PDA

View Full Version : Can the R1a at Xiahoe really be Z93-?



newtoboard
03-08-2015, 07:11 PM
This isn't about the linguistic or cultural identity of those mummies but whether this sample can really belong to Z93- given the paucity of such lineages in Asia. This would suggest this lineage didn't survive at all. There is obviously a Z282* cluster in Asia but it is concentrated in West Asia and is a better fit for Cimmerian/Scythian incursions via the Caucasus. And if this Xiahoe R1a is Z93- what can it be? Some sort of Z645 (xZ283, xZ93)? Or a brother clade to CTS4385 and Z645? One thing is that Xiahoe is pretty east in the Tarim and this lineages might have been pushed quite east into China. Does any R1a-Z93- exist in China?

Dr_McNinja
03-08-2015, 07:19 PM
Are you referring to a specific study or results about that place? Or just hypothetical scenarios?

DMXX
03-08-2015, 07:26 PM
The Uyghurs would make good candidates for carriers of R1a-Z93- given their long-standing presence in the Tarim and the presumed incorporation of earlier Tocharian speakers into them. Given the location of Afanasievo, it's possible some R1a-Z93- would be picked up in Mongolia as well.

Uyghurs haven't received much recent attention (there are a couple of Chinese studies from the late 00's which included them), opening up the possibility some of the R1a-M17 among them could be Z93-.

I see no justification for finding Z93- anywhere outside of East-Central Asia if Xiaohe is indeed so.

Jean M
03-08-2015, 07:27 PM
Are you referring to a specific study or results about that place? Or just hypothetical scenarios?

The reference is to a response by Hui Zhou, in the online comments on the paper Chunxiang Li, Hongjie Li, Yinqiu Cui, Chengzhi Xie, Dawei Cai, Wenying Li, Victor H Mair, Zhi Xu, Quanchao Zhang, Idelisi Abuduresule, Li Jin, Hong Zhu and Hui Zhou, Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age, BMC Biology 2010, 8:15 : http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15/comments

The response by Hui Zhou in full:


Archaeological and anthropological investigations have helped to formulate two main theories to account for the origin of the populations in the Tarim Basin. The first, so-called “steppe hypothesis”, maintains that the earliest settlers may have been nomadic herders of the Afanasievo culture (ca. 3300-2000 B.C.), a primarily pastoralist culture distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions of the steppe north of the Tarim Basin. The second model, known as the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis”, it maintains that the first settlers were farmers of the Oxus civilization (ca. 2200-1500 B.C.) west of Xinjiang in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan. These contrasting models can be tested using DNA recovered from archaeological bones. Xiaohe cemetery contains the oldest and best-preserved mummies so far discovered in the Tarim Basin, possible those of the earliest people to settle the region. Genetic analysis of these mummies can provide data to elucidate the affinities of the earliest inhabitants.

Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried Hg R1a1 in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M* in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belong to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data) which mainly found in Asians. mtDNA Hgs H, K, C4 primarily distributed in northern Eurasians. Though H, K, C4 also presence in modern south Asian, they immigrated into South Asian recently from nearby populations, such as Near East , East Asia and Central Asia, and the frequency is obviously lower than that of northern Eurasian. Furthermore, all of the shared sequences of the Xiaohe haplotypes H and C4 were distributed in northern Eurasians. Haplotype 223-304 in Xiaohe people was shared by Indian. However, these sequences were attributed to Hg M25 in India, and in our study it was not Hg M25 by scanning the mtDNA code region. Therefore, our DNA results didn't supported Clyde Winters’s opinion but supported the “steppe hypothesis”. Moreover, the culture of Xiaohe is similar with the Afanasievo culture. Afanasievo culture was mainly distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions, and didn’t spread into India. This further maintains the “steppe hypothesis”.

In addition, our data was misunderstand by Clyde Winters. Firstly, the human remains of the Xiaohe site have no relation with the Loulan mummy. The Xiaohe site and Loulan site are two different archaeological sites with 175km distances. Xiaohe site, radiocarbon dated ranging from 4000 to 3500 years before present, was a Bronze Age site, and Loulan site, dated to about 2000 years before present. Secondly, Hgs H and K are the mtDNA haplogroups not the Y chromosome haplogroups in our study. Thirdly, the origin of Xiaohe people in here means tracing the most recently common ancestor, and Africans were remote ancestor of modern people.

newtoboard
03-10-2015, 12:42 AM
The Uyghurs would make good candidates for carriers of R1a-Z93- given their long-standing presence in the Tarim and the presumed incorporation of earlier Tocharian speakers into them. Given the location of Afanasievo, it's possible some R1a-Z93- would be picked up in Mongolia as well.

