PDA

View Full Version : Offshoots immediately upstream and downstream from M458



lgmayka
01-31-2016, 03:27 AM
The large R1a-M458 clade has an immediate upstream SNP named PF6155 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-PF6155/). YFull shows only one member of R-PF6155*, YF03202 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-PF6155*/), who is kit 44591 of Poland. 264355 of Poland has also tested PF6155+ M458- . But the Y-SNPs page of the R1a Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a?iframe=ysnp) shows one more R-PF6155*, kit 397280 of Italy. (Ancestral country taken from the Y-STRs page of that project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a?iframe=yresults).)

Immediately downstream from M458, but upstream from major subclades L260 and CTS11962, are PF7521 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-PF7521/)and Y2604 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2604/). YFull shows one customer entry at R-M458 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-M458/) who is definitely negative for Y2604; he is kit 281796 of Poland, and has tested negative for PF7521 as well. The Y-SNPs page of the R1a Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a?iframe=ysnp) shows one member who is PF7521+ Y2604+ L260- CTS11962- , kit 306772 of Poland.

paulgill
01-31-2016, 05:20 AM
The large R1a-M458 clade has an immediate upstream SNP named PF6155 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-PF6155/). YFull shows only one member of R-PF6155*, YF03202 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-PF6155*/), who is kit 44591 of Poland. 264355 of Poland has also tested PF6155+ M458- . But the Y-SNPs page of the R1a Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a?iframe=ysnp) shows one more R-PF6155*, kit 397280 of Italy. (Ancestral country taken from the Y-STRs page of that project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a?iframe=yresults).)

Immediately downstream from M458, but upstream from major subclades L260 and CTS11962, are PF7521 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-PF7521/)and Y2604 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2604/). YFull shows one customer entry at R-M458 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-M458/) who is definitely negative for Y2604; he is kit 281796 of Poland, and has tested negative for PF7521 as well. The Y-SNPs page of the R1a Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a?iframe=ysnp) shows one member who is PF7521+ Y2604+ L260- CTS11962- , kit 306772 of Poland.

To get the true location one need an ancient sample at the time of the above mutation, even that won't be telling the whole story unless it was a newly born boy, as people can travel long distances in a little or no time.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-31-2016, 06:23 AM
Odd how we keep getting odd samples of old type M458 in Italy. Might it have to do with lingering vestiges of Goths and vandals ?

paulgill
01-31-2016, 07:17 AM
Odd how we keep getting odd samples of old type M458 in Italy. Might it have to do with lingering vestiges of Goths and vandals ?

I think you have got it right.

RCO
01-31-2016, 02:11 PM
The Roman Empire had the slave mode of production and big masses were bought, enslaved and transported to the Italian Peninsula and islands to work in agriculture and urban services, so that's also another possibility of Northern cases there.

leonardo
01-31-2016, 03:13 PM
Odd how we keep getting odd samples of old type M458 in Italy. Might it have to do with lingering vestiges of Goths and vandals ?

That's my thought. Both were multi-ethnic. The Vandals remained in what is now south-western Poland right up to their migration to the Roman world.

leonardo
01-31-2016, 03:22 PM
Another possibility might be the Lombards. I believe the man with this sample is from Como. The Lombards made several stops across Central Europe before their arrival in Italy. They too were multi-ethnic.

paulgill
01-31-2016, 09:35 PM
Alans. They also had some J1s with them.

leonardo
01-31-2016, 11:22 PM
R-PF6155 would also be old enough that perhaps it coincides with the Celts time in Central Europe. A slave perhaps, but often tribe leaders would exchange their sons as a sign of good will. It's possible an individual man could have somehow joined of the Celtic clans that spread westward and ended up in northern Italy. The man's surname may give some indication as to a Germanic origin or not.

lyakh
03-25-2017, 05:32 PM
#264355 is described as descending from Obizor of Old Prussia, b. about 1255. So maybe this PF6155* lineage was not Slavic, but Baltic. I suppose that M458 (descendant of PF6155) could be not present in what is today Poland before early medieval times and arrival of the Slavs from the east of Poland.

Dibran
08-23-2017, 04:18 PM
Odd how we keep getting odd samples of old type M458 in Italy. Might it have to do with lingering vestiges of Goths and vandals ?

