PDA

View Full Version : In what archealogical cltures wll the ancestors of R1a-L657 and R1a-Tarim be found?



newtoboard
08-16-2015, 03:35 PM
All the Sintashta, Andronovo, and Karasuk samples from Allenoft et all seem to be be Z2123+ derived and I think the same has been predicted for the older Andronovo and Scythio-Siberian sampes. Unlike others I don't think Sintashta came from the west during after 2800 BC but was derived from Abashevo's South Ural variant. It's MN ancestry could date back to the interaction of some combination of Bug-Dniester/Dnieper-Donets/Sredny-Stog with Tripoyle. I expect the Volga and Don variants of Abashevo to be R1a-Z93(xZ2124) and R1a-Z2122+ derived. All this is consistent with a lack of R1a-L657 in Europe compared with other R1a-Z93 lineages. So where does that leave L657+ during the Abashevo period? If Michal is right about yfull underestimating by 10-20% and clades expanding 500 years after then it originated about 3760-3280 BC and expanded 500 years. What was east of Abashevo? How was R1a-L657+ able to separate itself? Or is it possible it will show up in the above cultures with more testing. Maybe South Andronovo was where R1a-L657+ separated from R1a-Z2123?

And what of R1a-Tarim? Any path through the steppe and forest steppe should have been blocked by R1b-L23 and R1a-Z93 respectively. And a migration through the forest zone looks unlikely especially given the lack of any other lineages among the R1a-Tarim group besides besides a K which is probably a local L or T related to the partially West-Central Asian character of the Tarim such as influences in oasis farming. So what is this R1a-Tarim specifically? Did it die out or is it the ancestor of Asian Z282-A? And what European culture did it come from? It predates Andronovo and Corded Ware is unlikely as mentioned above.

parasar
08-16-2015, 04:23 PM
All the Sintashta, Andronovo, and Karasuk samples from Allenoft et all seem to be be Z2123+ derived and I think the same has been predicted for the older Andronovo and Scythio-Siberian sampes. Unlike others I don't think Sintashta came from the west during after 2800 BC but was derived from Abashevo's South Ural variant. It's MN ancestry could date back to the interaction of some combination of Bug-Dniester/Dnieper-Donets/Sredny-Stog with Tripoyle. I expect the Volga and Don variants of Abashevo to be R1a-Z93(xZ2124) and R1a-Z2122+ derived. All this is consistent with a lack of R1a-L657 in Europe compared with other R1a-Z93 lineages. So where does that leave L657+ during the Abashevo period? If Michal is right about yfull underestimating by 10-20% and clades expanding 500 years after then it originated about 3760-3280 BC and expanded 500 years. What was east of Abashevo? How was R1a-L657+ able to separate itself? Or is it possible it will show up in the above cultures with more testing. Maybe South Andronovo was where R1a-L657+ separated from R1a-Z2123?

And what of R1a-Tarim? Any path through the steppe and forest steppe should have been blocked by R1b-L23 and R1a-Z93 respectively. And a migration through the forest zone looks unlikely especially given the lack of any other lineages among the R1a-Tarim group besides besides a K which is probably a local L or T related to the partially West-Central Asian character of the Tarim such as influences in oasis farming. So what is this R1a-Tarim specifically? Did it die out or is it the ancestor of Asian Z282-A? And what European culture did it come from? It predates Andronovo and Corded Ware is unlikely as mentioned above.

Going by the assumption that modern R distribution was set the Bronze age, I would expect to find R1a1-L657 in BMAC, portions Iran+Central Asia, Ariana, Aria, Indus Valley region. I have a feeling L657 moves east to the Gangetic zone only after the demise of IVC.
The distribution almost parallels the Aryan lands mentioned in the Avesta - Sogdiana, Margiana, Bactria, Nisa, Herat, Gandhara, Ghazni, Balochistan, Arachosia, Helmand, Buner, Udyana, Punjab, Sindh, Kabul

The R1axZ93 in the Xiaohe-Tarim is quite likely xZ283 too going by modern distribution. But then again we seeing some trace Z283 crop up in NW portions of the subcontinent, so there is also a likelihood of Xiaohe being Z283.

For context, a map posted by Tomenable
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5053-Over-50-ancient-R1a-samples-in-the-context-of-archaeological-cultures&p=102151&viewfull=1#post102151
http://s23.postimg.org/nen0yig57/R1a_Asia_dates.png

alan
08-16-2015, 04:31 PM
All the Sintashta, Andronovo, and Karasuk samples from Allenoft et all seem to be be Z2123+ derived and I think the same has been predicted for the older Andronovo and Scythio-Siberian sampes. Unlike others I don't think Sintashta came from the west during after 2800 BC but was derived from Abashevo's South Ural variant. It's MN ancestry could date back to the interaction of some combination of Bug-Dniester/Dnieper-Donets/Sredny-Stog with Tripoyle. I expect the Volga and Don variants of Abashevo to be R1a-Z93(xZ2124) and R1a-Z2122+ derived. All this is consistent with a lack of R1a-L657 in Europe compared with other R1a-Z93 lineages. So where does that leave L657+ during the Abashevo period? If Michal is right about yfull underestimating by 10-20% and clades expanding 500 years after then it originated about 3760-3280 BC and expanded 500 years. What was east of Abashevo? How was R1a-L657+ able to separate itself? Or is it possible it will show up in the above cultures with more testing. Maybe South Andronovo was where R1a-L657+ separated from R1a-Z2123?

And what of R1a-Tarim? Any path through the steppe and forest steppe should have been blocked by R1b-L23 and R1a-Z93 respectively. And a migration through the forest zone looks unlikely especially given the lack of any other lineages among the R1a-Tarim group besides besides a K which is probably a local L or T related to the partially West-Central Asian character of the Tarim such as influences in oasis farming. So what is this R1a-Tarim specifically? Did it die out or is it the ancestor of Asian Z282-A? And what European culture did it come from? It predates Andronovo and Corded Ware is unlikely as mentioned above.

The Tarim mummies may not be linked to Afansievo or Tocharian. We will not be able to resolve this until we get yDNA in numbers from actual Afanasievo. Its hard to imagine how Afansievo wont turn out to be Z2103 though given it is a Repin-Yamnaya offshoot from the same general area and time that all that Z2103 is showing up. That is the main reason I doubt the Tarim-Afanasievo correlation although I admit the Tocharian-Afansievo correlation does make a lot of sense.

One thing about the story of Afanasievo that seems to be talked little about is that after its departure from Europe to around Altai, that wasnt the end of contacts with the Euro-steppes. Apparently contacts remained with Europe after the move for many centuries. So actually Afansievo is not quite the total isolate it is sometimes portrayed as. Meanwhile back in the Euro steppes things were changing and would not have been the same as when they departed for Altai centuries earlier. So, what I wonder is did those later contacts bring new lineages.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-16-2015, 04:34 PM
All the Sintashta, Andronovo, and Karasuk samples from Allenoft et all seem to be be Z2123+ derived and I think the same has been predicted for the older Andronovo and Scythio-Siberian sampes. Unlike others I don't think Sintashta came from the west during after 2800 BC but was derived from Abashevo's South Ural variant. It's MN ancestry could date back to the interaction of some combination of Bug-Dniester/Dnieper-Donets/Sredny-Stog with Tripoyle. I expect the Volga and Don variants of Abashevo to be R1a-Z93(xZ2124) and R1a-Z2122+ derived. All this is consistent with a lack of R1a-L657 in Europe compared with other R1a-Z93 lineages. So where does that leave L657+ during the Abashevo period? If Michal is right about yfull underestimating by 10-20% and clades expanding 500 years after then it originated about 3760-3280 BC and expanded 500 years. What was east of Abashevo? How was R1a-L657+ able to separate itself? Or is it possible it will show up in the above cultures with more testing. Maybe South Andronovo was where R1a-L657+ separated from R1a-Z2123?

And what of R1a-Tarim? Any path through the steppe and forest steppe should have been blocked by R1b-L23 and R1a-Z93 respectively. And a migration through the forest zone looks unlikely especially given the lack of any other lineages among the R1a-Tarim group besides besides a K which is probably a local L or T related to the partially West-Central Asian character of the Tarim such as influences in oasis farming. So what is this R1a-Tarim specifically? Did it die out or is it the ancestor of Asian Z282-A? And what European culture did it come from? It predates Andronovo and Corded Ware is unlikely as mentioned above.

Why "blocked "?
That's not how things operated in reality . One didn't have to submit a buccal swab for testing in order to move anywhere, if indeed that's what actually happened

Gravetto-Danubian
08-16-2015, 04:39 PM
I can't escape but feel that R1a was "native" in North eurasia, but not R1b . Hence the R1a x z93 in Xiaohe. This continuum was perhaps broken by R1b, then again reestablished as newer R1a (Z93) lineage moved east & southeast.

parasar
08-16-2015, 04:47 PM
Why "blocked "?
That's not how things operated in reality . One didn't have to submit a buccal swab for testing in order to move anywhere, if indeed that's what actually happened

Right! Especially as some have posited a Repin transplant to and subsequent interactions with Afanasevo.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYjHf43XdJZTxJBvVzsq2gCRvzL8ToF gJbPvVHI8COhGiBK-ns

parasar
08-16-2015, 04:48 PM
I can't escape but feel that R1a was "native" in North eurasia, but not R1b . Hence the R1a x z93 in Xiaohe. This continuum was perhaps broken by R1b, then again reestablished as newer R1a (Z93) lineage moved east & southeast.

Are you excluding Samara from North Eurasia?

alan
08-16-2015, 05:03 PM
Of course the web rumour of two M269's and one unresolved R1b out of three Afanasievo samples found by Aleksey Kovalev look a great deal more plausible since all that Z2103 was found in Yamnaya.

Coldmountains
08-16-2015, 05:45 PM
All the Sintashta, Andronovo, and Karasuk samples from Allenoft et all seem to be be Z2123+ derived and I think the same has been predicted for the older Andronovo and Scythio-Siberian sampes. Unlike others I don't think Sintashta came from the west during after 2800 BC but was derived from Abashevo's South Ural variant. It's MN ancestry could date back to the interaction of some combination of Bug-Dniester/Dnieper-Donets/Sredny-Stog with Tripoyle. I expect the Volga and Don variants of Abashevo to be R1a-Z93(xZ2124) and R1a-Z2122+ derived. All this is consistent with a lack of R1a-L657 in Europe compared with other R1a-Z93 lineages. So where does that leave L657+ during the Abashevo period? If Michal is right about yfull underestimating by 10-20% and clades expanding 500 years after then it originated about 3760-3280 BC and expanded 500 years. What was east of Abashevo? How was R1a-L657+ able to separate itself? Or is it possible it will show up in the above cultures with more testing. Maybe South Andronovo was where R1a-L657+ separated from R1a-Z2123?

And what of R1a-Tarim? Any path through the steppe and forest steppe should have been blocked by R1b-L23 and R1a-Z93 respectively. And a migration through the forest zone looks unlikely especially given the lack of any other lineages among the R1a-Tarim group besides besides a K which is probably a local L or T related to the partially West-Central Asian character of the Tarim such as influences in oasis farming. So what is this R1a-Tarim specifically? Did it die out or is it the ancestor of Asian Z282-A? And what European culture did it come from? It predates Andronovo and Corded Ware is unlikely as mentioned above.

L657 will be found in the earliest phases of the Sintashta and Andronovo cultures in their most eastern and southern zones. I would be surprised if L657 is not from Sintashta or a very nearby culture. It were L657 rich Indo-Aryans which entered West Asia and South Central Asia earlier than Z2123 rich Iranians. It is also interesting to note that Indo-Aryan loanwords in Uralic languages are more archaic and older than the Iranian loanwords.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-16-2015, 06:35 PM
Are you excluding Samara from North Eurasia?

Ha ha, no.
Ok poor wording perhaps
Maybe that R1b expanded first, and the M269 R1b carried something more Central asian, then there was a R1a expansion- a specifically european branch.

parasar
08-16-2015, 06:53 PM
L657 will be found in the earliest phases of the Sintashta and Andronovo cultures in their most eastern and southern zones. I would be surprised if L657 is not from Sintashta or a very nearby culture. It were L657 rich Indo-Aryans which entered West Asia and South Central Asia earlier than Z2123 rich Iranians. It is also interesting to note that Indo-Aryan loanwords in Uralic languages are more archaic and older than the Iranian loanwords.

We have sequences from a huge geographical zone covering cultures from Andronovo through Tashtyk - a period of 2200 years - with no L657. This to an extent supports what Mallory has posited.
https://books.google.com/books?id=juivCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA300

alan
08-16-2015, 07:02 PM
Anyone read The Origin of the Indo-Iranians By Kuzʹmin and Mallory. I have seen bits of it on google books and what I have seen looks excellent. Way too expensive to consider buying though.

parasar
08-16-2015, 07:09 PM
Of course the web rumour of two M269's and one unresolved R1b out of three Afanasievo samples found by Aleksey Kovalev look a great deal more plausible since all that Z2103 was found in Yamnaya.

That rumor included an R1b-M269 from Okunevo too.
Two out of three Afanasievans and one Okunevan were R1b-M269, one Afanasievan - R1bxM269, a very Samara-Yamna like makeup, though the author posited a French connection.
http://pereformat.ru/2014/05/arbins-2/

Полагаю, Вам будет интересно узнать, что мой ученик Алексей Ковалев, тот самый, который исследовал чемурчекскую культуру Алтая, Монголии и Синьцзяна (видимо, тохары), и выпустил сейчас уже две книги о ней, добился анализов ДНК по афанасьевцам и окуневцам. Два из трех афанасьевцев и один окуневец оказались R1b1 (M269), а один афанасьевец – R1b. Ковалев же имеет радиуглеродные даты по многим афанасьевцам: калибров. 3000-2600 до н.э… Чемурчекская культура совершенно четко из Франции.

parasar
08-16-2015, 07:12 PM
Anyone read The Origin of the Indo-Iranians By Kuzʹmin and Mallory. I have seen bits of it on google books and what I have seen looks excellent. Way too expensive to consider buying though.
https://ia800503.us.archive.org/30/items/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranians/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranian.pdf
https://archive.org/details/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranians

Coldmountains
08-16-2015, 07:32 PM
We have sequences from a huge geographical zone covering cultures from Andronovo through Tashtyk - a period of 2200 years - with no L657. This to an extent supports what Mallory has posited.
https://books.google.com/books?id=juivCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA300
I see your point but L657 and let not forget Y40 must originate from the northwest in the end and are certainly Steppe lineages as much as Z2124. L657 and Y40 were not found there yet but the Andronovo horizon is huge and we have zero samples from the southern part of early Andronovo. So I am not surprised by the lack of it because already before we knew that Indo-Aryans were the first which moved south and which left the steppe first . Indo-Aryans were the first which moved into BMAC territory and they acculturated many local elements. Some of the proposed "BMAC" loanwords entered Iranian languages via an Indo-Aryan source and not directly via a "BMAC" source. Other L657 outside of the Indian subcontinent was often replaced by new incoming Z2124 and lost the elite status so that it decreased by time. The domination and high frequency of L657 in India is the result of rapid population growth thanks to rich natural resources. The newcomers spread their lineages so successfully despite of being for a long time a minority and absorbing most of the local autosomal dna because of the strict patriarchal culture of Indo-Aryans and later established strict endogamy . This question is maybe slightly off topic but do you know to which subclades Nuristani and Kalash belong (Z2124, L657, Y40)? They represent the earliest Indo-Iranian populations of the Hindukush so it would be interesting to know if they differ in terms of R1a subclades from Pashtuns and Tajiks.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-16-2015, 08:27 PM
Anyone read The Origin of the Indo-Iranians By Kuzʹmin and Mallory. I have seen bits of it on google books and what I have seen looks excellent. Way too expensive to consider buying though.

"Excellent" as in a very traditional explanation, unfortunately lacking the kind of nuance one would obtain from scholars like van der Linden or Frachetti, as well as an absence of much raw data from Central Asia.

parasar
08-16-2015, 09:28 PM
I see your point but L657 and let not forget Y40 must originate from the northwest in the end and are certainly Steppe lineages as much as Z2124. L657 and Y40 were not found there yet but the Andronovo horizon is huge and we have zero samples from the southern part of early Andronovo. So I am not surprised by the lack of it because already before we knew that Indo-Aryans were the first which moved south and which left the steppe first . Indo-Aryans were the first which moved into BMAC territory and they acculturated many local elements. Some of the proposed "BMAC" loanwords entered Iranian languages via an Indo-Aryan source and not directly via a "BMAC" source. Other L657 outside of the Indian subcontinent was often replaced by new incoming Z2124 and lost the elite status so that it decreased by time. The domination and high frequency of L657 in India is the result of rapid population growth thanks to rich natural resources. The newcomers spread their lineages so successfully despite of being for a long time a minority and absorbing most of the local autosomal dna because of the strict patriarchal culture of Indo-Aryans and later established strict endogamy . This question is maybe slightly off topic but do you know to which subclades Nuristani and Kalash belong (Z2124, L657, Y40)? They represent the earliest Indo-Iranian populations of the Hindukush so it would be interesting to know if they differ in terms of R1a subclades from Pashtuns and Tajiks.

No downstream SNP data on them. I would think all three. On Underhill's Z93* map, a good assumption would be that much if not all are Y40 indicating that all three varieties are present in the region.
http://eng.molgen.org/download/file.php?id=548&mode=view&sid=13f939ff0e796b3fc450d4c350f4632b

Also that is region where we see R2-M479 dropping off. Pre-Mal'ta my thinking was that M417 originated in NW Europe and then moved east. One of the pit-falls of that theory always has been R2 and that dropoff. I still think R2 is key to understanding how R1 spread as we can see from the phylogeny. On the other hand, in addition to South Asia, R2-M479xM124 is indeed present in trace amounts among Europeans - Portugal, Spain, Russia/Bashkort, Italy, Ossetia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/bin/ejhg2010146x5.xls
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/bin/ejhg2010146f1a.jpg

alan
08-16-2015, 09:30 PM
https://ia800503.us.archive.org/30/items/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranians/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranian.pdf
https://archive.org/details/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranians

Thank you - much appreciated

newtoboard
08-16-2015, 11:58 PM
Thank you - much appreciated

Some of this book is is clearly outdated especially in the light of Z2103 in these cultures. Even giving Federovo an Indo-Aryan identity is wrong imo given the Allenoft Andronovo samples are probably Federovo and they came back Z2123 and not L657.

From The origin of the Indo-Iranians


The process of ethnogenesis in the steppes in the 2nd millennium BC was of
an autochthonous character of development, involving integration and migration,
which was strengthened in the 17th–16th centuries BC, probably because of the
appearance of the chariot and bronze casting. In the west of Andronovo territory,
the Sintashta-Petrovka type sites were formed as a result of the influence of wes-
tern cultures (Poltavka, Abashevo, Catacomb, Multi-roller Ware); the Timber-
grave culture was formed simultaneously under the influence of the same
components.



Asko Parpola (2002a, b) in his latest works has developed his idea that the
BMAC was already aryanized by the Andronovans, and its population formed a
distinct group, the D
sa (Parpola 1988: 216 f.; 1994; 1995). The controversial
question about the D
sa will not be discussed here. One of the Saka tribes was
called D
sa in the 1st millennium BC. In the
Rigveda
the D
sa are depicted as
enemies of the Aryans having marked Veddoid anthropological features. In A.
Parpola’s (as well as J. Mallory’s) opinion, the Pit-grave culture was Proto-
Graeco-Armeno-Indo-Iranian. He also assumes that the separation of the Indo-
Iranians took place already in the third millennium BC, so that the creators of the
Poltavka culture became Pre-Proto-Iranians and the creators of the Abashevo
culture became Pre-Proto-Indo-Aryans. This is an erroneous statement, however.
First, the language and mythology of the
Rigveda
and
Avesta
are very close to
each other. This is evidence of long and close contacts between both Aryan
branches. Secondly, as it has been said, the Abashevo culture belonged to the fo-rest, not to the steppe cultural region. It was genetically related to the Fatyanovo
culture and belonged to the Corded ware horizon of Northern Europe (Kuz’mina
O. 2000). The founders of these cultures are regarded by many scholars (and A.
Parpola is among them) as the common source for the Italo-Celtic, Germanic,
and Balto-Slavic branches of Indo-European. Finally, as it has been repeatedly
emphasized, the whole complex of features that distinguish Indo-Iranian culture
from other Indo-European cultures cannot be archaeologically traced earlier than
the monuments of the Sintashta and Potapovka types; the Indo-Iranian culture,
therefore, could not be veritably correlated with an archaeological reality earlier
than 2100 – 1800 cal. BC. If one wishes to engage in speculative constructions,
only the creators of the Poltavka, on the one hand, and Catacomb, on the other,
should be considered as the probable Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian. The former culture
developed from the Pit-grave culture under the influence of the Catacomb culture
(Kuznetsov 2003). The genesis of the latter culture is still a subject of debate; it
is obvious, however, that it was closely related to the Pit-grave culture (Kiyashko
2002). A. Parpola has connected the subsequent history of the Indo-Iranians with
the steppe cultures of the 2nd millennium BC. The tribes of the Timber-grave
culture he regards as Iranians, and the Andronovans as Indo-Aryans.



The discovery of the Sintashta cemetery in the Urals with its burials of
warrior-charioteers accompanied by a rich set of arms, chariots, pairs of draught
horses and cheek-pieces for their harnessing and burial 25 in the Novy Kumak
cemetery prompted K. F. Smirnov and myself (1976; 1977) to propose a Novo-
kumak chronological horizon that unites sites of the Urals and western and
northern Kazakhstan. On the basis of the stratigraphic position of the Novo-
kumak kurgan the horizon can be set between the Catacomb culture and the
developed Andronovo culture of the Alakul’ type. At this time the characteristic
cheek-pieces are found as far as Mycenae and the horizon is dated to the 17th–
16th centuries BC. Most important is the bold suggestion that the Novokumak-
Sintashta horizon formed in the Urals as a result of a migration from the west
and the assimilation of several East European cultures—the Catacomb culture (in
its later development as the Multi-roller Ware culture), the Abashevo culture
(within the large number of Corded Ware cultures of Europe), and the Poltavka
culture which reflects a later derivative of the Pit-grave culture along the Volga
and in the Urals.
The most important characteristics of the Novokumak sites that help define
an ethnic group—kurgan burial, timber structure in burial chamber, ritual animal
burials, cult of the horse and vehicle—derive from Eastern Europe; they are not
found in the local Neolithic which itself may be traced to west of the Urals
during the 4th–3rd millennium BC. The similarity among jars and pot-like
vessels with a ridge on the shoulder among the Sintashta, Petrovka and Poltavka
cultures is a product of their method of manufacture. Another important
component of the Novokumak horizon is the Abashevo culture which is
demonstrated by vessels of particular Abashevo form with projection on the rim
of the vessel, Abashevo types of decoration and some features of the burial rite
(flat graves). The similarity with the Multi-roller Ware culture is seen in the
distribution within the Novokumak complexes of vessels that imitate Multi-roller
types in form and ornament, modeled cones, herring-bone motifs divided by
vertical lines (Smirnov and Kuz’mina 1977: fig. 9). V. F. Gening (1977)
accepted the participation of western cultures in the formation of Sintashta.
Potapovka burials and Utëvka VI, which has been assigned to the Potapovka
type, are related to the burials from the Urals; at present they are known in the
Middle Volga region. They are considered to be the genetic predecessors of the
Timber-grave burials (Vasil’ev
et al.
1991; 1992; 1994; 1995). Elite warrior burials with weapons and cheek-pieces that have been recovered from the Don
region are assigned to the Don-Volga Abashevo culture (Pryakhin and Matveev
1991; Pryakhin, Besedin
et al.
1989; 1990; 1991; 1998; Pryakhin and Besedin
1998; Matveev
et al.
1995) or to the late Pokrovskiy-Abashevo culture (Sinyuk
1996; Sinyuk
et al.
1995). Stratified sites provide information concerning the formation and develop-
ment of these complexes. The earliest Catacomb culture on the Don is replaced
by the Abashevo culture which is, in turn, covered by the Timber-grave culture
(Matveev
et al.
1995: 78; Sinyuk
et al.
1995: 40-49; Moiseev
et al.
1995: 75).
A series of Catacomb sites have b
een found on the Lower Volga which
precede Timber-grave sites (Malov and Filipchenko 1995; Dremov 1996). The
coexistence of the Poltavka and Abashevo complexes has been established for
the Middle Volga in Aleksandrovka (Vasil’ev
et al.
1995). At the settlement site
of Kuysak in the Urals the lower layer exhibits Poltavka ceramics; the middle
layer is mixed with Abashevo ware; and in the upper layer vessels of the
Sintashta type are found which reflect a synthesis of the original components
(Malyutina
et al.
1995). Al
ong the Ilek, isolated Poltavka burials are found in the
cemeteries of Zhaman-Kargala, Tanabergen and Imangazy-Karasu; subsequent
burials, situated in a circle and destroying the earlier ones, were of the Sintashta
type (Tkachev 1996: 64; 1998: 42). At the cemetery of Bol’shekaragan in
kurgans 11 and 24 one finds Poltavka and Sintashta vessels coexisting; the later
ceramics of kurgans 20 and 22 are similar to those of Petrovka and the Timber-
grave culture (Batalov
et al.
1996: 86-88).
There is evidence that permits us to distinguish two stages within the
Novokumak horizon. On the settlement of Ust’e the earlier occupation belongs
to the Sintashta type with its oval plan while this is covered by a later settlement
of rectangular form which may be assigned to the Petrovka type (Vinogradov
1995a: 17; 1999). The same sequence is evident from other settlements on the
basis of aerial survey (Batanina 1995; Zdanovich G. and D. 1995: 50; Zdanovich
1997: 59; Nelin 1999: 17). A similar development from Sintashta to Petrovka
type has been observed in the cemeteries of Krivoe Ozero, Stepnoe, Kamenny
Ambar, Bol’shekaragan, Tanabergen (Vinogradov 1995a: 26; 1999: 66; Kostyu-
kov
et al.
1995: 173; Batalov
et al.
1996: 86-88; Tkachev 1995; 1998: 42-46;
Epimakhov 1998: 180; Figs. 59-64).
Thus, the formation of the complexes of the Novokumak horizon occurred
due to the assimilation of tribes living in the vicinity of the Urals who belonged
to the wide range of European cultures—Pit-grave, Poltavka, Catacomb and the
more northerly Abashevo. They played different roles in the various regions
which accounts for their local characteristics. They probably witnessed a long
process of consolidation which presupposes a bilingual population. This is why it
does not seem accurate to provide a purely Aryan attribution to the Sintashta
people.