Uyghurs haven't received much recent attention (there are a couple of Chinese studies from the late 00's which included them), opening up the possibility some of the R1a-M17 among them could be Z93-.

I see no justification for finding Z93- anywhere outside of East-Central Asia if Xiaohe is indeed so.

What do you think this Z93- could be? I am surprised because we should have expected some to filter into Afghanistan and South Asia with the Kushans , who even if were Indo-Iranian speaking probably had some Tocharian speakers in their ranks as most Central Asian confederations incorporated the earlier inhabitants to some degree.

Artmar
03-10-2015, 12:25 PM
When M198+ but Z93-, then maybe some kind of Z282*? We have a whole West Asian Z282* cluster made of Arabic, Armenian and possibly Kurdish people.

None of them were tested by Big Y or other NGS product. I don't know whether it would connect them to some macro-branch or still make a Z282* on it's own - founding totally new branch parallel to Z280, PF6155 (former M458 macro-branch) and Y2395 (former Z284 macro-branch). In latter case, it would be be possible to name such branch after testing second Z282* person.

Megalophias
03-10-2015, 03:17 PM
Could also be some M417*, which does exist in Asia.

Artmar
03-11-2015, 12:38 PM
Could also be some M417*, which does exist in Asia.
I have never seen M417s who aren't either Z645 (Z283 and Z93) or CTS4385. Are you sure , that you've found M417* somewhere ?

Megalophias
03-11-2015, 03:40 PM
I have never seen M417s who aren't either Z645 (Z283 and Z93) or CTS4385. Are you sure , that you've found M417* somewhere ?

No, I am referring to R1a-M417(xZ282, Z93) which could be CTS4385. But this Xiaohe aDNA is said only to be Z93-, so there is nothing to exclude it being CTS4385 either.

parasar
03-11-2015, 05:01 PM
Underhill had a few M417* listed, but Z283, Z645, L664 and CTS4385 were not tested.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/extref/ejhg201450x5.xls
Population Last defining Y-chr marker DYS19 D388 DYS389I DYS389b DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS439 DYS461=A7.2 DYS385 a DYS385 b DYS437 DYS438 DYS448 DYS456 DYS458 DYS635 Y GATA H4

Possible CTS4385
Estonian M417 16 12 13 18 25 10 11 13 11 10 11 14 14 11 19 16 15 23 12
Hungarian M417 15 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 12 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Kor, Iran M417 15 12 13 16 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 20 16 15 23 12
Turk M417 15 12 12 17 25 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


Possible L664
Dutch_Nort M417 15 7 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 19 15 15 24 13
Dutch_SoE M417 16 10 13 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 19 16 15 24 11
German_N M417 15 10 13 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 15 14 11 19 15 16 24 12
Irish_North M417 15 10 14 17 25 10 11 13 10 10 11 14 14 11 19 15 15 24 12
Norway M417 17 10 13 17 24 10 11 13 10 9 11 14 14 11 19 15 15 25 12

Possible M417
India (I) M417 15 12 14 17 24 11 11 13 10 10 14 14 14 11 20 17 15 23 12

DYS385ab 11,14 seems to the modal for M17 and M417 but we some highly divergent types in India.
Only 9/13 are ~modal:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032546.s003

newtoboard
03-11-2015, 06:33 PM
No, I am referring to R1a-M417(xZ282, Z93) which could be CTS4385. But this Xiaohe aDNA is said only to be Z93-, so there is nothing to exclude it being CTS4385 either.

Nothing to exclude it but its NW European distribution and complete absence in Asia wouldn't suggest it is likely.

DMXX
03-11-2015, 07:36 PM
What do you think this Z93- could be?


I am reminded once more of an eerily accurate comment AJL made some years back regarding a particular form of R1a1a-M17 found in East-Central Asia. It apparently resembled NW European clusters best rather than that found in surrounding populations (if I recall his post correctly).



I am surprised because we should have expected some to filter into Afghanistan and South Asia with the Kushans , who even if were Indo-Iranian speaking probably had some Tocharian speakers in their ranks as most Central Asian confederations incorporated the earlier inhabitants to some degree.

That had been my speculation also given the inference that the Yuezhi had elements of Tocharian within them. In fact, this recent thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3795-Split-The-Yuezhi-Who-Were-They) explores that very idea. I think you'll find it an interesting read.

