFull) are now only
U106 (http://yfull.com/tree/R1b1a2a1a1/) : 5000 ybp
P312 (http://yfull.com/tree/R1b1a2a1a2/) : 5000-4700 ybp
CTS4528 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-S1200/) (L11xU106xP312) : 5000-3400 ybp
Z2111 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Z2111/) (L51xL11) : 5600-4500 ybp
L51 (http://yfull.com/tree/R1b1a2a1/) : 6400-5600 ybp
Z2103 (http://yfull.com/tree/R1b1a2a2/) : 6400-6200 ybp

Immediate subclades of P312
DF27 (http://yfull.com/tree/R1b1a2a1a2a/) : 4700 ybp
L21 (http://yfull.com/tree/R1b1a2a1a2c/) : 4700 ybp
U152 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-U152/) : 4700-4600 ybp
DF19 (http://yfull.com/tree/R1b1a2a1a2e/) : 4700 ybp
DF99 (http://yfull.com/tree/R1b1a2a1a2f/) : 4700 ybp
L238 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Z2244/) : 4700-4100 ybp

The bug that I previously reported in YFull's ages has been fixed, as far as I can tell.

jdean
02-22-2015, 04:01 PM
lgmayka posted on an interesting Russian dissertation which shows a very high percentage (14%) for U106 in the Tartas of Bashkortostan

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3838-Russian-dissertation-tests-latest-R1a-SNPs-in-Volga-Urals&p=69843&viewfull=1#post69843

I'm guessing this is not so likely to be the result of a migration from western Europe ?

newtoboard
02-22-2015, 04:37 PM
lgmayka posted on an interesting Russian dissertation which shows a very high percentage (14%) for U106 in the Tartas of Bashkortostan

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3838-Russian-dissertation-tests-latest-R1a-SNPs-in-Volga-Urals&p=69843&viewfull=1#post69843

I'm guessing this is not so likely to be the result of a migration from western Europe ?

Why not? We know of recent migration to that area. A lot of people seem to be assuming that just because a lineage was found in the steppe (or likely originated in the steppe) in ancient times that the presence of that lineage in a nearby region such as the Volga Urals implies that lineage's ancestor had to live in the steppe just before migrating there. I think it is quite likely that the presence of (at least some) R1b-Z2103, R1b-M73 and R1a-Z2125 (and all of these lineages originated in the steppe imo) in groups like Bashkirs and Tatars is the product of very recent movements from a more southern (Central Asia+ Tarim) or eastern location (Altai). I see a steppe to Central Asia/Altai to Volga-Urals migration quite likely rather for at least a percentage of these lineages than thinking everything moved directly to the Volga-Urals from the steppe with no stops anywhere else. I think the presence of lineages we can associate with more southern groups confirms migrations from the south in recent times (this study alone showed some E, J, G and L).

alan
02-22-2015, 04:38 PM
Western or Southern Corded Ware sounds right to me. I believe Michal also believes this to be true or at least thinks it is unlikely U106 originated outside of Western Europe.

inclusion of part of L11 in both corded ware and Yamnaya to the south would not make sense unless some of it was up the Dniester/Dnieper c. 3000BC when the main body of corded ware was forming any further. If it is ever shown that U106 or its ancestor is in pre-beaker central or north European corded ware then it indirectly tells us that L11 was at least partly on the Dniester or Dnieper. The majority of us probably accept L51, L11 etc was likely in the more westerly part of the steppes before expansion.

The recent advances still leave a question as to how P312 in the steppes linked to beaker. The constraints of the radiocarbon dates of these cultures and ancient DNA seems to imply it simply had to have happened in the period after 2900 but before 2500BC. Beaker pot is oldest in the far west. Yamnaya doest really exit the steppes until after 3000BC . Within that period Corded Ware takes us to the Rhine and northern Alpine area while Remedello 2 and its symbolism takes us to the south-western Alps. So IMO we are either dealing with

1. Bell beaker not being R1b in its earliest SW phases and R1b not combining until central Europe somewhere around 2500BC.

2. A low visibility thrust from either Corded Ware or Remedello 2 elements into Iberia at some point in the period 2900-2700BC where it gives rise to the beaker culture.

To test this rapidly we really need ancient DNA from the earliest beaker users and from the immediate pre-beaker period from Portugal. This seems very achievable. My belief is there is little chance that any P312 or indeed any L51 will exist in Iberia until the beaker period/after 2800BC. I just cannot decide whether P312 and beaker were linked with beaker from the start of that pottery due to an intrusion of a group whose first generation is hard to find or whether they met 2-3 centuries later in central Europe.

newtoboard
02-22-2015, 04:40 PM
You are not leaving R1a out but there does seem to be a trend to see R1b everywhere even in places where it likely does not exist. Nobody is stating that R1a had anything to do with Celtic or Anatolian but your posts and Piquerobis do seem to look like some people are trying really really hard to find R1b among Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian speakers.

I didn't mean anything negative by this. Not saying anybody has bad intentions just we see a trend towards thinking these lineages where together and in some cases people are looking for R1a where it doesn't really belong either.

alan
02-22-2015, 05:25 PM
Agreed. Yamnaya doesn't have the component typically found in the Early European farmers of the LBK, and the reasonable arguments suggests these folks arrived from the fertile crescent or thereabouts. If the Armenian highland, or Caucasus region was some sort of origin for this proxy Near Eastern 'Yamnayan' population, the movement would have had to pre-date the movement of farmers into the Caucasus. It doesn't seem to add up.

There are controversial traces of farming north of the Caucasus in the steppe but they seem to be poorly dated. I spend some time dredging through early farmer dates for places like the North Caucasus, north Iran plateau, east Caspian area of central Asia and although my memory has faded I think the clear traces of farming cultures are surprisingly late. The dates for Turkmenistan/Jeitun around 6000BC or a little before are significantly older than those of the north Caucasus and north Iran which dont seem to commence for many centuries after in the 5000s. However that late date actually makes sense if farming genes did commence coming from the Caucasus because we dont see any in a hunter on the steppes c. 5500BC so a date of the incoming of these mystery Yamnaya southern genes c. 5500-3300BC makes sense and if it was from the Caucasus it could have commenced in the 5000s and carried on with Maykop too. I just dont hear much in the way of evidence for an earlier Jeitun thrust up the east side of the Caspian - if anything there may be hints some hunters of Keltiminer type may have trickled into the north Caspian which would be unsurprising for a fishing based culture with a sea shore they could use to get north.

newtoboard
02-22-2015, 05:33 PM
There are controversial traces of farming north of the Caucasus in the steppe but they seem to be poorly dated. I spend some time dredging through early farmer dates for places like the North Caucasus, north Iran plateau, east Caspian area of central Asia and although my memory has faded I think the clear traces of farming cultures are surprisingly late. The dates for Turkmenistan/Jeitun around 6000BC or a little before are significantly older than those of the north Caucasus and north Iran which dont seem to commence for many centuries after in the 5000s. However that late date actually makes sense if farming genes did commence coming from the Caucasus because we dont see any in a hunter on the steppes c. 5500BC so a date of the incoming of these mystery Yamnaya southern genes c. 5500-3300BC makes sense and if it was from the Caucasus it could have commenced in the 5000s and carried on with Maykop too. I just dont hear much in the way of evidence for an earlier Jeitun thrust up the east side of the Caspian - if anything there may be hints some hunters of Keltiminer type may have trickled into the north Caspian which would be unsurprising for a fishing based culture with a sea shore they could use to get north.

Isn't it more likely Keltiminar was associated with some sort of Q or R and ANE? So how would they have brought the Neolithic package/Near Eastern type ancestry unless they had married the women of southern farming cultures. That seems like a strange theory. Keltiminar men marry Jeitun women. And Steppe men marry keltiminar women.

alan
02-22-2015, 05:48 PM
Isn't it more likely Keltiminar was associated with some sort of Q or R and ANE? So how would they have brought the Neolithic package/Near Eastern type ancestry unless they had married the women of southern farming cultures. That seems like a strange theory. Keltiminar men marry Jeitun women. And Steppe men marry keltiminar women.

All I meant was there is little evidence of any east Caspian movement into the Steppe-Ural area and what there is appears to link to hunters rather than farmers. From what I have read, there is no evidence of farming or farmers coming up the east side of the Caspian from Jeitun but possibly a few Keltiminer hunters - which I doubt is of much significance. On balance the Caucasus seem a more likely route for farmer elements into the steppe other than the more obvious Balkans links in the west of the steppes and an appropriately late one given that the north Balkans itself didnt see farming until well into the 5000s. The mystery elements seem most likely to relate to Caucasus route to me and I have had an open mind about this. It could be even more complicated though as in the Maykop the most cutting edge paper - the one in German-gave links to north Iran and Turkmenistan. If there is any evidence linking farming with a east Caspian route into the steppe-Ural sort of area then I havent seen it in any reasonably up to date stuff.

alan
02-22-2015, 06:11 PM
I do tend to think that Keteminar culture could have a distant cousin relationship with the steppe hunters but if its linked with R then its a distant one and the most distant shared node possible would be P297. Perhaps M73 but it could have been non-R.

Interesting paper discussing pressure flaking in Kelteminar.

http://www.academia.edu/2765707/Bullet-shaped_core_reduction_in_Kelteminar_culture_Neolit hic_of_Central_Asia_

MJost
02-22-2015, 06:11 PM
This morning Iain McDonald posted a couple of Yahoo U106 forum Files and one document was titled "Historical and geographical analysis of U106 up to 1600 BC. Breakdown of U106 composition by country. Suggested migration patterns between 4000 BC and 1600 BC". While I agree with his dated age of U106 and the most of the route he charted, his ages for the ancestral R1b SNPs are much different then my own recent recalibrated ages. But you will see that he and I agree on the basic Danube up-river route taken as seen on page six.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNU2twX1VtRkt4Z2M/view?usp=sharing

MJost

Agamemnon
02-22-2015, 06:19 PM
This morning Iain McDonald posted a couple of Yahoo U106 forum Files and one document was titled "Historical and geographical analysis of U106 up to 1600 BC. Breakdown of U106 composition by country. Suggested migration patterns between 4000 BC and 1600 BC". While I agree with his dated age of U106 and the most of the route he charted, his ages for the ancestral R1b SNPs are much different then my own recent recalibrated ages. But you will see that he and I agree on the basic Danube up-river route taken as seen on page six.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNU2twX1VtRkt4Z2M/view?usp=sharing

MJost

Personally, I think the Danube route makes no sense as far as U106 is of concern.

newtoboard
02-22-2015, 06:22 PM
I do tend to think that Keteminar culture could have a distant cousin relationship with the steppe hunters but if its linked with R then its a distant one and the most distant shared node possible would be P297. Perhaps M73 but it could have been non-R.

Interesting paper discussing pressure flaking in Kelteminar.

http://www.academia.edu/2765707/Bullet-shaped_core_reduction_in_Kelteminar_culture_Neolit hic_of_Central_Asia_

If I recall Q1b has a very wide spread among IE speakers so that could be a lineage that might have existed at an extremely small frequency within Yamnaya.

alan
02-22-2015, 06:47 PM
Personally, I think the Danube route makes no sense as far as U106 is of concern.

I agree. I think that mini-concentration of L11xU106xP312 around the south Baltic and south Swedenmay be a relic of a arrival direct from eastern Europe. An early U106 might even have been with them. An arrival with corded ware makes a lot more sense than any other.However the genesis of corded ware somewhere around the south-Poland-NW Ukraine interface would make a Danubian route very very unlikely. There were multiple thrusts of Germanic groups to the Rhine- something that could artificially raise its variance too.

Agamemnon
02-22-2015, 06:56 PM
I agree. I think that mini-concentration of L11xU106xP312 around the south Baltic and south Swedenmay be a relic of a arrival direct from eastern Europe. An early U106 might even have been with them. An arrival with corded ware makes a lot more sense than any other.However the genesis of corded ware somewhere around the south-Poland-NW Ukraine interface would make a Danubian route very very unlikely. There were multiple thrusts of Germanic groups to the Rhine- something that could artificially raise its variance too.

I second that, and even though what I am about to say might seem off-topic I suspect we might be seeing the same thing with J1 in the Zagros/Taurus/Transcaucasus (just thinking out loud here). We must also consider the possibility that former U106 diversity hotspots disappeared under the pressure of other U106 clades' emergence and dispersal.

MJost
02-22-2015, 07:00 PM
Personally, I think the Danube route makes no sense as far as U106 is of concern.

I believe that U106/P312 were spawned on the Danube around or west of Vienna and U106 moved north Czech Republic area and P312 moved further up river westward becoming the

MJost

Agamemnon
02-22-2015, 07:09 PM
I believe that U106/P312 were spawned on the Danube around or west of Vienna and U106 moved north Czech Republic area and P312 moved further up river westward becoming the

MJost

Well, like you said, it's a belief. If anything, the fact that all BB samples to date were U106- strongly suggests the opposite.

alan
02-22-2015, 07:21 PM
I second that, and even though what I am about to say might seem off-topic I suspect we might be seeing the same thing with J1 in the Zagros/Taurus/Transcaucasus (just thinking out loud here). We must also consider the possibility that former U106 diversity hotspots disappeared under the pressure of other U106 clades' emergence and dispersal.

I think in particular Anatolia has acted as a 2nd home for so many cultures and languages born somewhere else that it must have huge levels of elevated variance due to different populations carrying branches of the same clade. For example L23xL51 in Anatolia could derived from multiple Anatolian IE languages, Armenian, Phrygians, Greeks and other groups. Even the Turks may have absorbed yet more on their way to Anatolia. This phenomenon would considerably push back the MRCA within that clade in Anatolia. Anatolia is an example of a sort of sink for thousands of years and therefore could have misleading variance and MRCA. I think present day variance maps are of only limited use

R.Rocca
02-22-2015, 07:21 PM
I agree. I think that mini-concentration of L11xU106xP312 around the south Baltic and south Swedenmay be a relic of a arrival direct from eastern Europe. An early U106 might even have been with them. An arrival with corded ware makes a lot more sense than any other.However the genesis of corded ware somewhere around the south-Poland-NW Ukraine interface would make a Danubian route very very unlikely. There were multiple thrusts of Germanic groups to the Rhine- something that could artificially raise its variance too.

Remember, these are not relics, just the much less successful brother clade to P312 and U106 called S1194, which is the parent of DF100.

rms2
02-22-2015, 07:23 PM
You are not leaving R1a out but there does seem to be a trend to see R1b everywhere even in places where it likely does not exist. Nobody is stating that R1a had anything to do with Celtic or Anatolian but your posts and Piquerobis do seem to look like some people are trying really really hard to find R1b among Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian speakers.

Nope, not the case. I think U106 may have been present among Balto-Slavic speakers very early, but R1a was in the driver's seat for that language group, IMHO. I also think R1b had little to do with Indo-Iranian.

I just don't talk about R1a much because it's not my thing; I'm mostly interested in R1b. As I have said before more than once, I think R1b and R1a were the initiating PIE y haplogroups and that it will be impossible to determine which of them had priority. I think Davidski's recent idea that a bifurcation of R1 occurred in Eastern Europe makes a lot of sense. R1a and R1b arose in the same geographic, cultural, and linguistic milieu, IMHO. Both were in on IE from the start and are responsible for its spread - R1b more to the west and probably beginning that move earlier, and R1a more to the east.

alan
02-22-2015, 07:26 PM
Well, like you said, it's a belief. If anything, the fact that all BB samples to date were U106- strongly suggests the opposite.

I was thinking that none of these German beaker folk tested so far have shown up U106.

alan
02-22-2015, 07:30 PM
Remember, these are not relics, just the much less successful brother clade to P312 and U106 called S1194, which is the parent of DF100.

Agreed - their significance is that they are descended from another branch off pre-dating the P312 and U106 SNP. What do we know about S1194. I havent followed this much.

rms2
02-22-2015, 07:33 PM
Personally, I think the Danube route makes no sense as far as U106 is of concern.

I agree, and we have that steppe thrust north of the Carpathians into the west which supposedly fed into Globular Amphora and Corded Ware. The latter is supposed to be connected to the evolution of Germanic and - wonder of wonders - U106 seems to have a really strong correlation to Germanic speakers.

IMHO, the up-the-Danube route is a better fit for the L11 branch that led to P312, fed into Beaker, and spread Italo-Celtic.

Time and more ancient y-dna results will tell, I guess (sooner rather than later, I hope).

R.Rocca
02-22-2015, 07:39 PM
Agreed - their significance is that they are descended from another branch off pre-dating the P312 and U106 SNP. What do we know about S1194. I havent followed this much.

If I recall correctly, the STRs are pretty much the same as P312, so its age and early history is likely not that different than P312.

lgmayka
02-22-2015, 09:52 PM
Are there any subclades of U106 specific to Eastern Europe?
Yes. For example, Z17913 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Y6451/), which is 1500-2000 years old. Its parent, FGC17297 which is roughly 500 years older, is perhaps more geographically widespread--I'm not sure.