Agamemnon
08-17-2015, 02:58 AM
L657 will be found in the earliest phases of the Sintashta and Andronovo cultures in their most eastern and southern zones. I would be surprised if L657 is not from Sintashta or a very nearby culture. It were L657 rich Indo-Aryans which entered West Asia and South Central Asia earlier than Z2123 rich Iranians. It is also interesting to note that Indo-Aryan loanwords in Uralic languages are more archaic and older than the Iranian loanwords.

Basically what I was about to say :P

parasar
08-17-2015, 03:19 AM
... Even giving Federovo an Indo-Aryan identity is wrong imo given the Allenoft Andronovo samples are probably Federovo and they came back Z2123 and not L657.
...

I think you are assuming that Z2123 and/or Z2124 is not Indo-Aryan, right? What if Parpola is correct that there were two types of Indo-Aryans? - the BMAC-early Indus type and the Vedic ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians
"Parpola (1999) suggests the following identifications:
1900–1700 BC BMAC "Proto-Dasa" Indo-Aryans
1800–1000 BC Alakul-Fedorovo Indo-Aryan ... "Proto–Sauma-Aryan""

Coldmountains
08-21-2015, 07:37 AM
No downstream SNP data on them. I would think all three. On Underhill's Z93* map, a good assumption would be that much if not all are Y40 indicating that all three varieties are present in the region.
http://eng.molgen.org/download/file.php?id=548&mode=view&sid=13f939ff0e796b3fc450d4c350f4632b

Also that is region where we see R2-M479 dropping off. Pre-Mal'ta my thinking was that M417 originated in NW Europe and then moved east. One of the pit-falls of that theory always has been R2 and that dropoff. I still think R2 is key to understanding how R1 spread as we can see from the phylogeny. On the other hand, in addition to South Asia, R2-M479xM124 is indeed present in trace amounts among Europeans - Portugal, Spain, Russia/Bashkort, Italy, Ossetia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/bin/ejhg2010146x5.xls
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/bin/ejhg2010146f1a.jpg

I found out that the HGDP Kalash samples were 25% L1c-M357 (PK3 branch), 20% G2a2b2a-P303, 20% H1a1-M82, 20% R1a-Z2125, 5% J2a1*-Page55(xJ2a1a-M322, J2a1b-M67, J2a1h-M530), 5% J2b2-M241, 5% R2*-M479. The lack of L657 is quite interesting and they just have R1a-Z2125. They lived isolated since the Bronze Age and are Indo-Aryan speaking and not Iranian. This is quite confusing because all other populations in Afghanistan have some L657 and among Tajiks and Uzbeks it is almost as high as Z2124. Maybe it is just a founder effect or the sample is too small. L657 was found also among Pamir Tajiks and Uyghurs and is quite high among Baluch. There are no information about Nuristani but they are linguistically quite distinct from Iranian and Indo-Aryan/Dardic populations so it would be very interesting to know more about their Z93 clades. Burusho have Y40 so I am sure it will be found among other Hindukush people. I read from one of your older posts that Xiongnu had also some L657 can you confirm that? I doubt it had anything to do with Buddhist monks.


Similarly in the other direction we have Indic R1a1 as east as in "2,000-year-old Xiongnu elite cemetery in Duurlig Nars of Northeast Mongolia." The Di Christofaro, J. et al. Hindu Kush, Afghanistan MG3 sample set has L657 in Mongolia, again perhaps as part of the historical movement of Buddhist monks
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2347-New-R1a-paper-by-Underhill-et-al/page13

Coldmountains
08-21-2015, 11:13 AM
All the Sintashta, Andronovo, and Karasuk samples from Allenoft et all seem to be be Z2123+ derived and I think the same has been predicted for the older Andronovo and Scythio-Siberian sampes. Unlike others I don't think Sintashta came from the west during after 2800 BC but was derived from Abashevo's South Ural variant. It's MN ancestry could date back to the interaction of some combination of Bug-Dniester/Dnieper-Donets/Sredny-Stog with Tripoyle. I expect the Volga and Don variants of Abashevo to be R1a-Z93(xZ2124) and R1a-Z2122+ derived. All this is consistent with a lack of R1a-L657 in Europe compared with other R1a-Z93 lineages. So where does that leave L657+ during the Abashevo period? If Michal is right about yfull underestimating by 10-20% and clades expanding 500 years after then it originated about 3760-3280 BC and expanded 500 years. What was east of Abashevo? How was R1a-L657+ able to separate itself? Or is it possible it will show up in the above cultures with more testing. Maybe South Andronovo was where R1a-L657+ separated from R1a-Z2123?

And what of R1a-Tarim? Any path through the steppe and forest steppe should have been blocked by R1b-L23 and R1a-Z93 respectively. And a migration through the forest zone looks unlikely especially given the lack of any other lineages among the R1a-Tarim group besides besides a K which is probably a local L or T related to the partially West-Central Asian character of the Tarim such as influences in oasis farming. So what is this R1a-Tarim specifically? Did it die out or is it the ancestor of Asian Z282-A? And what European culture did it come from? It predates Andronovo and Corded Ware is unlikely as mentioned above.

Klyosov actually wrote that L657 was found in Ancient Mongolia/Eastern Andronovo but not sure what others say about that and if this is confirmed.


The R1a-Z93 subclade (South Eastern branch) arose 5700 ybp;its concurrent Z283 subclade (Eurasian branch) subclade arose 5500 ybp (Rozhanskii & Klyosov, 2012), and they migrated eastward from Europe to the Russian Plain and further east, toAltai, Mongolia, China. Skeletal remains of the R1a haplogroup were excavated 3000 kilometers east of Ural Mountains,slightly north of Mongolia and China, dated 3800 - 3400 ybp(Keyser et al., 2009). The remains were identified as belonging to the R1a-Z93-L342.2-L657 subclade (Klyosov, 2013), which came to India and Iran about 3600 ybp
http://www.academia.edu/4220221/A_DNA_genealogy_solution_to_the_puzzle_of_ancient_ look-alike_ceramics_across_the_world

parasar
08-21-2015, 03:05 PM
I found out that the HGDP Kalash samples were 25% L1c-M357 (PK3 branch), 20% G2a2b2a-P303, 20% H1a1-M82, 20% R1a-Z2125, 5% J2a1*-Page55(xJ2a1a-M322, J2a1b-M67, J2a1h-M530), 5% J2b2-M241, 5% R2*-M479. The lack of L657 is quite interesting and they just have R1a-Z2125.

It is certain that the Kalash samples are Z2125. Even though Underhill did not specifically state, it can be deduced.
We know that of the HGDP samples 4 Kalash are R1a1 and separated by one step:

782 HGDP00302 Kalash Pakistan North South Asia Indo-European M017 R1a1 17 12 16 13 24 11 11 13 10 9
783 HGDP00307 Kalash Pakistan North South Asia Indo-European M017 R1a1 17 12 16 13 24 11 11 13 10 9
786 HGDP00313 Kalash Pakistan North South Asia Indo-European M017 R1a1 16 12 16 13 24 11 11 13 10 9
787 HGDP00315 Kalash Pakistan North South Asia Indo-European M017 R1a1 16 12 16 13 24 11 11 13 10 9

796 HGDP00216 Pathan Pakistan North South Asia Indo-European M017 R1a1 17 12 17 13 24 12 11 13 10 9
802 HGDP00228 Pathan Pakistan North South Asia Indo-European M017 R1a1 16 12 17 13 24 11 11 13 10 9
803 HGDP00230 Pathan Pakistan North South Asia Indo-European M017 R1a1 17 12 17 13 24 11 11 13 10 9
805 HGDP00241 Pathan Pakistan North South Asia Indo-European M017 R1a1 15 12 17 13 24 11 11 13 10 9
806 HGDP00243 Pathan Pakistan North South Asia Indo-European M017 R1a1 17 12 18 13 24 10 11 13 10 9
811 HGDP00259 Pathan Pakistan North South Asia Indo-European M017 R1a1 17 12 18 13 24 10 11 13 10 9
812 HGDP00262 Pathan Pakistan North South Asia Indo-European M017 R1a1 17 12 17 13 24 12 11 13 10 9
813 HGDP00264 Pathan Pakistan North South Asia Indo-European M017 R1a1 17 12 17 13 25 11 11 13 10 9

729 HGDP00341 Burusho Pakistan North South Asia Burushaski* M017 R1a1 16 12 16 13 25 10 12 13 10 9
730 HGDP00346 Burusho Pakistan North South Asia Burushaski* M017 R1a1 16 12 16 13 25 10 12 13 11 10

We also know that of the above 14 samples two are are L657 including: HGDP00243 3.6x Pakistani: Pashtun R1a-L657
The 14 are listed by Underhill:
Pakistan North N=85 14-R1a1 10-Z2125 2-L657 2-M560

The Z2125 are:
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 17 12 13 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 14 12 13 16 24 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 17 12 13 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 16 12 13 17 24 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 17 12 13 17 24 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 15 12 13 17 24 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 17 12 13 18 24 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 17 12 13 17 24 12 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 17 12 13 17 25 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

South Asia Pakistan Z2125 17 12 13 16 24 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 17 12 13 16 24 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 16 12 13 16 24 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 16 12 13 16 24 11 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
South Asia Pakistan Z2125 16 12 13 18 25 10 11 13 10 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND




I read from one of your older posts that Xiongnu had also some L657 can you confirm that? I doubt it had anything to do with Buddhist monks.


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2347-New-R1a-paper-by-Underhill-et-al/page13

That sample is quite Indic and therefore could potentially be related to the L657 later found in Mongolia. We do not know for sure since the L657 status of the ancient Mongolian sample is not known.
That Hun sample was very different from other Hun samples so my theory is that it is related to the movement of monks to central, east, and inner Asia.
The paper just says the sample looks more like an Indian Brahmin (x14) than a Korean (x1.9), Hun (x5.4), or Caucasian (1).
"Calculation by DNA VIEW shows that the autosomal profile of MNX3 West Eurasian male is 14 times more probable from a Brahmin Indian than from a modern Caucasian"

parasar
08-21-2015, 04:34 PM
Klyosov actually wrote that L657 was found in Ancient Mongolia/Eastern Andronovo but not sure what others say about that and if this is confirmed.


http://www.academia.edu/4220221/A_DNA_genealogy_solution_to_the_puzzle_of_ancient_ look-alike_ceramics_across_the_world

Not confirmed, and in light of recent Allentoft reports most likely wrong.

I had analyzed his theory before and predicted based on STRs that the South Siberian type was likely not L657.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1507-Some-provisional-calculations-for-haplogroup-R1a-based-on-the-first-FGC-result&p=26441&viewfull=1#post26441

Coldmountains
08-21-2015, 05:01 PM
Not confirmed, and in light of recent Allentoft reports most likely wrong.

I had analyzed his theory before and predicted based on STRs that the South Siberian type was likely not L657.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1507-Some-provisional-calculations-for-haplogroup-R1a-based-on-the-first-FGC-result&p=26441&viewfull=1#post26441

With so few STR markers it is hard to make an exact prediction but nevertheless based on the earlier arrival of Indo-Aryans in South Eurasia and the earlier Indo-Aryan loanwords in FU languages than the Iranian ones I expect L657 to be found in Andronovo but just in the earliest phases and most southern and eastern regions. Yes it is rare in North Central Asia today and absent in east Europe but the same is true for R1b in South Russia/Ukraine. So we should not look so much at the modern distribution of L657 to find out where it originated.


Finally, I would like to shortly discuss the implications for the contacts between Indo-Iranian and Uralian speakers, which is the actual theme of this conference. As is well known, Uralic has heavily borrowed from Indo-Iranian, but I agree with those scholars who believe that many of the apparent early borrowings rather reflect an etymological relationship between Uralic and Indo-European, and I doubt that there are Proto-Uralic borrowings from Indo-European. At any rate, borrowings from Indo-Iranian start with the Finno-Ugrian period. It is remarkable that the oldest layer of borrowings often concerns words which are only attested in Sanskrit and not in Iranian (e.g. FU *ora- `awl' : Skt. r- `awl'; FV *resm `rope' : Skt. rasmi- m. `rein', rasman- m. `id.'; FV *onke `hook' : Skt. anka- `hook'; FP *antз `young grass' : Skt. andhas- `grass', etc.). This fact can be explained by the vanguard position of the Indo-Aryans, who were the first to come into contact with the Uralic population on their move to the east. The Iranians, who came slightly later, lived in the neighboorhood of the Uralians for a very long time and continuously contributed to the enrichment of the Uralian vocabulary

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/2691/299_054.pdf

parasar
08-21-2015, 05:53 PM
With so few STR markers it is hard to make an exact prediction but nevertheless based on the earlier arrival of Indo-Aryans in South Eurasia and the earlier Indo-Aryan loanwords in FU languages than the Iranian ones I expect L657 to be found in Andronovo but just in the earliest phases and most southern and eastern regions. Yes it is rare in North Central Asia today and absent in east Europe but the same is true for R1b in South Russia/Ukraine. So we should not look so much at the modern distribution of L657 to find out where it originated.
...
For the most part you are correct. Predictions based on STRs are dicey so it was good to see some confirmation from Allentoft's data.

Some STR states are very robust so these are as helpful as SNPs. For example the locus at DYS426 rarely changes its repeats. You can almost predict one is Y- Q+R just based on DYS426=12.

Plus not all SNPs are reliable. For example an Iranian from Gonabad was showing negative at L342 which is upstream of L657, but my prediction from his STRs was indicating L657+, which he later tested and turned out to be.

newtoboard
08-22-2015, 03:17 PM
So parsar in what archeological culture will L657 be found? Something earlier?

alan
08-22-2015, 06:34 PM
What are people's thoughts now on Z2103 among Iranian speakers now? Substrate of other IE groups whose languages were replaced?

parasar
08-22-2015, 07:47 PM
So parsar in what archeological culture will L657 be found? Something earlier?

As I had mentioned previously in the thread:
"I would expect to find R1a1-L657 in BMAC, portions [of] Iran+Central Asia, Ariana, Aria, Indus Valley region."
These were the Aryan regions, meaning those of settled farmers who are more inclined to stay put. The Turanians on the other hand were more mobile, thus the lower density but greater spread of Turanian lines.

The Arya-Tura divide and conflict is one of the themes of both Avestan and Vedic stories.
One of the battles was potentially near Harappa.
http://www.harappa.com/har/aryan-invasion.html

in the Rg Veda (VI.27.4-8) to a place called Hariyupia (Majundar, Raychaudhuri, Datta, 1961; Wheeler 1968; Singh 1995).

In this Vedic reference, there is a description of a battle between two forces, one led by Abhyavartin, son of Chayamana (Puru clan) and the other by Turuvasa (Turuvasa Clan); leader of the Vrichivat, seed of Varasika (Sen 1974; Majumdar, Raychaudhuri, Datta, 1961:25-26).

The batttle was fought at Hariyupiyia, which appears to have been situated to the east of the Yabyabati River (possibly the Ravi). Half of the attacking force was scattered in the west, presumably on the other side of the river, while the other portion was defeated by Abhyavartin, aided by Indra (Singh 1995).

There is no evidence for a battle of conflagration in either the Harappan or later Harappan levels at the site of Harappa, but given the nature of many historical conflicts it is possible that the battle may have taken place outside the city. Since the invading forces were defeated, there is no need to find destruction levels in the city itself and the identification of the place called Hariyupia remains un-resolved."

Coldmountains
08-22-2015, 08:09 PM
As I had mentioned previously in the thread:
"I would expect to find R1a1-L657 in BMAC, portions [of] Iran+Central Asia, Ariana, Aria, Indus Valley region."
These were the Aryan regions, meaning those of settled farmers who are more inclined to stay put. The Turanians on the other hand were more mobile, thus the lower density but greater spread of Turanian lines.

The Arya-Tura divide and conflict is one of the themes of both Avestan and Vedic stories.
One of the battles was potentially near Harappa.
http://www.harappa.com/har/aryan-invasion.html

L657 is also an intrusive element there it (likely) arrived just some hundred years earlier there than Z2124. But Kalash have Z2124 so who knows maybe the first Aryans who arrived in BMAC were also L657- . Everything points to an origin of L657 in far eastern Europe/Transural and Westsiberia. Anything else is very unlikely because of Proto-Indo-Aryan loanwords in Finno-Ugric and the presence of Z94 brother clades in Sintashta. We just have two Y-DNA samples from Sintashta if I am not wrong what is almost nothing and not enough to disprove that L657 was in Sintashta or near Sintashta. We have zero samples from the southern part of early Andronovo so there is no reason to exclude that L657 was present there at least in the early periods. And let not forget that Vedic Indo-Aryans were extremely pastoralist people hardly showing any traits of urban lifestyle despite the adoption of BMAC material culture. The distinction between Aryans and Turanians is rather linked to a later inner Iranian conflict between Iranians, which adopted sedentary lifestyle and others which still lived as pastoralists and had more archaic beliefs. But there was an intense religious conflict between Iranians especially Zoroastrians and Indo-Aryans about the role of the Devas. Some even think that the Deva-worshippers mentioned in Avesta as enemies of Zoroaster are actually non-assimilated Indo-Aryans, which did not adopt the Iranian religious innovations, and were the archenemies of Zoroastrian Iranians. But it could be just Iranian tribes with more archaic beliefs. It is possible that the religious hatred between the Deva and non-Deva worshippers and the violence linked with it was the reason why many L657 lines died out and just survived in the Indian subcontinent and in peripheral areas. We need more samples from Bronze Age Central Asia, Transural and far eastern Europe to pinpoint the exact location.

parasar
08-22-2015, 09:26 PM
L657 is also an intrusive element there it (likely) arrived just some hundred years earlier there than Z2124. But Kalash have Z2124 so who knows maybe the first Aryans who arrived in BMAC were also L657- . Everything points to an origin of L657 in far eastern Europe/Transural and Westsiberia. Anything else is very unlikely because of Proto-Indo-Aryan loanwords in Finno-Ugric and the presence of Z94 brother clades in Sintashta. We just have two Y-DNA samples from Sintashta if I am not wrong what is almost nothing and not enough to disprove that L657 was in Sintashta or near Sintashta. We have zero samples from the southern part of early Andronovo so there is no reason to exclude that L657 was present there at least in the early periods. And let not forget that Vedic Indo-Aryans were extremely pastoralist people hardly showing any traits of urban lifestyle despite the adoption of BMAC material culture. The distinction between Aryans and Turanians is rather linked to a later inner Iranian conflict between Iranians, which adopted sedentary lifestyle and others which still lived as pastoralists and had more archaic beliefs. But there was an intense religious conflict between Iranians especially Zoroastrians and Indo-Aryans about the role of the Devas. Some even think that the Deva-worshippers mentioned in Avesta as enemies of Zoroaster are actually non-assimilated Indo-Aryans, which did not adopt the Iranian religious innovations, and were the archenemies of Zoroastrian Iranians. But it could be just Iranian tribes with more archaic beliefs. It is possible that the religious hatred between the Deva and non-Deva worshippers and the violence linked with it was the reason why many L657 lines died out and just survived in the Indian subcontinent and in peripheral areas. We need more samples from Bronze Age Central Asia, Transural and far eastern Europe to pinpoint the exact location.

We have to keep in mind that the prophet himself was part of a deva worshiping group prior to his reforms. His reforms were not accepted in the place of his birth, and as he had sharp disagreements with the Usijs and Bandhu (both have Rg Vedic mentions), he left for the borderlands where he found followers - a few among Turanians and with the Kavi of Bactria.

Coldmountains
08-22-2015, 10:38 PM
We have to keep in mind that the prophet himself was part of a deva worshiping group prior to his reforms. His reforms were not accepted in the place of his birth, and as he had sharp disagreements with the Usijs and Bandhu (both have Rg Vedic mentions), he left for the borderlands where he found followers - a few among Turanians and with the Kavi of Bactria.

To be honest i am myself quite confused about the role of Devas among early Iranians/Proto-Iranians. It is certain that Proto-Indo-Iranians venerated them and that the demonization of them among later Iranians is an innovation but hard to say if the demonization started just with Zoroaster or happened already earlier.


In Avestan. In the Gathas the daēuuas had not yet, in fact, become demons. As Émile Benveniste (1967) clearly established, they constituted a distinct category of quite genuine gods, who had, however, been rejected. They were still venerated by the leaders of the larger Iranian nation (dax́iiu-; Y. 32.3, 46.1) and had formerly been worshiped even by the people who accepted the religion of the Gathas (Y. 32.8); they thus formed part of the Mazdean social and religious sys*tem. That they were national gods is confirmed by the fact that they were invoked by means of the Iranian versions of expressions common in Vedic rhetoric, for example, daēuua-/maṧiia-: devá-/mártya-, vīspa-*daēuua-: víśva- devá-, and daēuuo.zušta-: devájuṣṭa-. The poet of the Gathas reproached the daēuuas for being, through blindness, incapable of proper divine discernment (ərəš vī + ci) and of having as a result accepted the bad religion, characterized by aēnah- * (approximately equivalent to “error”), along with the good, characterized by auuah- (approximately equiva*lent to “favor”). It appears from the Gathas that the process of rejection, negation, or demonization of these gods was only just beginning, but, as the evidence is full of gaps and ambiguities, this impression may be erroneous. For example, although polemics against the daēuuas and their followers are a major theme of the Gathas, in the other section of the Older Avesta, Yasna Haptaŋhāiti (Y. 35-41; Kellens and Pirart, pp. 30-32, 133-40), they are not mentioned at all. This divergence is extremely puzzling, espe*cially as the doctrines expressed in the two sections are otherwise quite similar. Even in the Gathas no proper names are mentioned, so that it is not even clear precisely who the daēuuas were. Nor does the Younger Avesta (Vd. 10.9, 19.43) appear to shed any light on this specific problem.
...
In the Younger Avesta the daēuuas were represented as small, wicked genies who disturbed the order of the world, human health, and the regularity of religious life, in contrast to the daēuuaiiasna-, literally, “those who sacrifice to the daēuuas,” adherents of other religions. There are, however, exceptions in several passages. For example, the daēuuaiiasnas who of*fered nocturnal libations to Anāhitā (see anāhīd; Yt. 5.94) seem from the evidence to have been Mazdeans who were thus designated because of their deviation from accepted ritual; this passage suggests that in the period of the Younger Avesta the objects of all reli*gious disapproval, whatever petty event may have inspired it, were identified as daēuuas. In the Vidēvdād (10.9,19.43) Iṇdra (Ved. Índra), Sauruua (Ved. Śarvá), and Nåŋhaiθiia (Ved. Nāˊsatya) are mentioned at the head of a list of daēuuas, immediately after reference to Aŋra Mainiiu (see ahriman); in the Pahlavi books the same three were recognized as the enemies of Aṧa, Xšaθra, and Ārmaiti respectively. There are three possible explanations of why these Iranian equivalents to Vedic gods should be mentioned in the Vidēvdād. First, it is conceivable that they were still worshiped in some Iranian circles, though at the period when the Vidēvdād was compiled that seems very unlikely; furthermore, this explanation does not take into account the probability that there was no word *daiva- “god” in Iranian (see below). If, on the other hand, these gods represented an ancient memory, they would provide clues to the identification of several of the daēuuas in the Older Avesta, but this suggestion raises other difficulties, aside from the apparently miraculous survival of this memory. In particular, it is difficult to explain why only these three gods would have been “demonized,” or perhaps not “undemonized,” while Mithra, Vāiiu, and others were not. Finally, it might be suggested that the three gods were simply avatars of the Indian gods, but it would be surprising to find in the Vidēvdād such close links with the Vedic religion coupled with complete adaptation of the names to Iranian phonology.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/daiva-old-iranian-noun

It seems that all modern Iranian languages have a pejorative sense of deva and even Ossetian and extinct Khotan Saka (dyu<daemon), which were rather spoken outside of direct Zoroastrian influences. So i think that the Deva were venerated by the earliest Iranian tribes but that they started to distrust them more and more and that Zoroaster accelerated and radicalized this process.

Coldmountains
08-23-2015, 12:12 AM
Another good candidate is the Potapovka culture (2500—2000 BC)


Most tellingly, perhaps, at the site of Potapovka (N. Krasnoyarsk Dst., near Kuybyshev on the N. Volga steppe), a unique burial has been found. It contains a human skeleton whose head has been replaced by a horse head; a human head lies near his feet, along with a bone pipe, and a cow's head is placed near his knees. This looks like an archaeological illustration of the Rigvedic myth of Dadhyañc ,whose head was cut off by Indra and replaced by that of a horse. The bone pipe reminds, as the excavator has noted, of the RV sentence referring to the playing of pipes in Yama's realm, the world of the ancestors (GENING 1977).
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/AryanHome.pdf
5654

Coldmountains
08-25-2015, 07:57 PM
What are people's thoughts now on Z2103 among Iranian speakers now? Substrate of other IE groups whose languages were replaced?