The conclusion from that thread appears to be that non-Z93 R1a1a in South-Central Asia is exceedingly rare. The only cases picked up so far (Afghan and Uzbek Z282) are not close to one another STR-wise, suggesting different origins from a common Z282 pool. On top of that, I found no traces of Tocharian influence in linguistic textbooks on any of the SE Iranic languages spoken in South-Central Asia. Assuming R1a-Z93- was also found in Afanasievo, Afanasievo and related cultures in the region were linked to Tocharian, and there was a Tocharian element among the Yuezhi and their Kushan descendants, there are three inferences to be made on this (none mutually exclusive):

The Yuezhi/Kushan genetic contribution to South-Central Asia was negligible despite their long period of rule.
The Yuezhi/Kushan linguistic contribution to South-Central Asia was negligible despite their long period of rule.
The prominence of Tocharian-related elements among the Yuezhi/Kushan was smaller than we anticipated, or one of our earlier assumptions were incorrect.


Some counter-thoughts to the above, which are valid IMO:

The Yuezhi/Kushan genetic contribution to South-Central Asia may have been negligible in a region-wide sense, but there may be isolated locales of the region which received gene flow and this was amplified in terms of frequency since through genetic drift. The same way, for instance, one study found Y-DNA Q at a frequency of ~11% in Northwest Iran, despite later region-specific studies showing no such frequency spike in any general part of NW Iran.
Any Yuezhi/Kushan linguistic contribution to South-Central Asia hasn't been established yet. There may well be words of Tocharian origin that are present in dialects of Pashto. Linguistics is a dynamic field and we should not presume the current landscape is set in stone. For example, the first time a Tocharian origin for proto-Turkic gŁn was proposed (Tocharian A/B kom/kaum) was in 2003 by Lubotsky and Starostin.

Roserover
03-18-2015, 05:23 PM
I am reminded once more of an eerily accurate comment AJL made some years back regarding a particular form of R1a1a-M17 found in East-Central Asia. It apparently resembled NW European clusters best rather than that found in surrounding populations (if I recall his post correctly).



That had been my speculation also given the inference that the Yuezhi had elements of Tocharian within them. In fact, this recent thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3795-Split-The-Yuezhi-Who-Were-They) explores that very idea. I think you'll find it an interesting read.

The conclusion from that thread appears to be that non-Z93 R1a1a in South-Central Asia is exceedingly rare. The only cases picked up so far (Afghan and Uzbek Z282) are not close to one another STR-wise, suggesting different origins from a common Z282 pool. On top of that, I found no traces of Tocharian influence in linguistic textbooks on any of the SE Iranic languages spoken in South-Central Asia. Assuming R1a-Z93- was also found in Afanasievo, Afanasievo and related cultures in the region were linked to Tocharian, and there was a Tocharian element among the Yuezhi and their Kushan descendants, there are three inferences to be made on this (none mutually exclusive):

The Yuezhi/Kushan genetic contribution to South-Central Asia was negligible despite their long period of rule.
The Yuezhi/Kushan linguistic contribution to South-Central Asia was negligible despite their long period of rule.
The prominence of Tocharian-related elements among the Yuezhi/Kushan was smaller than we anticipated, or one of our earlier assumptions were incorrect.


Some counter-thoughts to the above, which are valid IMO:

The Yuezhi/Kushan genetic contribution to South-Central Asia may have been negligible in a region-wide sense, but there may be isolated locales of the region which received gene flow and this was amplified in terms of frequency since through genetic drift. The same way, for instance, one study found Y-DNA Q at a frequency of ~11% in Northwest Iran, despite later region-specific studies showing no such frequency spike in any general part of NW Iran.
Any Yuezhi/Kushan linguistic contribution to South-Central Asia hasn't been established yet. There may well be words of Tocharian origin that are present in dialects of Pashto. Linguistics is a dynamic field and we should not presume the current landscape is set in stone. For example, the first time a Tocharian origin for proto-Turkic gŁn was proposed (Tocharian A/B kom/kaum) was in 2003 by Lubotsky and Starostin.


I had thought Tocharian was Z93.

DMXX
03-18-2015, 05:27 PM
I were thought Tocharian was Z93.

Please contribute to the discussion by stating what body of evidence led you towards thinking the Tocharians were R1a-Z93+. As the past few pages show, that doesn't look especially likely.