I thought M458 was Slavic? It is so confusing how rapidly it changes. I read another thread that M458 is found in a Tocharian, and a modern day Nogai. So what can we gather from this? How can it be Slavic if it was present in Tocharians, and some Nogai?

Could it be as you suggested, Goths and vandals? or Perhaps a central indo European element prior to the arrival of the Slavs?

I don't see how a preponderance of a lineage amongst a people defaults it to be categorized as "insert ethnicity here".

For example, Albanian is classified as indo European and therefore most likely arrived with R1 lineages. However, the majority of Albanians are outside of R1 lineages.

This can suggest that a lineage is not necessarily classified as a specific ethnic group because of the over occurrence of a haplogroup over others.

I am more of the mind that R1a(not all of it obviously) is predominantly of Thracian, Dacian and Scythian origin, and was absorbed by the expansion of the Slavs.

How else can we explain a predominantly Slavic M458 occurring in non Slavic Tocharians?

Pribislav
08-23-2017, 05:35 PM
I thought M458 was Slavic? It is so confusing how rapidly it changes. I read another thread that M458 is found in a Tocharian, and a modern day Nogai. So what can we gather from this? How can it be Slavic if it was present in Tocharians, and some Nogai?

Are you for real? How did you conclude M458 was present among Tocharians? Based on ONE MODERN sample? And even if it was present, how would that make it non-Slavic? It's like saying how can R1b-P312 be Celtic if it was present among ancient Germans?


I am more of the mind that R1a (not all of it obviously) is predominantly of Thracian, Dacian and Scythian origin, and was absorbed by the expansion of the Slavs.

Surely you must have some evidence to support this? And you should be more precise, since R1a as a whole is too much widespread. So what particular R1a lineages are in your mind associated with Thracians and Dacians? Z93 was clearly associated with Indo-Iranian tribes, Scythians among them, so I can agree with that part.

Dibran
08-23-2017, 05:51 PM
Are you for real? How did you conclude M458 was present among Tocharians? Based on ONE MODERN sample? And even if it was present, how would that make it non-Slavic? It's like saying how can R1b-P312 be Celtic if it was present among ancient Germans?



Surely you must have some evidence to support this? And you should be more precise, since R1a as a whole is too much widespread. So what particular R1a lineages are in your mind associated with Thracians and Dacians? Z93 was clearly associated with Indo-Iranian tribes, Scythians among them, so I can agree with that part.

The Tocharian language is not classified as Slavic. Last time I checked Slavs also were not in China?

It wasn't a modern sample. The thread claimed it was found in a Tocharian. Hence my statement as to how it can be that M458 was in a Tocharian if its Slavic?

Someone suggested Z280(or some branches anyways) could be linked to the Thracians/Dacians?

I am a laymen in genetics, so I am making reference to the claims of others on the forums.

It seems all disjointed as one person says one thing, the other something else.

Michal etc seem to make the most sense in their propositions.

Z93 I would agree is Scythian. Maybe Thracians had it? didn't they discover a Z93 in Bulgaria from supposed bronze age?

08-23-2017, 06:06 PM
Hi Dibran, I think the key here is what time frame you are referring to. Different what we think of ethnicities came and went, or were called different names to different peoples.

I might be wrong but I think the Slavs as an ethnicity and language were quite late in the European scene, but I suspect their forebearers were already there to a large extent, but called something different dependent on geography.

alexfritz
08-23-2017, 06:13 PM
correct me if im wrong;
but as far as i have come is that the earliest M458 was found in 13th century (medieval) late-slavic grave field on Usedom; are there earlier samples? slavs on usedom were the wilzen and luitizen of lechite-pommeranian branch;
http://www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDISS_derivate_000000008413/Dissertation_Freder.pdf?hosts=

acc to rebala et al the highest concentration of M458 is modern day sorbs, but no clue on diversity, pos higher L260 than L1029?

kostoffj
08-23-2017, 06:38 PM
I thought M458 was Slavic? It is so confusing how rapidly it changes. I read another thread that M458 is found in a Tocharian, and a modern day Nogai. So what can we gather from this? How can it be Slavic if it was present in Tocharians, and some Nogai?

Could it be as you suggested, Goths and vandals? or Perhaps a central indo European element prior to the arrival of the Slavs?


I would take the report of M458 among the Tocharians with a grain of salt. Not saying it's impossible but never heard of it before. I would double check the reliability of the source.