Good question, R1b in Central Asia is unfortunately often ignored. We can just guess when it arrived there exactly without more ancient DNA samples but are there any archaeological evidences for Pre-Andronovo steppe incursions into South Central Asia? I just wonder if Indo-Iranians were not the first IEs which arrived there. But it is probably more likely that most of it arrived with Indo-Iranians, which assimilated and mixed with some Yamnaya-derived steppe folks when their ancestors moved east and south/southwest. It is also likely that Z2103 transmitted steppe Yamnaya traditions to early Proto-Indo-Iranians and i think that some Z2103 entered the Proto-Indo-Iranian genpool very early already in Abashevo or other hypothetical archaic Proto-Indo-Iranian cultures. This contacts between forest-steppe Pre-PIIs and Yamnaya/Yamnaya-derived folks would also explain the linguistic similarities with Greek IMO

paulgill
08-25-2015, 08:05 PM
Another good candidate is the Potapovka culture (2500—2000 BC)

5654

Is anybody testing its DNA?

parasar
08-25-2015, 08:30 PM
Another good candidate is the Potapovka culture (2500—2000 BC)

5654

If I am not mistaken there was some evidence of Vratya type dog sacrifice too - or was that at another site?

parasar
08-25-2015, 09:06 PM
If I am not mistaken there was some evidence of Vratya type dog sacrifice too - or was that at another site?


The uniqueness of the ritual performed at Krasnosamarskoe, combined with the scale of the ceremony, involving the sacrifice of at least 51 dogs, hints that ritual behavior, like copper mining, could have been regionally organized, so that specific settlements were used for specific seasonal rituals
https://www.academia.edu/2763478/Midwinter_dog_sacrifices_at_LBA_Krasnosamarskoe_Ru ssia_and_traces_of_initiations_for_M%C3%A4nnerb%C3 %BCnde_Paper_presented_at_the_seminar_Tracing_the_ Indo-Europeans_Origin_and_migration_organized_by_Roots_ of_Europe_--_Language_Culture_and_Migrations_University_of_Cop enhagen_12--14_December_2012

parasar
11-06-2015, 09:57 PM
Is anybody testing its DNA?

The new update from Iain Mathieson has DNA from Potapovka, both from the Potapovka horizon and more importantly from the Poltavka time-frame. The Poltavka Z94 is a very recent entrant there from further south, IMO.
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/10/10/016477.abstract

While no L657 is reported, this Z94 has made me quite hopeful that M780 and L657 are going to turn up soon. This Poltavka Z94 is very close in time to the birth of Z94 itself. Since there is not that much of a separation between Z2124, M780, and the Y40 line, all three had to have been born close by. The prior Z94s reported were much younger than the age of Z94 itself so provenance of Z94 was not certain. Z93 was also not telling us much since it has such a widespread distribution but is low in terms of numbers. It is Z94 that forms the vast bulk of Z93. Nevertheless Z93 is only two mutations separated from Z94 so I would not be surprised if Z93 sprung up close by too. Essentially in about 200 years Z93, Z94, Z2124 and M780 sprang up - http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/. Z2124, M780, and the line of Y40 were likely born in the same family, possibly in the same generation - i.e. brothers.

I would like to see the Tanais R1a1 tested for some markers - M780 perhaps?
See Tomenable's map:
http://s23.postimg.org/nen0yig57/R1a_Asia_dates.png

parasar
11-12-2015, 05:27 PM
...
I would like to see the Tanais R1a1 tested for some markers - M780 perhaps?
...

The 3000 year old Tanais R1a1 sample does not look to be M780 (or at least not L657) based on the STRs in the report.


Reviving this thread just to say - kudos to Passarino!
While place of origin M17 may still be in dispute, M417 is another matter - the Ukraine is definitely looking possible for M417.
....
Location of (M780 sample) Zaporozhie, Ukraine - 47.8 35.2



...
Where did they come from? Can't be just the steppes, due to the EEF-like element present in Poltavka 10432. Can't be W/C/E Europe since WHG is absent, plus Poltavka 10432 (unlike later Andronovo and Sintashta samples) is contemporaneous or earlier than many CW samples, so the descent from CW proposed by Allentoft has to be abandoned (it always looked doubtful due to the chariot element http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3882-R1b-and-its-sibling-R1a-possible-route(s)-into-Europe&p=101599&viewfull=1#post101599 ). It is not likely to be Neolithic Anatolia which lacked ANE and Y-R.

This leaves us with the boundary regions of Anatolia - the western Khazar steppe, the Caucasus, or NW Iran/N Iraq/NE Syria. Lack of R1a1 in BA Armenians make the latter two unlikely. So we are left with the western Khazar steppe.

It looks like Coon (along with some others) got it right about Corded Ware.

Carleton S. Coon:
"The Corded or Battle-Axe People

The latter part of the Neolithic period in most of north central Europe is marked by the appearance of an enigmatic group of people, who decorated their pottery, while still wet, with cord impressions, and who also placed in their graves perforated stone battle-axes suspiciously like those of the Fatjenovo culture in southern Russia, and others in the Caucasus. These axes, again, have copper parallels in Sumeria. The limits of the country overrun by the Corded people are the Vosges on the west, the Urals on the east, the Baltic on the north, and the Dinaric Alps on the south.49 Although these invaders were partly agricultural, their graves contain weapons rather than hoes, and, in a few cases, bones of horses, probably of a domestic variety.
...

The most typical aggregation of Corded skulls comes from Silesia and Bohemia
...

There has been much discussion over the origin of the Corded people, and many cradle-areas have been proposed. Childe, despite several objections which he himself raises, prefers to derive them from southern Russia, where the typical cultural elements of the Corded people are found mixed with other factors. The so-called boat-axe, the typical battle-axe form which they used, has relatives all the way to the Caucasus and beyond. And the horse, their use of which in the domestic form is not fully confirmed, since the grave examples might conceivably have been wild ones, was first tamed in Asia or in southern Russia.

On the basis of the physical evidence as well, it is likely that the Corded people came from somewhere north or east of the Black Sea. The fully Neolithic crania from southern Russia which we have just studied include such a type, also seen in the midst of Sergi's Kurgan aggregation. Until better evidence is produced from elsewhere, we are entitled to consider southern Russia the most likely way station from which thre Corded people moved westward.

There is one cautionary remark which must be made here, and that is: there is so far no justifiable reason for assuming that the Corded people were Nordics. Their cranial type, as we know it, does approach one ore more of the forms which we know, in later times, to have been associated with blondism; but it also approaches those of the Iranian plateau and of Ur, which were probably brunet. Let us withhold judgment, therefore, upon Corded soft parts and pigmentation, and view these remains in the more scientific but less lively light of a skeletal type.

This Corded skeletal type is familiar also in Poland...

In southern and western Germany remains of the Corded people are again found...

The statures of two of them were both 168 cm. The rest of the crania, as far as one can tell, are normal Neolithic Mediterranean examples, which might have had either a Danubian or a North African derivation, or both. The Corded people in the west and south of Germany had settled down, and had combined with Neolithic farmers.
...
This evidence, while not complete, at least shows that the Corded people, in southern and southwestern Germany, were preceded by an agricultural population of the smaller Mediterranean variety, upon which they superimposed themselves." http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-IV9.htm

postneo
11-13-2015, 06:27 AM
https://www.academia.edu/2763478/Midwinter_dog_sacrifices_at_LBA_Krasnosamarskoe_Ru ssia_and_traces_of_initiations_for_M%C3%A4nnerb%C3 %BCnde_Paper_presented_at_the_seminar_Tracing_the_ Indo-Europeans_Origin_and_migration_organized_by_Roots_ of_Europe_--_Language_Culture_and_Migrations_University_of_Cop enhagen_12--14_December_2012

Is there anything like a "vratya type dog sacrifice" or just some kind of conjectural label by Anthony.

parasar
11-13-2015, 04:01 PM
Is there anything like a "vratya type dog sacrifice" or just some kind of conjectural label by Anthony.

Personally I have not seen them conduct a dog sacrifice, but rumors of sacrifices (even human) exist. I have not seen a vratya run in a long long time - they are Rudra followers that run at night in the Magadh/Nepal region, painted, intoxicated, and chanting. The Baijanath Dham bol bam 109 km run/walk can be considered to a be short form the vratya run. http://www.babadham.org/route.php

One of the vratya types are called shvapaks or dog-eaters so perhaps they are the Indic remnants of the old Indo-German dog-man traditions.

We have to also consider that there vratyas were not considered "vedic" so in this case Indo-German is separate from the settled IE's - the Vedics, Greeks, Latins, Armenians, Persians, etc. It is quite possible that there were two groups of Indo Europeans, the settled 'civilized' ones and other living in the forest zone - the vratya.

We know that the Vedics payed scant attention to the vratyas, but in the non-vedic Atharvan/Magadhan tradition the vratyas are prominent. So there may have been two streams of IE migration into South Asia - one of the southern Vedic type and another northern Vratya. The vratyastoma ritual was likely used to incorporate the vratyas into the vedic stream, perhaps coinciding with the period when the Atharvan was incorporated into the Vedas (post Buddha IMO).

Cf.
Bhandarkar - Ekavratya - https://books.google.com/books?id=yMFwMHH4HzMC&pg=PA11
Bhagavat - https://books.google.com/books?id=jXw7-PdwZ7oC&pg=PA148

A pretty decent blog post - http://creative.sulekha.com/who-were-the-vratyas-the-searching-wanderers_357933_blog

Even to this day, the meaning of the term Vratya is unclear; and is variously described. The amazing community of the Vratyas included magicians, medicine men, shamans, mystics, materialists, mendicants, wandering madmen, roaming- footloose warriors, mercenaries, fire eaters, poison swallowers , libidinous pleasure seekers and wandering swarm of austere ascetics ...

The Rig Veda mentions Vratyas about eight times (e.g. 3:26:6; 5:53:11; 5:75:9; 9:14:2); and five groups of the Vratyas are collectively called pancha-vrata (10:34:12). The Atharva Veda (15th kanda) devotes an entire hymn titled vratya- suktha to the "mystical fellowship" of the Vratyas. The Tandya and Jaiminiya Brahmanas too talk about Vratyas; and describe a sacrifice called Vratya-stoma, which is virtually a purification ritual...

The Jaiminiya Brahmana (2:222) describes Vratyas as ascetics roaming about themselves in an intoxicated state. The Tandya (24:18) however addresses them as divine-Vratyas (daiva vai vratyah). The Vajasaneyi-samhita refers to them as physicians and as guardians of truth ...

Shiva –Rudra is described as Eka –Vratya (AV 10.8.1.9.1)...

The Atharva Veda (15.2.a) makes a very ambiguous statement: "Of him in the eastern quarter, faith is the harlot, Mitra the Magadha, discrimination is the garment, etc.....” in the southern quarter Magadha is the mantra of the Vratya; in the other two quarters Magadha is the laughter and the thunder of the Vratya. (Mitra, maAtm, hasa and stanayitnii). It is not clear what this statement implies. But it is taken to mean that the Magadha tribes were friends, advisers and thunder (strong supporters) of the Vratyas...

The Vratyas roamed about, mostly, in the regions to the East and North-west of the Madhyadesha, that is, in the countries of Magadha and Anga .They spoke the dialect of Prachya, the source of the languages of Eastern India. It is also said; the Vratyas also spoke the language of the initiated (diksita-vac) , though not themselves initiated (a-diksita) ...

They lived alone or in groups, away from populated areas. They followed their own cult-rules and practices. They drifted far and wide; roamed from the Indus valley to banks of the Ganga. They were the wandering seekers ...

According to Mahamahopadhyay Haraprasad Sastri,the vast territory to the South of the Ganga and North of the Vindhya ranges extending from Mudgagiri (Monghyr) in the East to the Charanadri (Chunar) in the West was called the land of Magadha tribes ...

Much of the modern analysis on Vratyas comes from the Indo-Germanic researchers rather than the traditional IE ones:
David Gordon White - Myths of the Dog-Man https://books.google.com/books?id=glmjo9UrP2YC&pg=PA99
Alf Hiltebeitel - Rethinking the Mahabharata https://books.google.com/books?id=jch6VZHb07QC&pg=PA170
Kris Kershaw - The One-eyed God: Odin and the (Indo-) Germanic Männerbünde http://www.amazon.com/The-One-eyed-God-M%C3%A4nnerb%C3%BCnde-Indo-European/dp/0941694747
J.C. Heesterman - Vratya and Sacrifice http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/000000062791616002
Gwendolyn Taunton - Of Wolves And Men: The Berserker And The Vrātya http://heathenharvest.org/2014/05/15/of-wolves-and-men-the-berserker-and-the-vratya/

Then of course we also have the vratyas vakyas Falkenbach!

DMXX
11-13-2015, 04:30 PM
But it could be just Iranian tribes with more archaic beliefs. It is possible that the religious hatred between the Deva and non-Deva worshippers and the violence linked with it was the reason why many L657 lines died out and just survived in the Indian subcontinent and in peripheral areas. We need more samples from Bronze Age Central Asia, Transural and far eastern Europe to pinpoint the exact location.

I've entertained this idea as well. :)

There's evidence of conflict in Sintashta itself. The Indo-Aryans appeared to have spread across Asia before the Iranians had. There's also the pantheon discrepancy between the Avesta and Rg Veda.

So, it's possible there was a fundamental religious disagreement between the early Indo-Iranians within their steppe origin point which led to conflict, with some Indo-Aryans migrating out first in response to said conflict.

By the Iron Age, Iranian and Indo-Aryan groups did interact (particularly in the Tarim). I don't think there's any evidence of conflict at that time, a good millennium on. That implies the postulated religious conflict was long forgotten, with the only possible remnant (at least I'm aware of) of a sustained memory of this coming from the Subcontinent (the "mleccha" are sometimes ascribed as being Iranians, are they not?).

This is all speculation, but it does form a somewhat coherent narrative that isn't contradicted by any positive findings. At least, again, as far as I'm aware of.

postneo
11-14-2015, 03:10 PM
Thanks Parasar,

From the archeological standpoint the site shows evidence of being a non mainstream encampment for rituals.

What we have from indic traditions is one instance of a man with a doggy name(sunahshepa) who is saved from sacrifice by correct vedic utterances. In another instance we have a man named "dog friend", who saves a roving group from a female demon but is not sacrificed. In both instances theres a reference to roaming in the forest but not specifically vratya. Literal dog sacrifice is unknown except for the oblique reference shvapak you brought up.

The Sunahashepa story of course brings up the filicide leitmotif of semitic myth.. of Abraham sacrificing Isaac.

The dog had mythic symbolism in Elam for example.
http://archaicwonder.tumblr.com/post/67304360394/elamite-dog-amulet-of-the-goddess-gula-circa-3rd
Dogs had ritualistic/positive significance in zorastrianism and judaism as well. In Nepal as well there is some ritual significance. Otherwise the animal has fallen from grace in later cults.


Heres another reference describing interaction between settled population and vratya like people.
http://tinyurl.com/ohvct44

In modern India there are many wandering bands who extract favors by threat of black magic, curses, public humiliation etc. In general this may represent a wider anthropological phenomenon of large population centers in the ancient world, not restricted to vedic or indo-european alone.

parasar
11-14-2015, 04:54 PM
Thanks Parasar,

From the archeological standpoint the site shows evidence of being a non mainstream encampment for rituals.

What we have from indic traditions is one instance of a man with a doggy name(sunahshepa) who is saved from sacrifice by correct vedic utterances. In another instance we have a man named "dog friend", who saves a roving group from a female demon but is not sacrificed. In both instances theres a reference to roaming in the forest but not specifically vratya. Literal dog sacrifice is unknown except for the oblique reference shvapak you brought up.

The Sunahashepa story of course brings up the filicide leitmotif of semitic myth.. of Abraham sacrificing Isaac.

The dog had mythic symbolism in Elam for example.
http://archaicwonder.tumblr.com/post/67304360394/elamite-dog-amulet-of-the-goddess-gula-circa-3rd
Dogs had ritualistic/positive significance in zorastrianism and judaism as well. In Nepal as well there is some ritual significance. Otherwise the animal has fallen from grace in later cults.


Heres another reference describing interaction between settled population and vratya like people.
http://tinyurl.com/ohvct44

In modern India there are many wandering bands who extract favors by threat of black magic, curses, public humiliation etc. In general this may represent a wider anthropological phenomenon of large population centers in the ancient world, not restricted to vedic or indo-european alone.

True, the sunahshepa story also has been invoked by Indo-Germanics in the dog-man scheme. I think the Atharvan and Vedic were two different but related traditions with both incorporating traditions from each other when they finally merged. A lot the Athrava Veda is a direct copy of the Rg. Book 15 on the Vratyas though is quite different. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/avbook15.htm

The Naimisa forest is connected to these sattra sacrifices and supposedly was on the banks of the Gomati.
https://books.google.com/books?id=glmjo9UrP2YC&pg=PA97
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naimisaranya
The sage Shaunaka is reported to have performed a sattra in the Naimisa.

Some consider the Rasa to be mythical but the term rasa-para-nivasin (dweller on the bank of rasa) indicates it was real river.
""Where is the Rasa river?" asked Vikukshi. "We do not know," confessed Pururava" shows that the knowledge about this river was lost so it was made mythical. https://books.google.com/books?id=p5TzCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA79 Rasa could well have been the Volga/Rha.

From genetic evidence, if R1a1 indeed represents a significant proportion of Indo-Aryans, i.e., even if it is only the Indo-Germanic portion, it now looks clear (to me) that source of South Asian Z94 was near the Volga region. In conjunction with Z283 and CTS4385 towards the west (Corded Ware), and the presence of M459 at Samara(I0433) and Karelia, the 4.9-4.7ky Potapovka Z94 sample from the Samara Bend/Sok leaves little alternative possibility. I would say that even in absence of DNA evidence from South Asia; the case is closed as far as R1a1-Z94 is concerned.

parasar
11-14-2015, 06:47 PM
Something like this looks possible:
https://sites.google.com/a/sudiptodas.com/www/thearyantrail

https://sites.google.com/a/sudiptodas.com/www/_/rsrc/1298917129613/thearyantrail/aryan-trail.gif

It is in regions 1, 2 (Sinu, Temarunda) above of the Zaporozhian Kozak/Cossack that the Neolithic Farmer must have come into contact with the Steppe (R1a). At 3(Samara Bend/Sok) we see the Poltavka Z94 showing Yamna+Neolithic.

I notice that these Cossacks wore their hair in sikha form.
http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/image/stock-illustration-zaporozhian-cossack/479012400
https://www.pinterest.com/AudreyRH14/ukrainian-cossack/
Anyone knows the earliest period of this tradition among the Cossacks?

parasar
11-15-2015, 06:21 AM
Something like this looks possible:
https://sites.google.com/a/sudiptodas.com/www/thearyantrail

https://sites.google.com/a/sudiptodas.com/www/_/rsrc/1298917129613/thearyantrail/aryan-trail.gif

It is in regions 1, 2 (Sinu, Temarunda) above of the Zaporozhian Kozak/Cossack that the Neolithic Farmer must have come into contact with the Steppe (R1a). At 3(Samara Bend/Sok) we see the Poltavka Z94 showing Yamna+Neolithic.
...


If we move 1 and 2, just to the east of Don, then we have the Aesir at 1 and 2 and west of them across the Vana/Tanais/Don we would have the Vanir. In a parallel Indic scheme we would have the Pani [Vanir] to the west of the Tanais and the Asuras [Aesir] to the east. The Panis (Neolithic farmer) would be the wealthy folk with cows that the Aesir (Steppe R1a) coveted and raided for. The diar of the Aesir would then be equivalent to the devas, the gods/priests/chiefs of the Asuras. Per the Scandinavians, the diar included some Vanir transplants too.

Some other equivalencies would be:
Budh/Odjh(knowledge)-Odin (in eastern India we have the Ojha). Odinsdagh Buddwar
Thor-BrhasPati-Indra. Thorsdagh Brhaspatiwar

sandeepchau123
11-16-2015, 06:30 AM
Hi Parasar,
I am detected R1a-Z2123+ ve. I am Indian and to be more precise from Maharashtra. surprised to see Z2123+ in me. I guess it is more common wit Afgan and Iranian and cwas shared by Scythian, Huns, Kushans.

parasar
11-19-2015, 02:28 AM
Hi Parasar,
I am detected R1a-Z2123+ ve. I am Indian and to be more precise from Maharashtra. surprised to see Z2123+ in me. I guess it is more common wit Afgan and Iranian and cwas shared by Scythian, Huns, Kushans.

Z2123 is quite common in India, a little more in the south than in the Indo-Gangetic plain which has more L657.
I doubt much of anything came with the Huns, at least based on who/what we perceive of as Huns. Kushans and Shaks are more of a candidate, no doubt.

But I date most R1a1 coming into the subcontinent around the age of L657 - 1900bc which is about the age of my ancestral line - Y9. Z2123 was possibly born outside India since we have Z2123 lines in ancient DNA from the steppes as well as modern Z2123 samples from as far west as Britain.

We also see a drastic drop in the population of the Indus valley around that time (the valley is nearly abandoned) and the population does not recover until the Ganga valley urbanization phase.

parasar
11-19-2015, 03:38 AM
This is from the dark ages when we were just finding about these subclades - http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=408&start=50
At that time I had identified a potential hot-spot for L657 in Syria, but this has not been confirmed as yet. Z2123 samples were cropping up all over.

"a good portion of Arab L342 will turn out Z2133. L657 is more limited. Though there appears to be a potential hotspot in Syria* for L657 if my read is correct. Iran looks to be an even mix."
"iron age skeletons do look a lot like the Eulau finds. Plus we also the hair knots seen both in Germany and in India (among Vasisthas)."
"The Vasisthas type would be without the shaven head and a knot on the right. "HYMN XXXIII. Vasistha. 1. THESE who wear hair-knots on the right"
"L657 folk like us seem to be South Asian in the sense that our common ancestor was likely born in South Asia. We liked South Asia so much we barely made it out - except perhaps as missionaries and traders. This would also mean that L657 is quite young*. Whether L342 itself was born in South Asia - that still needs resolution, but based on YFull charts that looks quite plausible."

sandeepchau123
11-19-2015, 07:10 AM
Thanks Parasar!
When you say most of R1a1 entered India 1900BC, are you talking about L657 only or L657+z2123 as well? I am asking this question because Z2123 itself born at around 2000BC. And you said it possibly born outside South Asia(Subcontinent).

parasar
11-21-2015, 05:11 PM
Thanks Parasar!
When you say most of R1a1 entered India 1900BC, are you talking about L657 only or L657+z2123 as well? I am asking this question because Z2123 itself born at around 2000BC. And you said it possibly born outside South Asia(Subcontinent).
You are most welcome!

I would say most R1a1 lines - including Z283/Z282, Z2124/Z2125, Y40, and M780. The entry time-frame is close to the birth of L657 and possibly just prior to Z2122.

For Z283/Z282 see khanabadoshi http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4848-New-FTDNA-SNP-tests-within-R1a-Z280&p=114873&viewfull=1#post114873
and for Lankan and Prussian Z2123 http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4540-Y15121-Prussian-Sri-Lankan-subclade-within-R1a-Z2123&p=85290&viewfull=1#post85290

There has been some later back and forth for sure.

sandeepchau123
11-23-2015, 12:13 PM
You are most welcome!

I would say most R1a1 lines - including Z283/Z282, Z2124/Z2125, Y40, and M780. The entry time-frame is close to the birth of L657 and possibly just prior to Z2122.

For Z283/Z282 see khanabadoshi http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4848-New-FTDNA-SNP-tests-within-R1a-Z280&p=114873&viewfull=1#post114873
and for Lankan and Prussian Z2123 http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4540-Y15121-Prussian-Sri-Lankan-subclade-within-R1a-Z2123&p=85290&viewfull=1#post85290

There has been some later back and forth for sure.

Herbert Risley(Anthropology Expert of British government in 1915) assigned Scythian origin to people of Maratha caste based on the Physical attributes, History and behavioral pattern. I know its no more valid method of racial classification with arrival of DNA mechanism however surprised to see how relevant it is in my case.

postneo
11-24-2015, 08:01 AM
From reading Anthony alone, one would surmise that dog sacrifice was a central feature of all vratyas in India whereas its vaguely hinted fringe phenomenon at best. It is misleading.

What one does get is that there were large diverse populations of people who lived outside the conventional vedic or settled populations.

The common theme seems to be that some survived on offal and scraps. Some resorted to blackmail, ransom and sorcery to make ends meet...Some of them may have been impoverished priests. This is very common in India today. street fakirs collect haftas from shopkeepers threatening them with black magic and bad luck. They usually show up on social occasions and festivities and want to get paid e.g. eunuchs societies.

They would have formed an important safety net for kids who ran away from home. During the thread ceremony theres the ritualized interaction between the initiated and his mother where the latter tries to stop him from becoming a sanyasi.

These were perhaps parasitic populations, not ones who brought about linguistic change.

As for the river names the dneiper and dneister names do not indicate a definite sense of direction of migration. For all we know, these and other purported IIr/IA river names north pf the black sea may be names from the scythian, sarmatian period.

parasar
12-10-2015, 04:49 PM
...

All Y-DNA samples have a small percentage of false positives. ...


...


You can find my analysis here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5875-230-ancient-Eurasians-data-analysis-(Mathieson-Reich-Haak-)&p=123365&viewfull=1#post123365).

Have either of you analyzed Poltavka 10432? This R1a sample is Z93+ Z94+ http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/10/10/016477.full.pdf
I was looking to see if the sample is positive or confirmed negative for any SNP under Z94.

parasar
03-02-2017, 07:12 PM
...

Samples' Ages:
Poltavka 4.9-4.7 kya
Srubnaya 3.9-3.6 kya

Per YFull:
Age of Z93: 5000 kya
Age of Z2124: 4800 kya
Age of Y40: 4800 kya
Age of M780: 4800 kya

Analysis of splits:
Y3/F2597/M727 * M605 * L657/S347*Y26/M780*Y2/M723*Y13*V1981/Y27/M634

Age of my ancestral line Y9 3900 kya

The sequence:

Z94-M780(xV1981/Y27/M634)-B163 Cossack, Zaporozhie, Ukraine

M634xL657/S347 Tajik, Ishkasim

L657-Y9/V4070 South Asia

L657xY9 South Asia

...