Are the more upstream lineages found there?
Perhaps, but how many men of Polish/Ukrainian/Lithuanian/Belarusian ancestry are willing to spend large amounts of money to find out, when naysayers tell them a priori that their lineages must be German "introgression"?

lgmayka
02-22-2015, 10:04 PM
If I recall Q1b has a very wide spread among IE speakers so that could be a lineage that might have existed at an extremely small frequency within Yamnaya.
Also consider the mysterious Q-M25. According to YFull (http://yfull.com/tree/Q-M25/), a Northern Irish lineage split off from the rest almost 17,000 years ago. An Eastern European clade split off over 14,000 years ago but has a TMRCA of 5100 years.

newtoboard
02-22-2015, 10:12 PM
Also consider the mysterious Q-M25. According to YFull (http://yfull.com/tree/Q-M25/), a Northern Irish lineage split off from the rest almost 17,000 years ago. An Eastern European clade split off over 14,000 years ago but has a TMRCA of 5100 years.

That is quite interesting. I wonder if Q will turn up somewhere like in the forest zone of Russia or Scandinavia as well. I know you think that N might have originated in Europe or migrated there very early on and I think that is a good possibility.

Q needs to be looked at more. And like you said about U106, individuals belong to lineages like Q1a would probably get bigy's one more if we don't assume Q1a to be a foreign (Turkish) intogression.

Agamemnon
02-22-2015, 10:34 PM
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNU2twX1VtRkt4Z2M/view?usp=sharing

^^ The author assigns Z156 and U198's spread to the Celts, which is wishful thinking if you ask me... Yet again, U106 following the Danube and diversifying around the northern flanks of the Alps during the 2nd millenium BCE (right where you'd expect U152 to be thriving at that time) doesn't make much sense to start with.

Silesian
02-22-2015, 10:43 PM
I didn't mean anything negative by this. Not saying anybody has bad intentions just we see a trend towards thinking these lineages where together and in some cases people are looking for R1a where it doesn't really belong either.

Don't Ossetian's have R1b-Z2103?
What do you think of my avatar colors? :)

alan
02-22-2015, 11:12 PM
I was looking back on the old thread about R1b in the Caucasus and one thing not to lose sight of is that among most Caucasian speakers R1b is a small minority even in the north Caucasus which, if you ignore Armenians, has a lot more than in the suth Caucasus where it is very rare. We are of course almost entirely talking about L23xL51


recent study of the caucasus http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten....full.pdf+html

had a table 3 http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...ables_corr.pdf

that showed elevated M269 and derived clades (undefined) among the Bagvalals (Dagestan, Russia- NE Caucasian speakers), Kumyks (north Dagestan, Russia -Turkic speakers),Tabasarans (Dagestan, Russia- NE Lezgic Caucasian speakers), Kuban Nogays (Black Sea Russia-Turkic speakers), Lezgins (Dagestan-Azerbaijan border - NE Caucasian speakers) and Armenians (IE speakers). Sample shows that R1b is low among Georgians and other than the Armenians is nearly all on the north side of the very high main NW-SE ridge of the Caucasus - on the Russian side. South of this only the Armenians have much M269 clades

M73 only looks significant among Kara (Dagestan, Russia) Nogays, the Balkars of the Russia (Russia-Georgian border area just NW of Osseta) and to a lesser degree Karachays (also of the Russia near the Black Sea end of the border with Georgia). All are Turkic speakers. I notice the Turkic Nogays/Nogais are odd in that the Kuban ones have lots of M269 and no M73 while the Kara ones are the reverse of that.

The main geographical pattern I can see is that M269 derived clades (with the exception of Armenia) are FAR stronger represented in the northern part of the Caucasus within the Russian border between the north Caspian and NE Black Sea and is weakest in Georgia. This is very important and seems to have been overlooked due to the lack of maps in this report and the very awkward to use table. There is a mythology based on Armenia that R1b (overwhelmingly L23*) is southern in the Caucasus and not a great match for Maykop. This is a myth that I believe until very recently. Both M269 clades and M73 are resoundingly highest on the north side of the Russian border albeit among north Caucasian language speakers and some Turks.


I looked at the groups in the north Caucasus who have a very low amount of R1b (no more than just 2 or 3 percent)

ingush (Nakh NE Caucasian speakers)
Dargins (NE Caucasian speakers)
Chamalals (Andric NE Caucasian speakers)
chechens (Nakh NE Caucasian speakers)
abazins (NW Caucasian speakers)
Balkars (Turkic likely on Caucasian substrate)
Cherkessians (NW?? Caucasian)
Kabardin (NW Caucasian)

I think its fair to say that while M269 is only higher on the north side of the Caucasus in a few groups, in north Caucasian speaking groups it is nevertheless a very minor component.

Also do not forget that M269 (prob L23) is uniformly rare is the south Caucasus with the exception of Armenians who are thought to be Balkans-derived.

alan
02-22-2015, 11:35 PM
I think the point seen in the above post is that many Caucasian language speakers have very little R1b. This is almost uniformly true in the south Caucasus other than Armenians and even in the north Caucasus many of the groups have very little R1b with only a small amount of then having an amount of any significance at all. It is clear to me that Caucasian branch languages exist with their amount of R1b, always a small minority, being irrelevant - it varies from pretty well zero to over 10 percent. Its clearly not R1b that is responsible for Caucasian branch languages as R1b seems like an optional and always minor ingredient in its genetic pot. This R1b of course is the same major branch off as the Samara Yamnaya peope. Its far far the most simple thing to conclude that most of this small amount of R1b - almost all of it L23xL51- is just bleed through of some genes moving south from the steppe into the north Caucasus and a trickle beyond. I am glad I looked at this again because it strongly indicates to me that L23xL51 is very unlikely to have come through the Caucasus or be linked to Caucasian speakers. That of course is just a comment on R1b or L23xL51. I am not saying significant geneflow wdidnt head north through the Caucasus in the late Neolithic.

alan
02-22-2015, 11:42 PM
Another thing I never noticed before is much of the slightly elevated L23xL51 carrying populations of the northern Caucasus are concentrated in the Dagestan area. This cuts across several language families which gives the impression that here geography is telling us more than any of the linguistic associations. That makes me very curious about what in Dagetan's history or archaeology would account for a modest but distinctive rise in that area which although modest is still far higher than the remainder of the Caucasus populations with the exception of the IE Armenians. I will have a dig around - starting with looking at a map so I now where- oh its in Russia on the Caspian. Be back in a bit.

alan
02-22-2015, 11:51 PM
Yep very glad I revisited that. It pretty well makes it clear that L23xL51 has no association with Caucasian and what little there is is concentrated across a mix of different types of Caucasian and Turkic languages on the Russian Caspian shore of the north Caucasus. Much easier to see this as coming from L23xL51 peoples north of the Caspian attested in ancient DNA. I have an open mind about the period it might have arrived there. I understand it is not especially high variance in the Caucasus either and might have multiple sources anyway.

newtoboard
02-23-2015, 12:03 AM
Yep very glad I revisited that. It pretty well makes it clear that L23xL51 has no association with Caucasian and what little there is is concentrated across a mix of different types of Caucasian and Turkic languages on the Russian Caspian shore of the north Caucasus. Much easier to see this as coming from L23xL51 peoples north of the Caspian attested in ancient DNA. I have an open mind about the period it might have arrived there. I understand it is not especially high variance in the Caucasus either and might have multiple sources anyway.

I don't think we can discount a route from the South Caspian either especially if it ended up arriving there at a very late date (and associated with the invasion of the Caucasus by various Iranian empires).

alan
02-23-2015, 12:06 AM
I do get the impression fro L23xL51 that there was north to south gene flow from north of the Caspian down its western shore and into north_west Iran. I wonder if there is an archaeological signal of this and who these people were. We know thus branch of R1b was present around samara around 3000bc in yamnaya and seems dominant there.

lgmayka
02-23-2015, 12:08 AM
I wonder if Q will turn up somewhere like in the forest zone of Russia or Scandinavia as well.
Q-L527 (http://yfull.com/tree/Q-L527/) is rather common in Sweden. Q-L804 (http://yfull.com/tree/Q-L804/) seems to be originally Scandinavian, but its immediate parent Q-M930 (http://yfull.com/tree/Q-M930/) is about 15,000 years old and includes Native Americans!

Getting back to Q-M25: Kit 368093 of self-reported Swedish patrilineage, who has a very unusual 67-marker haplotype, has ordered the Big Y. He almost certainly belongs to Q, and probably to Q-M25, but the divergence of his lineage must be quite ancient.

newtoboard
02-23-2015, 12:08 AM
I do get the impression fro L23xL51 that there was north to south gene flow from north of the Caspian down its western shore and into north_west Iran. I wonder if there is an archaeological signal of this and who these people were. We know thus branch of R1b was present around samara around 3000bc in yamnaya and seems dominant there.

I haven't read of a Catacomb migration via the Caucasus. I haven't heard of the Caucasus route being used much at all until very late.

alan
02-23-2015, 12:43 AM
I do know maykop in its later stages extended from the steppe to nw Iran before the south Caucasian UA araxes empire took over that link. There was the possibility of genefow through the intermediary of maykop which seems t have had trading wealth. There is also a period after the fall of maykop and kura Araxes when it is thought a more mobile pastoralist society emerged in the Caucasus under northern influence.

Megalophias
02-23-2015, 01:34 AM
M73 seems mostly concentrated in Turkic groups, I agree it doesn't look original to the Caucasus or Near East - more likely Central Asian, though of course it could have multiple origins. V88 is rare even in the Near East and its history may be entirely separate from that of P297. M335 I have no idea.

L23* is about 15% in the Northeast Caucasians (pooled from Myres - unfortunately most studies didn't break down M269), 28% in Armenia, but only a few percent in other parts of the Caucasus.

Some Iranian groups have quite a lot of L23* - around 30% in Assyrians and 25% in Armenians and Lurs. Other groups usually have a few percent at least. About 12% in Turkey (but I don't know where the samples are from). In Eastern and Southeastern Europe around 5% maybe. A few percent in Central Asia and Pakistan (due to Iranic groups - Pathans, Balochi, and Makrani) generally (Cristofaro), in the Levant, and Western/Central Europe. 9% in Iraqis generally, again don't know from where (Al-Zahery 2011). Entirely absent in North Africa. Minority groups around the Urals almost all had some (Myres) - 22% in Bashkirs (pooled) and 5% in others.

Of course modern frequency distributions are of limited use, especially without a breakdown of subclades. But we find the highest concentrations south of the Caucasus across the northern Near East, and north of the Caucasus in the NE Caucasus and around the Urals (and the way between them pretty much runs through Samara). I don't think it's all down to Armenians - maybe Anatolians if they did come through the Balkans. But why shouldn't it have come via the Caucasus, and simply been diluted by later spreads, and/or been unable to establish itself in some areas? After all, that must have happened in many times and places throughout history.

The Kura-Araxes culture (whatever language they may have spoken) seems to fall into about the right area (and possibly the right time) for a southern expansion, from E Turkey to NW Iran, extending into NE Caucasus, and covering part of Georgia but *not* the lowlands of Colchis, nor the NW Caucasus. In Europe I guess it would have spread with other R1b clades, if it spread independently in West Asia.

M269* has quite a different distribution, with only trace amounts in most areas (Europe, West and Central Asia), probably highest in the Balkans (2-3% overall, higher in places), but there is a little in North Africa, and 3% in Egypt - also 3% in the Balearics, curiously - and around 2% in Iran and Anatolia. And inevitably it shows up in a couple of Bashkir groups. It actually seems more Mediterranean than anything, but without knowing the subclades it's not clear if this is terribly relevant to the origin of M269.

L51* is most common in Europe, always rare, patchy, maybe more common toward the W and SW, though there are traces in Iran and Anatolia. Seems to be almost totally absent in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Russia - not even the Bashkirs have it.

Chad Rohlfsen
02-23-2015, 03:21 AM
Or spread from Eastern Europe. I think it was part of that movement north of the Carpathians that fed into Globular Amphora and Corded Ware, or the L11 line that led to it was.

P312 doesn't fit that well at all, but U106 does.

U106 does not fit Italo-Celtic at all, but P312 fits it well, and a number of scholars over the years, from Hubert to David Anthony, have tied Italo-Celtic to Beaker.

Of course, I could be wrong, but thus far U106 has struck out with Beaker, and that in Germany, where U106 is frequent today.

It also seems to me that Beaker is a real strong candidate for having been the vehicle for the spread and propagation of P312>L21 to the British Isles. If U106 were part of that, it would have a distribution in the Isles more like that of L21, but it does not. Instead, U106 is a real good proxy for the entry and advancement of the Anglo-Saxons in the immediate post-Roman period and the Danish Vikings during the early medieval period. On the Continent, U106 looks like it spread with Migration Period Germans. It does not fit Beaker well at all.

You're not understanding me. U106 is found to the East. Beaker spread towards Eastern Europe later. P312 does not match that. U106 might be in Bohemian or Moravian Beakers first, then spread to Poland and Belarus, and NW. Trying to look at something as old as U106 as only moving during the migration period, is probably the wrong way to look at it. It could've been popping up in England with Barbed Wire Beakers. That looks stronger with distribution. It's distribution source is the modern Netherlands to Scandinavia, with some in Britain and Ireland. These Beakers made lots of copper flat axes, with little to none of the daggers in the rest of Western Europe. I would bet on some U106 being in Britain, well before any "great" Saxon invasion.

Chad Rohlfsen
02-23-2015, 03:42 AM
There are numerous Germanic migrations that could explain U106+ in that region rather than it being some sort of ancient presence.

Are you guys really sticking to the old days of simplistic uni-marker groups? Look at Unetice and Yamnaya. Remember the days of... oh, I1, that's Germanic too... etc... guess what? It's first found in LBK, and probably spread north through them and then TRB. U106 is way older than German migrations. It's going to be found in odd places.

lgmayka
02-23-2015, 04:39 AM
L51* is most common in Europe, always rare, patchy, maybe more common toward the W and SW, though there are traces in Iran and Anatolia. Seems to be almost totally absent in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Russia - not even the Bashkirs have it.
Don't forget the (apparent) L51* in Mongolia. :)38303831

Tomasso29
02-23-2015, 03:52 PM
I was looking back on the old thread about R1b in the Caucasus and one thing not to lose sight of is that among most Caucasian speakers R1b is a small minority even in the north Caucasus which, if you ignore Armenians, has a lot more than in the suth Caucasus where it is very rare. We are of course almost entirely talking about L23xL51
[/I]

Not sure where you got the idea that R1b-L23 is a small minority in the Caucasus, I would say it's actually quite frequent, maybe not at the level of G2a or J2a but certainly one of the more frequent haplogroups there and far from a minority.

Hando
02-23-2015, 04:34 PM
I'm reading Peter Bellwood's First Migrants and apart from the fact that he claims an Anatolian homeland for Indo European and that Sintashta and Andronovo were Turkic or Yeneseian and that Indo Europeans did not spread into Central Asia before the expansion of Turkic languages, he states "I see no reason why the initial Neolithic occupants of [Iran, Pakistan and northern India] such as those at Jeitun and Mehrgarh 1 at about 6,500-6,000 BC, should not have been early Indo European speakers...." (Bellwood 2014, p. 162).
Not sure if this has any bearing on the Near Eastern type ancestry of Yamnaya.

parasar
02-23-2015, 04:57 PM
I'm reading Peter Bellwood's First Migrants and apart from the fact that he claims an Anatolian homeland for Indo European and that Sintashta and Andronovo were Turkic or Yeneseian and that Indo Europeans did not spread into Central Asia before the expansion of Turkic languages, he states "I see no reason why the initial Neolithic occupants of [Iran, Pakistan and northern India] such as those at Jeitun and Mehrgarh 1 at about 6,500-6,000 BC, should not have been early Indo European speakers...." (Bellwood 2014, p. 162).
Not sure if this has any bearing on the Near Eastern type ancestry of Yamnaya.

The issue is the age of PIE.
We have to consider the spread of Y haplogroups in layers.

If the time-frame of PIE is the Upper Paleolithic (cf. Alinei - PCT) then perhaps even Y-C or Y-F can be invoked as the Y line associated with the spread. This is highly unlikely.

If the time-frame of PIE is in the Neolithic (the Bellwood scenario) then lines such as H2, J2, G2, T, L could have figured in as these lines have a separation between Indo and European lines going back to the Neolithic. This is possible, but requires a special pleading that subsequent innovations continued to be shared between divergent Indo-European groups. Cf. Gray and Atkinson

If the time-frame of PIE spread is the metal ages, then R1a and R1b lines M417 and M269, respectively, work well.

As early IE were illiterate (unless the undeciphered Indus writing is some form of IE), the only evidence we have as of now of early IE is from the middle-east, and as this evidence appears in a time-frame of 2300bc onward only, it appears that IE speaking people came into contact with Egyptians and Mesopotamians about that time.

alan
02-23-2015, 05:37 PM
Not sure where you got the idea that R1b-L23 is a small minority in the Caucasus, I would say it's actually quite frequent, maybe not at the level of G2a or J2a but certainly one of the more frequent haplogroups there and far from a minority.

In my post I linked to the original report although the link seems to be broken now. As far as I recall. its only a few percent in the south Caucasus other than Armenians and it is also low in many north Caucasus too except a small group of people speaking assorted languages in and around Dagestan who cross the ten percent mark. Most Caucasian speaking groups have way below 10 percent and it can be just a few percent in many. So, its clear to me that R1b is not closely linked to the Caucasian languages in the sense it is a vital ingredient where those languages are spoken. It looks like some other group who have added varied but usually small minority of genes. I am totally convinced that R1b was not likely to be originally attached to the early Caucasian groups. In the Kura-Araxes area of the south Caucasus it is especially low other than Armenians. IMO the concentration of R1b - and that not huge-around Dagestan must relate to a specific event or events that effected that area and R1b really falls in the Caucasus as you move away from there. Its position fairly north on the Caspian west shore makes the concept of it leaking through from the proven areas of L23xL51 north of the Caspian the simplest explanation. However it could have been swept along by any other groups who passed into that area from north or south including Turkic and Iranic.