Roserover
03-18-2015, 05:44 PM
Please contribute to the discussion by stating what body of evidence led you towards thinking the Tocharians were R1a-Z93+. As the past few pages show, that doesn't look especially likely.

Because they are willing to think thus ...,In fact all the asia are Z93, India, Iran, incuding China where half
nothern part of it thus, and all the Hui is connect to Z93. And the Torcharian is thought to be the histric sorce of
R1a by historic books. Why not that?

newtoboard
03-19-2015, 12:18 AM
Because they are willing to think thus ...,In fact all the asia are Z93, India, Iran, incuding China where half
nothern part of it thus, and all the Hui is connect to Z93. And the Torcharian is thought to be the histric sorce of
R1a by historic books. Why not that?

Are you an ethnic Han with R1a?

newtoboard
03-19-2015, 12:20 AM
Also isn't there a language called Tocharian C spoken along the southern edge of the Tarim that showed significant Indo-Iranian (and especially Prakit influence)? Maybe those Tocharian speakers assimilated a lot of R1a-Z93+ and ended up being dominant over Tocharian A and Tocharian B speakers.

newtoboard
03-19-2015, 12:23 AM
I am reminded once more of an eerily accurate comment AJL made some years back regarding a particular form of R1a1a-M17 found in East-Central Asia. It apparently resembled NW European clusters best rather than that found in surrounding populations (if I recall his post correctly).



That had been my speculation also given the inference that the Yuezhi had elements of Tocharian within them. In fact, this recent thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3795-Split-The-Yuezhi-Who-Were-They) explores that very idea. I think you'll find it an interesting read.

The conclusion from that thread appears to be that non-Z93 R1a1a in South-Central Asia is exceedingly rare. The only cases picked up so far (Afghan and Uzbek Z282) are not close to one another STR-wise, suggesting different origins from a common Z282 pool. On top of that, I found no traces of Tocharian influence in linguistic textbooks on any of the SE Iranic languages spoken in South-Central Asia. Assuming R1a-Z93- was also found in Afanasievo, Afanasievo and related cultures in the region were linked to Tocharian, and there was a Tocharian element among the Yuezhi and their Kushan descendants, there are three inferences to be made on this (none mutually exclusive):

The Yuezhi/Kushan genetic contribution to South-Central Asia was negligible despite their long period of rule.
The Yuezhi/Kushan linguistic contribution to South-Central Asia was negligible despite their long period of rule.
The prominence of Tocharian-related elements among the Yuezhi/Kushan was smaller than we anticipated, or one of our earlier assumptions were incorrect.


Some counter-thoughts to the above, which are valid IMO:

The Yuezhi/Kushan genetic contribution to South-Central Asia may have been negligible in a region-wide sense, but there may be isolated locales of the region which received gene flow and this was amplified in terms of frequency since through genetic drift. The same way, for instance, one study found Y-DNA Q at a frequency of ~11% in Northwest Iran, despite later region-specific studies showing no such frequency spike in any general part of NW Iran.
Any Yuezhi/Kushan linguistic contribution to South-Central Asia hasn't been established yet. There may well be words of Tocharian origin that are present in dialects of Pashto. Linguistics is a dynamic field and we should not presume the current landscape is set in stone. For example, the first time a Tocharian origin for proto-Turkic gŁn was proposed (Tocharian A/B kom/kaum) was in 2003 by Lubotsky and Starostin.


That was based on STR's which ended up showing a relationship between Scandinavian Z284+ and Kazakh Z21223+ as well as Polish M458+ and South Asian L657+. It is unlikely any NW European (either Z284+ or CTS4385+/L664+) existed in the Tarim so we really have no answer to what this Z93- could have been because everything else is insignificant. Maybe the researchers made an error in their testing. I wish they would just release the data.

Roserover
03-19-2015, 04:14 AM
Are you an ethnic Han with R1a?

Yes, I'm han.

Roserover
03-19-2015, 04:16 AM
Yuezhi is the modern phinetic of the chinese words, In old phonetic should be "Rouzhi".

Roserover
03-19-2015, 10:07 PM
The rate of R1a in China is similar to that in west Europe, 5%. I guess by some facts that the traditonal Chinese
are not Z93, who are traditional families such as "wu,zhu",ect, but the northern Chinese especially ethnic Hui, mostly are
Z93, who by histry are thought possible from west immigration. The dependent test of Xiaohe must use bones, as to I know
Many people have pea on the tomb, so the test on soil or other materials is independent.

newtoboard
03-19-2015, 11:04 PM
The rate of R1a in China is similar to that in west Europe, 5%. I guess by some facts that the traditonal Chinese
are not Z93, who are traditional families such as "wu,zhu",ect, but the northern Chinese especially ethnic Hui, mostly are
Z93, who by histry are thought possible from west immigration. The dependent test of Xiaohe must use bones, as to I know
Many people have pea on the tomb, so the test on soil or other materials is independent.