Approximate ages
M780 ~4582 years
M634 ~4339 years
L657 ~ 3852 years very close now to the TMRCA of 3900 ybp calculated by YFull
Y9 ~ 3600 years

....

Location of (M780 sample) Zaporozhie, Ukraine - 47.8 35.2




I0432 SVP42 Non-petrous bone (Femur) Outlier N N Poltavka_outlier IGNORE IGNORE New 1240k data - 1 2925-2536 calBCE (AA12569) 4940 4551 Potapovka I, Sok River, Samara Russia 53.66 50.67 0.87 648,053 M Yes 10,867,614 U5a1c R1a1a1b2a Z94
...

Where did they come from? Can't be just the steppes, due to the EEF-like element present in Poltavka 10432. Can't be W/C/E Europe since WHG is absent, plus Poltavka 10432 (unlike later Andronovo and Sintashta samples) is contemporaneous or earlier than many CW samples, so the descent from CW proposed by Allentoft has to be abandoned (it always looked doubtful due to the chariot element http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3882-R1b-and-its-sibling-R1a-possible-route(s)-into-Europe&p=101599&viewfull=1#post101599 ). It is not likely to be Neolithic Anatolia which lacked ANE and Y-R.

This leaves us with the boundary regions of Anatolia - the western Khazar steppe, the Caucasus, or NW Iran/N Iraq/NE Syria. Lack of R1a1 in BA Armenians make the latter two unlikely. So we are left with the western Khazar steppe.



L657 is a possibility based on the STRs.
...

Is anybody able to vouch for the reliability of the Klyosov Khazar Z93 paper - SNPs and STRs?

"Their haplotypes were also identified and reported here. The haplotypes indicate that both Khazars were unrelated to each other in a sense that their common ancestor lived as long as 1500 - 2500 years earlier than them, in the middle of the II millennium BC—beginning of the I millennium
BC, during typically Scythian times or somewhat earlier....

Both burials, named Kuteiniki II (mound 2, burial 1) and Talov II (mound 2, burial 1), are located in the South-East of the Rostov region on the left bank of Don river, about 70 kilometers from each other. The first was excavated in 1994, the second in 2004. ...

The DNA in both cases was extracted from teeth of the ancient skeletons. The teeth were cleaned and ground in a vibration mill, the DNA was isolated by phenol extraction, and other routine procedures were employed for quantitation of the isolated DNA, such as the polymerase chain reaction. In both cases the Y-chromosomal haplogroup of the ancient Khazars was identified as R1a, and the primers specific to SNP mutations R1a-Z280 and R1a-Z93 revealed that the
both samples showed negative Z280 and positive Z93 mutations. Thus, both ancient Khazars’ DNA was interpreted to be of the R1a-Z93 “signature”. This is a very rare SNP in present-day ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and other Slavic male populations, approximately 50% of whom are estimated to carry the R1a haplogroup (www.eupedia; Rozhanskii & Klyosov, 2012). On the other hand, R1a-Z93 is very common in present-day Turkic-speaking peoples such as Caucasian Karachaevo-Balkars, also Tatars, Bashkirs, Kirgiz, and other populations who apparently descended from Scythians, and have their common ancestors in the R1a-Z93 subclade dated back to 1500 - 2500 years ago (Klyosov & Rozhanskii, 2012; Klyosov & Saidov, 2015)."
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/AA_2017011815275855.pdf


Zaporozhie to SE Rostov - the western Khazar steppes (continuing perhaps through the eastern Khazar steppes to Volga/Samara) is possibly where L657's ancestor M780 originated.

Coldmountains
03-06-2017, 02:24 PM
Is anybody able to vouch for the reliability of the Klyosov Khazar Z93 paper - SNPs and STRs?

"Their haplotypes were also identified and reported here. The haplotypes indicate that both Khazars were unrelated to each other in a sense that their common ancestor lived as long as 1500 - 2500 years earlier than them, in the middle of the II millennium BC—beginning of the I millennium
BC, during typically Scythian times or somewhat earlier....

Both burials, named Kuteiniki II (mound 2, burial 1) and Talov II (mound 2, burial 1), are located in the South-East of the Rostov region on the left bank of Don river, about 70 kilometers from each other. The first was excavated in 1994, the second in 2004. ...

The DNA in both cases was extracted from teeth of the ancient skeletons. The teeth were cleaned and ground in a vibration mill, the DNA was isolated by phenol extraction, and other routine procedures were employed for quantitation of the isolated DNA, such as the polymerase chain reaction. In both cases the Y-chromosomal haplogroup of the ancient Khazars was identified as R1a, and the primers specific to SNP mutations R1a-Z280 and R1a-Z93 revealed that the
both samples showed negative Z280 and positive Z93 mutations. Thus, both ancient Khazars’ DNA was interpreted to be of the R1a-Z93 “signature”. This is a very rare SNP in present-day ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and other Slavic male populations, approximately 50% of whom are estimated to carry the R1a haplogroup (www.eupedia; Rozhanskii & Klyosov, 2012). On the other hand, R1a-Z93 is very common in present-day Turkic-speaking peoples such as Caucasian Karachaevo-Balkars, also Tatars, Bashkirs, Kirgiz, and other populations who apparently descended from Scythians, and have their common ancestors in the R1a-Z93 subclade dated back to 1500 - 2500 years ago (Klyosov & Rozhanskii, 2012; Klyosov & Saidov, 2015)."
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/AA_2017011815275855.pdf


Zaporozhie to SE Rostov - the western Khazar steppes (continuing perhaps through the eastern Khazar steppes to Volga/Samara) is possibly where L657's ancestor M780 originated.

Can you link the study or source where M780 was found in Ukraine?. I found nothing about it in the Internet. Was there any other M780 found in Europe ?(excluding Romani)

parasar
03-06-2017, 03:15 PM
Can you link the study or source where M780 was found in Ukraine?. I found nothing about it in the Internet. Was there any other M780 found in Europe ?(excluding Romani)

In Crete, but that was very Romani like. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266736/bin/ejhg201450x5.xls So L657+

The one from the Ukraine is M780+, M634- and L657-
Figure S36 http://genome.cshlp.org/content/suppl/2015/02/18/gr.186684.114.DC1/Supplemental_Figures.pdf

Coldmountains
03-08-2017, 05:42 PM
In Crete, but that was very Romani like. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266736/bin/ejhg201450x5.xls So L657+

The one from the Ukraine is M780+, M634- and L657-
Figure S36 http://genome.cshlp.org/content/suppl/2015/02/18/gr.186684.114.DC1/Supplemental_Figures.pdf

One recent tested tatar is also L657+ . So there is some L657/M780 still hidden in East Europe.

431154 Shaihutdinov, Rafik Ibraev, b.1746, d.Utyaganovo
13 24 17 11 11-14 12 12 10 14 11 32 15 10-10 11 11 22 14 20 32 12-15-15-16 11 11 19-23 15 16 18 20 34-39 13 11

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/tatarlar/default.aspx?section=yresults

epp
03-16-2017, 12:18 PM
One recent tested tatar is also L657+ . So there is some L657/M780 still hidden in East Europe.

431154 Shaihutdinov, Rafik Ibraev, b.1746, d.Utyaganovo
13 24 17 11 11-14 12 12 10 14 11 32 15 10-10 11 11 22 14 20 32 12-15-15-16 11 11 19-23 15 16 18 20 34-39 13 11

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/tatarlar/default.aspx?section=yresults
My calculations from FTDNA's database identify a most likely L657 point of origin as Arabia. 431154's STRs also look Arabian to me. My best guess is that his paternal ancestry is Middle Eastern, perhaps arriving in the area with the Arabs during the 8th century.

My data suggests that L657 descends from either Anatolian or European roots, so I would say there is a possibility that indigenous L657 exists in East Europe as an isolated remnant from a decimated population. However, my data estimates the MRCA of L657 samples to be of Arabian origin.

parasar
03-23-2017, 03:26 PM
My calculations from FTDNA's database identify a most likely L657 point of origin as Arabia. 431154's STRs also look Arabian to me. My best guess is that his paternal ancestry is Middle Eastern, perhaps arriving in the area with the Arabs during the 8th century.

My data suggests that L657 descends from either Anatolian or European roots, so I would say there is a possibility that indigenous L657 exists in East Europe as an isolated remnant from a decimated population. However, my data estimates the MRCA of L657 samples to be of Arabian origin.

Are you seeing a star distribution or a delta?
If the distribution is star (point sourcing) and gives a high TMRCA that to me indicates origin. If on the other hand it is multiple sourced then the TMRCA is artificial.

Coldmountains
03-23-2017, 04:06 PM
My calculations from FTDNA's database identify a most likely L657 point of origin as Arabia. 431154's STRs also look Arabian to me. My best guess is that his paternal ancestry is Middle Eastern, perhaps arriving in the area with the Arabs during the 8th century.

My data suggests that L657 descends from either Anatolian or European roots, so I would say there is a possibility that indigenous L657 exists in East Europe as an isolated remnant from a decimated population. However, my data estimates the MRCA of L657 samples to be of Arabian origin.

There is nothing about L657 which points to an arabic origin. Much of L657 in Arabia has very recent origins in Central or South Asia. Christians, Jews and other pre-islamic Near Easterners seem to lack it. A lot of Persians, Baluchs, Afghans and even Indians settled in Arabia and that explains most L657 in Arabia which anyways is not really high there. L657* was found in Tajikistan and L657 is younger than Z2124 so it could originate in South Cental Asia but M780 which is just a bit upstream has definitely steppe/forest steppe origins in East Europe. The Tatar L657 arrived maybe in Tatarstan via genetic backflow from Central Asia after the Iron Age.

wmehar
03-23-2017, 05:50 PM
There is nothing about L657 which points to an arabic origin. Much of L657 in Arabia has very recent origins in Central or South Asia. Christians, Jews and other pre-islamic Near Easterners seem to lack it. A lot of Persians, Baluchs, Afghans and even Indians settled in Arabia and that explains most L657 in Arabia which anyways is not really high there. L657* was found in Tajikistan and L657 is younger than Z2124 so it could originate in South Cental Asia but M780 which is just a bit upstream has definitely steppe/forest steppe origins in East Europe. The Tatar L657 arrived maybe in Tatarstan via genetic backflow from Central Asia after the Iron Age.


WE don't know anything. Almost everything we've surmised about population migrations are all assumptions. All it takes is one guy with one mutation to survive and his brother/kids move somewhere and happen to have a dominated lineage (breeding, war, illness etc. etc.) competing with other Y lineages.

Though I don't think L657 originated in Arabia, we don't even have anywhere near CLOSE the sample sizes to determine with confidence the origin of L657, NO one here I'm surprised is taking into account particular movement behavior/heuristics. A population sample size of 5000 to 10,000 is no where near enough to conclude L657 is originated in Central Steppes, Arabia, Or anywhere.

However, you can't say it did not originate in Arabia with equal confidence, I'm quite certain L657 was in Arabia 600BC at the very least, and probably prior for another few hundred years given the prevalence of Iranian and even Meccan L657+ members with very well documented lineages who have not left the Hijaz region. Define "recent" ?

Finding some bodies years ago in a region has NO strong/definitive indication of source of origin of mutation whatsoever.

We don't know if L657 began in Arabia, and was chased out by J, either by attrition of breeding, war, or whatever, and found refuge in South Asia.

So many possibly and combinations of scenarios can be plausible. Look at the nomadic (shammar) tribes that have R1a ratio near 50%

My money is on "no one knows anything". The chaos/butterfly effect here is dangerously underestimated and I think it's dangerous to make any assumptions and attribute them to "Academic" representation of history.

epp
03-26-2017, 11:39 PM
There is nothing about L657 which points to an arabic origin. Much of L657 in Arabia has very recent origins in Central or South Asia. Christians, Jews and other pre-islamic Near Easterners seem to lack it. A lot of Persians, Baluchs, Afghans and even Indians settled in Arabia and that explains most L657 in Arabia which anyways is not really high there. L657* was found in Tajikistan and L657 is younger than Z2124 so it could originate in South Cental Asia but M780 which is just a bit upstream has definitely steppe/forest steppe origins in East Europe. The Tatar L657 arrived maybe in Tatarstan via genetic backflow from Central Asia after the Iron Age.
Like wmehar, I also wonder how you know there is nothing about L657 which points to an Arabic origin ... unless you have access to every piece of DNA evidence in existence. You are not alone though, as 8 other people on this forum seem to have the same confident conclusion. It is quite amusing that every time someone posts an offhand dismissal of one of my posts, a whole pack of forum users emerges from the shadows to "thank" them for it. If I started to unquestioningly reinforce the romantic legend that everything that has happened in haplogroup R must have originated in the Steppes, perhaps I would score some Brownie points too?
So Persians, Baluchs, Afghans and Indians settling in Arabia explains "most" (I note, not all) L657 in Arabia, but Arabs settling in Central Asia cannot possibly explain L657 in Central Asia? Why such one-sided consideration of the possibilities? Indeed, the end of your post with a "could" and a "maybe" seems to demonstrate that we don't know the answer.
My calculations give a most likely estimate from all of FTDNA's database, which contains 72 confirmed L657 samples (including plenty of both Arabians and non-Arabians). Using the STR and SNP data from these samples, the variance calculations predict that their MRCA most likely had Arabian roots. (Of course, that's not to say that there were not any earlier L657 people whose descendants might not be represented in the FTDNA database.)
The earlier post mentioned sample 431154 Russian Rafik Ibraev, which is very similar to samples from the UAE (e.g. 414205 Al Mulla and M6986 Al Jakkah Al Mansoori). Of course, Al Mulla's and Al Jakkah's ancestors could have migrated to Arabia from Russia, but the migration could alternatively have been the other way. Looking at the 72 samples as a whole, the calculation is that the most likely estimate is of an Arabian origin. That's all I'm saying.

Megalophias
03-27-2017, 12:05 AM
My calculations give a most likely estimate from all of FTDNA's database, which contains 72 confirmed L657 samples (including plenty of both Arabians and non-Arabians). Using the STR and SNP data from these samples, the variance calculations predict that their MRCA most likely had Arabian roots.
Are the Arabians a small minority amongst a sea of South Asians?

Coldmountains
03-27-2017, 08:15 AM
Like wmehar, I also wonder how you know there is nothing about L657 which points to an Arabic origin ... unless you have access to every piece of DNA evidence in existence. You are not alone though, as 8 other people on this forum seem to have the same confident conclusion. It is quite amusing that every time someone posts an offhand dismissal of one of my posts, a whole pack of forum users emerges from the shadows to "thank" them for it. If I started to unquestioningly reinforce the romantic legend that everything that has happened in haplogroup R must have originated in the Steppes, perhaps I would score some Brownie points too?
So Persians, Baluchs, Afghans and Indians settling in Arabia explains "most" (I note, not all) L657 in Arabia, but Arabs settling in Central Asia cannot possibly explain L657 in Central Asia? Why such one-sided consideration of the possibilities? Indeed, the end of your post with a "could" and a "maybe" seems to demonstrate that we don't know the answer.
My calculations give a most likely estimate from all of FTDNA's database, which contains 72 confirmed L657 samples (including plenty of both Arabians and non-Arabians). Using the STR and SNP data from these samples, the variance calculations predict that their MRCA most likely had Arabian roots. (Of course, that's not to say that there were not any earlier L657 people whose descendants might not be represented in the FTDNA database.)
The earlier post mentioned sample 431154 Russian Rafik Ibraev, which is very similar to samples from the UAE (e.g. 414205 Al Mulla and M6986 Al Jakkah Al Mansoori). Of course, Al Mulla's and Al Jakkah's ancestors could have migrated to Arabia from Russia, but the migration could alternatively have been the other way. Looking at the 72 samples as a whole, the calculation is that the most likely estimate is of an Arabian origin. That's all I'm saying.

L657 is the main lineage of Indian Brahmins who are neither muslim nor had any historical connection with Arabia. Suggesting that they got L657 from Arabia is simply idiotic. Indian muslims and even Syeds in South Asia lack or are very low in arabic lineages. Untill yet just one tajik in Afghanistan was found who had an arabic J1 lineage and hundreds if not thousands of Tajiks and Pashtuns were already tested. Arabic admixture is almost non-existing in Central Asia (lack of SW asian autosomal and y-dna ancestry) and if there was post-islamic admixture from the West it was mainly Persian-like. Also L657 is nowhere really frequent in Arabia it has a frequency around 1-5% in Arabia and is highest in the Gulf coast region where historical contacts with Persians, Indians,.. are very well documented. There are only so much L657 arabs on FTDNA because there are much more Arabs who did dna testing than Afghans, Tajiks, Pakistani or even Indians. L657 is derived from Z94 and it was found in Potapovka and Poltavka. This cultures lacked any kind of SW asian admixture and were steppe derived so Z94 is definetly derived from East Europe. L657 was not found yet in ancient dna but will be probaby found in some late BMAC or early southern Andronovo subculture

epp
03-27-2017, 08:38 AM
Are the Arabians a small minority amongst a sea of South Asians?
Not particularly, I wouldn't say.
By the way, your plain question (without any context) looks a bit like you're trying to lay me a trap to get me to give you an answer that you can then use to prove me wrong.
The thing is - I'm not making any claims to be proved right or wrong about. I'm just communicating the results of my calculations from FTDNA data.

epp
03-27-2017, 08:50 AM
Are you seeing a star distribution or a delta?
If the distribution is star (point sourcing) and gives a high TMRCA that to me indicates origin. If on the other hand it is multiple sourced then the TMRCA is artificial.
It depends what you mean by a high TMRCA. And I don't classify into stars or deltas, or TMRCA into 'real' or 'artificial'. I simply calculate a best estimate from my dataset. I'm not saying where L657 originated - just giving the results of my calculations from FTDNA data, to indicate an alternative possibility for the paternal ancestry of the 431154 sample identified.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-27-2017, 08:58 AM
The thing is - I'm not making any claims to be proved right or wrong about. I'm just communicating the results of my calculations from FTDNA data.

Is there a way you can put your analysis of ftDNA data in concert with other lines of evidence, - aDNA, archaeology, etc.
That is the sort of threshold expected these days :)

epp
03-27-2017, 09:15 AM
L657 is the main lineage of Indian Brahmins who are neither muslim nor had any historical connection with Arabia. Suggesting that they got L657 from Arabia is simply idiotic. Indian muslims and even Syeds in South Asia lack or are very low in arabic lineages. Untill yet just one tajik in Afghanistan was found who had an arabic J1 lineage and hundreds if not thousands of Tajiks and Pashtuns were already tested. Arabic admixture is almost non-existing in Central Asia (lack of SW asian autosomal and y-dna ancestry) and if there was post-islamic admixture from the West it was mainly Persian-like. Also L657 is nowhere really frequent in Arabia it has a frequency around 1-5% in Arabia and is highest in the Gulf coast region where historical contacts with Persians, Indians,.. are very well documented. There are only so much L657 arabs on FTDNA because there are much more Arabs who did dna testing than Afghans, Tajiks, Pakistani or even Indians. L657 is derived from Z94 and it was found in Potapovka and Poltavka. This cultures lacked any kind of SW asian admixture and were steppe derived so Z94 is definetly derived from East Europe. L657 was not found yet in ancient dna but will be probaby found in some late BMAC or early southern Andronovo subculture
To say that this is "idiotic" seems unnecessarily rude. My post was simply in response to a claim that a L657 sample found in Russia indicated potential origin in that area - I was just pointing out that its STRs looked very similar to Arabian samples, and that another possibility was that the individual concerned had an Arabian paternal ancestry. Unless you have highly reliable records of this individual's genealogy going back to ancient times, I don't see how you can judge any particular suggestion about it to be idiotic.
By the way, I'm not looking at autosomal dna (merely direct paternal lines) nor frequencies (R1b frequencies in Eastern Europe and the Near East are low, but this doesn't mean it did not originate in one of these places) nor results from individual archaeological studies (merely the mass data on the FTDNA databases). And I don't think it is very much about numbers of samples; the point is that the data there shows a greater diversity in Arabic samples than it does in samples from India/Central Asia.

epp
03-27-2017, 09:21 AM
Is there a way you can put your analysis of ftDNA data in concert with other lines of evidence, - aDNA, archaeology, etc.
That is the sort of threshold expected these days :)
I'm just keeping it (relatively) simple. Many of you on this forum are the experts on aDNA, archaeology etc. - I'm leaving that analysis to you guys.

Megalophias
03-27-2017, 03:59 PM
By the way, your plain question (without any context) looks a bit like you're trying to lay me a trap to get me to give you an answer that you can then use to prove me wrong.
Um, the context was how many Arabians vs non-Arabians were in the sample. Nothing devious. :P Arabians tend to be over-represented and I figured they probably would be in this case too.

epp
03-27-2017, 06:04 PM
Um, the context was how many Arabians vs non-Arabians were in the sample. Nothing devious. :P Arabians tend to be over-represented and I figured they probably would be in this case too.
Probably. But oddly, my estimated points of origin for most haplogroups seem to come up in under-represented areas.

Coldmountains
03-27-2017, 06:43 PM
To say that this is "idiotic" seems unnecessarily rude. My post was simply in response to a claim that a L657 sample found in Russia indicated potential origin in that area - I was just pointing out that its STRs looked very similar to Arabian samples, and that another possibility was that the individual concerned had an Arabian paternal ancestry. Unless you have highly reliable records of this individual's genealogy going back to ancient times, I don't see how you can judge any particular suggestion about it to be idiotic.
By the way, I'm not looking at autosomal dna (merely direct paternal lines) nor frequencies (R1b frequencies in Eastern Europe and the Near East are low, but this doesn't mean it did not originate in one of these places) nor results from individual archaeological studies (merely the mass data on the FTDNA databases). And I don't think it is very much about numbers of samples; the point is that the data there shows a greater diversity in Arabic samples than it does in samples from India/Central Asia.

It is an absurd suggestion and like saying that M458 is from Greece or Z93 is from Britain. There is an artificial diversity because of multiple sources (Mitanni, Persians, Afghans, Baluchs, Indians,..) and STR diversity is anyways very misleading. For example R1a has the highest STR diversity in the Indus Valley but SNP diversity is very low there and basically all R1a in South Asia is Z93.

epp
03-27-2017, 11:11 PM
It is an absurd suggestion and like saying that M458 is from Greece or Z93 is from Britain. There is an artificial diversity because of multiple sources (Mitanni, Persians, Afghans, Baluchs, Indians,..) and STR diversity is anyways very misleading. For example R1a has the highest STR diversity in the Indus Valley but SNP diversity is very low there and basically all R1a in South Asia is Z93.
What is absurd about recognising a possibility that someone outside of Arabia might have had an Arabian ancestor from some point in the last few thousand years? To suggest that such a possibility is absurd is in itself absurd.

I agree it could be that the greater L657 diversity in Arabia is due to "multiple sources", but I don't see how you can know this is the reason, especially as the other places you mention also had multiple sources?

Then the sweeping statement from you that STR diversity is "very misleading". Yes, of course it can sometimes mislead, but can it not also sometimes inform? Or perhaps to suggest that STRs might be able to tell us anything at all is also "absurd" and "idiotic"?

(By the way, my calculations from STRs on the FTDNA database do not match your assertion that R1a has its highest STR diversity in the Indus Valley.)

parasar
03-28-2017, 04:38 PM
It depends what you mean by a high TMRCA. And I don't classify into stars or deltas, or TMRCA into 'real' or 'artificial'. I simply calculate a best estimate from my dataset. I'm not saying where L657 originated - just giving the results of my calculations from FTDNA data, to indicate an alternative possibility for the paternal ancestry of the 431154 sample identified.

You are calculating TMRCA from STRs. Multiple inputs would raise the TMRCA. There is no point in using say Asians, Africans, Polynesians, and Europeans in the Americas to calculate the TMRCA of humans there - you will get the age of modern humans overall which is far above age of humans in the Americas. But individual lines that have star distributions will give reasonably accurate TMRCA for those lines in the Americas.

The limit for the 'high' TMRCA is the upper bound of the time of a SNP lineage split.

It is also my understanding (from Arabs) that many L657 in Arabia have some knowledge of a Persian or a Subcontinental connection.
There are Persian Abna* lines are in Arabia, while some are so recent that their families remember the migration.
For others like Kutbi these stories are contested:
"Sample YF03545 belongs to a man from the Shammar tribe while sample YF03526 belongs to the Kutbi family of Medina. Their ancestor was a scholar who immigrated from India. However there is a dispute within them. The man whose sample was taken from claims descent from a Hasani Sharif who immigrated to India centuries ago while most of the family insist they are Indian in origin and have nothing to do with Hasani Sharifs or Hashemites in general."

*The Abna and the Tamim:
https://books.google.com/books?id=VfYnu5F20coC&pg=PA270
The Zott and the Tamim:
https://books.google.com/books?id=df2mIOnbrDoC&pg=PA20

Mohyal families in India knew of their relatives in Arabia, but as with so many Indian tales the historicity is suspect. The story is told in terms of migration of Aswathama to Arabia and the return of them as "Husseini Brahmans" after the battle of Karbala.

A new paper has some inferences from 1000 Genome data and YFull. Good summary but nothing new as far as what was known of R1a1 and discussed so many times on this forum. Again it is fascinating to see an actual Z94 sample so close to its TMRCA.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12862-017-0936-9/MediaObjects/12862_2017_936_Fig5_HTML.gif
http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0936-9

wmehar
03-28-2017, 08:41 PM
L657 is the main lineage of Indian Brahmins who are neither muslim nor had any historical connection with Arabia. Suggesting that they got L657 from Arabia is simply idiotic. Indian muslims and even Syeds in South Asia lack or are very low in arabic lineages. Untill yet just one tajik in Afghanistan was found who had an arabic J1 lineage and hundreds if not thousands of Tajiks and Pashtuns were already tested. Arabic admixture is almost non-existing in Central Asia (lack of SW asian autosomal and y-dna ancestry) and if there was post-islamic admixture from the West it was mainly Persian-like. Also L657 is nowhere really frequent in Arabia it has a frequency around 1-5% in Arabia and is highest in the Gulf coast region where historical contacts with Persians, Indians,.. are very well documented. There are only so much L657 arabs on FTDNA because there are much more Arabs who did dna testing than Afghans, Tajiks, Pakistani or even Indians. L657 is derived from Z94 and it was found in Potapovka and Poltavka. This cultures lacked any kind of SW asian admixture and were steppe derived so Z94 is definetly derived from East Europe. L657 was not found yet in ancient dna but will be probaby found in some late BMAC or early southern Andronovo subculture


I beg to differ, I SEE Iraqi, Saudi, UAE, Iran, Syrian R-L657 + individuals ... some Y895, Y944, Y7 etc. I have about 15 in our R1a Arab's study.