Anyway I dont want the big picture to be lost in wondering about the Dagestan area rise in R1b which probably cannot be resolved. The main point - and worth looking at the original report - is that L23xL51 is a minor component other than Armenians and to a lesser degree around some Dagestan centred groups of various languages. It is noticeable even within the Caucasus that L23xL51 doesnt align with any particular group of subgroup of languages. As I said, it seem like an genetic ingredient that was not a requirement in any of the language groups. In short L23xL51 has no clear link with any Caucasian language group. Its strongest linguistic link is with Armenians where it looks more convincing.

This is important as it is further evidence that R1b in the steppes wasnt originally associated with non-IE Caucasian type groups.

One thing I do have time for though is the concept that an R1b and a hunter population speaking something like Uralic was transformed into IE by the effect of a significant non-R gene flow from farmers in the Caucasus. That concept makes sense and at least fits the DNA evidence. The evidence suggests this flow from the Caucasus took place somewhere in the period 5500-3100BC although IMO this can probably be shrunk somewhat towards the 5000-3400BC range.

Tomasso29
02-23-2015, 06:02 PM
In my post I linked to the original report although the link seems to be broken now. As far as I recall. its only a few percent in the south Caucasus other than Armenians and it is also low in many north Caucasus too except a small group of people speaking assorted languages in and around Dagestan who cross the ten percent mark. Most Caucasian speaking groups have way below 10 percent and it can be just a few percent in many. So, its clear to me that R1b is not closely linked to the Caucasian languages in the sense it is a vital ingredient where those languages are spoken. It looks like some other group who have added varied but usually small minority of genes. I am totally convinced that R1b was not likely to be originally attached to the early Caucasian groups. In the Kura-Araxes area of the south Caucasus it is especially low other than Armenians. IMO the concentration of R1b - and that not huge-around Dagestan must relate to a specific event or events that effected that area and R1b really falls in the Caucasus as you move away from there. Its position fairly north on the Caspian west shore makes the concept of it leaking through from the proven areas of L23xL51 north of the Caspian the simplest explanation. However it could have been swept along by any other groups who passed into that area from north or south including Turkic and Iranic.

Anyway I dont want the big picture to be lost in wondering about the Dagestan area rise in R1b which probably cannot be resolved. The main point - and worth looking at the original report - is that L23xL51 is a minor component other than Armenians and to a lesser degree around some Dagestan centred groups of various languages. It is noticeable even within the Caucasus that L23xL51 doesnt align with any particular group of subgroup of languages. As I said, it seem like an genetic ingredient that was not a requirement in any of the language groups. In short L23xL51 has no clear link with any Caucasian language group. Its strongest linguistic link is with Armenians where it looks more convincing.

This is important as it is further evidence that R1b in the steppes wasnt originally associated with non-IE Caucasian type groups.

One thing I do have time for though is the concept that an R1b and a hunter population speaking something like Uralic was transformed into IE by the effect of a significant non-R gene flow from farmers in the Caucasus. That concept makes sense and at least fits the DNA evidence. The evidence suggests this flow from the Caucasus took place somewhere in the period 5500-3100BC although IMO this can probably be shrunk somewhat towards the 5000-3400BC range.

Mixing modern distribution to what the picture was like thousands of years ago is not exactly the right way of putting things together. The fact that R1b-L23 exists in multiple groups in significant numbers around the Caucasus should be evidence enough that the lineage has significance in the area. If we take your logic into consideration then L23 has no business being in the steppes today given that the modern distribution just north of the Caucasus in Russia and Ukraine is even less significant.

ADW_1981
02-23-2015, 07:23 PM
Mixing modern distribution to what the picture was like thousands of years ago is not exactly the right way of putting things together. The fact that R1b-L23 exists in multiple groups in significant numbers around the Caucasus should be evidence enough that the lineage has significance in the area. If we take your logic into consideration then L23 has no business being in the steppes today given that the modern distribution just north of the Caucasus in Russia and Ukraine is even less significant.

This study is still relevant. Nothing suggests R1b or R1a are native to the Caucasus populations.

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2011/05/genes-and-languages-in-caucasus.html
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/13/molbev.msr126/suppl/DC1

Tomasso29
02-23-2015, 07:28 PM
This study is still relevant. Nothing suggests R1b or R1a are native to the Caucasus populations.

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2011/05/genes-and-languages-in-caucasus.html
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/13/molbev.msr126/suppl/DC1

Where did you see me suggest that R1b or R1a was native to the Caucasus? Frankly nothing out there suggests where either of these lineages are native to. I was just commenting that I disagree with Alan downplaying R1b-L23's significance in the Caucasus. It may not be as frequent as G2a or J2a for example but it's certainly a frequent lineage in a lot of groups in the area.

R.Rocca
02-23-2015, 07:39 PM
What is the thinking among the Z2103/Z2105 crowd regarding Z2106 and L584? It looks like Z2106 is what is most frequent in SE Europe and L584 is found in almost all Armenians and Assyrians who test for it. Does that split give us any idea of where/when that could have occurred? Do the heavy percentages in the steppe belong to either of these lineages?

ADW_1981
02-23-2015, 08:36 PM
Where did you see me suggest that R1b or R1a was native to the Caucasus? Frankly nothing out there suggests where either of these lineages are native to. I was just commenting that I disagree with Alan downplaying R1b-L23's significance in the Caucasus. It may not be as frequent as G2a or J2a for example but it's certainly a frequent lineage in a lot of groups in the area.

The last couple papers for the Caucasus region have hinted at high SNP diversity of the J2 and G branches within the area so I would imagine this gives at least these 2 groups an edge over R1b which falls almost completely into the Z2103 group.

I wouldn't say R1b is very frequent actually, I would use the term spotty. The level of R1b among Armenians inflates the % of R1b in the area as a whole. The data I linked has a smaller peak found in Ossetians. This coincides with the data at FTDNA.

alan
02-23-2015, 10:50 PM
Mixing modern distribution to what the picture was like thousands of years ago is not exactly the right way of putting things together. The fact that R1b-L23 exists in multiple groups in significant numbers around the Caucasus should be evidence enough that the lineage has significance in the area. If we take your logic into consideration then L23 has no business being in the steppes today given that the modern distribution just north of the Caucasus in Russia and Ukraine is even less significant.

I agree but short of ancient DNA this hobby is about trying to tease out clues. Otherwise we may as well not bother and just wait for ancient DNA. I think while geography only provides very broad and often displaced hints of the remote past, genetics and languages tend to have a stronger albeit imperfect link. What I find in the Caucasus is that R1b is minor, often very minor and spread across a plethora of languages with no clear pattern. So I think that L23xL51 came with a now-dead language in those areas as a minor overlay in the Caucasus. However, I also think the Caucasus is still a strong candidate for the geneflow from the south into Yamnaya - I just dont think it was R1 linked.

BTW I have no problem with southern farmer element in Yamnaya. Yamnaya and indeed PIE is the result of a mixed population of local hunters and a new element and neither would exist without both elements. Without the southern element they would have remainedI hunters and would not have half of their genes. I tend to give some credence to the idea that PIE is a Uralic related hunter dialect that was profoundly transformed structurally by something like a Caucasian dialect. I dont like the 'primordalist' view that either the hunters or the farmer element is somehow the prime element in Yamnaya. However I do believe that the predominant IE y lines were local hunter ones. Why the hunter R1 male lines came to predominate in this mix while autosomal came to include a substantial farmer elementmay seem odd but something similar also happened all over Europe,not just the steppes.

alan
02-23-2015, 11:03 PM
A possible reason why R1b grew in some areas very much at the expense of the farmer y lines may relate to the different social systems. R1 seems to belong to societies where small numbers of men spawned large clans instead of a more equitable system or a stable village type system. The southern Caucasus seem in the period 3500-2500BC to have had a village type system with trading in metals and pottery a feature i.e the Kura-Araxes culture. It doesnt look like a clan lineage sort of society to me. However this then broke down into a more clannish system and much more mobile and ephemeral settlement and this persisted for a very long time.

newtoboard
02-23-2015, 11:45 PM
In my post I linked to the original report although the link seems to be broken now. As far as I recall. its only a few percent in the south Caucasus other than Armenians and it is also low in many north Caucasus too except a small group of people speaking assorted languages in and around Dagestan who cross the ten percent mark. Most Caucasian speaking groups have way below 10 percent and it can be just a few percent in many. So, its clear to me that R1b is not closely linked to the Caucasian languages in the sense it is a vital ingredient where those languages are spoken. It looks like some other group who have added varied but usually small minority of genes. I am totally convinced that R1b was not likely to be originally attached to the early Caucasian groups. In the Kura-Araxes area of the south Caucasus it is especially low other than Armenians. IMO the concentration of R1b - and that not huge-around Dagestan must relate to a specific event or events that effected that area and R1b really falls in the Caucasus as you move away from there. Its position fairly north on the Caspian west shore makes the concept of it leaking through from the proven areas of L23xL51 north of the Caspian the simplest explanation. However it could have been swept along by any other groups who passed into that area from north or south including Turkic and Iranic.

Anyway I dont want the big picture to be lost in wondering about the Dagestan area rise in R1b which probably cannot be resolved. The main point - and worth looking at the original report - is that L23xL51 is a minor component other than Armenians and to a lesser degree around some Dagestan centred groups of various languages. It is noticeable even within the Caucasus that L23xL51 doesnt align with any particular group of subgroup of languages. As I said, it seem like an genetic ingredient that was not a requirement in any of the language groups. In short L23xL51 has no clear link with any Caucasian language group. Its strongest linguistic link is with Armenians where it looks more convincing.

This is important as it is further evidence that R1b in the steppes wasnt originally associated with non-IE Caucasian type groups.

One thing I do have time for though is the concept that an R1b and a hunter population speaking something like Uralic was transformed into IE by the effect of a significant non-R gene flow from farmers in the Caucasus. That concept makes sense and at least fits the DNA evidence. The evidence suggests this flow from the Caucasus took place somewhere in the period 5500-3100BC although IMO this can probably be shrunk somewhat towards the 5000-3400BC range.

That isn't proven at all. Not even close. In fact it looks unlikely. We have R1b at Samara and that is all. Unless Mallory, Kuzmina, Gimbutas and David Anthony are all wrong then so is the idea of L23xL51 directly north of the Caspian.

Megalophias
02-24-2015, 12:39 AM
In my post I linked to the original report although the link seems to be broken now. As far as I recall. its only a few percent in the south Caucasus other than Armenians and it is also low in many north Caucasus too except a small group of people speaking assorted languages in and around Dagestan who cross the ten percent mark. Most Caucasian speaking groups have way below 10 percent and it can be just a few percent in many. So, its clear to me that R1b is not closely linked to the Caucasian languages in the sense it is a vital ingredient where those languages are spoken. It looks like some other group who have added varied but usually small minority of genes. I am totally convinced that R1b was not likely to be originally attached to the early Caucasian groups. In the Kura-Araxes area of the south Caucasus it is especially low other than Armenians.

This is important as it is further evidence that R1b in the steppes wasn't originally associated with non-IE Caucasian type groups.

Which Kura-Araxes areas south of the Caucasus? In Turkey it's the second most common clade after J2. I don't have data for L23 specifically, but M269 (which ranges between 28% and 11% regionally) is actually least common toward the NE (closest to Armenia) and the NW (Thrace and thereabouts), and most common in the central areas. Interesting, and quite the opposite of what I would naively expect - I wonder whether the Armenians failing to assimilate and then being ethnically cleansed might have something to do with this pattern. Of course there has been a whole lot of history in Anatolia.

It's hard to find anything for Azerbaijan, but Nasidze (2009) has them at 11% R1(xR1a1) which I guess was probably mostly L23*, though could be M73 and other stuff. The Iranian-speaking Talysh minority of Azerbaijan had 48% (19/40) R1(xR1a1). This same study had R1* at 19% in Armenians, 14% in the Talysh of Iran, and 10% in Georgians. (8/77 Georgians in this study, while in Yunasbayev 1/65 M269 + 1/65 M73 = 3% R1*. Ah, the joy of small sample sizes.)

And we know L23* is high in Northwestern Iran generally (19% in Gilaks, 13% in Iranian Azeris) and also in Lorestan (24%), which was the furthest extension SW of Kura-Araxes, besides the minority Assyrians and Armenians. According to the wisdom of Wikipedia the heart of the Kura-Araxes Culture was in the Ararat Valley (33% L23* today). The lowland area of Georgia was *not* part of the extent of the culture, nor was the NW Caucasus (which was Maykop and post-Maykop).

5000 years later most places have changed languages several times over, and innumerable waves of people have swept over them. Any association with Kura-Araxes could be totally wrong (probably is). But OTOH it's not so far-fetched to propose that a haplogroup that was just found in kurgans from 3000 BC might have spread with another expansionist kurgan-building culture (also associated with copper metallurgy and pastoralism) on the other side of the Caucasus at the same time. (Both had dealings with Maikop, and the haplogroup itself is probably considerably earlier than either.)

alan
02-24-2015, 01:10 AM
That isn't proven at all. Not even close. In fact it looks unlikely. We have R1b at Samara and that is all. Unless Mallory, Kuzmina, Gimbutas and David Anthony are all wrong then so is the idea of L23xL51 directly north of the Caspian.

I didnt meant that as literally as you took it. Like I said, I dont want to derail this into trying to explain R1b in the Caucasus as the main point I am making is that R1b is not a major ingredient in Caucasian speakers and is frequently very minor. I doesnt associated with any particular Caucasian languages and spotty. It looks like a case where the original language associations of L23xL51 in the Caucasus is lost with perhaps the exception of the Armenians where a strong case can be made for a link.

As for the Caucasus route south, I agree its not clearly attested. However, I have read a couple pf pieces about the Caucasus after Maykop and Kura-Araxes fell and that is an area which isnt really looked into in books of IEs. I do know from this reading that after Kura-Araxes fell by 2500BC if not somewhat earlier. the Caucasus did start to take on a more northern type social structure with large kugans and crappy settlements which completely reversed the pattern of Kura-Araxes which had complex village and unstratified looking poor graves. I am by no means suggesting there was a major invasion of the Caucasus from the north - I think genetics shows any such movement was very limited. However I would also suggest it would be foolish not to consider influence of contacts and a minor gene flow from the north. If any such movement did take place it would appear that it would likely have been a late one as Kura-Araxes lingered until c.2500BC give or take a century or two and it was only after that that a mysterious transformation took place. As I said I fully believe this transformation an internal cultural one among the Caucasian people and not any sort of displacement. However, I wouldnt rule out enough of a trickle and contact with the north to have had some influence. In fact I have read it suggested that the sophisticated settlement/poor grave culture of Kura-Araxes seems to have been replaced by a settlement-poor/status burial rich social structure rather similar to what Maykop had been like. So perhaps there was a north to south population shunt within the Caucasus - perhaps this may explain some anomalies like the apparent contact between PIE and Kartvelian.

newtoboard
02-24-2015, 01:21 AM
I didnt meant that as literally as you took it. Like I said, I dont want to derail this into trying to explain R1b in the Caucasus as the main point I am making is that R1b is not a major ingredient in Caucasian speakers and is frequently very minor. I doesnt associated with any particular Caucasian languages and spotty. It looks like a case where the original language associations of L23xL51 in the Caucasus is lost with perhaps the exception of the Armenians where a strong case can be made for a link.

As for the Caucasus route south, I agree its not clearly attested. However, I have read a couple pf pieces about the Caucasus after Maykop and Kura-Araxes fell and that is an area which isnt really looked into in books of IEs. I do know from this reading that after Kura-Araxes fell by 2500BC if not somewhat earlier. the Caucasus did start to take on a more northern type social structure with large kugans and crappy settlements which completely reversed the pattern of Kura-Araxes which had complex village and unstratified looking poor graves. I am by no means suggesting there was a major invasion of the Caucasus from the north - I think genetics shows any such movement was very limited. However I would also suggest it would be foolish not to consider influence of contacts and a minor gene flow from the north. If any such movement did take place it would appear that it would likely have been a late one as Kura-Araxes lingered until c.2500BC give or take a century or two and it was only after that that a mysterious transformation took place. As I said I fully believe this transformation an internal cultural one among the Caucasian people and not any sort of displacement. However, I wouldnt rule out enough of a trickle and contact with the north to have had some influence. In fact I have read it suggested that the sophisticated settlement/poor grave culture of Kura-Araxes seems to have been replaced by a settlement-poor/status burial rich social structure rather similar to what Maykop had been like. So perhaps there was a north to south population shunt within the Caucasus - perhaps this may explain some anomalies like the apparent contact between PIE and Kartvelian.