Isn't it just as likely that Hui R1a comes from an ultimately Iranian source rather than a Tocharian source?

Roserover
03-20-2015, 12:54 AM
Yes, their history told by thenselves is that. But it doesn't exclude the east sorce, most Hui muslin are in fact han. Ancient China possible has Z93 before hui's incoming. Think about Kirkez and Altai, they have eastern face and R1a-Z93, So I guess
Chinese sorce of Z93 should not be a minus rate, Only for thousands years of Wars and migrations, R1a rates decrease to minos. If we believe the histry book most Chinese O in fact were slaves, and all from Han dynasty slave became emperor.

newtoboard
04-06-2015, 11:02 PM
Is it possible the authors of the study meant to type Z94 rather than Z93 in their comments? There seems to be a concentration of R1a-Z93(xZ94) near the Altai and as a minor component further south. That might make more sense. A while ago I would have disagreed with Z93 somehow being found in both Indo-Iranians and Tocharians because of the time depth and differences between these languages and I thought that was a valid argument. But the idea that Z2103+ could have been found among Tocharians and Greco-Armenians (in addition to Anatolians 1000 years before the migration of Tocharians) poses almost the exact same time depth and language difference (even larger if Z2103+ is associated with Anatolians) so who knows?

Jean M
04-07-2015, 12:04 AM
Is it possible the authors of the study meant to type Z94 rather than Z93 in their comments?

Could it be that you meant to type Z93 rather than Z94? No? Then why suppose an error in a clearly worded comment by the author?

newtoboard
04-07-2015, 12:07 AM
Could it be that you meant to type Z93 rather than Z94? No? Then why suppose an error in a clearly worded comment by the author?

Because there is no candidate for R1a-Z93- in the Tarim today or in any of the surrounding areas.

Coldmountains
04-07-2015, 12:25 AM
Because there is no candidate for R1a-Z93- in the Tarim today or in any of the surrounding areas.

Yes it would not be so surprising if R1a-Z93- would still exist in the Tarim basin but it is gone. Maybe Xiaohe mummies were not Tocharians and were replaced by Tocharian settlers later. I also can hardly believe that an entirely population which populated large parts of the northern Tarim Basin and existed till the 9th century AD simply died out . They had to leave at least tiny traces but it looks like they even failed to accomplish that. Nowhere in the world a population, which survived till the 9th century AD and had urban centers , died out without leaving genetic traces. But we dont know how numerous the Tocharian population was in the Tarim Basin and if Iranians were not already the majority in pre-turkic times.

Jean M
04-07-2015, 12:40 AM
Because there is no candidate for R1a-Z93- in the Tarim today or in any of the surrounding areas.

Is this any different from the multiple cases we are finding where ancient DNA is completely different from that of modern people in the same area today? Assumptions based purely on modern DNA and conviction of continuity have been proved wrong time and time again.

The Tocharians were driven out of the Tarim Basin. They moved west. What happened next I can't recall, but the fact that their language does not survive today suggests that they were not long-term big winners in the battle for survival. Where any descendants of theirs might be today I don't know, but I feel that it is best not to start with the assumption that modern DNA trumps aDNA.

newtoboard
04-07-2015, 12:49 AM
Is this any different from the multiple cases we are finding where ancient DNA is completely different from that of modern people in the same area today? Assumptions based purely on modern DNA and conviction of continuity have been proved wrong time and time again.

The Tocharians were driven out of the Tarim Basin. They moved west. What happened next I can't recall, but the fact that their language does not survive today suggests that they were not long-term big winners in the battle for survival. Where any descendants of theirs might be today I don't know, but I feel that it is best not to start with the assumption that modern DNA trumps aDNA.

I think it is a little different. In this case no R1a-Z93- exists at all. I think the idea that Tocharians moved west is based on the theory of Tocharians=Kushans. Even if that theory is true we should expect their descendants to be found in the heartland of the Kushan empire ie Tajikistan, Afghanistan, North Pakistan and North India. We don't see any R1a-Z93- there. And Turks had no problem absorbing Iranian speakers so why did Tocharian speakers who faced a similar fate linguistically leave no descendants when Iranian lineages are still found in Central Asian Turks?