Many of which are NOT documented with tribal names linking to the South Asian/Persian region, some with established Arabian Tribes such as Shaybah, Al Rashdi, etc.

Just because you have plenty of Arabs (which I don't think 6000 or so are really representative of a 28 million population) taking tests, doesn't' mean you have the whole story without the other nations taking tests.


If you can provide me a sample of a 1,000 Arabs in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Jordan, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan along with tribal names from every major village/city correcting the n sample for larger city populations then maybe I'd give credit/merit in a conclusive study about the origins of L-657.

These are just poorly made conclusions. Everything up until now is an observation.

parasar
03-28-2017, 09:08 PM
...

(By the way, my calculations from STRs on the FTDNA database do not match your assertion that R1a has its highest STR diversity in the Indus Valley.)

Makes sense for FTDNA data which is skewed to certain populations.
Underhill's more varied dataset showed highest coalescent times for M780 on the Indus.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/extref/ejhg201450x5.xls

FWIW
...

M780
Central Asia 10417 2715 2875
Tajiks (Afghanistan) 11473 3112 3167
Uzbeks (Afghanistan) 9259 2943 2556
Pashtun (Afghanistan) 6793 2962 1875

South Asia 15465 2924 4268
India 13486 3013 3722
Pakistan 17210 3831 4750
Nepal Hindu 10352 4065 2857
Nepal Tharu 15097 4270 4167
Near/Middle East 10668 3772 2944
Iranian Azeris 5737 1455 1583
Europe Roma 1812 849 500

But based on the Poltavka Z94 the above has to be discounted.

It's like one nephew informing us of a higher age/origin when all evidence form uncles, grandparents, cousins etc. point to another location near and about the Samara bend.

jesus
03-28-2017, 09:19 PM
WE don't know anything. Almost everything we've surmised about population migrations are all assumptions. All it takes is one guy with one mutation to survive and his brother/kids move somewhere and happen to have a dominated lineage (breeding, war, illness etc. etc.) competing with other Y lineages.

Though I don't think L657 originated in Arabia, we don't even have anywhere near CLOSE the sample sizes to determine with confidence the origin of L657, NO one here I'm surprised is taking into account particular movement behavior/heuristics. A population sample size of 5000 to 10,000 is no where near enough to conclude L657 is originated in Central Steppes, Arabia, Or anywhere.

However, you can't say it did not originate in Arabia with equal confidence, I'm quite certain L657 was in Arabia 600BC at the very least, and probably prior for another few hundred years given the prevalence of Iranian and even Meccan L657+ members with very well documented lineages who have not left the Hijaz region. Define "recent" ?

Finding some bodies years ago in a region has NO strong/definitive indication of source of origin of mutation whatsoever.

We don't know if L657 began in Arabia, and was chased out by J, either by attrition of breeding, war, or whatever, and found refuge in South Asia.

So many possibly and combinations of scenarios can be plausible. Look at the nomadic (shammar) tribes that have R1a ratio near 50%

My money is on "no one knows anything". The chaos/butterfly effect here is dangerously underestimated and I think it's dangerous to make any assumptions and attribute them to "Academic" representation of history.

Just for the record, some shammar tribal members show an Anatolian/Iranian shift compared to Arabians from tribes such as Mutair, Otiba and Awazm.

epp
03-28-2017, 09:36 PM
You are calculating TMRCA from STRs. Multiple inputs would raise the TMRCA. There is no point in using say Asians, Africans, Polynesians, and Europeans in the Americas to calculate the TMRCA of humans there - you will get the age of modern humans overall which is far above age of humans in the Americas. But individual lines that have star distributions will give reasonably accurate TMRCA for those lines in the Americas.

The limit for the 'high' TMRCA is the upper bound of the time of a SNP lineage split.

It is also my understanding (from Arabs) that many L657 in Arabia have some knowledge of a Persian or a Subcontinental connection.
There are Persian Abna* lines are in Arabia, while some are so recent that their families remember the migration.
Yes, I agree with you - although I would not usually expect inputs to create STR diversity that is higher than in the regions from which the inputs came.
By the way, my calculations also estimate Arabian origin for each of L657's subclades Y7 and Y6; and a Persian origin would be more reconcilable with my calculations than an Indian or Central Asian origin, as these calculations estimate an Armenian origin for Z93 overall.
I'm not saying that this proves anything. I'm just noting the results of my calculations.
I suppose the point is - if there have been multiple large-scale ancient population flows in various directions over the whole region between Arabia, Iran, India and Central Asia, (i) geographical STR diversity becomes a less useful estimation tool, and (ii) even more so, one L657 sample 431154 being Russian/Kazakh doesn't really tell you very much at all.

Coldmountains
03-28-2017, 10:04 PM
What is absurd about recognising a possibility that someone outside of Arabia might have had an Arabian ancestor from some point in the last few thousand years? To suggest that such a possibility is absurd is in itself absurd.

I agree it could be that the greater L657 diversity in Arabia is due to "multiple sources", but I don't see how you can know this is the reason, especially as the other places you mention also had multiple sources?

Then the sweeping statement from you that STR diversity is "very misleading". Yes, of course it can sometimes mislead, but can it not also sometimes inform? Or perhaps to suggest that STRs might be able to tell us anything at all is also "absurd" and "idiotic"?

(By the way, my calculations from STRs on the FTDNA database do not match your assertion that R1a has its highest STR diversity in the Indus Valley.)

Actually many Afghans and Persians (Syeds) are somehow believing they are descendants of Arabs and i am not excluding that more Arab lineages will be found if more Central Asians get tested. But like mentioned earlier Arab ancestry is very rare and in most cases people who claim Arab ancestry have local y-dna. Some Arabs (people who identify as Arabs) were tested in Afghanistan and all of them had local South Asian/Central Asian y-dna. Arab ancestry is probably even rarer in Tatarstan than in Central Asia, where the migration of Arabs is historically documented. There were some Arab-speaking communities in Central Asia after the Islamic conquest but Arabs quickly lost power and the region was mostly islamicized by local and turkic dynasties. Anyways most L657 is today found among Indian Hindus and we can certainly exclude arab muslim admixture among them so you need to explain how they got L657 from Arabia

Coldmountains
03-28-2017, 10:31 PM
I beg to differ, I SEE Iraqi, Saudi, UAE, Iran, Syrian R-L657 + individuals ... some Y895, Y944, Y7 etc. I have about 15 in our R1a Arab's study.

Many of which are NOT documented with tribal names linking to the South Asian/Persian region, some with established Arabian Tribes such as Shaybah, Al Rashdi, etc.

Just because you have plenty of Arabs (which I don't think 6000 or so are really representative of a 28 million population) taking tests, doesn't' mean you have the whole story without the other nations taking tests.


If you can provide me a sample of a 1,000 Arabs in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Jordan, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan along with tribal names from every major village/city correcting the n sample for larger city populations then maybe I'd give credit/merit in a conclusive study about the origins of L-657.

These are just poorly made conclusions. Everything up until now is an observation.
Some L657 is surely older and Indo-Iranians arrived in West Asia already in the Bronze Age. Indo-Aryan linguistic elements were found in Mitanni and Canaan. But i still think most L657 arrived much later. L657 is highest in the Gulf Coast region where contacts with India and Persia became more intense after the Bronze Age. For early Iranics and Vedic Aryans seafaring was very much impure but later especially in the Islamic Age many Indians and Persians settled there and today just in Oman almost 1 million Indians live.

wmehar
03-28-2017, 10:41 PM
Some L657 is surely older and Indo-Iranians arrived in West Asia already in the Bronze Age. Indo-Aryan linguistic elements were found in Mitanni and Canaan. But i still think most L657 arrived much later. L657 is highest in the Gulf Coast region where contacts with India and Persia became more intense after the Bronze Age. For early Iranics and Vedic Aryans seafaring was very much impure but later especially in the Islamic Age many Indians and Persians settled there and today just in Oman almost 1 million Indians live.

I'm not saying it's from Arabia, I'm saying I don't see proof that it's not. I would need evidence that's definitive and conclusive to support it.

I don't see an experiment design that can actually prove it.

I don't know if "originate" means the mutation was born there and spread there, or the mutation came in, kicked the current dominating haplogroup out and then spread.

epp
03-29-2017, 12:36 PM
Actually many Afghans and Persians (Syeds) are somehow believing they are descendants of Arabs and i am not excluding that more Arab lineages will be found if more Central Asians get tested. But like mentioned earlier Arab ancestry is very rare and in most cases people who claim Arab ancestry have local y-dna. Some Arabs (people who identify as Arabs) were tested in Afghanistan and all of them had local South Asian/Central Asian y-dna.
I thought you considered that multiple sources meant we couldn't distinguish what was South Asian, Central Asian or Arabian y-dna.


Arab ancestry is probably even rarer in Tatarstan than in Central Asia, where the migration of Arabs is historically documented. There were some Arab-speaking communities in Central Asia after the Islamic conquest but Arabs quickly lost power and the region was mostly islamicized by local and turkic dynasties.
Yes, but isn't it unlikely that every male descendant of these Arabs would have been wiped out, and that no traces of them would have survived?


Anyways most L657 is today found among Indian Hindus and we can certainly exclude arab muslim admixture among them so you need to explain how they got L657 from Arabia
Who knows for sure? My best guess would be that L657 might have split near the Southern Iran/Iraq border - travelling South and East; or possibly crossed the Persian Gulf towards Iran and Pakistan.

parasar
03-29-2017, 06:01 PM
...

Many of which are NOT documented with tribal names linking to the South Asian/Persian region, some with established Arabian Tribes such as Shaybah ...
...


"At the present day, apart from the Sharifs, as regards true Kuraish we find only the Shaibi at Mecca, the guardians from time immemorial of the keys of the Ka'ba, at least if we do not accept their problematical descent from the anti- caliph Abdallah b. Zubair" https://books.google.com/books?id=7CP7fYghBFQC&pg=PA1126

There was a dispute at the time the Kaaba was captured and Othman's mother initially refused to give up the keys. Another account says that it was Othman who refused.
https://books.google.com/books?id=_nImTioI7ygC&pg=PA653

Nevertheless, it is clear that the key-holders were not recent immigrants but considered to be a part of the Kuraish tribal polity. That they were gatekeepers of the Kaaba from the infidel period through the Islamic transition is also clear.

So, who were the Kuraish and what was their connection, if any, to India or Persia? Kuraish=Koresh=Cyrus?
There is a story told that the Kaaba's idol escaped destruction was spirited away to India and was finally destroyed by the Ghaznavids. Firishtah: https://books.google.com/books?id=bTyRYXtxMSEC&pg=PA65

Both moon worship (som) and the black stone (somnath) would be consistent with this scenario.

Another interesting aspect is the gatekeeper caste of priests in India - the Padihar - Pratihara. They were to become a key power post the Arab invasion in India and were know as one of the greatest of enemies of Islam. "'the enemy of Islam' par excellence" https://books.google.com/books?id=bCVyhH5VDjAC&pg=PA277

We have the results for one possible Padihar (now a Syrian Christian from Kerala) who happens to be L657+
N2358 https://www.familytreedna.com/public/SyrianChristiansOfIndia/default.aspx?section=yresults

wmehar
03-29-2017, 08:12 PM
"At the present day, apart from the Sharifs, as regards true Kuraish we find only the Shaibi at Mecca, the guardians from time immemorial of the keys of the Ka'ba, at least if we do not accept their problematical descent from the anti- caliph Abdallah b. Zubair" https://books.google.com/books?id=7CP7fYghBFQC&pg=PA1126

There was a dispute at the time the Kaaba was captured and Othman's mother initially refused to give up the keys. Another account says that it was Othman who refused.
https://books.google.com/books?id=_nImTioI7ygC&pg=PA653

Nevertheless, it is clear that the key-holders were not recent immigrants but considered to be a part of the Kuraish tribal polity. That they were gatekeepers of the Kaaba from the infidel period through the Islamic transition is also clear.

So, who were the Kuraish and what was their connection, if any, to India or Persia? Kuraish=Koresh=Cyrus?
There is a story told that the Kaaba's idol escaped destruction was spirited away to India and was finally destroyed by the Ghaznavids. Firishtah: https://books.google.com/books?id=bTyRYXtxMSEC&pg=PA65

Both moon worship (som) and the black stone (somnath) would be consistent with this scenario.

Another interesting aspect is the gatekeeper caste of priests in India - the Padihar - Pratihara. They were to become a key power post the Arab invasion in India and were know as one of the greatest of enemies of Islam. "'the enemy of Islam' par excellence" https://books.google.com/books?id=bCVyhH5VDjAC&pg=PA277

We have the results for one possible Padihar (now a Syrian Christian from Kerala) who happens to be L657+
N2358 https://www.familytreedna.com/public/SyrianChristiansOfIndia/default.aspx?section=yresults

Yes, I'm seeing this recurring theme of arbitrarily linking the Quraish tribe with Cyrus/Koresh from what seems to be grasping at random straws of seemingly related bits of information.

The lineage of Quryash is documented actually as a branch of Banu Kinanah, and is actually named after Fihr ibn Malik.

Origins[edit]

The Quraysh's progenitor was Fihr ibn Malik, whose full genealogy, according to traditional Arab sources, was the following: Fihr ibn Mālik ibn al-Naḍr ibn Kināna ibn Khuzayma ibn Mudrika ibn Ilyās ibn Muḍar ibn Nizār ibn Maʿadd ibn ʿAdnān.[1] Thus, Fihr belonged to the Kinana tribe and his descent is traced to Adnan, the semi-legendary father of the "northern Arabs".[1] According to the traditional sources, Fihr led the warriors of Kinana and Khuzayma in defense of the Ka'aba, at the time a major pagan sanctuary in Mecca, against tribes from Yemen; however, the sanctuary and the privileges associated with it continued to be in the hands of the Yemeni Khuza'a tribe.[1] The Quraysh gained their name when Qusayy ibn Kilab, a sixth-generation descendant of Fihr ibn Malik, gathered together his kinsmen and took control of the Ka'aba.[1][note 1] Prior to this, Fihr's offspring lived in scattered, nomadic groups among their Kinana relatives.[1]

Establishment in Mecca[edit]

All medieval Muslim sources agree that Qusayy unified Fihr's descendants, and established the Quraysh as the dominant power in Mecca.[4] After conquering Mecca, Qusayy assigned quarters to different Qurayshi clans.[1] Those settled around the Ka'aba were known Quraysh al-Biṭāḥ, and included all of the descendants of Ka'b ibn Lu'ayy and others.[1] The clans settled in the outskirts of the sanctuary were known as Quraysh al-Ẓawāhīr.[1] According to historian Ibn Ishaq, Qusayy's younger son, 'Abd Manaf, had grown prominent during his father's lifetime and was chosen by Qusayy to be his successor as the guardian of the Ka'aba.[5] He also gave other responsibilities related to the Ka'aba to his other sons 'Abd al-'Uzza and 'Abd, while ensuring that all decisions by the Quraysh had to be made in the presence of his eldest son 'Abd al-Dar; the latter was also designated ceremonial privileges such as keeper of the Qurayshi war banner and supervisor of water and provisions to the pilgrims visiting the Ka'aba.[5]

According to historian F. E. Peters, Ibn Ishaq's account reveals that Mecca in the time of Qusayy and his immediate offspring was not yet a commercial center; rather, the city's economy was based on pilgrimage to the Ka'aba, and "what pass[ed] for municipal offices [designated by Qusayy] have to do only with military operations and with control of the shrine".[6] During that time, the tribesmen of Quraysh were not traders; instead, they were entrusted with religious services, from which they significantly profited.[7] They also profited from taxes collected from incoming pilgrims. Though Qusayy appeared to be the strongman of Quraysh, he was not officially a king of the tribe, but one of many leading sheikhs (tribal chieftains).[7]

And like I said and can demonstrate if you'd like, there are other's in the Hijazi region, and other clans of the Saudi Continent that have L-657+, if Iraq, Iran, Yemen are not good enough.

Cyrus the great /Koresh was in the realm of 600 BC when the Quryash were not even a clan, as their ancestors were the Qedar tribe in northern Mesopotamia, with Adnan and his son Ma'ad leading the tribe before they migrated to the Hijaz region of Arabia.

Quraysh was not used as a tribal name until the tribe grew after Fihr until much later as you can see, and the Qurayshi Arabic (the same upon which the original Quran was written) meant "together".

In no way shape or form is there a direct link to Koresh/Cyrus other than coincidental homophonic tendencies.

The Quraysh tribe along with brother/sister branches such as Kinanah and other branched tribes all were able to trace their lineages directly to Adnan without a single inconsistency, contradiction, nor mismatch.

I would hasten to dispel any notion linking Cyrus with the Quraysh.. It's quite evident that they were descendants of Qedarite/Nebataean Arabs who left Mesopotamia after Nebudchadnezzar II threw them out and killed Adnan.

parasar
03-30-2017, 05:39 PM
Yes, I'm seeing this recurring theme of arbitrarily linking the Quraish tribe with Cyrus/Koresh from what seems to be grasping at random straws of seemingly related bits of information.

The lineage of Quryash is documented actually as a branch of Banu Kinanah, and is actually named after Fihr ibn Malik.

Origins[edit]

The Quraysh's progenitor was Fihr ibn Malik, whose full genealogy, according to traditional Arab sources, was the following: Fihr ibn Mālik ibn al-Naḍr ibn Kināna ibn Khuzayma ibn Mudrika ibn Ilyās ibn Muḍar ibn Nizār ibn Maʿadd ibn ʿAdnān.[1] Thus, Fihr belonged to the Kinana tribe and his descent is traced to Adnan, the semi-legendary father of the "northern Arabs".[1] According to the traditional sources, Fihr led the warriors of Kinana and Khuzayma in defense of the Ka'aba, at the time a major pagan sanctuary in Mecca, against tribes from Yemen; however, the sanctuary and the privileges associated with it continued to be in the hands of the Yemeni Khuza'a tribe.[1] The Quraysh gained their name when Qusayy ibn Kilab, a sixth-generation descendant of Fihr ibn Malik, gathered together his kinsmen and took control of the Ka'aba.[1][note 1] Prior to this, Fihr's offspring lived in scattered, nomadic groups among their Kinana relatives.[1]

Establishment in Mecca[edit]

All medieval Muslim sources agree that Qusayy unified Fihr's descendants, and established the Quraysh as the dominant power in Mecca.[4] After conquering Mecca, Qusayy assigned quarters to different Qurayshi clans.[1] Those settled around the Ka'aba were known Quraysh al-Biṭāḥ, and included all of the descendants of Ka'b ibn Lu'ayy and others.[1] The clans settled in the outskirts of the sanctuary were known as Quraysh al-Ẓawāhīr.[1] According to historian Ibn Ishaq, Qusayy's younger son, 'Abd Manaf, had grown prominent during his father's lifetime and was chosen by Qusayy to be his successor as the guardian of the Ka'aba.[5] He also gave other responsibilities related to the Ka'aba to his other sons 'Abd al-'Uzza and 'Abd, while ensuring that all decisions by the Quraysh had to be made in the presence of his eldest son 'Abd al-Dar; the latter was also designated ceremonial privileges such as keeper of the Qurayshi war banner and supervisor of water and provisions to the pilgrims visiting the Ka'aba.[5]

According to historian F. E. Peters, Ibn Ishaq's account reveals that Mecca in the time of Qusayy and his immediate offspring was not yet a commercial center; rather, the city's economy was based on pilgrimage to the Ka'aba, and "what pass[ed] for municipal offices [designated by Qusayy] have to do only with military operations and with control of the shrine".[6] During that time, the tribesmen of Quraysh were not traders; instead, they were entrusted with religious services, from which they significantly profited.[7] They also profited from taxes collected from incoming pilgrims. Though Qusayy appeared to be the strongman of Quraysh, he was not officially a king of the tribe, but one of many leading sheikhs (tribal chieftains).[7]

And like I said and can demonstrate if you'd like, there are other's in the Hijazi region, and other clans of the Saudi Continent that have L-657+, if Iraq, Iran, Yemen are not good enough.

Cyrus the great /Koresh was in the realm of 600 BC when the Quryash were not even a clan, as their ancestors were the Qedar tribe in northern Mesopotamia, with Adnan and his son Ma'ad leading the tribe before they migrated to the Hijaz region of Arabia.

Quraysh was not used as a tribal name until the tribe grew after Fihr until much later as you can see, and the Qurayshi Arabic (the same upon which the original Quran was written) meant "together".

In no way shape or form is there a direct link to Koresh/Cyrus other than coincidental homophonic tendencies.

The Quraysh tribe along with brother/sister branches such as Kinanah and other branched tribes all were able to trace their lineages directly to Adnan without a single inconsistency, contradiction, nor mismatch.

I would hasten to dispel any notion linking Cyrus with the Quraysh.. It's quite evident that they were descendants of Qedarite/Nebataean Arabs who left Mesopotamia after Nebudchadnezzar II threw them out and killed Adnan.

I really can't disagree with any of this because I can't. But it difficult to accept it as fact either.

A movement from the north would even make it more likely that L657 in Arabia came from Iraq, Syria, or Iran.

But if we look at the Shammar who are rich in R1a1, their traditions say are descendants of the Tayy (Tajik in Persian and Indic material) of Yemen.
If we take these accounts/traditions at face value it means that migrations occurred in both directions.

There are many indicators that point to an Aryan influence in Mesopotamia. In fact cushan-rishathaim I believe references an Indo-Aryan king.
We do not have any ancient DNA that confirms the movement of L657, but we the Terqa cloves (not native to the region) and mtDNA that point to a Subcontinental contact.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0073682
https://books.google.com/books?id=O_aFGKPsWwcC&pg=PA270

Coldmountains
06-28-2017, 07:23 PM
New Y3 (a bit upstream of L657) was found in Kazakhstan. Now we have postive Y3 samples from Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia and M780 from Ukraine. Some Y3>F1417(brother clade of L657) was found in China also
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,3495.270.html

parasar
06-29-2017, 02:47 PM
New Y3 (a bit upstream of L657) was found in Kazakhstan. Now we have postive Y3 samples from Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia and M780 from Ukraine. Some Y3>F1417(brother clade of L657) was found in China also
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,3495.270.html

Interesting. I thought that the Tajik sample was the only one (Tajik, Ishkasim Ishk1, 16189).

Coldmountains
06-29-2017, 06:29 PM
Interesting. I thought that the Tajik sample was the only one (Tajik, Ishkasim Ishk1, 16189).

The F1417 in China is quite fascinating and L657/Y7 was already earlier found in West China among Uyghurs. The question is how it arrived in China. Probably with Buddhist/Indo-Aryan immigrants during the Buddhist era but recently i heard about a theory which states that the Wusun people were Indo-Aryan. Sounds rather speculative for me, but it can not be excluded that some L657 tribes settled far east


Sinologist Victor H. Mair compared Wusun with Sanskrit áśva ‘horse’, aśvin ‘mare’ and Lithuanian ašvà ‘mare’. The name would thus mean ‘the horse people’. Hence he put forward the hypothesis that the Wusun used a centum-like language within the Indo-European languages. However, the latter hypothesis is not supported by Edwin G. Pulleyblank.[4] Christopher I. Beckwith makes a similliar analysis to Mair, reconstructing Chinese term Wusun to the Old Chinese *âswin, which he compares to the Old Indic aśvin ‘the horsemen’, the name of the Rigvedic twin equestrian gods.[5]

The Y3* guy from Kazakhstan seems to be ultimately from Bashkortostan. Also the Tatar L657 seems to be Y7+

Power77
06-29-2017, 09:05 PM
The F1417 in China is quite fascinating and L657/Y7 was already earlier found in West China among Uyghurs. The question is how it arrived in China. Probably with Buddhist/Indo-Aryan immigrants during the Buddhist era but recently i heard about a theory which states that the Wusun people were Indo-Aryan. Sounds rather speculative for me, but it can not be excluded that some L657 tribes settled far east.


Are you sure it is from an ethnically Han Chinese sample (and not from either an Uyghur or an Hui one)?

fished
06-29-2017, 09:15 PM
Are you sure it is from an ethnic Han sample (and not from either an Uyghur or an Hui one)?

It was not unheard of in Chinese history for an originally Muslim Hui family to lose their attachment to Islam over the generations and eventually assimilate into the Han majority. The famous Ming Dynasty Confucian scholar Li Zhi's family is an example.

Besides that, though, a fairly high rate of West Eurasian y-DNA has been found in Han Chinese from northwestern provinces such as Gansu. Some of this may be from Silk Road trade, but I believe part of it may be from the same ancient source as the West Eurasian admixture in Mongolians.

Power77
06-29-2017, 09:25 PM
A fairly high rate of West Eurasian Y-DNA has been found in Han Chinese from northwestern provinces such as Gansu. Some of this may be from Silk Road trade, but I believe part of it may be from the same ancient source as the West Eurasian admixture in Mongolians.


There is no doubt that "West Eurasian" Y-DNA lineages are much more likely to be found among NW Han Chinese than among other Hans, as such folks are either Sinicized non-Hans or Chinese people with both ancient (Tocharian, Indo-Iranian and/or Kushan) and relatively recent (Turkic, Mongolian and/or Hui Muslim) non-Han admixture.

parasar
06-29-2017, 10:53 PM
Are you sure it is from an ethnically Han Chinese sample (and not from either an Uyghur or an Hui one)?