Ok. My bad then. Some people do seem to extrapolating R1b all the way down to Astrakhan so I point out the flaws in that. I agree with you on pretty much everything you said. I don't think anybody seriously considered the association of Caucasian languages with R1b. Even if R1b was significant there it seems pretty obvious those languages are more linked to J and G since those lineages often dominate different regions of the Caucasus. So a lack of R1b indicates it is intrusive to the Caucasus. Plus it hasn't been proven that Kartvelian, NE Caucasian and NW Caucasian are related. So even if R1b was dominant among speakers of those groups that would just suggest a common superstrate among speakers of those language.

rms2
02-24-2015, 01:23 AM
You're not understanding me. U106 is found to the East. Beaker spread towards Eastern Europe later. P312 does not match that. U106 might be in Bohemian or Moravian Beakers first, then spread to Poland and Belarus, and NW. Trying to look at something as old as U106 as only moving during the migration period, is probably the wrong way to look at it. It could've been popping up in England with Barbed Wire Beakers. That looks stronger with distribution. It's distribution source is the modern Netherlands to Scandinavia, with some in Britain and Ireland. These Beakers made lots of copper flat axes, with little to none of the daggers in the rest of Western Europe. I would bet on some U106 being in Britain, well before any "great" Saxon invasion.

I understand you; I just think you are wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

U106 does not have a distribution that looks like it was as far west as Rhenish Beaker and the British Isles in the Bronze Age. It does have a distribution that matches the spread of Germanic pretty well, and that spread began well before the Migration Period. For example, the Germans began arriving in the Lower Rhine about 700 BC but did not succeed in forcing the Celts west across the Rhine until about 200 BC.

Thus far all the Beaker results from areas that today are fairly U106-rich were U106-, and one of them has been confirmed as P312+. Both of the Iron Age Celts, circa AD 1, from Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, an area that today is high in U106, were U106- and L21+.

A number of scholars throughout the years have attributed the spread of Italo-Celtic to the Beaker Folk. U106 does not fit the distribution of Italo-Celtic at all, while P312 fits it pretty well.

Tomasso29
02-24-2015, 05:24 AM
The last couple papers for the Caucasus region have hinted at high SNP diversity of the J2 and G branches within the area so I would imagine this gives at least these 2 groups an edge over R1b which falls almost completely into the Z2103 group.

I wouldn't say R1b is very frequent actually, I would use the term spotty. The level of R1b among Armenians inflates the % of R1b in the area as a whole. The data I linked has a smaller peak found in Ossetians. This coincides with the data at FTDNA.

What does modern diversity and distribution have to do with anything? I would say the diversity and distribution for R1b is even weaker in Eastern Europe, perhaps R1b has no historical significance there regardless of the Yamna samples, agreed?

Btw, there are other populations that have R1b in significant numbers other than Armenians, spotty or not this still does not prove or disprove whether the R1b in Anatolia/Caucasus was a receiver or a distributor.

alan
02-24-2015, 08:28 AM
What does modern diversity and distribution have to do with anything? I would say the diversity and distribution for R1b is even weaker in Eastern Europe, perhaps R1b has no historical significance there regardless of the Yamna samples, agreed?

Btw, there are other populations that have R1b in significant numbers other than Armenians, spotty or not this still does not prove or disprove whether the R1b in Anatolia/Caucasus was a receiver or a distributor.

I think linguistic associations tend to be stronger than geographical ones albeit there is the problem of many dead languages. So on that basis I think Caucasian languages other than Armenian have no strong and consistent link with L23xL51. R1 has a pretty consistent connection with IE today across Europe and we know this was also formerly the case on the steppe in the Bronze Age - ancient DNA has shown this. This contrasts strongly with L23xL51 in the Caucasus, Anatolia and parts of SW Asia where its split in a totally inconsistent way among languages not even belonging to the same families.

Its also worth remembering that M269 derived R1b is, Armenians aside, much lower in the Caucasus than in parts of SW Asia, something that tends to suggest other routes were more important between the steppes and SW Asia for this. IMO this is probably because while there is no good evidence for IE languages until late and in a minor way in the Caucasus, we know of many IE groups who penetrated into Anatolia and SW Asia - Hittites, Luwians, Greeks,Phrygians, Armenians and several Iranian groups as well and that is not exhaustive by any means. The Caucasus stands out as a bastion of both non-IE languages and in general a spotty and low amount of R1b. I think that suggests again L23xL51 was IE associated. The thing that makes SW Asia more hazy is so many IE languages are extinct and the populations have often been absorbed and their linguistic identity changed.

Tomasso29
02-24-2015, 04:06 PM
I think linguistic associations tend to be stronger than geographical ones albeit there is the problem of many dead languages. So on that basis I think Caucasian languages other than Armenian have no strong and consistent link with L23xL51. R1 has a pretty consistent connection with IE today across Europe and we know this was also formerly the case on the steppe in the Bronze Age - ancient DNA has shown this. This contrasts strongly with L23xL51 in the Caucasus, Anatolia and parts of SW Asia where its split in a totally inconsistent way among languages not even belonging to the same families.

Its also worth remembering that M269 derived R1b is, Armenians aside, much lower in the Caucasus than in parts of SW Asia, something that tends to suggest other routes were more important between the steppes and SW Asia for this. IMO this is probably because while there is no good evidence for IE languages until late and in a minor way in the Caucasus, we know of many IE groups who penetrated into Anatolia and SW Asia - Hittites, Luwians, Greeks,Phrygians, Armenians and several Iranian groups as well and that is not exhaustive by any means. The Caucasus stands out as a bastion of both non-IE languages and in general a spotty and low amount of R1b. I think that suggests again L23xL51 was IE associated. The thing that makes SW Asia more hazy is so many IE languages are extinct and the populations have often been absorbed and their linguistic identity changed.

Associating languages to DNA is actually a very poor way of putting things into perspective. Many populations speak languages that have nothing to do with their original ancestors, think of Nigerians speaking English or Angolans speaking Portuguese for example.

rms2
02-24-2015, 04:32 PM
Except here we are talking about ancient y-dna and a proto-language and its very early spin-off daughter languages. Eminent linguists and archaeologists have associated this proto-language and its early daughters with definite cultures that can be identified in space and time. If we test the remains of people who belonged to those cultures in the right places and at the right times, we have y-dna we can connect to that proto-language and its early daughters.

When it comes to Nigerians speaking English and Angolans speaking Portuguese, we have documented history that tells us how those things came to be.

Tomasso29
02-24-2015, 05:04 PM
Except here we are talking about ancient y-dna and a proto-language and its very early spin-off daughter languages. Eminent linguists and archaeologists have associated this proto-language and its early daughters with definite cultures that can be identified in space and time. If we test the remains of people who belonged to those cultures in the right places and at the right times, we have y-dna we can connect to that proto-language and its early daughters.

When it comes to Nigerians speaking English and Angolans speaking Portuguese, we have documented history that tells us how those things came to be.

Yes, but that's assuming that the specific proto language started in a certain region and that you tested "enough" ancient dna, which is not the case we have here.

alan
02-24-2015, 05:06 PM
Associating languages to DNA is actually a very poor way of putting things into perspective. Many populations speak languages that have nothing to do with their original ancestors, think of Nigerians speaking English or Angolans speaking Portuguese for example.

Modern parallels from an age of modern empires, communications, complex society, market economies are totally irrelevant to the copper age when people built or made things and followed local living and burial traditions. People's world was much smaller in those days and the fact a lot of things were made locally, home crafts or local specialists and couldnt draw on ideas from the other side of the world made movement easier to track.

Obviously today if a Polish person goes to New York they dont build there own traditional house, dont make their own pottery etc. They live in a market economy where stuff is internationally traded and bought and sold with little reference to origins. If future archaeologists dug up a 21st century street then 99 percent of non-perishable structures and objects would give no indication of the origins of the occupier because so much is mass produced now an so little is home crafts. The situation was very different 5000 years ago where much was home crafts or from local specialists.

R.Rocca
02-24-2015, 05:07 PM
By the way, the Haak paper is so long, that every time I re-read it, I pick up on new things (new for me anyway). Several have made mention of the fact that Yamnaya R1b1a sample no. I0439 could also be Z2103+. However, there is also the lower possibility that the sample is L23(xZ2103, L51), M269(xL23) or even M73 given M73's hotspot is not too far as per Myres 2010.

Tomasso29
02-24-2015, 05:31 PM
Modern parallels from an age of modern empires, communications, complex society, market economies are totally irrelevant to the copper age when people built or made things and followed local living and burial traditions. People's world was much smaller in those days and the fact a lot of things were made locally, home crafts or local specialists and couldnt draw on ideas from the other side of the world made movement easier to track.

Obviously today if a Polish person goes to New York they dont build there own traditional house, dont make their own pottery etc. They live in a market economy where stuff is internationally traded and bought and sold with little reference to origins. If future archaeologists dug up a 21st century street then 99 percent of non-perishable structures and objects would give no indication of the origins of the occupier because so much is mass produced now an so little is home crafts. The situation was very different 5000 years ago where much was home crafts or from local specialists.

There are cases where a group actually borrowed a technology made by other groups that lived near them or side by side with them, a good example is Semitic speaking Akkadians borrowing the cuneiforms from the Sumerians to write their own language with. In other words these ancient communities that you speak of did not always use things made by them.

DMXX
02-24-2015, 06:41 PM
There are cases where a group actually borrowed a technology made by other groups that lived near them or side by side with them, a good example is Semitic speaking Akkadians borrowing the cuneiforms from the Sumerians to write their own language with. In other words these ancient communities that you speak of did not always use things made by them.

Another good local example is the Achaemanid Persians. They had not only borrowed the Cuneiform writing system from the Neo-Elamites; Aramaic was the administrative language of their empire.

Further afield, Soghdian (an East Iranic language originating in South-Central Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdia)) reached prominence in the Tarim Basin. It was spread there via Soghdian merchants who practiced Bhuddism. In fact, the majority of our evidence of Soghdian is found in the Tarim Basin rather than their native region.

All manner of curious movements look like they've taken place from the Neolithic era ownards. Modern parallels (particularly the "big city" phenomena alan described) clearly serve to obscure the picture. I perceive the most fruitful perspective to take on these matters is through keeping an open mind while also constructing a "most likely" scenario based on the current evidence. What the latter is constituted by is evidently up for discussion (which we're having here). Just my two cents as a regular poster.

rms2
02-24-2015, 07:47 PM
Yes, but that's assuming that the specific proto language started in a certain region and that you tested "enough" ancient dna, which is not the case we have here.

It's not assuming that at all. It's based on what many very eminent linguists and archaeologists have concluded. No one just "assumed" Proto-Indo-European was spoken by men of the Yamnaya cultural horizon on the steppe in the 4th-3rd millennia BC.

I agree that we need all the ancient dna we can get, but how much is enough? Until we find some that is not R1b?

Seven-for-seven from Yamnaya kurgans in the Volga-Ural steppe, some of them widely separated from each other, is not a bad start, and hardly likely to be the product of a fluke, especially given that an ~7,600-year-old hunter-gatherer was found in the same region who also belonged to y haplogroup R1b. Add all that to the facts that steppe pastoralists of the Yamnaya cultural horizon are known to have pushed west into peninsular Europe, and that Europe is mostly IE-speaking and predominantly R1b and R1a today, and you get the beginnings of a pretty convincing picture of what happened.

Tomasso29
02-24-2015, 08:31 PM
It's not assuming that at all. It's based on what many very eminent linguists and archaeologists have concluded. No one just "assumed" Proto-Indo-European was spoken by men of the Yamnaya cultural horizon on the steppe in the 4th-3rd millennia BC.

Concluded based on an educational guess, not from an actual proof, when I say proof I mean manuscripts of the actual language deciphered.


I agree that we need all the ancient dna we can get, but how much is enough? Until we find some that is not R1b?

Seven-for-seven from Yamnaya kurgans in the Volga-Ural steppe, some of them widely separated from each other, is not a bad start, and hardly likely to be the product of a fluke, especially given that an ~7,600-year-old hunter-gatherer was found in the same region who also belonged to y haplogroup R1b. Add all that to the facts that steppe pastoralists of the Yamnaya cultural horizon are known to have pushed west into peninsular Europe, and that Europe is mostly IE-speaking and predominantly R1b and R1a today, and you get the beginnings of a pretty convincing picture of what happened.

How much is enough? How about when other important areas are studied to conclude the big picture? What you have right now is nowhere near enough to determine a conclusion, even the 7 for 7 samples just hint that R1b-L23 potentially migrated from the steppes to the rest of Europe.

DMXX
02-25-2015, 01:21 AM
It would be nice if we had an R-Z2103/Z2105 section here on Anthrogenica as well.

We (admins) were fortunate enough to stumble into this post reminding us of an earlier suggestion! Please see the new section here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?147-R1b-Z2103-Z2105) (announcement here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1789-New-subforum-for-R1b1-Z2103-and-its-downstreams&p=71215#post71215)).

The team have been receptive to most ideas and do what we can to accommodate member requests (provided we see them :) ).

R.Rocca
02-25-2015, 01:28 AM
We (admins) were fortunate enough to stumble into this post reminding us of an earlier suggestion! Please see the new section here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?147-R1b-Z2103-Z2105) (announcement here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1789-New-subforum-for-R1b1-Z2103-and-its-downstreams&p=71215#post71215)).

The team have been receptive to most ideas and do what we can to accommodate member requests (provided we see them :) ).

Excellent DMXX, it will be great to not have to scour the internet for different Z2103 info.

rms2
02-25-2015, 12:20 PM
Concluded based on an educational guess, not from an actual proof, when I say proof I mean manuscripts of the actual language deciphered.

Then you are awaiting the impossible and will never be satisfied, because we are discussing the 5th-3rd millennia BC here, a pre-literate proto-language and its pre-literate early daughter languages.

Here is something your post reminded me of from Mallory's book, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, page 222:



If we demand absolutely conclusive archaeological evidence for folk movements from the Pontic-Caspian, and the subsequent absorption of peripheral regions by intruders from the steppe, then our task is hopeless . . . Rather, we can do little more than trace plausible trajectories of Pontic-Caspian peoples into a number of critical territories.

Personally, I think the vast preponderance of the evidence favors the Pontic-Caspian steppe or "Kurgan" hypothesis, and ancient dna is fast becoming a critical element bolstering it.

But some folks have some other hypothesis they prefer and so insist on absolute proof, mostly because they know we'll never get it.



How much is enough? How about when other important areas are studied to conclude the big picture? What you have right now is nowhere near enough to determine a conclusion, even the 7 for 7 samples just hint that R1b-L23 potentially migrated from the steppes to the rest of Europe.

I think seven-for-seven from Volga-Ural Yamnaya kurgans, some of them widely separated from one another, qualifies as more than a mere hint, but I too would like to see a lot more. For one thing, I am really anxious to see a good number of ancient y-dna test results from the Yamnaya migration up the Danube valley into the Carpathian basin and eastern Hungary. There are literally thousands of kurgans there. We should be able to learn a lot from them.

Have you explained your own favorite PIE homeland theory somewhere in this thread? I apologize if you have and I missed it. Perhaps you could direct me to that post or explain what it is in a subsequent post.

R.Rocca
02-25-2015, 02:27 PM
It would seem to me that a lot of the uncertainty still lies in how Anatolian came to be and how IE made its way into South Asia, but as for what the Haak paper has offered... that massive migrations brought almost the entirety of R1 lineages from Easternmost Europe to Central and Western Europe, and most likely IE languages, we are talking about more than just guesses at this point and more about very strong probability.

Tomasso29
02-25-2015, 02:45 PM
I think seven-for-seven from Volga-Ural Yamnaya kurgans, some of them widely separated from one another, qualifies as more than a mere hint, but I too would like to see a lot more. For one thing, I am really anxious to see a good number of ancient y-dna test results from the Yamnaya migration up the Danube valley into the Carpathian basin and eastern Hungary. There are literally thousands of kurgans there. We should be able to learn a lot from them.

Have you explained your own favorite PIE homeland theory somewhere in this thread? I apologize if you have and I missed it. Perhaps you could direct me to that post or explain what it is in a subsequent post.

I have not explained any theories because I think there are multiple scenarios and you really need further evidence to put a good theory in place.

R.Rocca
02-25-2015, 03:55 PM
I have not explained any theories because I think there are multiple scenarios and you really need further evidence to put a good theory in place.

How is that so? There are thousands of anthropological, archaeological and linguistic datapoints to explain PIE and the spread of IE to form pretty good theories already. Like I said, the Haak paper moves several steps in the director of Mallory/Anthony's theory for how/when R1+ lineages moved into Central and Western Europe and IE language along with them. The combination of Y-DNA and autosomal DNA is too strong to suggest otherwise.

Tomasso29
02-25-2015, 03:59 PM
How is that so? There are thousands of anthropological, archaeological and linguistic datapoints to explain PIE and the spread of IE to form pretty good theories already. Like I said, the Haak paper moves several steps in the director of Mallory/Anthony's theory for how/when R1+ lineages moved into Central and Western Europe and IE language along with them. The combination of Y-DNA and autosomal DNA is too strong to suggest otherwise.

That's certainly not enough since the main focus of research has been focused on Europe and lacking in other areas.

R.Rocca
02-25-2015, 04:10 PM
That's certainly not enough since the main focus of research has been focused on Europe and lacking in other areas.

Well, maybe not enough for you or your haplogroup and your geographical origin, but it is certainly enough to form a very comprehensive model for Europe, its R1+ lineages and its IE languages. Apparently is was enough for them to publish their paper and for people like Mallory and Anthony and all those before them to publish books and manuscripts.