Plus there is literally no clade that we know of that could account for R1a-Z93- that we know of. I believe every other major Z93- clade (Z280, M458, etc) is younger than 3400 BC. So I think the most likely scenario will be is that this Tarim R1a has to belong to some sort of Z645* or Z645 brother clade.

It was wrong of me to assume they made a mistake but this issue is mind boggling. If only they would release their data. I just think they had to have left some descendants. Not a lot but not even some. Where else has total population replacement occurred? As in the modern or surrounding population does not contain any of the ancient lineages found there. I guess the Motala hunters with their extinct I2a and I2c clades are the closest although I2a and I2c are both found in the regions surrounding Scandinavia.

Coldmountains
04-07-2015, 12:51 AM
Is this any different from the multiple cases we are finding where ancient DNA is completely different from that of modern people in the same area today? Assumptions based purely on modern DNA and conviction of continuity have been proved wrong time and time again.

The Tocharians were driven out of the Tarim Basin. The fact that their language does not survive today suggests that they were not long-term big winners in the battle for survival. Where any descendants of theirs might be today I don't know, but I feel that it is best not to start with the assumption that modern DNA trumps aDNA.

Yes, but Tocharians existed till the 9th century AD and not died out in the bronze age or in neolithic times when populations were much smaller and full population replacement was possible. Kazakh, Kirgiz and other Turks in formerly Indo-European areas got much of their paternal lineages from earlier populations but Uyghurs have no R1a-Z93- and it looks like that they got all of their pre-turkic ancestry from Iranians. Maybe the samples are not accurate because they were taken in the southern part of the Tarim Basin in formerly Saka territories and Uyghurs in the northern Tarim Basin have indeed R1a-Z93- ( i am speculating) or R1a-Z93- died already out before Uyghurs arrived so that at least late Tocharians can not be linked with it.

newtoboard
04-07-2015, 12:53 AM
Yes, but Tocharians existed till the 9th century AD and not died out in the bronze age or in neolithic times when populations were much smaller and full population replacement was possible. Kazakh, Kirgiz and other Turks in formerly Indo-European areas got much of their paternal lineages from earlier populations but Uyghurs have no R1a-Z93- and it looks like that they got all of their pre-turkic ancestry from Iranians. Maybe the samples are not accurate because they were taken in the southern part of the Tarim Basin in formerly Saka territories and Uyghurs in the northern Tarim Basin have indeed R1a-Z93- ( i am speculating) or R1a-Z93- died already out before Uyghurs arrived so that at least late Tocharians can not be linked with it.

Xiahoe (where the samples are from) is in the Easternmost Tarim, in a region where Iranian speakers have never been known to exist nor a region that has ever been associated with Andronovo artifacts. Xiahoe is practically in Gansu. That is how far east it is.

newtoboard
04-07-2015, 12:54 AM
And the southern part of the Tarim was home to Tocharian C. Iranian speakers most lived in the cities and Western+ Northern rims.

Coldmountains
04-07-2015, 01:08 AM
Xiahoe (where the samples are from) is in the Easternmost Tarim, in a region where Iranian speakers have never been known to exist nor a region that has ever been associated with Andronovo artifacts. Xiahoe is practically in Gansu. That is how far east it is.

Nobody knows who were the Xiahoe mummies actually. Surely Indo-Europeans but linking them with Tocharians is speculative and in such an early stage R1a lineages were probably very diverse even when only a tiny number of people carried this haplogroup compared to today. Founder effects and bottleneck effects led to the extinction of many minor branches and lineages so that i think that Proto-Tocharians or Proto-Indo-Iranians had a much higher diversity of R1a than their descendants

Roserover
04-10-2015, 12:22 PM
Nobody knows who were the Xiahoe mummies actually. Surely Indo-Europeans but linking them with Tocharians is speculative and in such an early stage R1a lineages were probably very diverse even when only a tiny number of people carried this haplogroup compared to today. Founder effects and bottleneck effects led to the extinction of many minor branches and lineages so that i think that Proto-Tocharians or Proto-Indo-Iranians had a much higher diversity of R1a than their descendants

That recall me the first test of year by Chinese Acedamy is 4000-5000BC, but japnese modify it by the reason that it will change the history book.

newtoboard
04-10-2015, 11:52 PM
Is the Tarim R1a from the Qawrighul culture Mallory talks about? The location seems to fit.