We know the Slavs were active in the Migration Period and Procopius wrote about Slavic mercenaries fighting for the Eastern Empire it Italy, so M458 in northern Italy brought by Migration Period Slavs is not out of the question. Or East Germanics who likely also carried M458. It doesn't seem remarkable to me. Remarkable to me would be M458 actually being among the Tocharians.

Dibran
08-23-2017, 06:46 PM
Hi Dibran, I think the key here is what time frame you are referring to. Different what we think of ethnicities came and went, or were called different names to different peoples.

I might be wrong but I think the Slavs as an ethnicity and language were quite late in the European scene, but I suspect their forebearers were already there to a large extent, but called something different dependent on geography.

Yes. My statement was more towards conflicting information. There are constant flame wars on other forums where people are trying to paint R1a with a broad stroke as entirely Slavic. Yet, as you perfectly stated, The slavs didn't emerge until much later.

Also, some theories suggest that Dacian and Thracian(at least linguistically) may have been closest to Proto-Balto-Slavic, which Slavs, among other groups diverged at a later point in time.

So Would it not be correct that a good portion of R1a, are part of pre-Slavs, absorbed into the Slavs?

Dibran
08-23-2017, 06:49 PM
I would take the report of M458 among the Tocharians with a grain of salt. Not saying it's impossible but never heard of it before. I would double check the reliability of the source.

We know the Slavs were active in the Migration Period and Procopius wrote about Slavic mercenaries fighting for the Eastern Empire it Italy, so M458 in northern Italy brought by Migration Period Slavs is not out of the question. Or East Germanics who likely also carried M458. It doesn't seem remarkable to me. Remarkable to me would be M458 actually being among the Tocharians.

Ok I see what you are saying. Thank you for clarification. Perhaps it was suggested and I misread it as "discovered" among Tocharians. I have to find the thread I read it from.

Pribislav
08-23-2017, 08:31 PM
The Tocharian language is not classified as Slavic. Last time I checked Slavs also were not in China?

It wasn't a modern sample. The thread claimed it was found in a Tocharian. Hence my statement as to how it can be that M458 was in a Tocharian if its Slavic?

Someone suggested Z280(or some branches anyways) could be linked to the Thracians/Dacians?

I am a laymen in genetics, so I am making reference to the claims of others on the forums.

It seems all disjointed as one person says one thing, the other something else.

Michal etc seem to make the most sense in their propositions.

Z93 I would agree is Scythian. Maybe Thracians had it? didn't they discover a Z93 in Bulgaria from supposed bronze age?

AFAIK those supposed Tocharians were all M198 (xZ93), never heard anyone claim they were M458. The thing is, even if they were M458, they would have to belong to some early diverged subclade (almost immediately after its formation ~2700 BC), thus having no real connection with later Central-Eastern European M458 that would become Slavic. Not to mention this also wouldn't mean original speakers of Tokharian were exclusively/dominantly M458.

Z280 as a whole certainly wasn't Thracian/Dacian, and most of its subclades have fairly young TMRCA dates to be considered Thracian. Z93 on the other hand could have been present among both Thracians and Dacians, since they were in direct contact with Iranian tribes for centuries.

Pribislav
08-23-2017, 09:18 PM
Yes. My statement was more towards conflicting information. There are constant flame wars on other forums where people are trying to paint R1a with a broad stroke as entirely Slavic. Yet, as you perfectly stated, The slavs didn't emerge until much later.

Also, some theories suggest that Dacian and Thracian(at least linguistically) may have been closest to Proto-Balto-Slavic, which Slavs, among other groups diverged at a later point in time.

So Would it not be correct that a good portion of R1a, are part of pre-Slavs, absorbed into the Slavs?

Yes, ethnogenesis of Slavs began rather late (compared to Celts and Germans), but it would be inaccurate to say good portion (what portion is that?) of R1a was absorbed into Slavs, since there were no Slavs before some clades of M458 (primarily L1029) mixed with certain subclades of Z280 (mostly those under CTS1211). If we're talking about earlier populations, IMO the best candidates for carriers of M458-derived clades were tribes of Pomeranian culture (Veneti?), while tribes of Milograd culture (Neuri?) were the most likely source of Z280>CTS1211-derived clades.

lgmayka
08-23-2017, 09:48 PM
So Would it not be correct that a good portion of R1a, are part of pre-Slavs, absorbed into the Slavs?
The Proto-Slavs may indeed have belonged to R1a, but they weren't the only ones. Clearly, R1a-Z93, R1a-Z284, and R1a-L664 had already diverged and migrated elsewhere by that time; and even R1a-Z280 and R1a-M458 should be considered clade-by-clade.