Tomasso29
02-25-2015, 05:55 PM
Well, maybe not enough for you or your haplogroup and your geographical origin, but it is certainly enough to form a very comprehensive model for Europe, its R1+ lineages and its IE languages. Apparently is was enough for them to publish their paper and for people like Mallory and Anthony and all those before them to publish books and manuscripts.

My haplogroup, ethnic background, and geographical origins has nothing to do with anything so I'm not sure why you would bring that up.

My thinking is simple, they found some really cool evidence but have not bothered looking outside of Europe much for whatever reason, be it logistical, political, or whatever. The point is we know there's deep IE history in areas like West and South Asia for me to hold off on any conclusions.

Joe B
02-25-2015, 06:26 PM
MJost just posted some variance numbers for R1b1a2 (M269) from the 'Different waves and directions of Neolithic migrations in the Armenian Highland' Hovhannisyan et al 2014 Nov 30 Study. Presuming that most of the Armenian R1b1a2 (M269) is R1b-PF7572(M269+, L23-) or R1b-Z2103, how do these variance numbers compare to other areas? Thanks MJost.

I have ran some Armenian Highland R1b1a2 (M269) variance numbers from this study

'Different waves and directions of Neolithic migrations in the Armenian Highland' Hovhannisyan et al 2014 Nov 30
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249771/

"The peopling of Europe and the nature of the Neolithic agricultural migration as a primary issue in the modern human colonization of the globe is still widely debated. At present, much uncertainty is associated with the reconstruction of the routes of migration for the first farmers from the Near East. In this context, hospitable climatic conditions and the key geographic position of the Armenian Highland suggest that it may have served as a conduit for several waves of expansion of the first agriculturalists from the Near East to Europe and the North Caucasus. ... unrelated (at the paternal grandfather level) self-identified ethnic Armenian males, representing four geographically distinct Armenian regions of the historical expanse of Armenia."

The regions are shown below:

Table S2. Y-chromosomal STR haplotypes within haplogroup R1b1a2.

Eight loci haplotypes in study, I removed DYS389I leaving
DYS393 DYS390 DYS19 DYS391 DYS439 DYS392 DYS389b.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249771/figure/Fig1/

3843

R1b1a2 All n=201
Mean VAR 3.295
Modal FVAR 3.562
Mean Generations 180.4
Modal Gen Age 195.1

Salmast (n=47 R1b)
Mean VAR 3.689
Modal FVAR 4.170
Mean Generations 202.1
Modal Gen Age 228.4


Eastern (Karabakh n=41 R1b and Syunik n=38 R1b)
(Both n=79)
Mean VAR 2.919
Modal FVAR 3.101
Mean Generations 104
Modal Gen Age 169.8

Karabakh only
Mean VAR 2.791
Modal FVAR 2.902
Mean Generations 152.9
Modal Gen Age 159.0

Syunik only
Mean VAR 2.989
Modal FVAR 3.316
Mean Generations 163.7
Modal Gen Age 181.6


Central (Alashkert n=15 R1b and Bayazet n=27 R1b)
(both n=42)
Mean VAR 2.674
Modal FVAR 3.405
Mean Generations 146.4
Modal Gen Age 186.5

Alashkert
Mean VAR 3.324
Modal FVAR 4.267
Mean Generations 182.1
Modal Gen Age 233.7

Bayazet
Mean VAR 1.973
Modal FVAR 2.296
Mean Generations 108.0
Modal Gen Age 125.8


Western (n=33) parts of the Armenian plateau.
Mean VAR 3.829
Modal FVAR 4.000
Mean Generations 209.7
Modal Gen Age 219.1



MJost

Jean M
02-25-2015, 06:39 PM
That's certainly not enough since the main focus of research has been focused on Europe and lacking in other areas.

Not entirely. We already had a chain of R1a1a through a series of related cultures in the Minusinsk Depression in Russia from the Andronovo Culture (related to Yamnaya) through to Scythians (known to be IE speaking). See Keyser C. et al. (2009), Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people, Human Genetics, vol. 126, no. 3 (September 2009), pp. 395-410. We also had R1a1a found in the Tarim Basin, where Tocharian was later spoken. See Li, C. et al. (2010), Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age, BMC Biology, vol. 8, no. 15.

That case was so clear for the eastward movement that really the Anatolian homeland theory was a dead duck then, since there can only be one PIE homeland. See http://languagesoftheworld.info/historical-linguistics/homeland-problem.html

Nevertheless people continued arguing, so evidence of the Yamnaya descent of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker cultures of Europe from Haak 2015 is welcome support. If people want to carry on arguing, I'm sure Reich's lab will be perfectly happy to go on testing more and more samples from all over the place.

The Reich lab which produced Haak 2015 had previously published the ANI/ASI study of India. Ancient DNA has been in very short supply in India and other regions with a warmer climate, but if they can get it, I feel sure that they will.

alan
02-25-2015, 06:39 PM
MJost just posted some variance numbers for R1b1a2 (M269) from the 'Different waves and directions of Neolithic migrations in the Armenian Highland' Hovhannisyan et al 2014 Nov 30 Study. Presuming that most of the Armenian R1b1a2 (M269) is R1b-PF7572(N268+, L23-) or R1b-Z2103, how do these variance numbers compare to other areas? Thanks MJost.

If I am understanding that then an average of say 200 generations would come to at least 3-4000BC which couldnt surprise me if the males of a population moved from A to B bringing much of its variance with it from somewhere else and didnt leave any trace of the language back at origin point.

Tomasso29
02-25-2015, 07:30 PM
Not entirely. We already had a chain of R1a1a through a series of related cultures in the Minusinsk Depression in Russia from the Andronovo Culture (related to Yamnaya) through to Scythians (known to be IE speaking). See Keyser C. et al. (2009), Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people, Human Genetics, vol. 126, no. 3 (September 2009), pp. 395-410. We also had R1a1a found in the Tarim Basin, where Tocharian was later spoken. See Li, C. et al. (2010), Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age, BMC Biology, vol. 8, no. 15.

If we use the frequency of the numerous aDNA tests that showed R1a1a all over Central Asia and Siberia as evidence for Indo-European movement, this should put a bigger question mark on R1b-L23's involvement. Mind you finding ancient DNA is pure luck and for all we know, there could be loads of ancient R1b all over Asia. My point is if I was to accept the steppe theory based on the current findings, I would think that R1a1a would be the haplogroup that spread the IE languages and R1b-L23 simply mixed with them just north of the Black and Caspian seas with both lineages migrating out west.


That case was so clear for the eastward movement that really the Anatolian homeland theory was a dead duck then, since there can only be one PIE homeland. See http://languagesoftheworld.info/historical-linguistics/homeland-problem.html

Jean, in layman's terms can you tell me how you can mix pre-written languages and their origins to archaeology? I'm not saying you can't draw some good ideas but to be so confident that other possibilities are not options seems quite puzzling given the nature of field we're looking at. All the arguments I have seen (The wheel, domestication of the horse, etc) are simply not good enough to to rule out other possibilities imo.


Nevertheless people continued arguing, so evidence of the Yamnaya descent of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker cultures of Europe from Haak 2015 is welcome support. If people want to carry on arguing, I'm sure Reich's lab will be perfectly happy to go on testing more and more samples from all over the place.

The Reich lab which produced Haak 2015 had previously published the ANI/ASI study of India. Ancient DNA has been in very short supply in India and other regions with a warmer climate, but if they can get it, I feel sure that they will.

Well I hope Reich's lab is able to do further aDNA testing, I'm sure a lot of new theories will be created, or not. Until then I will hold off on a conclusion and will be open to multiple possibilities.

R.Rocca
02-25-2015, 07:49 PM
My haplogroup, ethnic background, and geographical origins has nothing to do with anything so I'm not sure why you would bring that up.

My thinking is simple, they found some really cool evidence but have not bothered looking outside of Europe much for whatever reason, be it logistical, political, or whatever. The point is we know there's deep IE history in areas like West and South Asia for me to hold off on any conclusions.

It is easy to use the political card, but you are forgetting the two most prevalent limitations in studies like this - financial limitations and the amount of time it takes to pull something like this off. I'm sure if they had twice the budget and twice as much time, the results would be that much more informative, but like I said, for Europe, R1+ lineages and Indo-European migrations into Europe, this study does more than enough to put the Mallory/Anthony theory in the driver's seat.

rms2
02-25-2015, 08:01 PM
If we use the frequency of the numerous aDNA tests that showed R1a1a all over Central Asia and Siberia as evidence for Indo-European movement, this should put a bigger question mark on R1b-L23's involvement. Mind you finding ancient DNA is pure luck and for all we know, there could be loads of ancient R1b all over Asia. My point is if I was to accept the steppe theory based on the current findings, I would think that R1a1a would be the haplogroup that spread the IE languages and R1b-L23 simply mixed with them just north of the Black and Caspian seas with both lineages migrating out west . . .

I have to wonder why one would think that, knowing full well that Indo-European-speaking Central and Western Europe is overwhelmingly R1b. In much more sparsely populated Central Asia and Siberia R1a is more frequent. Andronovo is associated with the genesis of the Indo-Iranian languages. The Scythians, who came long after PIE and the birth of its spin-off daughter languages, were speakers of an Indo-Iranian language. So, why would one select R1a's apparent connection with one particular branch, Indo-Iranian, and make it the be-all and end-all of Indo-European and of the Kurgan or Steppe hypothesis?

Why not select one of the other single branches of Indo-European for that purpose?

Jean M
02-25-2015, 09:30 PM
If we use the frequency of the numerous aDNA tests that showed R1a1a all over Central Asia and Siberia as evidence for Indo-European movement, this should put a bigger question mark on R1b-L23's involvement.

Why should it? R1a and R1b are brothers. They both descend from the R which we now know was carried by mammoth-hunters in Siberia in the Palaeolithic. The only reason that people thought for so long that they must have totally different histories was their modern distribution. The picture has been transformed by ancient DNA.


Well I hope Reich's lab is able to do further aDNA testing

They have already started.

newtoboard
02-26-2015, 12:20 AM
Not entirely. We already had a chain of R1a1a through a series of related cultures in the Minusinsk Depression in Russia from the Andronovo Culture (related to Yamnaya) through to Scythians (known to be IE speaking). See Keyser C. et al. (2009), Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people, Human Genetics, vol. 126, no. 3 (September 2009), pp. 395-410. We also had R1a1a found in the Tarim Basin, where Tocharian was later spoken. See Li, C. et al. (2010), Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age, BMC Biology, vol. 8, no. 15.

That case was so clear for the eastward movement that really the Anatolian homeland theory was a dead duck then, since there can only be one PIE homeland. See http://languagesoftheworld.info/historical-linguistics/homeland-problem.html

Nevertheless people continued arguing, so evidence of the Yamnaya descent of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker cultures of Europe from Haak 2015 is welcome support. If people want to carry on arguing, I'm sure Reich's lab will be perfectly happy to go on testing more and more samples from all over the place.

The Reich lab which produced Haak 2015 had previously published the ANI/ASI study of India. Ancient DNA has been in very short supply in India and other regions with a warmer climate, but if they can get it, I feel sure that they will.

I disagree entirely with Tomasso but how can you say Asia hasn't been ignored at least to some degree? We still need more info. Do we even have actual Andronovo samples? Every single Andronovo/Scythian sample came from the extreme northern or eastern edges of Andronovo (are they actually Andronovo or "Andronovoid" related cultures such as Tagar and Karasuk) and none from near Sintashta-Arakim-Petrovka or the Kazakh steppe which is clearly the more important area. We still don't know the SNP's those samples belonged to. The Xiahoe R1a was reported as Z93- recently yet we have no idea what it is.

newtoboard
02-26-2015, 12:25 AM
I have to wonder why one would think that, knowing full well that Indo-European-speaking Central and Western Europe is overwhelmingly R1b. In much more sparsely populated Central Asia and Siberia R1a is more frequent. Andronovo is associated with the genesis of the Indo-Iranian languages. The Scythians, who came long after PIE and the birth of its spin-off daughter languages, were speakers of an Indo-Iranian language. So, why would one select R1a's apparent connection with one particular branch, Indo-Iranian, and make it the be-all and end-all of Indo-European and of the Kurgan or Steppe hypothesis?

Why not select one of the other single branches of Indo-European for that purpose?

How is Central Europe overwhelmingly R1b? Depends on your definition of Central Europe but if one accepts the common definition of Central Europe as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary then there are plenty of non R1b lineages there. R1a is also common in densely populated South Asia.

newtoboard
02-26-2015, 12:25 AM
Why should it? R1a and R1b are brothers. They both descend from the R which we now know was carried by mammoth-hunters in Siberia in the Palaeolithic. The only reason that people thought for so long that they must have totally different histories was their modern distribution. The picture has been transformed by ancient DNA.



They have already started.

Do you have inside info where the next round of samples is coming from?

rms2
02-26-2015, 12:41 AM
How is Central Europe overwhelmingly R1b? Depends on your definition of Central Europe but if one accepts the common definition of Central Europe as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary then there are plenty of non R1b lineages there. R1a is also common in densely populated South Asia.

I think of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary as in Eastern Europe. I did not have them in mind when I wrote what I wrote.

I did not mention South Asia because tomasso was responding to Jean's remarks about R1a turning up in Andronovo and in the Scythians, and tomasso mentioned Central Asia and Siberia. Why then would I feel the need to address the frequency of R1a in South Asia?

lgmayka
02-26-2015, 01:10 AM
I have to wonder why one would think that, knowing full well that Indo-European-speaking Central and Western Europe is overwhelmingly R1b.
Frankly, you must be using a very bizarre definition of Central Europe. Even if one uses the obsolete Cold War definition (Central Europe = Germany + Austria), Germany is less than 50% R1b and Austria barely 30% R1b (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml). A mere plurality does not equate to "overwhelmingly."

And needless to say, the modern definition of Central Europe (which includes Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia) starts looking majority R1a.


So, why would one select R1a's apparent connection with one particular branch, Indo-Iranian, and make it the be-all and end-all of Indo-European and of the Kurgan or Steppe hypothesis?
One particular branch? One? Aren't you forgetting someone?

I have mostly held my tongue in these discussions, but I must now say:

Although I, like most of the posters, suspect that we will eventually find a trail leading from the Pontic Steppe to the R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 clades we all know so well, I must point out that we have not yet found that trail. It is healthy for a few brave posters to point out that R1b-Z2103 cannot in itself spawn R1b-L51 or its progeny. The incessant prematurely triumphant postings of "case closed" are frankly at least as annoying as their opposition.

rms2
02-26-2015, 01:25 AM
Frankly, you must be using a very bizarre definition of Central Europe. Even if one uses the obsolete Cold War definition (Central Europe = Germany + Austria), Germany is less than 50% R1b and Austria barely 30% R1b (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml). A mere plurality does not equate to "overwhelmingly."

And needless to say, the modern definition of Central Europe (which includes Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia) starts looking majority R1a.

I said Central and Western Europe are overwhelmingly R1b, meaning what I meant by Central Europe, taking Central and Western Europe as a totality, and meaning from Central Europe west.

I did not intend to inspire a lot of pedantic quibbling over the definition of Eastern Europe, but here is a "modern definition":



Eastern Europe, as defined by the United Nations Statistics Division, includes the countries of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation and Slovakia as well as the Slavic republics of Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine.

Source: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Eastern_Europe



One particular branch? One?

If you are going to join newtoboard in pedantry and quibbling, at least get the context right. I did not say R1a is associated with only one single branch of IE. I asked tomasso why pick one branch that is associated with R1a, Indo-Iranian, and make it the be-all and end-all of Indo-European. There is a difference. I fully realize Balto-Slavic is also rightly associated with R1a.

Naturally plenty of R1a partisans over the years have claimed all the Indo-European languages for their y haplogroup, but I never thought that was a valid claim.

newtoboard
02-26-2015, 01:26 AM
I think of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary as in Eastern Europe. I did not have them in mind when I wrote what I wrote.

I did not mention South Asia because tomasso was responding to Jean's remarks about R1a turning up in Andronovo and in the Scythians, and tomasso mentioned Central Asia and Siberia. Why then would I feel the need to address the frequency of R1a in South Asia?

Me pointing out you have an incorrect definition of Central Europe isn't nitpicking or quibbling (which is what you wrote before you decided to go back and edit your post). Not everything is subjective. And Central Europe as just West German speaking countries is wrong. It isn't part of any official definition. And those countries you think of as Eastern Europe are often considered to be East-Central European if not outright Central European.

You mentioned sparsely populated. So I mentioned South Asia.

newtoboard
02-26-2015, 01:29 AM
I said Central and Western Europe are overwhelmingly R1b, meaning what I meant by Central Europe, taking Central and Western Europe as a totality, and meaning from Central Europe west.

I did not intend to inspire a lot of pedantic quibbling over the definition of Eastern Europe, but here is a "modern definition":



Source: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Eastern_Europe



If you are going to join newtoboard in pedantry and quibbling, at least get the context right. I did not say R1a is associated with only one single branch of IE. I asked tomasso why pick one branch that is associated with R1a, Indo-Iranian, and make it the be-all and end-all of Indo-European. There is a difference. I fully realize Balto-Slavic is also rightly associated with R1a.

Naturally plenty of R1a partisans over the years have claimed all the Indo-European languages for their y haplogroup, but I never thought that was a valid claim.

I am pretty sure the U.N doesn't have anything defining Central Europe. All their stuff is divided into East vs West (and sometimes they have southern and Northern European categories too).

rms2
02-26-2015, 01:38 AM
I am pretty sure the U.N doesn't have anything defining Central Europe. All their stuff is divided into East vs West (and sometimes they have southern and Northern European categories too).