The sample says Han to the exclusion of Hui who are also in the data.

Power77
06-29-2017, 11:13 PM
The sample says Han to the exclusion of Hui who are also in the data.

Does the study specify from which region is that Z93-carrying "Han" individual from?

parasar
06-30-2017, 02:17 AM
Does the study specify from which region is that Z93-carrying "Han" individual from?

Both are Z93, one Z2124 and the other F1417.

YCH99 R1a1a* M17+, M198+, M434-, M458- F CAACT Han Fujian HiSeq2000 paired-end Good 9.51
YCH115 R1a1a* M17+, M198+, M434-, M458- F CGATT Han Shanxi HiSeq2000 paired-end Good 6.88

"Michał wrote: "Chinese Y-DNA lineages by Shi Yan et al. (2013) confirms our previous suspicion that F2935 has been first discovered in a man from China. The paper shows two Chinese R1a cases, both being Z94+, with one of them showing not only F2997 and F1345, but also a downstream marker F2935, and another downstream marker F1019, all four of them found in kit N113415 from Kazakhstan, as well. This Chinese F1019+ man shows five additional SNPs that are not shared by the other Chinese Z94 member"
...
"As for the other Z94 member from China, he is not reported as showing any known SNP mutations downstream of Z94, though please note that Z2121, Z2124 and Z2122 have not been detected in the F1019 member from that paper (so they were likely not tested at all). However, this Z94+ F2997- F1345- individual is reported as showing nine novel mutations downstream of Z94, including seven SNPs that are testable at NatGeo (F1153, F1408, F1417, F2358, F2421, F2699 and F3125, though the latter one is frequently giving no-calls), neither of them found in any Geno 2.0 testee yet (so we don't know their exact position).""

Power77
06-30-2017, 03:16 AM
Both are Z93, one Z2124 and the other F1417.

YCH99 R1a1a* M17+, M198+, M434-, M458- F CAACT Han Fujian HiSeq2000 paired-end Good 9.51
YCH115 R1a1a* M17+, M198+, M434-, M458- F CGATT Han Shanxi HiSeq2000 paired-end Good 6.88

"Michał wrote: "Chinese Y-DNA lineages by Shi Yan et al. (2013) confirms our previous suspicion that F2935 has been first discovered in a man from China. The paper shows two Chinese R1a cases, both being Z94+, with one of them showing not only F2997 and F1345, but also a downstream marker F2935, and another downstream marker F1019, all four of them found in kit N113415 from Kazakhstan, as well. This Chinese F1019+ man shows five additional SNPs that are not shared by the other Chinese Z94 member"
...
"As for the other Z94 member from China, he is not reported as showing any known SNP mutations downstream of Z94, though please note that Z2121, Z2124 and Z2122 have not been detected in the F1019 member from that paper (so they were likely not tested at all). However, this Z94+ F2997- F1345- individual is reported as showing nine novel mutations downstream of Z94, including seven SNPs that are testable at NatGeo (F1153, F1408, F1417, F2358, F2421, F2699 and F3125, though the latter one is frequently giving no-calls), neither of them found in any Geno 2.0 testee yet (so we don't know their exact position).""

These two individuals could very well be of either Hui Muslim or Mongolian descent.

parasar
06-30-2017, 03:27 AM
These two individuals could very well be of either Hui Muslim or Mongolian descent.

Yes possible.

For F1417 nothing much can even be speculated since the only other sample is a Tajik from a couple of thousand miles away. Besides these Z94s, we also have the numerous Z93- samples from Xiaohe, and Z93 from ancient Mongolia. Plus the earliest M17 sample (nearly all R1a extant are M17) is from the Baikal.

parasar
09-08-2017, 03:39 PM
Coincidence, that the Y3 L657- sample is from Russia ~300 miles NE of Samara?
Not likely.

Haplogroup R1a1-Z645>Z93>Z94>Y3 [L657-], formed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 4700 ybp
408528 Musa Bikmeev, 1667 d. Ishtiryakovo Birskii uezd Russian Federation R-M198
DYS393 DYS390 DYS19 DYS391 DYS385 DYS426 DYS388 DYS439 DYS389i DYS392 DYS389ii DYS458 DYS459 DYS455 DYS454 DYS447 DYS437 DYS448 DYS449 DYS464 DYS460 Y-GATA-H4 YCAII DYS456 DYS607 DYS576 DYS570 CDY DYS442 DYS438 DYS531 DYS578 DYF395S1 DYS590 DYS537 DYS641 DYS472 DYF406S1 DYS511 DYS425
DYS413 DYS557 DYS594 DYS436 DYS490 DYS534 DYS450 DYS444 DYS481 DYS520 DYS446 DYS617 DYS568 DYS487 DYS572 DYS640 DYS492 DYS565
13 24 16 10 11-14 12 12 11 13 11 30 17 9-10 11 11 25 14 20 32 12-15-15-16 11 10 0 15 16 17 20 35-39 14 11 12 8 0-0 8 11 10 8 11 10 15 22-22 16 10 12 12 14 8 14 24 21 13 12 12 13 11 11 12 12
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/BURAEVODNAProject/default.aspx?section=yresults

Haplogroup R1a1-Z645>Z93>Z94>L657, formed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 4200 ybp
431154 d.Utyaganovo Buraevskiy r-n RB Russian Federation R-L657
13 24 17 11 11-14 12 12 10 14 11 32 15 10-10 11 11 22 14 20 32 12-15-15-16 11 11 19-23 15 16 18 20 34-39 13 11

Previously posted:

One recent tested tatar is also L657+ . So there is some L657/M780 still hidden in East Europe.

431154 Shaihutdinov, Rafik Ibraev, b.1746, d.Utyaganovo
13 24 17 11 11-14 12 12 10 14 11 32 15 10-10 11 11 22 14 20 32 12-15-15-16 11 11 19-23 15 16 18 20 34-39 13 11

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/tatarlar/default.aspx?section=yresults

parasar
09-08-2017, 08:39 PM
http://libartrus.com/arch/files/2016/5/09_160273_Buharova_v3_517-531.pdf
Bashkir place names derived from the substrate geographical terms of the Indo-Iranian origin
Abstract in English on page 14:
"Local geographical terms play an important role in the formation of a toponymic system of a geographical region. Archaic vocabulary roots in the mists of time and and serves as the evidence of ancient contacts of the local population. Identification, systemic description and comprehensive analysis of toponyms contributes to linguistic and historic reseach. In this article, the substrate local geographical terminology of the Indo-Iranian origin involved in the formation of the Bashkir place names and ethnonyms is discussed. By allocating place name formants, place name bases, toponymic types, the autor attempts to identify the Indo-Iranian substratum in Bashkir geographical terminology and to define its role in formation of place names. As the study shows, substrate geographic appellatives of the Indo-Iranian origin are abundantly represented in the Bashkir toponymy. Some of them are preserved only as the part of Bashkir geographical names, for example, the Bashkir hydronyms Abdon, Avzyan, Avryuz and many others originated from a geographical appellative av/aw "water". Some geographical terms of Indo-Iranian origin have survived in the dialects of the Bashkir language and are currently spoken by dialect speakers, e. g., besha (a young pine), and byzhak (a lonely towering mountain). The basis of the Bashkir toponymic system is comprised mainly by substrate geographical terms of Indo-Iranian origin, which became toponyms during their functioning in the language."

parasar
01-29-2018, 08:31 PM
Yes possible.

For F1417 nothing much can even be speculated since the only other sample is a Tajik from a couple of thousand miles away. Besides these Z94s, we also have the numerous Z93- samples from Xiaohe, and Z93 from ancient Mongolia. Plus the earliest M17 sample (nearly all R1a extant are M17) is from the Baikal.

The Saudi Y3 sample is F1417 like the Han Chinese sample and the Tajik one.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y3/

parasar
11-14-2019, 08:59 PM
M780 (and other R1a-M420 lines)
34622

misnomer
05-17-2020, 06:18 AM
So, 0 R-Y3, R-Y2 or R-L657 in the bronze age steppe so far in past 5 years since this post is up? hardly any european moderns with these as well.

So where are these from?

Generalissimo
05-17-2020, 06:59 AM
So, 0 R-Y3, R-Y2 or R-L657 in the bronze age steppe so far in past 5 years since this post is up? hardly any european moderns with these as well.

So where are these from?

From Eastern Europe...

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CdN1sEbEiis/XXocjUcDplI/AAAAAAAAIOo/5peJ8j1tMYQ7kHpl1ET2p-v5FlmgRGWAACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Ancient_Y-hg_R1a_v2.jpg

misnomer
05-17-2020, 07:38 AM
From Eastern Europe...

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CdN1sEbEiis/XXocjUcDplI/AAAAAAAAIOo/5peJ8j1tMYQ7kHpl1ET2p-v5FlmgRGWAACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Ancient_Y-hg_R1a_v2.jpg

Lol. Im not talking about R1a, and this post is not about R1a.

Its about R-Y3/Y2/Y26 R1a1a1b2a1~ (tmrca and formation 2600bce) and specifically R-L657 R1a1a1b2a1a (tmrca ~2100bce) and its downstream markers. Your pic has no relevance here, the post asks about where R-L657 will be found, so far it has only been found in roopkund lake in past 5 years. Not even the 2 SPGT R1a samples are R-Y3 or R-L657, whereas SPGT is where we see clear female mediated migration from the steppe. Not even Steppe_LBA or IA has those.

Meanwhile, chaubey's unpublished paper says hes found all the basal samples in his study (listed below). The whole chain is present. If it's published, did those come from steppe in 2nd mill bce as well? If so, why are all those 2 most basal ones missing from steppe eba or mlba or lba?

R1*-M173
R1a-M420
R1a1a1-M417
R1a1a1b-Z645
R1a1a1b2-Z93
R1a1a1b2a-Z95
R1a1a1b2a1-M780/Y3/Y2/Y26

Edited to add:

And btw, Roopkund I6942, who is derived for R-L657 is extremely far to any brahmin or north indian, and is closest to southern tribes. He may be a pallan.
https://i.imgur.com/YUsqEG7.png

Same for I6946, who is R-M417, R1a1a, he is far away from any brahmin or north india
https://i.imgur.com/CieLxHt.png

Why are none of those other 10 RoopkundA samples who cluster with central, north indians and brahmins on the PCA positive for any R1a?
It is surprising that the 2 most aasi shifted samples in roopkund A are derived for R1a!

Generalissimo
05-17-2020, 07:43 AM
Lol. Im not talking about R1a, and this post is not about R1a.

Its about R-Y3/Y2/Y26 R1a1a1b2a1~ (tmrca and formation 2600bce) and specifically R-L657 R1a1a1b2a1a (tmrca ~2100bce) and its downstream markers. Your pic has no relevance here, the post asks about where R-L657 will be found, so far it has only been found in roopkund lake in past 5 years. Not even the 2 SPGT R1a samples are R-Y3 or R-L657, whereas SPGT is where we see clear female mediated migration from the steppe. Not even Steppe_LBA or IA has those.

Meanwhile, chaubey's unpublished paper says hes found all the basal samples in his study (listed below). The whole chain is present. If it's published, did those come from steppe in 2nd mill bce as well? If so, why are all those 3-4 most basal ones missing from steppe eba or mlba or lba?

R1*-M173
R1a-M420
R1a1a1-M417
R1a1a1b-Z645
R1a1a1b2-Z93
R1a1a1b2a-Z95
R1a1a1b2a1-M780/Y3/Y2/Y26

Yes, all of these lineages are from Eastern Europe and they came to South Asia with the descendants of Andronovo males.

A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals (https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0936-9)

misnomer
05-17-2020, 11:04 AM
Yes, all of these lineages are from Eastern Europe and they came to South Asia with the descendants of Andronovo males.

A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals (https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0936-9)

step 1: assume the L657 is from steppe males and there was male mediated migration
step2: check the pallan and the chenchu dna, find L657 but almost nil steppe_mlba in autosomes.
step3: claim that the L657 in modern males is through heavy steppe male mediated migration, with <5% autosomal ancestry but high y haplogroup match (note that R1a is assumed to be from steppe, even though no L657 has been found there)

This is what i call a circlejerk. garbage in - garbage out. claim in step 1 has been proven wrong by complete absence of L657 in swat and steppe and <5% R1a in Swat_IA. Will remain so till new data proves it.

you will never find L657 or R-Y3 in steppe_mlba in the future, if you do, i will gladly accept i was wrong. This thread was opened 5 years back, no steppe sample since then has been positive for L657 or even R-y3 whose birth is much older than the steppe migration into india, disproving claims of many on the thread. Either that, or at least 30 aDna samples from northern, gangetic plains and south india are required to finally settle this issue.

parasar
07-21-2020, 12:24 AM
step 1: assume the L657 is from steppe males and there was male mediated migration
step2: check the pallan and the chenchu dna, find L657 but almost nil steppe_mlba in autosomes.
step3: claim that the L657 in modern males is through heavy steppe male mediated migration, with <5% autosomal ancestry but high y haplogroup match (note that R1a is assumed to be from steppe, even though no L657 has been found there)

This is what i call a circlejerk. garbage in - garbage out. claim in step 1 has been proven wrong by complete absence of L657 in swat and steppe and <5% R1a in Swat_IA. Will remain so till new data proves it.

you will never find L657 or R-Y3 in steppe_mlba in the future, if you do, i will gladly accept i was wrong. This thread was opened 5 years back, no steppe sample since then has been positive for L657 or even R-y3 whose birth is much older than the steppe migration into india, disproving claims of many on the thread. Either that, or at least 30 aDna samples from northern, gangetic plains and south india are required to finally settle this issue.

I have no idea why you got banned. But in case you are back, re: "you will never find L657 or R-Y3 in steppe_mlba in the future" - I would say, so what?

The issue is not of an SNP or two here and there, see eg. "Archi said... Z93 this does not mean that they are proto-Indo-Iranians, only those who will have Z94 can claim to be proto-Indo-Iranians."
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/fatyanovo-males-were-rich-in-y.html
Really? A SNP or two! Z93 vs Z94! M780 vs Y3!

IMO, a comprehensive analysis of "ancestors of R1a-L657" should at least go back to M417.

Coldmountains
07-21-2020, 06:39 AM
I have no idea why you got banned. But in case you are back, re: "you will never find L657 or R-Y3 in steppe_mlba in the future" - I would say, so what?

The issue is not of an SNP or two here and there, see eg. "Archi said... Z93 this does not mean that they are proto-Indo-Iranians, only those who will have Z94 can claim to be proto-Indo-Iranians."
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/fatyanovo-males-were-rich-in-y.html
Really? A SNP or two! Z93 vs Z94! M780 vs Y3!

IMO, a comprehensive analysis of "ancestors of R1a-L657" should at least go back to M417.

There will be Z94 in Fatyanovo and archaeologically it contributed significantly to Abashevo. Fatyanovo is older than Abashevo and it will be hard to explain the rich EEF ancestry in Petrovka, Sintashta and Abashevo without Fatyanovo. Obviously Fatyanovo would have many groups rather being parallel than ancestral to Proto-Indo-Iranians but one way or another Proto-Indo-Iranians including L657 Indo-Aryans are from eastern Corded Ware.

Generalissimo
07-21-2020, 07:15 AM
Don't believe Archi. There's Z94 in Fatyanovo, and even Z2124 and Z2125, and who knows what else once the BAMs for all of the samples are released.

Coldmountains
07-21-2020, 07:39 AM
Don't believe Archi. There's Z94 in Fatyanovo, and even Z2124 and Z2125, and who knows what else once the BAMs for all of the samples are released.

Z2124 itself being just 5000-5500 years old and in Fatyanovo around 2500 B.C, later Sintashta around 2000 B.C and many modern day Indo-Iranians is already proving that R1a-Y3 is from Fatyanovo/Abashevo. Indo-Iranians split in different linguistic branches (Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Nuristani,..) around 2000-2500 B.C so R1a-Z2125 and R1a-L657 must live in the same cultural horizon during this time which very much seems to be in the Fatyanovo-Abashevo-Sintashta chain of cultures. But this nitpicking and trolling will continue as long as Y3/L657 is not finally found there. But i guess even than it wil continue...

Alain
07-21-2020, 08:04 AM
Could you also imagine that there are some R1b with determine Clades found in the Tarim Basin by pre-Yamnaya groups that can be related to the afanisevo culture? I have the assumption that so-called „Tocharians" were absorbed, so to speak, by later expanding Indo-Iranian groups and therefore fully R1a with determine clades are predominant

pegasus
07-21-2020, 08:59 AM
Z2124 itself being just 5000-5500 years old and in Fatyanovo around 2500 B.C, later Sintashta around 2000 B.C and many modern day Indo-Iranians is already proving that R1a-Y3 is from Fatyanovo/Abashevo. Indo-Iranians split in different linguistic branches (Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Nuristani,..) around 2000-2500 B.C so R1a-Z2125 and R1a-L657 must live in the same cultural horizon during this time which very much seems to be in the Fatyanovo-Abashevo-Sintashta chain of cultures. But this nitpicking and trolling will continue as long as Y3/L657 is not finally found there. But i guess even than it wil continue...

In that case Fatyanovo/Abashevo are more important for early IIr groups since the Indo Aryan-Nuristani/Iranic split seems to have occurred here, Sintashta is a bit late even though all these groups are closely related.

CopperAxe
07-24-2020, 10:24 AM
In that case Fatyanovo/Abashevo are more important for early IIr groups since the Indo Aryan-Nuristani/Iranic split seems to have occurred here, Sintashta is a bit late even though all these groups are closely related.

From an archaeological perspective however, Abashevo seems more distant to the lifestyles and traditions described in the Rigveda. It is too "European Corded ware" so to say, and it takes on several Poltavka features as they migrate back to the steppes, such as horse burials and large animal sacrifices. From that contact sphere the Sintashta culture develops. Don't forget that the Sintashta-Petrovka culture had about 40 different towns and various subcultures, likely you had dialetical development within the Abashevo culture but still a common Indo-Iranian linguistic sphere in during the Sintashta period.

We also haven't found Z2103 in Sintashta sites postdating the Poltavka, but we know it must've persisted around the Urals because the Sarmatians show it. Patrilineality and patrilocality means that particular y-dna haplogroups will dominate at particular sites, and you had a lot of those in the Sintashta cultural zone.

As Samuel L. Jackson says, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I don't think we should assume based on the current y-dna that Sintashta was Iranian.

Coldmountains
07-24-2020, 10:53 AM
From an archaeological perspective however, Abashevo seems more distant to the lifestyles and traditions described in the Rigveda. It is too "European Corded ware" so to say, and it takes on several Poltavka features as they migrate back to the steppes, such as horse burials and large animal sacrifices. From that contact sphere the Sintashta culture develops. Don't forget that the Sintashta-Petrovka culture had about 40 different towns and various subcultures, likely you had dialetical development within the Abashevo culture but still a common Indo-Iranian linguistic sphere in during the Sintashta period.

We also haven't found Z2103 in Sintashta sites postdating the Poltavka, but we know it must've persisted around the Urals because the Sarmatians show it. Patrilineality and patrilocality means that particular y-dna haplogroups will dominate at particular sites, and you had a lot of those in the Sintashta cultural zone.

As Samuel L. Jackson says, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I don't think we should assume based on the current y-dna that Sintashta was Iranian.

There are almost 1000 years between Abashevo and Rigvedic Aryans. Also the ancestors of Rig Vedic Aryans already picked up a lot of Central Asian/South Asian cultural, linguistic and genetic influences so much that we don't find much direct archaeological traces of Andronovo south of BMAC what was one of the main arguments of OIT. So we don't have to expect too much or total material/cultural continuity between Indo-Iranians around 2000-2500 B.C in Abashevo/Fatyanovo and later Indo-Aryans in 1000-1500 B.C in South Asia. Rig Vedic Indo-Aryans lived in a very different ecological zone and had a material cultural not always distinguishable from preceding groups.

We have very many samples from Sintashta more than dozens and they all are under Z2124 and Z2123 clades often typical for later Saka and Karasuk. The role of Sintashta is in my opinion a bit exaggerated because of media and "spectacular" archaeological findings. R1b-Z2103 is another story because it was unlikely part of the earliest Indo-Iranian movements and seems to be mainly of adstrate/substrate origin. Y3/L657 on the otherside was part of the original Indo-Iranian and especially Indo-Aryan migration. So the lack of it in Sintashta, Potapovka and Poltavka_O is more problematic but maybe it is just a result of testing too few sites and missing the Y3/L657 sites in the region.

Abashevo is not simply CWC derived at least not from an archaeological point of view. It shows a lot of more southern steppe/yamnaya influences, what made many archaeologists theorizing that it is derived from the south. Based on the rumours this is rather unlikely and it seems to be very Sintashta-like and Fatyanovo-derived.

I expect both Y3 and Z2124 in Fatyanovo and Abashevo but Y3 played a bigger role in Abashevo i think. Neverthless maybe and hopefully Y3/L657 will be found in Sintashta-Petrovka too but i would not be surprised if not.

CopperAxe
07-24-2020, 03:56 PM
There are almost 1000 years between Abashevo and Rigvedic Aryans. Also the ancestors of Rig Vedic Aryans already picked up a lot of Central Asian/South Asian cultural, linguistic and genetic influences so much that we don't find much direct archaeological traces of Andronovo south of BMAC what was one of the main arguments of OIT. So we don't have to expect too much or total material/cultural continuity between Indo-Iranians around 2000-2500 B.C in Abashevo/Fatyanovo and later Indo-Aryans in 1000-1500 B.C in South Asia. Rig Vedic Indo-Aryans lived in a very different ecological zone and had a material cultural not always distinguishable from preceding groups.

We have very many samples from Sintashta more than dozens and they all are under Z2124 and Z2123 clades often typical for later Saka and Karasuk. The role of Sintashta is in my opinion a bit exaggerated because of media and "spectacular" archaeological findings. R1b-Z2103 is another story because it was unlikely part of the earliest Indo-Iranian movements and seems to be mainly of adstrate/substrate origin. Y3/L657 on the otherside was part of the original Indo-Iranian and especially Indo-Aryan migration. So the lack of it in Sintashta, Potapovka and Poltavka_O is more problematic but maybe it is just a result of testing too few sites and missing the Y3/L657 sites in the region.

Abashevo is not simply CWC derived at least not from an archaeological point of view. It shows a lot of more southern steppe/yamnaya influences, what made many archaeologists theorizing that it is derived from the south. Based on the rumours this is rather unlikely and it seems to be very Sintashta-like and Fatyanovo-derived.

I expect both Y3 and Z2124 in Fatyanovo and Abashevo but Y3 played a bigger role in Abashevo i think. Neverthless maybe and hopefully Y3/L657 will be found in Sintashta-Petrovka too but i would not be surprised if not.

I think it is very hard however, to argue for an origin of Indo-Aryans in the Abashevo which does not go through the Sintashta culture, particularly because we do not have any evidence of Abashevo residing east of the Urals, let alone a trajectory towards southern Central Asia. My point regarding rituals was that the ritualistic animal sacrifices we see in the Sintashta horizon, as well as the whole chariot based culture (burials) are not shared with the Abashevo and we see reflections of that with the Vedic Aryans.

You are right that Abashevo is not simply CW, but that it was a Poltavka influenced Fatyanovo split off, the influence was still an ongoing process and with the Sintashta we see an Poltavka influenced Abashevo develop into an unique culture a lot more similar to what we see described in both the Rigveda and the Gathas, and not purely because of their economy and habitat. I have never read about Abashevo being derived from the Yamnaya, I know they were rather sedentary and pigs were a significant part of their livestock. Pigs are a rather a-typical livestock for steppe peoples but perfect for forest dwellers.

The Sintashta sphere also spawns various material cultures such as the Petrovka and Andronovo. Sintashta was similar enough that at first it was considered to be part of the Andronovo culture, but now we know Andronovo developed out of Sintashta traditions. The Fedorovo phase is another important part as that is when we see cremations for the first time, likely a religious development within the Andronovo.

As far as I know, no Petrovka Y-dna has been published yet. per David W. Anthony, Petrovka was a Sintashta splinter group which started colonizing areas near the BMAC. Anthony also suggested that the people in those coolonies were ancestral to the Vedic Aryans, with the northern Sintashta being ancestral to Iranians.

I don't think you can argue for a steppe_MLBA origin of Indo-Aryans that does not involve those two, and therefore Sintashta has to be involved in my opinion. I think it is rather crucial to the development of Indo-Iranian cultures, instead of overrated.

On the topic of archaeological sites, a significant majority of the Sintashta samples are from the same cemetery, and the location of is more or less the northern edge of the Sintashta culture. I don't think it is surprising to find many of the R1a samples within the same cluster here, in fact it would be rather typical for a patrilineal and patrilocal society. It would also fall perfectly in line with what David W. Anthony outlined before, and them being ancestral to the Karasuk and Saka makes more sense because they would be right on the Seima-Turbino highway as well.

Nature and languages do not always go hand in hand either, so just because two haplogroups went different ways, that does not mean that you are already looking at two different languages. Haplogroups are not cultures and languages, and besides our view of the haplogroup situation is very far from complete in my opinion. I don't think we should assume a singular identity for the Sintashta either (Iranian or even Scytho-Siberian), as you have various splinter groups and many different settlements, which were mostly fortified, and probably for a good reason.

Regarding z2103, we know it is a Poltavka haplogroup, and we have found Sarmatian samples in the same region with said haplogroup, and you even have Bashkirs today in the same region who have lots of those haplogroups. I know we shouldn't assume too much but I think the picture here is quite clear. Poltavka is absorbed into Sintashta horizon, not much archaeological trace of them, not buried in typical Sintashta cemeteries (or at least the sampled ones) but we see their descendants in the archaeogenetic record, and on honey fairs in the Urals.If they did not partake in the massive journeys to the east or south, then I don't see why you would need to find said haplogroups in those regions either.