Dibran
08-23-2017, 11:00 PM
The Proto-Slavs may indeed have belonged to R1a, but they weren't the only ones. Clearly, R1a-Z93, R1a-Z284, and R1a-L664 had already diverged and migrated elsewhere by that time; and even R1a-Z280 and R1a-M458 should be considered clade-by-clade.

That makes sense. Who other than the Kurgans can Z283 be associated with? Assuming one is negative for all downstream known clades.

Michał
08-24-2017, 12:05 AM
Perhaps it was suggested and I misread it as "discovered" among Tocharians. I have to find the thread I read it from.
I guess you meant another thread on this forum that was started by user Bulat (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9384-Ancient-R1a-M458-in-Aral-Sea-Southern-Ural-and-Kuban-River-(Northern-Caucasus)), although one should rather treat his post as wild speculations at best.

Here is what we currently know about the Y-DNA haplogroups associated with the Tocharian-speaking people:
1) There are actually no aDNA data for any ancient population associated with documents written in Tocharian nor with any archaeological culture clearly associated with the Tocharian language. The R1a samples from Xiaohe in the Tarim basin predate the presence of attested Tocharian speakers by at least two millennia (and Tocharian was not the only IE language used in the Tarim basin in the first millennium AD), so although many researchers suspect that those Xiaohe guys spoke an IE dialect ancestral to Tocharian, this is just one of many possibilities.
2) We don't know the exact R1a clade(s) associated with those Xiaohe people, although one of the Chinese researchers involved in that study stated that some unpublished results indicate this was R1a(xZ93), thus some R1a species that are extremely rare in Asia today (which is quite surprising when associating Tocharians with ancient Yuezhi who are believed to contribute to the so-called Indo-Scythians who ultimately conquered India). However, this information about R1a(xZ93) has never been published in a reviewed paper (nor confirmed by independent sources), and it is worth noting that this statement was made in a quite heated debate, as a response to someone who claimed that those ancient people from China were most likely R1a-Z93 of South Asian (and more specifically Tamil) ancestry.
3) It has been quite commonly assumed that the Tocharians descended from an earlier Afanasevo culture located north of the Tarim basin. We have some autosomal results for Afanasevo that clearly indicate that this population was nearly identical to Yamna (which is in perfect agreement with archaeology) and there were some rumors saying that Russian researchers found R1b in Afanasevo, which seems consistent with that Yamna link but does not support the association of those hypothetical Afanasevo-derived Tocharians with R1a.

Michał
08-24-2017, 12:26 AM
Who other than the Kurgans can Z283 be associated with? Assuming one is negative for all downstream known clades. Such a rare subclade of Z283 could have been associated with a CWC-derived population that was either unable to significantly expand or underwent a very strong bottleneck effect and became nearly extinct (and eventually absorbed by some much more successful neighbors/newcomers), so it will be very difficult to identify such an ancient population with no aDNA data available.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-24-2017, 06:48 AM
I thought M458 was Slavic? It is so confusing how rapidly it changes. I read another thread that M458 is found in a Tocharian, and a modern day Nogai. So what can we gather from this? How can it be Slavic if it was present in Tocharians, and some Nogai?

Could it be as you suggested, Goths and vandals? or Perhaps a central indo European element prior to the arrival of the Slavs?

I don't see how a preponderance of a lineage amongst a people defaults it to be categorized as "insert ethnicity here".

For example, Albanian is classified as indo European and therefore most likely arrived with R1 lineages. However, the majority of Albanians are outside of R1 lineages.

This can suggest that a lineage is not necessarily classified as a specific ethnic group because of the over occurrence of a haplogroup over others.

I am more of the mind that R1a(not all of it obviously) is predominantly of Thracian, Dacian and Scythian origin, and was absorbed by the expansion of the Slavs.

How else can we explain a predominantly Slavic M458 occurring in non Slavic Tocharians?