True, but that's not the point. I wasn't preparing a term paper or dissertation, so I didn't bother looking up a definition of Central Europe versus Eastern Europe to insure I wasn't leapt upon for my geographical laxity.

I could have said "Western Europe", but I thought that was too limited. In my mind, Central Europe does not include Poland, Hungary, etc., so I wasn't thinking of those countries.

Mea culpa.

rms2
02-26-2015, 01:44 AM
Me pointing out you have an incorrect definition of Central Europe isn't nitpicking or quibbling (which is what you wrote before you decided to go back and edit your post). Not everything is subjective. And Central Europe as just West German speaking countries is wrong. It isn't part of any official definition. And those countries you think of as Eastern Europe are often considered to be East-Central European if not outright Central European.

I think it is nitpicking and quibbling, since it is not clear that Central Europe includes those Eastern European countries you mentioned. That means my definition was not "incorrect".



You mentioned sparsely populated. So I mentioned South Asia.

I mentioned sparsely populated in a specific context, i.e., Central Asia and Siberia. Why didn't you bring up downtown Warsaw, as well?

This is tiring.

alan
02-26-2015, 01:46 AM
I think we should rewind a bit and remember that L51 derived correlates very well with west IE languages and it was L23xL51 that the doubts about its IE status were greatest due to non-IE speaking SW Asians, Turks etc. So in a sense this ancient DNA has surpassed expectation and has proved the more doubtful branch of L23 was clearly in the heart of IE culture.

lgmayka
02-26-2015, 01:48 AM
I did not intend to inspire a lot of pedantic quibbling over the definition of Eastern Europe
It's not pedantic quibbling. You attempted to "claim," on behalf of R1b, all lands across 2/3 of the continent. That is geographically incorrect, and such "imperialism" does not contribute positively to the discussion IMHO.

You did not use the term Eastern Europe, in either the obsolete or the modern sense. You used the term Central Europe, which--as I have already explained--has the obsolete Cold War sense of Germany + Austria, and the modern sense used by the Encyclopedia Britannica, the CIA, and indeed almost everyone else (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe#mediaviewer/File:Central_Europe_(Brockhaus).PNG), which includes Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary.

parasar
02-26-2015, 01:55 AM
... Naturally plenty of R1a partisans over the years have claimed all the Indo-European languages for their y haplogroup, but I never thought that was a valid claim.

To put this perspective - initially this was claimed for them not by them.
It started with Zerzal, and then Wells among others, and Nat Geo I suppose because at that time R1b was considered Paleolithic in Europe and R1a was not. And for Wells it was so-to-speak a statement against interest so was deemed good for evidentiary purposes!

It started to shift in R1b's direction and away from R1a once R1b was deemed Neolithic under the Anatolian theory.

rms2
02-26-2015, 02:01 AM
It's not pedantic quibbling. You attempted to "claim," on behalf of R1b, all lands across 2/3 of the continent. That is geographically incorrect, and such "imperialism" does not contribute positively to the discussion IMHO.

You did not use the term Eastern Europe, in either the obsolete or the modern sense. You used the term Central Europe, which--as I have already explained--has the obsolete sense of Germany + Austria, and the modern sense used by the Encyclopedia Britannica and indeed almost everyone else (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe#mediaviewer/File:Central_Europe_(Brockhaus).PNG), which includes Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary.

"Imperialism"? Good grief!

Suit yourself, but when I wrote "Central Europe" - and, damn, I was the one who wrote it - I did not intend to include those Eastern European countries you include in Central Europe. Had I intended to include Poland, Hungary, etc., in Central Europe, then I would have been goofy to claim that Western and Central Europe are overwhelmingly R1b, so, obviously, that is not what I intended.

I was not attempting to annex Poland or any other Slavic-speaking country for R1b, nor was I even attempting to annex non-IE, Magyar-speaking Hungary for R1b. Sheesh!

rms2
02-26-2015, 02:06 AM
To put this perspective - initially this was claimed for them not by them.
It started with Zerzal, and then Wells among others, and Nat Geo I suppose because at that time R1b was considered Paleolithic in Europe and R1a was not. And for Wells it was so-to-speak a statement against interest so was deemed good for evidentiary purposes!

I was referring to R1a partisans on various dna chat forums. I have seen my share of it, believe me.



It started to shift in R1b's direction and away from R1a once R1b was deemed Neolithic under the Anatolian theory.

I have never ever seen the Anatolian hypothesis taken seriously in connection with R1b on any of these boards.

Maybe it was somewhere by somebody, but I never witnessed it.

For a long time, Paleolithic R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge was the only game in town. Back in 2006, when I first suggested that R1b be linked to Indo-European (and even then only to its Western portion), I was mocked and ridiculed, and referred to Cunliffe's longue duree and Sykes and Oppenheimer, etc.

Jean M
02-26-2015, 03:12 AM
how can you say Asia hasn't been ignored at least to some degree? We still need more info.

Of course we do. The more the better. My only point was that Asia has not been totally ignored. In fact the testing chain of Keyser 2009 was the first to support the steppe homeland via ancient DNA. The price we have paid for getting that information so early is that the testing was done long before the discovery of all the SNPs that we have now to break down R1a1a into subclades. I've had to cite an R1a-Z93 in Bronze Age Mongolia for the 2nd edition of AJ, because that's the only one I've got from aDNA. But it's a safe bet that we are in for a comparative flood of aDNA.

As you noted yourself on another thread, a team from the Centre for Geogenetics at the University of Copenhagen was in Kazakhstan to collect samples just recently. They collected about 120 Bronze and early Iron Age bone samples in total from Pavlodar, Kostanai and Karaganda during their week-long trip to Kazakhstan, from Feb. 14 – 21.
http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/scandinavian-team-looking-for-indo.html

Tomasso29
02-26-2015, 04:42 AM
I have to wonder why one would think that, knowing full well that Indo-European-speaking Central and Western Europe is overwhelmingly R1b. In much more sparsely populated Central Asia and Siberia R1a is more frequent. Andronovo is associated with the genesis of the Indo-Iranian languages. The Scythians, who came long after PIE and the birth of its spin-off daughter languages, were speakers of an Indo-Iranian language. So, why would one select R1a's apparent connection with one particular branch, Indo-Iranian, and make it the be-all and end-all of Indo-European and of the Kurgan or Steppe hypothesis?

Why not select one of the other single branches of Indo-European for that purpose?

We're talking ancient DNA here, not what exists in Europe today. Also the Indo-Iranian branch is not the only family that's heavy in R1a, Baltic/Slavic are others along with the ancient Tocharian DNA found in Tarim Basin.

Tomasso29
02-26-2015, 04:47 AM
Why should it? R1a and R1b are brothers. They both descend from the R which we now know was carried by mammoth-hunters in Siberia in the Palaeolithic. The only reason that people thought for so long that they must have totally different histories was their modern distribution. The picture has been transformed by ancient DNA.

What does the R in Siberia have to do with IE movement? These two subjects don't relate at all, we're talking thousands or even tens of thousands years apart here.


They have already started.

Any idea where?

ZephyrousMandaru
02-26-2015, 05:11 AM
It does seem premature to me to associate Ancient North Eurasian, a cluster that's dated to around 24,000 years ago with the dispersion of a language family that doesn't even approach half the antiquity of this component.

Jean M
02-26-2015, 11:29 AM
It does seem premature to me to associate Ancient North Eurasian, a cluster that's dated to around 24,000 years ago with the dispersion of a language family that doesn't even approach half the antiquity of this component.

Really? The point is that the Siberian origin helps to explain


Why R1 arrived so late in Europe and spread over most of Europe after farming.
How it can be that Uralic and IE appear to have a common ancestor or close contact long before the ancestor of Proto-Uralic arrived in the Urals.


And the ANE component in Yamnaya helps us to track the descendants of Yamnaya, since it is new to most of Europe at that date. All pretty straightforward.

alan
02-26-2015, 11:41 AM
Really? The point is that the Siberian origin helps to explain


Why R1 arrived so late in Europe and spread over most of Europe after farming.
How it can be that Uralic and IE appear to have a common ancestor or close contact long before the ancestor of Proto-Uralic arrived in the Urals.


I agree and as the first evidence of Siberian input into Europe only commences at the end of the Younger Dryas then, if they are ancestral to both Uralic and IE then the time depth of the split need not be much more than 11500 years and perhaps could be as little as 10000 years depending on factors. I am pretty sure I have read dates similar to that for an Indo-Uralic linguistic node suggested through linguistic analysis. Certainly I have been thinking that this is the way it might have worked since stumbling on the possible connection with pressure flaked microblades. I suppose if you follow the blade reasoning then perhaps there was an LGM period node somewhere like Altai that took in even more language groups - Nostratic and all that sort of thing.

alan
02-26-2015, 11:46 AM
I think since the recent paper and the invention of the term EHG, not enough people realise that EHG is probably a composite of Late Gravettian people there since before the LGM, post-LGM Western derived hunters and post-Younger Dryas Siberian ones also arrive from the east. The first two may well be WHG related and the last ANE related. I personally find the term EHG a step backward compared to the WHG and ANE kind of terminology as EHG seems to combine rather than refine. To prove this we need pre-Younger Dryas hunters from Ukraine or European Russia. I think ANE will be absent and the hunters will be WHG rather than this new EHG composite.

alan
02-26-2015, 11:59 AM
What does the R in Siberia have to do with IE movement? These two subjects don't relate at all, we're talking thousands or even tens of thousands years apart here.



Any idea where?

Well if R was in south-central Siberia during the early LGM, which it was at Mal'ta - and in a culture which pretty well only ran as far west as eastern Kazakstan c. 30000-22000BC, then we need to look for a movement from there during or after that period to explain how it got to other places. No such movement has been found until after the LGM and indeed in the case of a movement from there into Europe we dont really have any hints until the pressure microblade technique arrived at the termination of the Younger Dryas in Butovo c. 9500BC and then further south into the steppes and as far as Denmark and Moldova over the next 2000 years. To be fair too it looks like a southern branch carrying this technique penetrated into the north of SW Asia about the same time as Butovo reach Europe - probably two strands coming from central Asian steppes. My guess is this SW Asian branch may have some link to the P25xP297 in Iran, while P297 entered the drier bits of European steppes a little later. R1a could have been there too and so far it seems implied that at least a subset of R1a was in an even more northerly strand that reached NW Russia, Belarus etc. However, IMO it is possible all these strands could have lived together until 9500BC when the movements into Europe began.

rms2
02-26-2015, 12:50 PM
We're talking ancient DNA here, not what exists in Europe today. Also the Indo-Iranian branch is not the only family that's heavy in R1a, Baltic/Slavic are others along with the ancient Tocharian DNA found in Tarim Basin.

That's right, and we were specifically talking about Andronovo and the Scythians, both of which are connected with Indo-Iranian and NOT Balto-Slavic. Jean M mentioned some ancient R1a from Andronovo and the Scythians, the latter of which are much later than PIE and its immediate daughters, and you used it to argue that it calls into question R1b's role in PIE, etc. I never said R1a is connected solely with Indo-Iranian. It is common knowledge that R1a is connected with Balto-Slavic, as well. What I asked you is why you were using only one single branch of IE, Indo-Iranian, and its connection to R1a, as the be-all and end-all of Indo-European, when it is obvious there are other branches of Indo-European. A number of those branches cannot be convincingly connected to R1a; they never could, even in the days when R1a was touted as the PIE y haplogroup par excellence.

While ancient dna is the best evidence, modern distributions and linguistic facts cannot be completely ignored. Avoiding the dreaded term Central Europe, which now apparently is to include a number of countries traditionally thought of as belonging to Eastern Europe, the fact that Europe from Germany west is predominantly R1b and Indo-European-speaking is circumstantial evidence in that one must account for how things came to be that way. The most parsimonious way to account for those facts is that Indo-European and R1b were brought west together in a process probably begun by men of the Yamnaya cultural horizon and perhaps also by some men belonging to earlier steppe pastoralist migrations.

It is interesting that you refuse to present your own ideas on the PIE homeland here, preferring instead to merely object to R1b's inclusion among the early Indo-Europeans, despite the ancient y-dna evidence, and that from the very bowels of actual Yamnaya kurgans on the Russian steppe for crying out loud!

What would convince such a person, one wonders.

R.Rocca
02-26-2015, 02:23 PM
Really? The point is that the Siberian origin helps to explain


Why R1 arrived so late in Europe and spread over most of Europe after farming.
How it can be that Uralic and IE appear to have a common ancestor or close contact long before the ancestor of Proto-Uralic arrived in the Urals.


And the ANE component in Yamnaya helps us to track the descendants of Yamnaya, since it is new to most of Europe at that date. All pretty straightforward.

And besides, PIE is a language snapshot in time based on certain words (e.g. wheel, etc.), but it does not mean that people didn't speak its predecessor before that with basic words for basic things for thousands or tens of thousands of years before that (mother?).

Jean M
02-26-2015, 03:19 PM
And besides, PIE is a language snapshot in time based on certain words (e.g. wheel, etc.), but it does not mean that people didn't speak its predecessor before that with basic words for basic things for thousands or tens of thousands of years before that (mother?).

Exactly. The words for 'water' and 'name' are pretty basic. These are common to PIE and Proto-Uralic.

Tomasso29
02-26-2015, 03:52 PM
That's right, and we were specifically talking about Andronovo and the Scythians, both of which are connected with Indo-Iranian and NOT Balto-Slavic. Jean M mentioned some ancient R1a from Andronovo and the Scythians, the latter of which are much later than PIE and its immediate daughters, and you used it to argue that it calls into question R1b's role in PIE, etc. I never said R1a is connected solely with Indo-Iranian. It is common knowledge that R1a is connected with Balto-Slavic, as well. What I asked you is why you were using only one single branch of IE, Indo-Iranian, and its connection to R1a, as the be-all and end-all of Indo-European, when it is obvious there are other branches of Indo-European. A number of those branches cannot be convincingly connected to R1a; they never could, even in the days when R1a was touted as the PIE y haplogroup par excellence.

Forget about Scythians, Andronovo, and Baltic-Slavic. What about the Tarim Basin mummies? They were Indo-Iranian too?


While ancient dna is the best evidence, modern distributions and linguistic facts cannot be completely ignored. Avoiding the dreaded term Central Europe, which now apparently is to include a number of countries traditionally thought of as belonging to Eastern Europe, the fact that Europe from Germany west is predominantly R1b and Indo-European-speaking is circumstantial evidence in that one must account for how things came to be that way. The most parsimonious way to account for those facts is that Indo-European and R1b were brought west together in a process probably begun by men of the Yamnaya cultural horizon and perhaps also by some men belonging to earlier steppe pastoralist migrations.

I agree that R1b-L23 very likely played a strong role in spreading the IE languages to Europe along with R1a1a, I do however question R1b's role in spreading the IE languages to other parts of the world where IE was and is spoken, that is specially the case if I was to take the modern distributions into consideration.


It is interesting that you refuse to present your own ideas on the PIE homeland here, preferring instead to merely object to R1b's inclusion among the early Indo-Europeans, despite the ancient y-dna evidence, and that from the very bowels of actual Yamnaya kurgans on the Russian steppe for crying out loud!

What would convince such a person, one wonders.

I'm not presenting an idea because we don't have conclusive evidence for me to present an idea. There's nothing to convince, the ancient samples should do the talking. From what we have today I will agree that the current evidence very likely suggests a movement of a potential R1b-L23 Indo-European speaking group from the Yamna junction and into the rest of Europe. However we need to remember that the link has not been found yet, and we don't know whether the Yamna R1b-L23 were from the steppes originally or from the south if you consider their Near Eastern component.

Tomasso29
02-26-2015, 04:05 PM
Exactly. The words for 'water' and 'name' are pretty basic. These are common to PIE and Proto-Uralic.

Perhaps the PIE languages may have some background from Siberia/Central Asia, but what you suggest does not really make them Proto-Indo-European. Pre-PIE might be a better way of putting it, specially if you're going to tag a completely other language family next to it.

If the steppe theory is the theory people are going with and you want to go ahead with what you suggested, then there's a very strong possibility that the PIE language originated through some sort of mix between Central Asian/Siberian hunter gatherers and Near Easterners from Anatolia meeting up at the Yamna region. That should make both of the groups that made up the Yamna people as pre Proto-Indo-Europeans.

rms2
02-26-2015, 04:17 PM
Forget about Scythians, Andronovo, and Baltic-Slavic. What about the Tarim Basin mummies? They were Indo-Iranian too? . . .


The identification of the Tarim mummies with the Tocharians remains controversial. You claim to be too careful to posit your own PIE homeland theory, yet you seem quite ready to leap to the conclusion that the Tarim mummies were Tocharians and, because some of them were R1a, that all Tocharian males must have been R1a. Hmmm . . . let's see . . . extremely cautious with seven-for-seven R1b Yamnaya results from the actual PIE period, but surprisingly impetuous when it comes to R1a results from much later that are controversially ascribed to the Tocharians. Interesting contrast! Wonder why that is.