DMXX
07-24-2020, 04:32 PM
I'm inclined to agree with CopperAxe. I haven't come across any evidence of Abashevo "leap-frogging" over Sintashta-Petrovka, archaeologically-speaking*.

For the time being, I suspect that the current Y-DNA profile of the Sintashta people (let alone Petrovka) represented a localised cluster and serves as an artificial diversity reducer in our analyses.

Archaeological data did suggest minor introgression of Botai-derived or Ural HG folks into Sintashta, well before we had any aDNA - Lo and behold, several outliers matching that archaeological inference were discovered.

Given the archaeological data has (so far) been reasonably accurate in predicting the ethnogenesis of the Eurasian steppe people**, we have reason to expect some degree of stratification along the Y-line at least (and potentially mt-line as well) within Sintashta. I think the odds are reasonable that some Z93+ Z2124- Z2123- lines (likely including Y3+ and L657+) will be found in Sintashta-Petrovka over time.

* There remains the curious case of Zamanbaba, which looked Catacomb-derived. Whether the Catacomb-like material evidence in Zamanbaba could be construed as also being Abashevo-like, I don't know.

** Even the much-maligned-in-the-West (PC overreaction IMO) discipline of physical taxonomy was proven absolutely correct WRT the origins of Afanasievo; physical anthropologists (both Western and Chinese IIRC) repeatedly demonstrated that the Afanasievans were "robust Europeans" that ultimately derived from the Volga-Ural steppes. Sure enough, aDNA proved that to be the case without any apparent exceptions.

parasar
07-24-2020, 05:32 PM
Don't believe Archi. There's Z94 in Fatyanovo, and even Z2124 and Z2125, and who knows what else once the BAMs for all of the samples are released.

Are you thinking M780, Y3, L657?

Coldmountains
07-24-2020, 07:35 PM
I think it is very hard however, to argue for an origin of Indo-Aryans in the Abashevo which does not go through the Sintashta culture, particularly because we do not have any evidence of Abashevo residing east of the Urals, let alone a trajectory towards southern Central Asia. My point regarding rituals was that the ritualistic animal sacrifices we see in the Sintashta horizon, as well as the whole chariot based culture (burials) are not shared with the Abashevo and we see reflections of that with the Vedic Aryans.

You are right that Abashevo is not simply CW, but that it was a Poltavka influenced Fatyanovo split off, the influence was still an ongoing process and with the Sintashta we see an Poltavka influenced Abashevo develop into an unique culture a lot more similar to what we see described in both the Rigveda and the Gathas, and not purely because of their economy and habitat. I have never read about Abashevo being derived from the Yamnaya, I know they were rather sedentary and pigs were a significant part of their livestock. Pigs are a rather a-typical livestock for steppe peoples but perfect for forest dwellers.

The Sintashta sphere also spawns various material cultures such as the Petrovka and Andronovo. Sintashta was similar enough that at first it was considered to be part of the Andronovo culture, but now we know Andronovo developed out of Sintashta traditions. The Fedorovo phase is another important part as that is when we see cremations for the first time, likely a religious development within the Andronovo.

As far as I know, no Petrovka Y-dna has been published yet. per David W. Anthony, Petrovka was a Sintashta splinter group which started colonizing areas near the BMAC. Anthony also suggested that the people in those coolonies were ancestral to the Vedic Aryans, with the northern Sintashta being ancestral to Iranians.

I don't think you can argue for a steppe_MLBA origin of Indo-Aryans that does not involve those two, and therefore Sintashta has to be involved in my opinion. I think it is rather crucial to the development of Indo-Iranian cultures, instead of overrated.

On the topic of archaeological sites, a significant majority of the Sintashta samples are from the same cemetery, and the location of is more or less the northern edge of the Sintashta culture. I don't think it is surprising to find many of the R1a samples within the same cluster here, in fact it would be rather typical for a patrilineal and patrilocal society. It would also fall perfectly in line with what David W. Anthony outlined before, and them being ancestral to the Karasuk and Saka makes more sense because they would be right on the Seima-Turbino highway as well.

Nature and languages do not always go hand in hand either, so just because two haplogroups went different ways, that does not mean that you are already looking at two different languages. Haplogroups are not cultures and languages, and besides our view of the haplogroup situation is very far from complete in my opinion. I don't think we should assume a singular identity for the Sintashta either (Iranian or even Scytho-Siberian), as you have various splinter groups and many different settlements, which were mostly fortified, and probably for a good reason.

Regarding z2103, we know it is a Poltavka haplogroup, and we have found Sarmatian samples in the same region with said haplogroup, and you even have Bashkirs today in the same region who have lots of those haplogroups. I know we shouldn't assume too much but I think the picture here is quite clear. Poltavka is absorbed into Sintashta horizon, not much archaeological trace of them, not buried in typical Sintashta cemeteries (or at least the sampled ones) but we see their descendants in the archaeogenetic record, and on honey fairs in the Urals.If they did not partake in the massive journeys to the east or south, then I don't see why you would need to find said haplogroups in those regions either.

I would like to see Y3/L657 in Sintashta-Petrovka but somehow i am quite sceptical about Sintashta being Proto-Indo-Iranian and having a more diverse set of Indo-Iranian lines. Rather i think Indo-Aryans were a Para-Sintashta group which shared a very recent common origin with Sintashta-Petrovka (Fatyanovo-Balanovo, Abashevo) and was autosomally identical but went off the archaelogical radar. This also means that we will not find so soon Y3/L657 in Andronovo. I guess L657 is similar to R1b-U106 here, which somehow managed to hide from currently sampled Bell Beakers and early CWC groups but very obviously is derived from them. Neverthless i am pessimistic about Y3 in Sintashta because of several reasons

1. Linguists date the Indo-Iranian split to around 2000 B.C but some even earlier around 2500 B.C. Sintashta on the otherside seems to be dated around 2100–1800 BC, what seems a bit too late for Proto-Indo-Iranians. If Sintashta were Proto-Indo-Iranian i would expect Indo-Iranians splitting in different groups after 2000 B.C around 1500-2000 B.C. But this is too late in my opinion, because Mitanni in 1500 BC had an adstrate, which was clearly Indo-Aryan

2. Early Indo-Iranians generally left few archaelogical traces except grave sites. Sintashta is here a bit an exception because it had fortified settlements, which left a lot of archaelogical traces. But even famous Sintashta sites like Arkaim were discovered by luck (the region should be flooded but archaelogists found Arkaim, which stopped the project) and rather recently in the 60-80s. So maybe Sintashta is not giving us the full picture of transitional groups between Andronovo and Corded Ware.

3. Actually we have male Sintashta samples from several different sites like Stepnoe, Bulanovo, Bolshekaraganskiii, Kamennyi Ambar and they all are under Z2124 and Z2123. We have quite lot of other Andronovo MLBA/LBA samples now but they are mostly from northeastern Andronovo and i suspect these groups were mostly direct descendants of Sintashta-Petrovka because they all turned out to have similar Z2124 and Z2123 clades. Sintashta even had Z2124>S23592 which is absent in South Asia so far and very typical for later Saka and northeastern Andronovo.

Y3/L657 and Z2103 have a very different history in the region. Y3 arrived with Steppe MLBA groups from the west speaking some Indo-Iranian languages/dialects and should be visible in (elite) burials of Sintashta. Z2103 on the otherside was the lineage of many locals and non-Indo-Iranians, which should be rare in the burials of the earliest Indo-Iranians. Just like non-R1b was rare in many of the earliest Bell Beaker burials in West Europe. But actually R1b-Z2103 was unlike Y3/L657 found in Sintashta, but the sample was an outliner (I1020 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta_o2 R1b1a1b1b3a3). Y3* exists today among Tatars, Ukrainians and Bashkirs but as rare lineage and generally Y3/L657 is so rare today north of South Central Asia, that the modern distribution is not telling much about migration routes unfortunately.

Coldmountains
07-24-2020, 09:38 PM
I think it is very hard however, to argue for an origin of Indo-Aryans in the Abashevo which does not go through the Sintashta culture, particularly because we do not have any evidence of Abashevo residing east of the Urals, let alone a trajectory towards southern Central Asia. My point regarding rituals was that the ritualistic animal sacrifices we see in the Sintashta horizon, as well as the whole chariot based culture (burials) are not shared with the Abashevo and we see reflections of that with the Vedic Aryans.

You are right that Abashevo is not simply CW, but that it was a Poltavka influenced Fatyanovo split off, the influence was still an ongoing process and with the Sintashta we see an Poltavka influenced Abashevo develop into an unique culture a lot more similar to what we see described in both the Rigveda and the Gathas, and not purely because of their economy and habitat. I have never read about Abashevo being derived from the Yamnaya, I know they were rather sedentary and pigs were a significant part of their livestock. Pigs are a rather a-typical livestock for steppe peoples but perfect for forest dwellers.

The Sintashta sphere also spawns various material cultures such as the Petrovka and Andronovo. Sintashta was similar enough that at first it was considered to be part of the Andronovo culture, but now we know Andronovo developed out of Sintashta traditions. The Fedorovo phase is another important part as that is when we see cremations for the first time, likely a religious development within the Andronovo.

As far as I know, no Petrovka Y-dna has been published yet. per David W. Anthony, Petrovka was a Sintashta splinter group which started colonizing areas near the BMAC. Anthony also suggested that the people in those coolonies were ancestral to the Vedic Aryans, with the northern Sintashta being ancestral to Iranians.

I don't think you can argue for a steppe_MLBA origin of Indo-Aryans that does not involve those two, and therefore Sintashta has to be involved in my opinion. I think it is rather crucial to the development of Indo-Iranian cultures, instead of overrated.

On the topic of archaeological sites, a significant majority of the Sintashta samples are from the same cemetery, and the location of is more or less the northern edge of the Sintashta culture. I don't think it is surprising to find many of the R1a samples within the same cluster here, in fact it would be rather typical for a patrilineal and patrilocal society. It would also fall perfectly in line with what David W. Anthony outlined before, and them being ancestral to the Karasuk and Saka makes more sense because they would be right on the Seima-Turbino highway as well.

Nature and languages do not always go hand in hand either, so just because two haplogroups went different ways, that does not mean that you are already looking at two different languages. Haplogroups are not cultures and languages, and besides our view of the haplogroup situation is very far from complete in my opinion. I don't think we should assume a singular identity for the Sintashta either (Iranian or even Scytho-Siberian), as you have various splinter groups and many different settlements, which were mostly fortified, and probably for a good reason.

Regarding z2103, we know it is a Poltavka haplogroup, and we have found Sarmatian samples in the same region with said haplogroup, and you even have Bashkirs today in the same region who have lots of those haplogroups. I know we shouldn't assume too much but I think the picture here is quite clear. Poltavka is absorbed into Sintashta horizon, not much archaeological trace of them, not buried in typical Sintashta cemeteries (or at least the sampled ones) but we see their descendants in the archaeogenetic record, and on honey fairs in the Urals.If they did not partake in the massive journeys to the east or south, then I don't see why you would need to find said haplogroups in those regions either.

On the otherside i should mention that the categorization of L657 as "Indo-Aryan" and Z2124 as "Iranic" is inaccurate and problematic to some extent. Both clades diverged already 5000-6000 years ago (more than 2000 years before the Indo-Iranian split) but continued to live in the same population/culture for a long time.

There are at least some Z2124 clades, which quite likely are linked to early Indo-Aryans. For example R1a-Y47 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y47/), which today is frequent in South India, East India and Afghanistan but absent among other Iranics and ancient Saka groups. It also has a TMRCA of 4000 ybp according to Yfull what would be during the split of Proto-Indo-Iranians into different branches. The same is probably true for https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP523/ which has a similar distribution and TMRCA. Both clades were also not found in Sintashta afaik.

L657 clades with a TMRCA of around 4000 ybp seem to be pretty much all derived from early Indo-Aryan migrations at least based on their modern distribution. Neverthless the likely presence of several Z2124 clades among early Indo-Aryans but absence of L657 among many if not most ancient Iranics (Saka, Srubnaya, ..) points to Z2124 being generally higher than Y3 in the Fatyanovo-Abashvo-Sintashta chain of cultures.

pegasus
07-24-2020, 09:45 PM
From an archaeological perspective however, Abashevo seems more distant to the lifestyles and traditions described in the Rigveda. It is too "European Corded ware" so to say, and it takes on several Poltavka features as they migrate back to the steppes, such as horse burials and large animal sacrifices. From that contact sphere the Sintashta culture develops. Don't forget that the Sintashta-Petrovka culture had about 40 different towns and various subcultures, likely you had dialetical development within the Abashevo culture but still a common Indo-Iranian linguistic sphere in during the Sintashta period.

We also haven't found Z2103 in Sintashta sites postdating the Poltavka, but we know it must've persisted around the Urals because the Sarmatians show it. Patrilineality and patrilocality means that particular y-dna haplogroups will dominate at particular sites, and you had a lot of those in the Sintashta cultural zone.

As Samuel L. Jackson says, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I don't think we should assume based on the current y-dna that Sintashta was Iranian.

The Rig Vedic world has no reference with any culture on the Steppe, their world is largely centered basically between the Afghan Highlands extending into NW India . I would previously associate Sintashta with early Indo Aryans but as CM has mentioned their clades are more ancestral to Steppe LBA groups like Karasuk and their descendants like Sakas. Ironically, the Abashevo groups you mentioned as being more Corded Ware is interesting. Rather it strongly looks like Fatyanovo groups assimilated some Abashevo producing groups which look more Corded Ware. So indeed Abashevo was more Yamnaya like. This would perfectly explain why Kalash/Nuristani and SPGT prefer Corded ware like sources over Sintashta. In any case there seems to be some closely related sister culture with Sintashta which is a bit older, given Mittani Indo Aryans were already in Iran by 1700 BC, Zaman Baba from 2100-2000 BC. Its not so much the evidence but the timing which is the issue, otherwise I always would think Sintashta was ancestral to most Indo Iranians related groups. Fatyanovo completely changed that.

pegasus
07-25-2020, 12:42 PM
On the otherside i should mention that the categorization of L657 as "Indo-Aryan" and Z2124 as "Iranic" is inaccurate and problematic to some extent. Both clades diverged already 5000-6000 years ago (more than 2000 years before the Indo-Iranian split) but continued to live in the same population/culture for a long time.

There are at least some Z2124 clades, which quite likely are linked to early Indo-Aryans. For example R1a-Y47 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y47/), which today is frequent in South India, East India and Afghanistan but absent among other Iranics and ancient Saka groups. It also has a TMRCA of 4000 ybp according to Yfull what would be during the split of Proto-Indo-Iranians into different branches. The same is probably true for https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP523/ which has a similar distribution and TMRCA. Both clades were also not found in Sintashta afaik.

L657 clades with a TMRCA of around 4000 ybp seem to be pretty much all derived from early Indo-Aryan migrations at least based on their modern distribution. Neverthless the likely presence of several Z2124 clades among early Indo-Aryans but absence of L657 among many if not most ancient Iranics (Saka, Srubnaya, ..) points to Z2124 being generally higher than Y3 in the Fatyanovo-Abashvo-Sintashta chain of cultures.

Kalash have Z2124, its very possible the Mitanni were the same , give that Megiddo R1a modeled well with a more Yamnaya shifted Steppe MLBA source , like Kalash do, it likely was, but obviously I am speculating here.

Coldmountains
07-25-2020, 01:16 PM
Kalash have Z2124, its very possible the Mitanni were the same , give that Megiddo R1a modeled well with a more Yamnaya shifted Steppe MLBA source , like Kalash do, it likely was, but obviously I am speculating here.

Kalash Y-dna seems to be bottlenecked and maybe they got Z2124 from a Nuristani superstrate. But we don't know anything about Nuristani R1a-Z93 clades. I really hope some Nuristani with R1a will do some deeper y-dna testing soon. It would be very interesting to see under which branch they are.

In this recent study https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02204-9 they also looked deeper at Kalash R1a and they all turned out to be Z2123. So i think there is quite a good chance they are Z2123>Y47 like many Afghans and South Asians. Maybe someone can look deeper at their bam files.

Neverthless i think we can say quite sure that Proto-Indo-Aryans also had Z2124 and likely Y40 among them.

CopperAxe
07-25-2020, 03:55 PM
I would like to see Y3/L657 in Sintashta-Petrovka but somehow i am quite sceptical about Sintashta being Proto-Indo-Iranian and having a more diverse set of Indo-Iranian lines. Rather i think Indo-Aryans were a Para-Sintashta group which shared a very recent common origin with Sintashta-Petrovka (Fatyanovo-Balanovo, Abashevo) and was autosomally identical but went off the archaelogical radar. This also means that we will not find so soon Y3/L657 in Andronovo. I guess L657 is similar to R1b-U106 here, which somehow managed to hide from currently sampled Bell Beakers and early CWC groups but very obviously is derived from them. Neverthless i am pessimistic about Y3 in Sintashta because of several reasons

1. Linguists date the Indo-Iranian split to around 2000 B.C but some even earlier around 2500 B.C. Sintashta on the otherside seems to be dated around 2100–1800 BC, what seems a bit too late for Proto-Indo-Iranians. If Sintashta were Proto-Indo-Iranian i would expect Indo-Iranians splitting in different groups after 2000 B.C around 1500-2000 B.C. But this is too late in my opinion, because Mitanni in 1500 BC had an adstrate, which was clearly Indo-Aryan

2. Early Indo-Iranians generally left few archaelogical traces except grave sites. Sintashta is here a bit an exception because it had fortified settlements, which left a lot of archaelogical traces. But even famous Sintashta sites like Arkaim were discovered by luck (the region should be flooded but archaelogists found Arkaim, which stopped the project) and rather recently in the 60-80s. So maybe Sintashta is not giving us the full picture of transitional groups between Andronovo and Corded Ware.

3. Actually we have male Sintashta samples from several different sites like Stepnoe, Bulanovo, Bolshekaraganskiii, Kamennyi Ambar and they all are under Z2124 and Z2123. We have quite lot of other Andronovo MLBA/LBA samples now but they are mostly from northeastern Andronovo and i suspect these groups were mostly direct descendants of Sintashta-Petrovka because they all turned out to have similar Z2124 and Z2123 clades. Sintashta even had Z2124>S23592 which is absent in South Asia so far and very typical for later Saka and northeastern Andronovo.

Y3/L657 and Z2103 have a very different history in the region. Y3 arrived with Steppe MLBA groups from the west speaking some Indo-Iranian languages/dialects and should be visible in (elite) burials of Sintashta. Z2103 on the otherside was the lineage of many locals and non-Indo-Iranians, which should be rare in the burials of the earliest Indo-Iranians. Just like non-R1b was rare in many of the earliest Bell Beaker burials in West Europe. But actually R1b-Z2103 was unlike Y3/L657 found in Sintashta, but the sample was an outliner (I1020 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta_o2 R1b1a1b1b3a3). Y3* exists today among Tatars, Ukrainians and Bashkirs but as rare lineage and generally Y3/L657 is so rare today north of South Central Asia, that the modern distribution is not telling much about migration routes unfortunately.

Oh cool, I never realized that Sintashta outlier 3 was Z2103, given that is was described as EMBA in the suppl. that should've been obvious. But I don't think you would need an equal distribution of Y3 and the other Z94 clades for something to be considered Proto-Indo-Iranian, or even that you would have an equal distribution within earlier populations such as Fatyanovo or Abashevo. You could've have a significant founder effect followed by a massive population boost similarly to what happened with I1 in Scandinavia.

Regarding the linguistic splits, I have seen various dates and propositions, but what I think is most feasible is that Proto-Indo-Iranian (or common IIr as we will never be able to properly reconstruct PIIr) had their initial developments, dialects to so say, towards Indic, Iranian and Nuristani in between 2500-2000 bc. However they were not fully diverged yet and were still within the same linguistic zone.

After 2000 bc would then be when the languages start to properly diverge, and over the course of a few centuries you had distinct branches. This is also the timezone were you see significant cultural developments and migrations to new areas. Substrates, adstrates, sound changes not shared with other populations would seem to have happened there. Avestan and Sanskrit, despite obviously being two different languages are still incredibly close, however some of that closeness had to be because they were lived in the vicinity of each other. I imagine whatever the Karasuk people were speaking at that time to be more divergent to their tongues.

It is not like we exactly know what that Mitanni adstrate is. We have a few names and terms, and it is the religious aspect which points us towards Indo-Aryan, because theyy had deities which have only been attested in Indo-Aryan religions. However I think that because we lack so much information about unknown branches of Indo-Iranian, or what the religions of all the various branches were like, that we should not automatically assume they were fully formed Indo-Aryans, if that makes sense. That being said in the case that they were, an early migrant wave which spoke an (archaic) form of Indo-Aryan around 1500 bc would make sense if the parental languages had definitively split after 1800 or 1900 bc. 500 years was enough to have gone from Proto-Germanic to Gothic, Proto-Norse, and various subbranches in West Germanic.

I saw two recent articles pushing the date back of Sintashta to 2400 and 2300 bc but I am not sure what to make of those claims. I think most of the data still suggests a starting point around or after 2200 bc and I am inclined to agree with that, perhaps the earlier dates are from Poltavka and Abashevo were just interacting with each other.

I am not too sure if I agree with your statement on the general lack of archaeological traces amongst early Indo-Iranian cultures. Srubnaya, Andronovo, Abashevo are all known for their settlements actually. According to Anthony's book over 200 Abashevo sites exist. Since the discovery of Sintashta much of that region has had significant excavations. There is still plenty of new material on the Andronovo culture coming out for instance, like how we found early presence in Xinjiang or how evidence for horse riding has been uncovered. Kuz'Mina's book on the origins of Indo-Iranians has a boatload of archaeological material in it. That's why I think any Fatyanovo or Abashevo migration to Central Asia, which would bypass Sintashta and Andronovo is infeasible with the current archaeological data we have. Abashevo migrants who move into Sintashta or Andronovo zones and practise that way of living would not be Abashevo anymore, but Andronovo.

It especially gets muddy when you get in the territory of an earlier migration going unnoticed, because we have tons of evidence of Andronovo presence going southwards into Central Asia, and Petrovka colonies, but not much before that. The result of which were populations mixed in with the native settled inhabitants, with their potteries and lifestyles showing influence from both ways. If anything a later migration from would be more likely.

Another reason why I think those southern Petrovka migrants might be key is because they come from a zone quite to the east of Sintashta proper, which seems like a decent place to pick up extra WSHG related affinities, the development of Steppe_MLBA East so to say. I still think my point stands in regards that we do not have a proper outline of the Sintashta since I think the southern zone of their sphere would be more important here in regards to the Indo-Aryans and that has not been tested yet. David Anthony even suggested in his book that this is what happened with Petrovka actually, that they mixed with post-Botai peoples in central Kazakhstan, and then migrated southwards into the Ferghana valley and mixed with Kelteminar and BMAC peoples, well before we had that genetic data. I am not to sure what the rules are here regarding quoting books, so just check page 435 until 450 or so.

There are some real accurate predictions going on in regards to the mixing based on archaeological traces, which is why I am inclined to side with the archaeological trace of Sintashta->Petrovka/Andronovo being relevant, rather than some archaeologically unnoticeable Fatyanovo/Abashevo migration towards southern Central Asia.

CopperAxe
07-25-2020, 04:29 PM
The Rig Vedic world has no reference with any culture on the Steppe, their world is largely centered basically between the Afghan Highlands extending into NW India . I would previously associate Sintashta with early Indo Aryans but as CM has mentioned their clades are more ancestral to Steppe LBA groups like Karasuk and their descendants like Sakas. Ironically, the Abashevo groups you mentioned as being more Corded Ware is interesting. Rather it strongly looks like Fatyanovo groups assimilated some Abashevo producing groups which look more Corded Ware. So indeed Abashevo was more Yamnaya like. This would perfectly explain why Kalash/Nuristani and SPGT prefer Corded ware like sources over Sintashta. In any case there seems to be some closely related sister culture with Sintashta which is a bit older, given Mittani Indo Aryans were already in Iran by 1700 BC, Zaman Baba from 2100-2000 BC. Its not so much the evidence but the timing which is the issue, otherwise I always would think Sintashta was ancestral to most Indo Iranians related groups. Fatyanovo completely changed that.

What I meant was that Abashevo, from an archaeological and material point of view, is a lot closer to the European Corded Ware than Sintashta was, purely because it was closer to Fatyanovo and developed out of it, and Fatyanovo is a Corded Ware culture subgroup. I did not say the Rigveda wrote about steppe societies, what I said was is that the material culture and traditions of Sintashta is quite a lot closer to what we see described in the Rigveda than the Abashevo. I think Abashevo on an autosomal level will be nearly identical to Sintashta, but without WSHG/BMAC outliers, perhaps some early Ural foragers and EMBA outliers.

Sintashta has all these horse sacrifices and chariot rituals, we see those in the Rigveda. Abashevo lacks these. Ashamavedha was a white horse cult sacrifice per excelente, which is steppic and has spread as wide as Ireland and Japan. Yet the Abashevo did not seem to have much animal sacrifice traditions at all, Sintashta mostly had horse sacrifices for example.

There even is this very weird case of a human sacrifice, with his head replaced with that of a horse. There is a tale in the Rigveda which includes the divine twins cutting of the head of a priest and replacing it with a horse apparently.

I don't see how the discovery of Z93+ in Fatyanovo could completely change your view when on archaeological grounds it has long been suggested (established) that Fatyanovo is a Corded Ware migration to the east, Abashevo develops out of it and Sintashta develops out of Abashevo. It is a nice confirmation for something which had been known for a while now.

Zaman Baba, and I have not found much information on it, seems linked Andronoco or the Catacomb even and the suggested dates I have seen is not from carbon dating. Catacomb culture were Z2103 type peoples. Which evidence do we have of Mitanni Aryans in Iran in 1700 bc? Thanks.