As others have answered your question about M458 ( i should be more specific when I list such a clade next time), I will merely make a few passing comments about Balkans IE.
Whilst i wouldn't state your comment about R1 as wrong, it certainly isn't that simple. For example, if we tally up the post-4500 BC Y lineages from Balkans so far (admittedly mostly Bulgarian, one Mycenean J2a, and an Adriatic J2b2), there isn't a preponderence of R1, apart from the Iranic immigrant froun in MBA Bulgaria, who was R1a-Z93 - a rare lineage in Balkans today. So people like him left minimal impact in Balkans.
R1b-Z2103 would certainly be a possibility, arriving with some Yamnaya, but Balkan R1b-L23 still needs a lot more dissection, and we cannot say that it all came in 3000 BC with Yamnaya. Indeed, I;d bet most Balkan Yamnaya, Ezero, etc cultures were I2a2a1b, some G2, even E, and arriving various J lineages.
Lastly, the R1a in moderns Balkans is nested within Balto-Slavic ones, so I don't think they're 'Thracian" or Scythian (which we now know to be R1a-Z93 like their fellow Iranics)
(of course, I have no doubt that R1b and even R1a will turn up with more sampling from Balkans).

IMO, the Yamnaya -R1 expansion doesn't quite explain the Balkans in full. That model only works for northern & western Europe.
There was none of that 'blietskrieg' type infiltration in Balkans. Rather, we see a medley of cultural and settlement shifts which span the 4500 - 3000 BC mark, and the Yamnaya-CWC-BB horizon was a late phase of a 'greater horizon' that which incorporated N-W Europe after 2800BC, carried by Z645 and L51.

kosmonomad
08-24-2017, 05:34 PM
I guess you meant another thread on this forum that was started by user Bulat (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9384-Ancient-R1a-M458-in-Aral-Sea-Southern-Ural-and-Kuban-River-(Northern-Caucasus)),
Just wait for publication.


although one should rather treat his post as wild speculations at best.

It is results of testing people. I supported a few test and I can say that a fraction of M458 along Volga and in Central Asia are of "Slavic" type before Russian expansion, more like the known initial Slavic expansion and even before it. It may have been movements along traditional long trade paths.

Michał
08-24-2017, 10:10 PM
Just wait for publication.

Does it mean that someone indeed found M458 in ancient Bronze Age samples from the Tarim basin (which is what Bulat claimed in his post)? If not, then all he wrote on this subject is just a pure speculation with no aDNA nor modern DNA data supporting his claims. Finding M458 in modern Central Asia or Ural region is definitely not enough to suggest these lineages are related to the Tocharian speakers, especially when we don't know which particular subclades of M458 he is talking about.


I supported a few test and I can say that a fraction of M458 along Volga and in Central Asia are of "Slavic" type before Russian expansion, more like the known initial Slavic expansion and even before it. It may have been movements along traditional long trade paths.
Please note that Pre-Russian does not necessarily mean Bronze Age, and it should be noted that the Tocharian branch is believed to have been separated from a dialect ancestral to Late PIE more than 5000 ago (and most likely more than 5500 years ago), thus before the M458 clade was even born (according to YFull), so it is hard to believe that the M458 population was sufficiently numerous at those early times to become a source of major migrations contributing to the emergence of both the Tocharian-speaking and Celtic-speaking populations (which is what Bulat claims), in addition to the well known association of M458 with Balto-Slavs or Slavs. Also, it does not make much sense to derive the Tocharian-speaking people from Andronovo and Srubna (which is also what Bulat suggests in his posts), as both these cultures are known to be strongly associated with R1a-Z93 and are commonly identified with Early Iranian or Indo-Iranian speakers, while Tocharian is very distantly related to Indo-Iranian. It should also be mentioned that the majority of modern linguists do not support any specific relationship between Tocharian and Celtic or any existence of a hypothetical Celto-Tocharian branch (which is of course consistent with the fact that there are no Y-DNA haplogroups or clades that would be specifically associated with modern post-Celtic and post-Tocharian populations while being much less common in all remaining IE-derived populations).

Could you please show us some examples of those early diverged M458 lineages that you found among modern Central Asians? Are these just STR haplotypes or SNP-tested samples?