Some scholars, David Anthony among them, identify the Tocharians with Afanasievo. Alexei Kovalev is supposed to have recovered R1b-M269 and R1b-P25 from Afanasievo remains in the Altai. That has not yet been confirmed, but it seems likely, given the results from Haak et al, especially when one considers that Afanasievo had a Repin-based material culture, and Repin artifacts have been recovered from the Samara region from which, I need not remind you, those seven R1b Yamnaya results and that R1b hunter-gatherer came.

Hando
02-26-2015, 04:28 PM
]It is interesting that you refuse to present your own ideas on the PIE homeland here, preferring instead to merely object to R1b's inclusion among the early Indo-Europeans, despite the ancient y-dna evidence, and that from the very bowels of actual Yamnaya kurgans on the Russian steppe for crying out loud!

What would convince such a person, one wonders.[/B]
I don't even bother wasting my time and energy reading comments from people who refuse to see the evidence for some personal agenda/hang up. Clearly, it is a hang up. I just read yours, Alan's, Jean M's and the others who show reason. The people who continue to go on about the same old denial routine only prolong these debates unnecessarily.

Tomasso29
02-26-2015, 04:30 PM
The identification of the Tarim mummies with the Tocharians remains controversial. You claim to be too careful to posit your own PIE homeland theory, yet you seem quite ready to leap to the conclusion that the Tarim mummies were Tocharians and, because some of them were R1a, that all Tocharian males must have been R1a. Hmmm . . . let's see . . . extremely cautious with seven-for-seven R1b Yamnaya results from the actual PIE period, but surprisingly impetuous when it comes to R1a results from much later that are controversially ascribed to the Tocharians. Interesting contrast! Wonder why that is.

Some scholars, David Anthony among them, identify the Tocharians with Afanasievo. Alexei Kovalev is supposed to have recovered R1b-M269 and R1b-P25 from Afanasievo remains in the Altai. That has not yet been confirmed, but it seems likely, given the results from Haak et al, especially when one considers that Afanasievo had a Repin-based material culture, and Repin artifacts have been recovered from the Samara region from which, I need not remind you, those seven R1b Yamnaya results and that R1b hunter-gatherer came.

I am cautious of those studies too and I completely agree that they're not conclusive. I guess you need to go way back in this thread to see what I meant when I dragged these aDNA studies into the discussion. It was simply an example that if you're going to assume that Reich's study proves R1b's involvement in spreading of the IE languages, other aDNA studies show us something different. Which is why I'm keen to accept any theory we have today and why I insist on saying that more studies are required to draw the bigger picture.

Jean M
02-26-2015, 04:35 PM
Perhaps the PIE languages may have some background from Siberia/Central Asia, but what you suggest does not really make them Proto-Indo-European. Pre-PIE might be a better way of putting it, specially if you're going to tag a completely other language family next to it.

Of course linguistic predecessors of PIE were not exactly the same as PIE. PIE is the language immediately prior to its break-up into daughter languages. This is complex, as the break-up was not instantaneous. Various groups broke away from the core at different times. But PIE
itself can scarcely be earlier than c. 4000 BC. Its predecessor is better called Pre-Proto-Indo-European (to avoid confusion with unrelated languages spoken in various places before PIE arrived with migrants), and treated as a process of development rather than some static language that lasted for millennia. Languages are always changing.

R.Rocca
02-26-2015, 04:37 PM
From what we have today I will agree that the current evidence very likely suggests a movement of a potential R1b-L23 Indo-European speaking group from the Yamna junction and into the rest of Europe.

I would say "very strongly suggests", but I do not have any issues with your statement, so I think we are 99% in agreement.


However we need to remember that the link has not been found yet, and we don't know whether the Yamna R1b-L23 were from the steppes originally or from the south if you consider their Near Eastern component.

I am also in agreement that, based on this paper alone, we cannot rule out the possibility that those Yamnaya samples ca 3300 BC are not a back migration of males from a location further south. However, based on the fact that the much earlier R1b+ EHG, which are "very likely" to represent the Yamnaya's distant ancestors, did not have Near East ancestry, it is "very likely" that pre-Yamnaya's ancestors originated in the steppe along with R1a.

Agamemnon
02-26-2015, 04:42 PM
Alan, Jean M; Indo-Uralic has very little support among linguists and early contact between IE and Uralic speakers at an early stage is far more likely than a genetic relationship.

Silesian
02-26-2015, 04:43 PM
Interesting contrast! Wonder why that is.......

Some scholars, David Anthony among them, identify the Tocharians with Afanasievo. Alexei Kovalev is supposed to have recovered R1b-M269 and R1b-P25 from Afanasievo remains in the Altai. That has not yet been confirmed, but it seems likely, given the results from Haak et al, especially when one considers that Afanasievo had a Repin-based material culture, and Repin artifacts have been recovered from the Samara region from which, I need not remind you, those seven R1b Yamnaya results and that R1b hunter-gatherer came.

Your leaving the audna part out.
@K20 the run shows some blue in the Yamnaya R1b samples; almost as much as modern day Lithuanians. Unless I`m going color blind and those samples are really purple.
http://www.kidzsearch.com/ksthm.20.gif
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

Dodecad K12b projected Behar Lithuanians as [13.7 Atlantic/Med] [77.1 North European] [1 South West Asian -8 Caucasus]
Compare Lithuanians and Corded with the 5000+/- Yamnaya R1b samples.
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedEY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEY lE#gid=0

rms2
02-26-2015, 04:45 PM
I am cautious of those studies too and I completely agree that they're not conclusive. I guess you need to go way back in this thread to see what I meant when I dragged these aDNA studies into the discussion. It was simply an example that if you're going to assume that Reich's study proves R1b's involvement in spreading of the IE languages, other aDNA studies show us something different. Which is why I'm keen to accept any theory we have today and why I insist on saying that more studies are required to draw the bigger picture.

Well, I think R1a was probably also among the original Indo-Europeans, along with R1b. Technically, however, the aDNA studies don't show that yet, since the ancient R1a that has been recovered thus far does not come from the Pontic-Caspian steppe in the actual PIE period but only later, from alleged successor groups. Don't get me wrong: I think PIE-period remains from the steppe will turn up that are R1a, but they haven't yet.

In your last post before this one, you mentioned the supposed Near Eastern component in Yamnaya and the possibility that it could have come up from the south (Anatolia) with R1b-Z2103. But we went through that before, as I recall. How likely is that when Haak et al tested that 7,600-year-old hunter-gatherer from Samara and found that he is R1b1-L278 and clusters autosomally right next to that R1a hunter-gatherer from Karelia from the same study, both of them EHG and lacking any Near Eastern component?

No, it looks like those seven Yamnaya R1b's, five of them R1b-Z2103/Z2105, were the scions of a y-dna line that had already been on the steppe for millennia before they were born.

That Near Eastern component probably came up from the south, but it did not arrive there with R1b.

Tomasso29
02-26-2015, 04:49 PM
Of course linguistic predecessors of PIE were not exactly the same as PIE. PIE is the language immediately prior to its break-up into daughter languages. This is complex, as the break-up was not instantaneous. Various groups broke away from the core at different times. But PIE
itself can scarcely be earlier than c. 4000 BC. Its predecessor is better called Pre-Proto-Indo-European (to avoid confusion with unrelated languages spoken in various places before PIE arrived with migrants), and treated as a process of development rather than some static language that lasted for millennia. Languages are always changing.

Regardless, I still don't see where R comes in in the PIE subject, we're talking about very young lineages here while R* probably existed 20,000 to 30,000 thousand years ago and had nothing to do with anything except give birth to lineages that later on were involved in the subject we're talking about here.

rms2
02-26-2015, 05:16 PM
Regardless, I still don't see where R comes in in the PIE subject, we're talking about very young lineages here while R* probably existed 20,000 to 30,000 thousand years ago and had nothing to do with anything except give birth to lineages that later on were involved in the subject we're talking about here.

I don't mean to dog your every post, and I guess Jean M really should answer, since you quoted her, but I think the part of what you wrote above that I put in bold is the entire point.

The R* from Mal'ta Boy helps nail down the neighborhood (Siberia/Northern Eurasia) for both R1b and R1a, since they stem from R and R's descendant, R1. Subsequently, one finds those R1a and R1b hunter-gatherers who are EHG and cluster close together autosomally.

This helps show that R1a and R1b were in the ballpark of the Pontic-Caspian steppe for millennia when PIE arose among them. They didn't have to come up or in from someplace else.

Tomasso29
02-26-2015, 05:19 PM
Well, I think R1a was probably also among the original Indo-Europeans, along with R1b. Technically, however, the aDNA studies don't show that yet, since the ancient R1a that has been recovered thus far does not come from the Pontic-Caspian steppe in the actual PIE period but only later, from alleged successor groups. Don't get me wrong: I think PIE-period remains from the steppe will turn up that are R1a, but they haven't yet.

In your last post before this one, you mentioned the supposed Near Eastern component in Yamnaya and the possibility that it could have come up from the south (Anatolia) with R1b-Z2103. But we went through that before, as I recall. How likely is that when Haak et al tested that 7,600-year-old hunter-gatherer from Samara and found that he is R1b1-L278 and clusters autosomally right next to that R1a hunter-gatherer from Karelia from the same study, both of them EHG and lacking any Near Eastern component?

No, it looks like those seven Yamnaya R1b's, five of them R1b-Z2103/Z2105, were the scions of a y-dna line that had already been on the steppe for millennia before they were born.

That Near Eastern component probably came up from the south, but it did not arrive there with R1b.

I will hold off on that since it's 3000 years or so earlier and due to the lack of ancient DNA studies in the southern parts.


I don't mean to dog your every post, and I guess Jean M really should answer, since you quoted her, but I think the part of what you wrote above that I put in bold is the entire point.

The R* from Mal'ta Boy helps nail down the neighborhood (Siberia/Northern Eurasia) for both R1b and R1a, since they stem from R and R's descendant, R1. Subsequently, one finds those R1a and R1b hunter-gatherers who are EHG and cluster close together autosomally.

This helps show that R1a and R1b were in the ballpark of the Pontic-Caspian steppe for millennia when PIE arose among them. They didn't have to come up or in from someplace else.

Ballpark does not mean much when the difference is 10,000+ years.

rms2
02-26-2015, 05:33 PM
. . . Ballpark does not mean much when the difference is 10,000+ years.

It does when we are talking about hunter-gatherers who roamed around on foot and whose y-dna relatives still crop up there later on.

alan
02-26-2015, 05:45 PM
I will hold off on that since it's 3000 years or so earlier and due to the lack of ancient DNA studies in the southern parts.



Ballpark does not mean much when the difference is 10,000+ years.

By all means hold your views, have your doubts etc but this hobby is about speculation and doing our best to draw inferences without a lot of data. So please let people do that. Most people are using highly qualified language 'very likely' etc and are fully aware its just balance of probabilities speculation so there is no need to point this out in every speculation. We all want more ancient DNA but the speculation will go on for some years yet until the ancient DNA levels are a lot higher. However, I will say this. The balance of probabilities based on all ancient DNA to date plus knowledge of phylogeny, dating etc of clades does make it now highly intuitive that M269 derived and R1a were the major components in PIE. The fact that hunter-gatherer R1 of any kind is entirely Russian so far is pretty striking as is the fact that a crazily high percentage of Russian ancient DNA of all periods has been R1 derived to date. So its looking like the intuitive answer is R1 had become a major thing in Russia by the Mesolithic. Archaeology indicates no intrusion into this area from SW Asia in the late upper palaeolithic or mesolithic but may hint at movements from siberia. No R1b has been found in farmers except one non-P297 stray at the other end of Europe and none of the clades of any sort of size today of R1a and b date anywhere near old enough to be linked to farming which commenced in parts of SW Asia like Zagros, Tauros etc about 11000 years ago. So farming is a very poor match.

Tomasso29
02-26-2015, 05:46 PM
It does when we are talking about hunter-gatherers who roamed around on foot and whose y-dna relatives still crop up there later on.

We're talking of 10,000+ years apart here, so many possibilities within that time-frame, not sure how or why would anyone drag a language family to this.

Kopfjäger
02-26-2015, 05:50 PM
I don't even bother wasting my time and energy reading comments from people who refuse to see the evidence for some personal agenda/hang up. Clearly, it is a hang up. I just read yours, Alan's, Jean M's and the others who show reason. The people who continue to go on about the same old denial routine only prolong these debates unnecessarily.

알았어요, 형!

I trust the research and arguments of those that compose dissertations and speak at universities such as Oxford, not some amateur pontificating from the armchair.

alan
02-26-2015, 05:53 PM
I am trying to be tolerant but the invisibility cloak is beckoning if this doesnt stop being so repetitive.

Tomasso29
02-26-2015, 06:01 PM
I am trying to be tolerant but the invisibility cloak is beckoning if this doesnt stop being so repetitive.

Not sure why some of you folks take it so seriously and get upset when someone suggests that more evidence is needed?

What do you guys want to hear? Ok, the Proto-Indo-Europeans started out in the steppes of Ukrain/Russia and they were R1b-L23, the same R1b folks that migrated from the R folks in Siberia. No further aDNA studies outside of Europe are needed to solve this elephant, it's all figured out. Is this what makes you sleep at night? :P

For the sake of not going in a circle in a dead thread, this is my last post on this subject.

vettor
02-26-2015, 06:11 PM
Of course linguistic predecessors of PIE were not exactly the same as PIE. PIE is the language immediately prior to its break-up into daughter languages. This is complex, as the break-up was not instantaneous. Various groups broke away from the core at different times. But PIE
itself can scarcely be earlier than c. 4000 BC. Its predecessor is better called Pre-Proto-Indo-European (to avoid confusion with unrelated languages spoken in various places before PIE arrived with migrants), and treated as a process of development rather than some static language that lasted for millennia. Languages are always changing.

If linguistics cannot even clear the origins of Etruscan language ( and they only arrived in italy circa 800BC ) , how do you expect them to clear up linguistic issues in the steppes?

parasar
02-26-2015, 06:27 PM
Exactly. The words for 'water' and 'name' are pretty basic. These are common to PIE and Proto-Uralic.

What is water in PIE?

newtoboard
02-27-2015, 12:04 AM
I think it is nitpicking and quibbling, since it is not clear that Central Europe includes those Eastern European countries you mentioned. That means my definition was not "incorrect".



I mentioned sparsely populated in a specific context, i.e., Central Asia and Siberia. Why didn't you bring up downtown Warsaw, as well?

This is tiring.

It is pretty clear to most people. Google search it. Google search it under images. Funny how your own source (the UN) proved you wrong. Those countries are only in Eastern Europe when Central Europe doesn't exist.

What is tiring is that you were called out on something you posted and you think it is not a big deal (to you it isn't but guess what to other people it is). It was incorrect and now instead of admitting it you just argue it is tiring etc. Hilarious how you think you have the right to use overly harsh language (as evidenced by your posts with Isidro) to point out the flaws in other people's posts but nobody can point out anything wrong in yours.

Btw 50%, 50%, and 30% isn't overwhelmingly R1b.

newtoboard
02-27-2015, 12:15 AM
I would say "very strongly suggests", but I do not have any issues with your statement, so I think we are 99% in agreement.



I am also in agreement that, based on this paper alone, we cannot rule out the possibility that those Yamnaya samples ca 3300 BC are not a back migration of males from a location further south. However, based on the fact that the much earlier R1b+ EHG, which are "very likely" to represent the Yamnaya's distant ancestors, did not have Near East ancestry, it is "very likely" that pre-Yamnaya's ancestors originated in the steppe along with R1a.

There is also the third scenario that R1b in the steppe during Yamnaya and regions south is a migration from a third place (North Central Asia). Same possibility for R1a too imo.

soulblighter
02-27-2015, 01:41 AM
What is water in PIE?
wodr (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_vocabulary) apparently

It is pretty clear to most people. Google search it. Google search it under images. Funny how your own source (the UN) proved you wrong. Those countries are only in Eastern Europe when Central Europe doesn't exist.

What is tiring is that you were called out on something you posted and you think it is not a big deal (to you it isn't but guess what to other people it is). It was incorrect and now instead of admitting it you just argue it is tiring etc. Hilarious how you think you have the right to use overly harsh language (as evidenced by your posts with Isidro) to point out the flaws in other people's posts but nobody can point out anything wrong in yours.

Btw 50%, 50%, and 30% isn't overwhelmingly R1b.
Regardless of whoever started this, I request that we put it to rest. There is good discussion and contributions from all of you, and it would be a shame to have distractions.

I think it is nitpicking and quibbling, since it is not clear that Central Europe includes those Eastern European countries you mentioned. That means my definition was not "incorrect".



I mentioned sparsely populated in a specific context, i.e., Central Asia and Siberia. Why didn't you bring up downtown Warsaw, as well?

This is tiring.
Regardless of whoever started this, I request that we put it to rest. There is good discussion and contributions from all of you, and it would be a shame to have distractions.

rms2
02-27-2015, 12:42 PM
I am trying to be tolerant but the invisibility cloak is beckoning if this doesnt stop being so repetitive.

I would say it has already crossed over from the merely repetitive into the realm of the idiotic.

No point in responding to some of these folks anymore. The Haak et al results just don't suit some people, and nothing whatsoever will change that.

rms2
02-27-2015, 01:03 PM
알았어요, 형!

I trust the research and arguments of those that compose dissertations and speak at universities such as Oxford, not some amateur pontificating from the armchair.

I don't know, man. Those were the people who gave us the old R1b-in-the-Franco-Cantabrian-Ice-Age-Refuge-we-are-all-Basques orthodoxy. It was really the amateurs who pushed the envelope and began questioning that and driving the hunt for SNP discovery and improvements in estimating the ages of the various haplogroups and subclades.