Considering Petrovka colonies exist in the Ferghana valley as early as 1900 bc, I don't think that would be too late for the Mitanni Aryans at all. They were a small group after all, not a massive population slowly expanding towards the Near East. Likely mercenaries who ended up ruling a dynasty or something, we've seen that happen a bunch.

Likewise, I think an argument for a later migration of Abashevo-like people towards Central Asia is a lot easier to make, since you can find Abashevo pottery east of the Urals, but only after Sintashta and Petrovka had been well established. Abashevo sites, which is rather crucial too this argument because they were settled and raised pigs, have not been found east of the Urals so I think an argument of an early migration is a lot harder to do. One which does not involve Sintashta derived materials and traditions such as Petrovka or Andronovo, is a hard sell as well in my opinion.

Coldmountains
07-25-2020, 04:43 PM
Oh cool, I never realized that Sintashta outlier 3 was Z2103, given that is was described as EMBA in the suppl. that should've been obvious. But I don't think you would need an equal distribution of Y3 and the other Z94 clades for something to be considered Proto-Indo-Iranian, or even that you would have an equal distribution within earlier populations such as Fatyanovo or Abashevo. You could've have a significant founder effect followed by a massive population boost similarly to what happened with I1 in Scandinavia.

well i stated, that i assume Z2124 to be higher than Y3 in the Fatyanovo-Abashevo chain of cultures but Sintashta seems to be a small and well sampled part of this chain of cultures (Sintashta is one of the best sampled ancient cultures so far), which had in different dates and sites the same kind of Y-dna profile and a rather bottlenecked set of Z93 lines. We only see Z93>Z94>Z2124 clades there, but not the modern day diversity of Z93 clades among Indo-Iranians (Z2124, Y3, Y40,Z93*, Z94*). I expect this kind of diversity of Z93 clades in a bigger cultural horizon like Fatyanovo or Abashevo.


Regarding the linguistic splits, I have seen various dates and propositions, but what I think is most feasible is that Proto-Indo-Iranian (or common IIr as we will never be able to properly reconstruct PIIr) had their initial developments, dialects to so say, towards Indic, Iranian and Nuristani in between 2500-2000 bc. However they were not fully diverged yet and were still within the same linguistic zone.

After 2000 bc would then be when the languages start to properly diverge, and over the course of a few centuries you had distinct branches. This is also the timezone were you see significant cultural developments and migrations to new areas. Substrates, adstrates, sound changes not shared with other populations would seem to have happened there. Avestan and Sanskrit, despite obviously being two different languages are still incredibly close, however some of that closeness had to be because they were lived in the vicinity of each other. I imagine whatever the Karasuk people were speaking at that time to be more divergent to their tongues.

2000-2500 B.C is the period of rapid aridization in Eurasia and when we see an drastic increase of intertribal conflicts in Abashevo and Fatyanovo (Pepkino kurgan with 28 in battle killed man). The fortification of settlements in Sintashta is probably to some extent caused by this. In this environment i rather see different Indo-Iranian dialects/languages emerging and also the religious differences. Sintashta is in my opinion simply too small as culture to include many different Indo-Iranian languages dialects/languages and Y-dna clades. Rather it is a highly militarized branch of earliest Iranics, which later pushed far east.


It is not like we exactly know what that Mitanni adstrate is. We have a few names and terms, and it is the religious aspect which points us towards Indo-Aryan, because theyy had deities which have only been attested in Indo-Aryan religions. However I think that because we lack so much information about unknown branches of Indo-Iranian, or what the religions of all the various branches were like, that we should not automatically assume they were fully formed Indo-Aryans, if that makes sense. That being said in the case that they were, an early migrant wave which spoke an (archaic) form of Indo-Aryan around 1500 bc would make sense if the parental languages had definitively split after 1800 or 1900 bc. 500 years was enough to have gone from Proto-Germanic to Gothic, Proto-Norse, and various subbranches in West Germanic.

It is cleary of Indo-Aryan orgin and already diverged from the Proto-Indo-Iranian state (see aika "one" vs Proto-Indo-Iranian/Iranian aiva). Obviously they are not directly derived from Vedic Indo-Aryans and belonged to an extinct parallel branch. But based on their presence in 1500 B.C in Syria we can safely assume they already existed in 1700-1800 B.C or earlier in Iran and Central Asia, so we only would have 100-200 years after Sintashta to explain Mitanni and Vedic Indo-Aryans diverging from the Proto-Indo-Iranian state, what is in my opinion not enough time especially considering the religious differences (Deva vs. Asura)



I saw two recent articles pushing the date back of Sintashta to 2400 and 2300 bc but I am not sure what to make of those claims. I think most of the data still suggests a starting point around or after 2200 bc and I am inclined to agree with that, perhaps the earlier dates are from Poltavka and Abashevo were just interacting with each other.

This dates are outdated based on recent studies. Rather Sintashta is dated between 2100-1800 B.C with Petrovka being dated even slightly later, what is too young for Mitanni/Vedic Indo-Aryans and the general Indo-Iranian split into different branches.


"...The 12 calibrated radiocarbon dates belonging to the Sintashta horizon range between 2050 and 1760 cal BC (at 95.4% confidence; Epimakhov & Krause 2013: 137). These dates correlate well with the seven AMS-sampled Sintashta graves in the associated KA-5cemetery, which date to 2040–1730 cal BC (95.4% confidence...)".
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/C4FDF8C5E7D1D20A28BEB7F6C50A9AF4/S0003598X2000037Xa.pdf/chariots_in_the_eurasian_steppe_a_bayesian_approac h_to_the_emergence_of_horsedrawn_transport_in_the_ early_second_millennium_bc.pdf


I am not too sure if I agree with your statement on the general lack of archaeological traces amongst early Indo-Iranian cultures. Srubnaya, Andronovo, Abashevo are all known for their settlements actually. According to Anthony's book over 200 Abashevo sites exist. Since the discovery of Sintashta much of that region has had significant excavations. There is still plenty of new material on the Andronovo culture coming out for instance, like how we found early presence in Xinjiang or how evidence for horse riding has been uncovered. Kuz'Mina's book on the origins of Indo-Iranians has a boatload of archaeological material in it. That's why I think any Fatyanovo or Abashevo migration to Central Asia, which would bypass Sintashta and Andronovo is infeasible with the current archaeological data we have. Abashevo migrants who move into Sintashta or Andronovo zones and practise that way of living would not be Abashevo anymore, but Andronovo.

well i don't think Proto-Indo-Aryans and Y3 tribes were a big population in the first place. That is why Y3/L657 is very very rare north of Tajikistan and in many regions extinct since the late Bronze Age. Eastern Andronovo is quite good sampled and lacks any Y3 so i don't expect it to be frequenct in BA/IA Xinjiang either. The Proto-Indo-Aryan migration rather looks like a rapid movement from the Fatyanovo-Abashevo chain of cultures (the exact subculture and region i can not pinpoint yet), which left not much traces behind else we should see more Y3 among later steppe groups and modern day populations. Sintashta and Karasuk-related R1a-Z2124 clades still exist in the region.




Another reason why I think those southern Petrovka migrants might be key is because they come from a zone quite to the east of Sintashta proper, which seems like a decent place to pick up extra WSHG related affinities, the development of Steppe_MLBA East so to say. I still think my point stands in regards that we do not have a proper outline of the Sintashta since I think the southern zone of their sphere would be more important here in regards to the Indo-Aryans and that has not been tested yet. David Anthony even suggested in his book that this is what happened with Petrovka actually, that they mixed with post-Botai peoples in central Kazakhstan, and then migrated southwards into the Ferghana valley and mixed with Kelteminar and BMAC peoples, well before we had that genetic data. I am not to sure what the rules are here regarding quoting books, so just check page 435 until 450 or so.
The only female sample from Petrovka is actually more EEF shifted than Sintashta and other steppe groups. Petrovka is now later dated than the other Sintashta sites (1800-1900 B.C), what makes it in my eyes even less likely to be Proto-Indo-Aryan


Furthermore, a relatively earlier date for the Sintashta period before the emergence of the Petrovka type is indicated by the stratigraphy of settlements and burial sites throughout the region (Koryakova & Epimakhov 2007: 82). Indeed, a new radiocarbon series has confirmed the position of the Petrovka stage in the nineteenth to eighteenth centuries BC (Krause et al. 2019).

I rather think early Indo-Aryans picked extra Steppe_EBA stuff in Abashevo through contacts with southern steppe groups. But is very hard to say where modern day Indo-Aryans picked their Steppe EBA and WSHG-like ancestry. We had already in south Central Asia populations before Indo-Iranians which carried significant Afanasievo and WSHG-like admixture (see BA Kyrgyzstan). So much of this affinity could predate Indo-Aryans and early steppe Indo-Aryans could be theoretically even less Steppe EBA/WSHG-shifted than Steppe groups like Sintashta, Karasuk or Krasnojarsk_MLBA. We don't really have any samples from steppe Indo-Aryans, so this is very much speculation based on modern day groups, which have already many and different layers of steppe and non-steppe ancestry.

Coldmountains
07-25-2020, 08:01 PM
What I meant was that Abashevo, from an archaeological and material point of view, is a lot closer to the European Corded Ware than Sintashta was, purely because it was closer to Fatyanovo and developed out of it, and Fatyanovo is a Corded Ware culture subgroup. I did not say the Rigveda wrote about steppe societies, what I said was is that the material culture and traditions of Sintashta is quite a lot closer to what we see described in the Rigveda than the Abashevo. I think Abashevo on an autosomal level will be nearly identical to Sintashta, but without WSHG/BMAC outliers, perhaps some early Ural foragers and EMBA outliers.

Sintashta has all these horse sacrifices and chariot rituals, we see those in the Rigveda. Abashevo lacks these. Ashamavedha was a white horse cult sacrifice per excelente, which is steppic and has spread as wide as Ireland and Japan. Yet the Abashevo did not seem to have much animal sacrifice traditions at all, Sintashta mostly had horse sacrifices for example.

There even is this very weird case of a human sacrifice, with his head replaced with that of a horse. There is a tale in the Rigveda which includes the divine twins cutting of the head of a priest and replacing it with a horse apparently.

I don't see how the discovery of Z93+ in Fatyanovo could completely change your view when on archaeological grounds it has long been suggested (established) that Fatyanovo is a Corded Ware migration to the east, Abashevo develops out of it and Sintashta develops out of Abashevo. It is a nice confirmation for something which had been known for a while now.

Zaman Baba, and I have not found much information on it, seems linked Andronoco or the Catacomb even and the suggested dates I have seen is not from carbon dating. Catacomb culture were Z2103 type peoples. Which evidence do we have of Mitanni Aryans in Iran in 1700 bc? Thanks.

Considering Petrovka colonies exist in the Ferghana valley as early as 1900 bc, I don't think that would be too late for the Mitanni Aryans at all. They were a small group after all, not a massive population slowly expanding towards the Near East. Likely mercenaries who ended up ruling a dynasty or something, we've seen that happen a bunch.

Likewise, I think an argument for a later migration of Abashevo-like people towards Central Asia is a lot easier to make, since you can find Abashevo pottery east of the Urals, but only after Sintashta and Petrovka had been well established. Abashevo sites, which is rather crucial too this argument because they were settled and raised pigs, have not been found east of the Urals so I think an argument of an early migration is a lot harder to do. One which does not involve Sintashta derived materials and traditions such as Petrovka or Andronovo, is a hard sell as well in my opinion.

The Sintashta-like cultural package with horse sacrificies existed not just in Sintashta in 2000 B.C but also in Potapovka for example in the Middle Volga region. So Sintashta was not the first culture with this package in my opinion. Proto-Indo-Aryans would have the same or a very similar cultural package but from a Para-Sintashta group.


In the middle Volga region, the Potapovka culture was a contemporary sister of Sintashta, with similar graves, metal types, weapons, horse sacrifices, and chariot-driving gear (bone cheekpieces and whip handles), dated
by radiocarbon to the same period, 2100-1800 BCE. Potapovka pottery, like Sintashta, retained many Poltavka decorative traits, and Potapovka graves were occasionally situated directly on top of older Poltavka monuments. Some Potapovka graves were dug right through preexisting Poltavka graves, destroying them, as some Sintashta strongholds were built on top of and incorporated older Poltavka settlements.

The decapitated individual, which head got replaced by a horse head was found in Potapovka but later studies confirmed that the human individual died 1000 years earlier than the horse and was rather of Poltavka origin. It seems like Potapovka, Sintashta and other Para-Sintashta groups reused and in some cases destroyed earlier Poltavka graves.


In Table 1, sample AA 47803, dated ca. 2900-2600 BCE, was from a human skeleton of the Poltavka period that was later cut through and decapitated by a much deeper Potapovka grave pit. A horse sacrifice above the Potapovka grave is dated by sample AA 47802 to about 1900- 1800 BCE. Although they were almost a thousand years apart, they looked, on excavation, like they were deposited together, with the Potapovka horse skull lying above the shoulders of the decapitated Poltavka human. Before dates were obtained on both the horse and the skeleton this deposit was interpreted as a "centaur"—a decapitated human with his head replaced by the head of a horse, an important combination in Indo-Iranian mythology. But Nerissa Russell and Eileen Murphy found that both the horse and the human were female, and the dates show that they were buried a thousand years apart. Similarly sample AA-12569 was from an older Poltavka- period dog sacrifice found on the ancient ground surface at the edge of Potapovka grave 6 under kurgan 5 at the same cemetery. Older Poltavka sacrifices and graves were discovered under both kurgans 3 and 5 at Potapovka cemetery I. The Poltavka funeral deposits were so disturbed by the Potapovka grave diggers that they remained unrecognized until the radiocarbon dates made us take a second look. The "centaur" possibility was mentioned in Anthony and Vinogradov 1995, five or six years before the two pieces were dated. Of course, it now must be abandoned

CopperAxe
07-25-2020, 11:41 PM
2000-2500 B.C is the period of rapid aridization in Eurasia and when we see an drastic increase of intertribal conflicts in Abashevo and Fatyanovo (Pepkino kurgan with 28 in battle killed man). The fortification of settlements in Sintashta is probably to some extent caused by this. In this environment i rather see different Indo-Iranian dialects/languages emerging and also the religious differences. Sintashta is in my opinion simply too small as culture to include many different Indo-Iranian languages dialects/languages and Y-dna clades. Rather it is a highly militarized branch of earliest Iranics, which later pushed far east.


You're talking about the dry periods leading up to the 4.2 kiloyear event here, right? Did the arification even affect the forest zone significantly, especially the regions next to a major mountain range? I think it might've been somewhat beneficial to them as Srubnaya got to move in and displace the Catacomb remnants.

Based on this article (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS1064229317070018) seems like it was more drastic for the steppe region populations and the heaviest period was from 2300-1800 b.c. I'd say the conflicts had more to do with which tribes get to control the mines. Probably why you have so many colonies being set up in other regions, settling near mines. The antecedents of the Seima-Turbino network were probably developing around that time so he who controls the spice ores controls the world. I'd agree that the fortifications in Sintashta and Petrovka sites are related to these earlier conflicts. Or rather, that they had a militarized culture due to these conflicts which means they had to defend themselves, from themselves.




It is cleary of Indo-Aryan orgin and already diverged from the Proto-Indo-Iranian state (see aika "one" vs Proto-Indo-Iranian/Iranian aiva). Obviously they are not directly derived from Vedic Indo-Aryans and belonged to an extinct parallel branch. But based on their presence in 1500 B.C in Syria we can safely assume they already existed in 1700-1800 B.C or earlier in Iran and Central Asia, so we only would have 100-200 years after Sintashta to explain Mitanni and Vedic Indo-Aryans diverging from the Proto-Indo-Iranian state, what is in my opinion not enough time especially considering the religious differences (Deva vs. Asura)


I read this blog article about the Mitanni adstrate one time and one of the things they mentioned is how you have words derive from aika in Iranian languages as well, in addition to some other similarities. That article is ultimately argueing for an Old Iranian origin of the Mitanni which is something I disagree with, but I did find the points intriguing.

In Central Asia you already had cultures such as Vaksh or Bishkent culture by 1700 bc, which were cultures derived from both Andronovo (perhaps just late Petrovka?) and the BMAC elements and were situated in Tajikistan. And that developed within a span of 100-200 years after the first attested appearances of related material cultures in the relevant zone. If I'm not mistaken there were trade routes going from the BMAC towards the near east and the Mitanni Aryans could just have taken advantage of those routes. I also don't see why this would have to be a journey taking centuries, as I already have laid out above. if you already know where you are going, that would be a journey of two months I am guesstimating.

One topic of the Mitanni, did those Megiddo outliers hail from Central Asia (or have ancestry from there)?



The decapitated individual, which head got replaced by a horse head was found in Potapovka but later studies confirmed that the human individual died 1000 years earlier than the horse and was rather of Poltavka origin. It seems like Potapovka, Sintashta and other Para-Sintashta groups reused and in some cases destroyed earlier Poltavka graves.

You ruined what quite possibly was my favourite miniature archaeological tale of this particular region. Friendship over.

jk I still like you.

Don't ruin the Srubnaya dog thingy tho, I beg you.

Regarding the Potapovka though, is it just me or do all the horse sacrifices, chariot rituals and you know the general consistencty in material cultures (to the degree that Petrovka and Sintashta are considered to be part of the same complex) seem to be dated to around that same 2200-1800 bc window? Where does the 2500 bc starting date come from if key features such as chariots had not been invented/in proper use yet? Is the type site from 2500 bc? In Kuz'mina and Anthony it is basically considered a western variant of Sintashta, and in THTWL it shows how you have those crazy early C14 dating which are due to them being build on top of Poltavka settlements. I more or less considered them to be two sides of the same coin, and quite distinct from Abashevo already.

xenus
07-26-2020, 06:57 PM
but man like you know like it's all about like the herb man.
https://i.ibb.co/tK4gXxT/Screen-Shot-2020-07-25-at-8-36-30-PM-2.png

https://i.ibb.co/Qj56QyR/Screen-Shot-2020-07-25-at-8-34-43-PM.png

I don't honestly know why i'm posting this.
These are from a paper called "Cannabis in Eurasia: origin of human use and Bronze Age
trans-continental connections"

paywalled but yeah

As to what CopperAxe is saying about the dating I can't actually think of any real reason to date the Sintashta and friends show back to 2500BC.

However I'll add this to the discussion with a little bit of soapboxing.

If we were as loose with the naming as we are about the West we'd just be left calling the post Yamnaya cultures around 2500ish by 3 names. Bell Beaker (they went west and had containers), Corded Ware and mid region post Corded Ware(sky fathers default son), and then Andronovo for "long headed horsey people" with Andronovo being the chosen name because of its wide usage decades ago. Due to its late date you just have to pull out Pre-Andronovo for earlier finds.

I'm exaggerating a ton (for fun and profit) but the truth is that our naming and grouping of cultures is arbitrary. Just like how our YDNA tree nodes are grouped into arbitrarily specific snp's based on current sampling. Y haplogroup R could just be P1(x) and even P itself could just be taken out and K2b2 could carry it until R and Q.
I don't expect anyone to start calling the vague Proto-Indo-Iranian or prePPIR horizon/people as the long headed horsey boys here or anything but it is about as accurate terminology wise as "bell beaker". Many of the arguments here would be much better made if we'd include maps with archeological dates and the relationships/features we're proposing exist. Purely verbal arguments aren't useless or anything but the spatiotemporal, genetic/phylogeny, and archeological detail is more persuasively presented when the information is presented in a richer way.

Any time someone is building a large argument based on haplotype subclades being found or not found somewhere it's a large effort to contextualize them. The strength of these arguments depends on how well sampled the space and time in reference is and then all the other factors in play. It's the same with statistics, a single set of fstats means almost zero on its own. You can reply to one set of fstats with another but you can't build any larger truth without showing what you're trying to answer and persuading us to accept your stats are meaningful inside a larger context. Posting a single set of fstats implies that your reader has seen, at least vaguely, enough related stats to contextualize it and acting like it means something on its own is often times lazy.

This was a medium bit of soapboxing, i lied when i said it was a little, i can live with this sin

Coldmountains
07-26-2020, 07:40 PM
You're talking about the dry periods leading up to the 4.2 kiloyear event here, right? Did the arification even affect the forest zone significantly, especially the regions next to a major mountain range? I think it might've been somewhat beneficial to them as Srubnaya got to move in and displace the Catacomb remnants.

Based on this article (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS1064229317070018) seems like it was more drastic for the steppe region populations and the heaviest period was from 2300-1800 b.c. I'd say the conflicts had more to do with which tribes get to control the mines. Probably why you have so many colonies being set up in other regions, settling near mines. The antecedents of the Seima-Turbino network were probably developing around that time so he who controls the spice ores controls the world. I'd agree that the fortifications in Sintashta and Petrovka sites are related to these earlier conflicts. Or rather, that they had a militarized culture due to these conflicts which means they had to defend themselves, from themselves.




I read this blog article about the Mitanni adstrate one time and one of the things they mentioned is how you have words derive from aika in Iranian languages as well, in addition to some other similarities. That article is ultimately argueing for an Old Iranian origin of the Mitanni which is something I disagree with, but I did find the points intriguing.

In Central Asia you already had cultures such as Vaksh or Bishkent culture by 1700 bc, which were cultures derived from both Andronovo (perhaps just late Petrovka?) and the BMAC elements and were situated in Tajikistan. And that developed within a span of 100-200 years after the first attested appearances of related material cultures in the relevant zone. If I'm not mistaken there were trade routes going from the BMAC towards the near east and the Mitanni Aryans could just have taken advantage of those routes. I also don't see why this would have to be a journey taking centuries, as I already have laid out above. if you already know where you are going, that would be a journey of two months I am guesstimating.

One topic of the Mitanni, did those Megiddo outliers hail from Central Asia (or have ancestry from there)?



You ruined what quite possibly was my favourite miniature archaeological tale of this particular region. Friendship over.

jk I still like you.

Don't ruin the Srubnaya dog thingy tho, I beg you.

Regarding the Potapovka though, is it just me or do all the horse sacrifices, chariot rituals and you know the general consistencty in material cultures (to the degree that Petrovka and Sintashta are considered to be part of the same complex) seem to be dated to around that same 2200-1800 bc window? Where does the 2500 bc starting date come from if key features such as chariots had not been invented/in proper use yet? Is the type site from 2500 bc? In Kuz'mina and Anthony it is basically considered a western variant of Sintashta, and in THTWL it shows how you have those crazy early C14 dating which are due to them being build on top of Poltavka settlements. I more or less considered them to be two sides of the same coin, and quite distinct from Abashevo already.

The 4.2 kiloyear event also heavily effectected the forest-steppe and even forest regions of East Europe/Russia. But i think it would have worse effects on steppe groups like Poltavka than on early Proto-Indo-Iranians in the more humid forest/forest-steppe regions. Maybe this also to some extent explains the downfall of Poltavka/Yamnaya cultures in the steppe region.


По палинологическим данным резкая аридизация в конце III тыс. до н.э. фиксируется и в лесной полосе Восточной Европы. Она привела даже
к остепнению южной части лесной зоны (Алешинская, Спиридонова, 2000. С. 353). Именно здесь на
Средней Волге и именно в этот период сформировалась средневолжская абашевская культура

Source: archaeolog.ru/media/books_sov_archaeology/RA_2018_2.pdf

Translation: According to palynological data, a sharp aridization at the end of the 3rd millennium BC. is also recorded in the forest belt of Eastern Europe. It even contributed to
to the formation of steppe zones in the southern part of the forest zone (Aleshinskaya, Spiridonova, 2000, p. 353). It is here on
Middle Volga and during this period that the Middle Volga Abashevo culture was formed


To be honest i can not pinpoint yet the exact culture in the Late Abashevo-Potapovka-Sintashta zone of cultures which was ancestral to Indo-Aryans. We need to wait for further archaelogical and genetic studies to say more about that.

Neverthless i think early Abashevo was Proto-Indo-Iranian and transformed heavily by Poltavka influences into late Proto-Indo-Iranian cultures like Potapovka, Sintashta and other late Abashevo-derived cultures, which had a cultural package not clearly traceable to Corded Ware/Fatyanovo anymore, because of strong Poltavka influences (horse sacrificies,...)

parasar
08-02-2020, 12:14 AM
...

Edited to add:

And btw, Roopkund I6942, who is derived for R-L657 is extremely far to any brahmin or north indian, and is closest to southern tribes. He may be a pallan.
https://i.imgur.com/YUsqEG7.png

Same for I6946, who is R-M417, R1a1a, he is far away from any brahmin or north india
https://i.imgur.com/CieLxHt.png

Why are none of those other 10 RoopkundA samples who cluster with central, north indians and brahmins on the PCA positive for any R1a?
It is surprising that the 2 most aasi shifted samples in roopkund A are derived for R1a!

The Paniya/Irula like Roopkund I6946 sample is mtDNA U8b1a1 based on mt capture.
I don't recall seeing this in modern South Asians. https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3192-U8b-distribution&p=52877&viewfull=1#post52877
We had seen U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U7, U8-K, and U9.

Though it did show up in Swat Valley too!
U8b1a E1b1b1b2 1200-800 BCE I6194
U8b1a1 n/a (female) 200 BCE - 100 CE I6547

I was reminded of this based on BMG's query on U8b1a2:

Is U8b1a2 frequent in india ?

So now only U6 seems absent.
U6 was found in Romania (U6* 33000 BC PM1) and Georgia (U6 Dzuzuana 24000 BC).



Posted at Eurogenes blog:
Open Genomes said...

I6936 and I3404 appear to be Mainland Greeks.
I6397 may be a South Italian.
I3405, I6939, and I3403 seem to be Cretans, but possibly also South Italians.
I6935 is a Cappadocian Greek (from Central Anatolia).

However, I3350 appears to be Italian.
...
I6942 appears to be a Pallan.
...
I6946 appears to be a Paniya or Irula a from a tribal or scheduled caste.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/08/roopkund-lake-dead-preliminary-analysis.html