I recall a paper that came out some years ago about y-dna on the island of Crete (if I am recalling correctly). The paper was discussed on Rootsweb at some length. It found R1b on the high ground at the center of the island and J2 (and maybe E1b1b) at the coast. Right away the authors of the paper concluded that the R1b represented Paleolithic aborigines who had retreated to the high ground as the J2 Neolithic farmers began arriving. I and one or two other people (I think Vince Vizachero was one) pointed out that the R1b there was very close to WAMH, not at all diverse, and that the Venetians had controlled the island of Crete for several hundred years beginning in the, I think, 13th century. They were the ones who lived on the high ground in the center of the island (think "big house at the top of the hill").

Doctors High and Falutin missed that little bit of historical trivia.

alan
02-27-2015, 06:50 PM
It amazing that the possible link of western European R1b and beaker started to be seriously talked about around 7 years ago when P312 was first getting tested and a major rethink on dating was happening but we have only got proof of beaker-P312 in the last couple of weeks. We are a patient bunch. Scary to think I have been in this hobby for 9 years as a poster and people like Rich several more years than that I believe. Its taken me from prime to middle age LOL

MJost
02-27-2015, 07:19 PM
Interestingly, my first DNA test was ordered on Jun 3, 2008 with Genebase and was given a P312. And nine months later, to the date, I ordered the new L21 SNP after requesting it to be made available. With MtDNA testing done there as well, I changed to FtDNA and retested my STRs to be able to join the L21 project for a much larger data base. Even though I had some Isles matches, Steveo was betting that my roots were continental base, and I wondered too. I spent large sums towards testing my half maternal sibling who is a biological U106 Jost and after finding additional close off-modal isles based Hts, I started to believe my own results that were building a nice foundation. Recall their was only the older known M222 before L21, which then fell under the new L21. So I have testing ever since looking for my true paternal ancestry and only around a year ago was I able to start to confirm my Isle of Man roots combining STR, aDNA and SNPs.

To bad I squandered a lot of my kids inheritance...lol. I should have bought stock that I could give them instead.

MJost> Watterson

Kopfjäger
02-27-2015, 10:49 PM
I don't know, man. Those were the people who gave us the old R1b-in-the-Franco-Cantabrian-Ice-Age-Refuge-we-are-all-Basques orthodoxy. It was really the amateurs who pushed the envelope and began questioning that and driving the hunt for SNP discovery and improvements in estimating the ages of the various haplogroups and subclades.

I recall a paper that came out some years ago about y-dna on the island of Crete (if I am recalling correctly). The paper was discussed on Rootsweb at some length. It found R1b on the high ground at the center of the island and J2 (and maybe E1b1b) at the coast. Right away the authors of the paper concluded that the R1b represented Paleolithic aborigines who had retreated to the high ground as the J2 Neolithic farmers began arriving. I and one or two other people (I think Vince Vizachero was one) pointed out that the R1b there was very close to WAMH, not at all diverse, and that the Venetians had controlled the island of Crete for several hundred years beginning in the, I think, 13th century. They were the ones who lived on the high ground in the center of the island (think "big house at the top of the hill").

Doctors High and Falutin missed that little bit of historical trivia.

You're right. I think the difference between these armchair quarterbacks with wrist-hair moustaches and academicians is the latter will not bug out if their hypotheses are proven incorrect. That's the nature of science... at least generally.

I, for one, have been on endorphin highs since the Yamnaya results were released.

Hector
02-28-2015, 01:31 AM
You're right. I think the difference between these armchair quarterbacks with wrist-hair moustaches and academicians is the latter will not bug out if their hypotheses are proven incorrect..

In my experience it is quite the opposite. Amateurs are the hardest group to convince, they have no scientific intuition and anything they like seems plausible to them. For instance Mayka's theory that expanding lineages are more likely to move. It is true under very specific circumstances like an expansion followed by massive extinctions everywhere except one place etc., but guessing which is closer to the homeland is another matter altogether. It can happen and in this sense it raises the possibility in a Bayesian way just ever so slightly but that is a lot of wishful guessing.



I, for one, have been on endorphin highs since the Yamnaya results were released.

I doubt it would have been any different had the result been different. Your theories are often unfalsifiable, therefore worthless in scientific sense. If you don't get results you want you just shrug them off and wait until something you like is found.
The case in point was Ust-Ishim. A lot of Eurocentrists were pinning their hope on his being "West Eurasian", at least in the Y-lineage. Pollako and his friends were sure he would be K2b or even an early offshoot in the direction of PQR.
His being M526+ on the K2a side was about the worst possible case imaginable(the only thing worse would be D, A or b). But lo and behold he claims victory; that is what he had predicted and preceded to make a "case against SE Asian origin of M526".

Whenever new results are in it is Christmas for you guys because you have such an uncanny ability to turn them around to fit your "theory". Like the main character in Lu Xun's "True Story of Ah Q" you claim moral victory of some sort every time.

Kopfjäger
02-28-2015, 01:52 AM
Whenever new results are in it is Christmas for you guys because you have such an uncanny ability to turn them around to fit your "theory". Like the main character in Lu Xun's "True Story of Ah Q" you claim moral victory of some sort every time.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I never put forth any "theory". In fact, it wouldn't matter to me if my ancestors were relics of Mesolithic Europe, Neolithic farmers, or straight out of Sub-Saharan Africa via the Atlantic slave trade. I'd be proud of it all.

Get off your high horse.

parasar
02-28-2015, 02:22 AM
Is this anything to do with Gedrosia etc

Yes, and Metspalu's k5.

Another indication that it is Gedrosia, is that it is from the Ust-Ishim side of the split.
We know that Ust-Ishim is on the Eurasian side of the Eurasian and “Basal Eurasian” split.

We also know that the Karelian has Ancestral North Eurasian but not ANE (MA1). This fact also supports what I have mentioned before that MA1 is admixed and that the Karitiana potentially do not derive from MA1 but share ancestry with him.

Why, if, as seen in Fig SI 16, Graphs for 0 to 3 migration edges, the movement is from the ancestors of Karitiana to MA1?
It could be that the ancestors of the Karitiana (Y-P) mixed into W. Eurasians (mtDNA U) near the Baikal.

"Yamnaya has diluted EHG (Karelia_HG-related) ancestry from a source related to present-day Near Eastern populations. If some of the farmer-related ancestry in the Corded Ware was not of local European origin but came with the Yamnaya, ultimately from the Near East, then this ancestry would represent a farmer-related population that was basal to European farmers. "

So we now getting to something essentially basal to the so called Basal.

As to what this basal may be, Haak et al, speculate: "Ancient genomes from the Caucasus, the Near East, and Central Asia might reveal the existence of Neolithic populations there that may be involved in the ancestry of ancient steppe populations and central Europeans."

Where do we find this new basal? I would say the among the Brahui is the place to look. The Brahui we know are chock-full of Gedrosia. Plus they also have within them a Denisovan minima.

Generalissimo
02-28-2015, 06:14 AM
Another indication that it is Gedrosia, is that it is from the Ust-Ishim side of the split.
We know that Ust-Ishim is on the Eurasian side of the Eurasian and “Basal Eurasian” split.

We also know that the Karelian has Ancestral North Eurasian but not ANE (MA1). This fact also supports what I have mentioned before that MA1 is admixed and that the Karitiana potentially do not derive from MA1 but share ancestry with him.


"Yamnaya has diluted EHG (Karelia_HG-related) ancestry from a source related to present-day Near Eastern populations. If some of the farmer-related ancestry in the Corded Ware was not of local European origin but came with the Yamnaya, ultimately from the Near East, then this ancestry would represent a farmer-related population that was basal to European farmers. "

So we now getting to something essentially basal to the so called Basal.

As to what this basal may be, Haak et al, speculate: "Ancient genomes from the Caucasus, the Near East, and Central Asia might reveal the existence of Neolithic populations there that may be involved in the ancestry of ancient steppe populations and central Europeans."

Where do we find this new basal? I would say the among the Brahui is the place to look. The Brahui we know are chock-full of Gedrosia. Plus they also have within them a Denisovan minima.

Wow Parasar, you sure have a way of (mis)interpreting things.

The Near Eastern component that they're talking about that is basal to European farmers is just Near Eastern ancestry minus extra WHG input, and thus more Basal Eurasian...the same Basal Eurasian as before.

I don't have the energy to pick apart the rest of your hyperbole post.

vettor
02-28-2015, 06:41 AM
I don't know, man. Those were the people who gave us the old R1b-in-the-Franco-Cantabrian-Ice-Age-Refuge-we-are-all-Basques orthodoxy. It was really the amateurs who pushed the envelope and began questioning that and driving the hunt for SNP discovery and improvements in estimating the ages of the various haplogroups and subclades.

I recall a paper that came out some years ago about y-dna on the island of Crete (if I am recalling correctly). The paper was discussed on Rootsweb at some length. It found R1b on the high ground at the center of the island and J2 (and maybe E1b1b) at the coast. Right away the authors of the paper concluded that the R1b represented Paleolithic aborigines who had retreated to the high ground as the J2 Neolithic farmers began arriving. I and one or two other people (I think Vince Vizachero was one) pointed out that the R1b there was very close to WAMH, not at all diverse, and that the Venetians had controlled the island of Crete for several hundred years beginning in the, I think, 13th century. They were the ones who lived on the high ground in the center of the island (think "big house at the top of the hill").

Doctors High and Falutin missed that little bit of historical trivia.

The crete discussion of R1b on crete was only about R1b-U152 which is 7.3% of the populace, venetians colonised crete with about 10000 venetians in the 12th century and departed in the early 17th century.............the 7.3% is the result of "few/some" mixed marriages after 400 years.

it was the only colony that the venetians took their wifes..........so the summary of the paper was a look at restrained mixing of people ( venetian men with cretan women ) and the % result.

parasar
02-28-2015, 06:59 AM
Wow Parasar, you sure have a way of (mis)interpreting things.

The Near Eastern component that they're talking about that is basal to European farmers is just Near Eastern ancestry minus extra WHG input, and thus more Basal Eurasian...the same Basal Eurasian as before.

I don't have the energy to pick apart the rest of your hyperbole post.

I doubt that it is near-eastern in the sense of 45000 ybp near-eastern. It will turn out to be basal not to just to EEF which includes ancestral WHG, but also to the so called Basal Eurasian portion of EEF.

rms2
02-28-2015, 02:43 PM
The crete discussion of R1b on crete was only about R1b-U152 which is 7.3% of the populace, venetians colonised crete with about 10000 venetians in the 12th century and departed in the early 17th century.............the 7.3% is the result of "few/some" mixed marriages after 400 years.

it was the only colony that the venetians took their wifes..........so the summary of the paper was a look at restrained mixing of people ( venetian men with cretan women ) and the % result.

No, it was not. I was part of that conversation on Rootsweb. I remember. There was no testing of the population of Crete in that paper for U152.

In this case you do not know what you are talking about.

parasar
02-28-2015, 09:01 PM
As to where that mystery component come from:

1. Yamna can be modelled as Karelian + Armenian like.

2. Eliminating Karelian as the source, we are left with Armenians.

3. Armenians can be modelled as Neolithics + Sindhi or similarly N. Levantine + Central South Asian
f3: Central and South Asians North Levantines -0.000484051 -6.95695 3908.52 ± 682.08 2.10E-07 Table 1. Source populations and admixture time for Armenians http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf
"the lowest Z-score of statistics of the form f3(Armenian; X, Y) involves the (X, Y) = (LBK_EN, Sindhi) pair (value -0.00575, Z=-15.3)" http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

4. Since Yamna has little or no affinity for Neolithics - it is the Sindhi/Central South Asian Component.

5. The Sindhi/Central South Asian has a lot of ANE, but plain ANE only cannot be the mystery component as it was already chock full in Karelians. So it is something that has ANE, but is not only ANE.

6. So it is Sindhi/South Central Asian minus South Indian. The closest component to this would be ANI.


They have the data for the others from Moorjani, but used only a subset.
Their stat showing inflow into the Armenians was most negative using Sindhis.


It would be interesting to see if Pakhtoons would give even a higher negative stat! The inflow into the Armenians then could even be from a historical period.
Herodotus posits that the origin of Armenians was from the Balkans via Anatolia, but also puts an odd people near them - the Pactyans.

https://books.google.com/books?id=bKICAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA207

Dienekes had run the f3 numbers a while back and the Sindhi were very high, only the Baloch gave more negative numbers.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/armenians-as-phrygian-colonists-or.html

Sardinian Velamas_M Armenians_15_Y -0.00349 0.000264 -13.23 239451
Sardinian Piramalai_Kallars_M Armenians_15_Y -0.003213 0.00028 -11.484 239389
Sardinian GIH30 Armenians_15_Y -0.002983 0.00023 -12.986 241310
Balochi Sardinian Armenians_15_Y -0.002837 0.000193 -14.681 241698
Sardinian Sindhi Armenians_15_Y -0.002794 0.000203 -13.757 241928
Sardinian Muslim_M Armenians_15_Y -0.002761 0.000295 -9.351 238639
Indian_D Sardinian Armenians_15_Y -0.002743 0.000224 -12.226 241916
Sardinian Kanjars_M Armenians_15_Y -0.002727 0.000281 -9.722 239240
Iyer_D Sardinian Armenians_15_Y -0.002718 0.000263 -10.322 238943
Brahui Sardinian Armenians_15_Y -0.002715 0.000196 -13.882 241885
Sardinian Dusadh_M Armenians_15_Y -0.002666 0.000281 -9.502 238994
Sardinian INS30 Armenians_15_Y -0.00265 0.000237 -11.162 240965
Iyengar_D Sardinian Armenians_15_Y -0.002624 0.000297 -8.847 238564
Sardinian Dharkars_M Armenians_15_Y -0.002501 0.000267 -9.359 239505
Sardinian North_Kannadi Armenians_15_Y -0.002463 0.000288 -8.545 239278
Sardinian Chamar_M Armenians_15_Y -0.002445 0.000275 -8.904 240102
Sardinian Kshatriya_M Armenians_15_Y -0.002372 0.000267 -8.897 239047
Pathan Sardinian Armenians_15_Y -0.00224 0.000199 -11.264 241759
Sardinian Brahmins_from_Uttar_Pradesh_M Armenians_15_Y -0.002189 0.00025 -8.774 239395
Jatt_D Sardinian Armenians_15_Y -0.001806 0.000273 -6.608 238465
Cypriots Kanjars_M Armenians_15_Y -0.001699 0.00026 -6.547 238237
Cypriots Velamas_M Armenians_15_Y -0.001642 0.000275 -5.965 238392
Cypriots Muslim_M Armenians_15_Y -0.001618 0.000279 -5.798 237762
Cypriots Dusadh_M Armenians_15_Y -0.001611 0.000279 -5.779 238096
GIH30 Cypriots Armenians_15_Y -0.001608 0.000223 -7.216 239819
Iyer_D Cypriots Armenians_15_Y -0.001562 0.000251 -6.217 238012
Sindhi Cypriots Armenians_15_Y -0.001544 0.000209 -7.383 240276
Cypriots North_Kannadi Armenians_15_Y -0.001464 0.000276 -5.298 238273
Cypriots Kshatriya_M Armenians_15_Y -0.001438 0.00026 -5.534 238076

Leeroy Jenkins
03-01-2015, 04:10 AM
The Near Eastern component that they're talking about that is basal to European farmers is just Near Eastern ancestry minus extra WHG input, and thus more Basal Eurasian...the same Basal Eurasian as before.

This seems to be correct. This is from the paper, for those that missed it:

http://i59.tinypic.com/t6drwx.png

parasar
03-01-2015, 04:31 PM
This seems to be correct. ...

...[/IMG]

As I had mentioned I doubt that is fully the case as Armenians have Basal Eurasian, but no WHG, and still show an input from a Sindhi like ghost population which has "basal to Basal" + "Ancestral North Eurasian." And we know that just the Ancestral North Eurasian part is not causing the negative f3 as this ghost population also mixes into EHG who had Ancestral North Eurasian which after the mixture with the ghost reduces slightly.

As to what this basal to Basal is: I think Dr_McNinja had mentioned some kind of a near-eastern type component "Gedrosian ENF (minus WHG-UHG)." https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuXBmvmgdkfVdFMtRHVlZDBuQ3lMcjhxMDE4V3JoY lE&usp=drive_web#gid=25
This component seems to also have the most negative correlation with Denisovan.

Average frequency of the Denisova allele:
Papuan 0.534685512191
Yizu 0.530125345231
Melanesian 0.528999362651
Colombian 0.528149564478
Karitiana 0.527283424033
...
French 0.525880906856
...
Tuscan 0.525112785713
...
Han 0.524721401394
...
Mongola 0.524367962609
North Italian 0.524148431414
...
French Basque 0.523659525094
Adygei 0.523513165623
...
Sardinian 0.522974900604
...
Pathan 0.522712787531
Palestinian 0.522565836266
Bedouin 0.52240870571
Japanese 0.522292027072
...
Sindhi 0.522006231853
Kalash 0.521988527725
...
Burusho 0.521640110474
Makrani 0.521614616529
GIH 0.521599841629
...
FIN 0.520538559592
Druze 0.520359747893
Balochi 0.520280079314
Brahui 0.5192266836