Dibran
08-24-2017, 11:23 PM
Yes, ethnogenesis of Slavs began rather late (compared to Celts and Germans), but it would be inaccurate to say good portion (what portion is that?) of R1a was absorbed into Slavs, since there were no Slavs before some clades of M458 (primarily L1029) mixed with certain subclades of Z280 (mostly those under CTS1211). If we're talking about earlier populations, IMO the best candidates for carriers of M458-derived clades were tribes of Pomeranian culture (Veneti?), while tribes of Milograd culture (Neuri?) were the most likely source of Z280>CTS1211-derived clades.

Interesting. Yea I meant earlier populations. I am currently Z283, and if LivingDNA is not reporting false negatives, I am negative for all downstream clades as well. Other than the 2 they did not test. one being Z282, the other I cannot recall. All I know is Z283 is associated with Kurgans/Corded Ware. I am currently testing with Full Genomes Corp to uncover all I can. Then I will upload it to Yfull and bring it to the attention of the R1a project to get an idea. If its true I am indeed Z283 positive, negative downstream, then I wonder where I would branch.

I find it odd that they tested downstream of Z282, but not Z282 itself. I guess time will tell.

Dibran
08-24-2017, 11:30 PM
I guess you meant another thread on this forum that was started by user Bulat (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9384-Ancient-R1a-M458-in-Aral-Sea-Southern-Ural-and-Kuban-River-(Northern-Caucasus)), although one should rather treat his post as wild speculations at best.

Here is what we currently know about the Y-DNA haplogroups associated with the Tocharian-speaking people:
1) There are actually no aDNA data for any ancient population associated with documents written in Tocharian nor with any archaeological culture clearly associated with the Tocharian language. The R1a samples from Xiaohe in the Tarim basin predate the presence of attested Tocharian speakers by at least two millennia (and Tocharian was not the only IE language used in the Tarim basin in the first millennium AD), so although many researchers suspect that those Xiaohe guys spoke an IE dialect ancestral to Tocharian, this is just one of many possibilities.
2) We don't know the exact R1a clade(s) associated with those Xiaohe people, although one of the Chinese researchers involved in that study stated that some unpublished results indicate this was R1a(xZ93), thus some R1a species that are extremely rare in Asia today (which is quite surprising when associating Tocharians with ancient Yuezhi who are believed to contribute to the so-called Indo-Scythians who ultimately conquered India). However, this information about R1a(xZ93) has never been published in a reviewed paper (nor confirmed by independent sources), and it is worth noting that this statement was made in a quite heated debate, as a response to someone who claimed that those ancient people from China were most likely R1a-Z93 of South Asian (and more specifically Tamil) ancestry.
3) It has been quite commonly assumed that the Tocharians descended from an earlier Afanasevo culture located north of the Tarim basin. We have some autosomal results for Afanasevo that clearly indicate that this population was nearly identical to Yamna (which is in perfect agreement with archaeology) and there were some rumors saying that Russian researchers found R1b in Afanasevo, which seems consistent with that Yamna link but does not support the association of those hypothetical Afanasevo-derived Tocharians with R1a.

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

kostoffj
08-25-2017, 12:11 AM
It should also be mentioned that the majority of modern linguists do not support any specific relationship between Tocharian and Celtic or any existence of a hypothetical Celto-Tocharian branch (which is of course consistent with the fact that there are no Y-DNA haplogroups or clades that would be specifically associated with modern post-Celtic and post-Tocharian populations while being much less common in all remaining IE-derived populations).
What was the basis for people speculating about a Celtic-Tocharian link? Was it because tartan-like fabrics were found among Tocharians and people ran with it?

Agamemnon
08-25-2017, 12:19 AM
R1b-M269 has been found in Afanasievo as a matter of fact. (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9852-Peuplement-du-sud-de-la-Sib%E9rie-et-de-l-Alta%EF-%E0-l-%E2ge-du-Bronze-apport-de-la-pal%E9og&p=217070&viewfull=1#post217070) No R1a though.

Michał
08-25-2017, 09:40 AM
What was the basis for people speculating about a Celtic-Tocharian link? Was it because tartan-like fabrics were found among Tocharians and people ran with it?
Another reason was that linguists classified both Tocharian and Celtic as Centum languages, although it is now commonly believed that Centumization in Tocharian and in some Late PIE dialects (ancestral to Italo-Celtic, Germanic and Greek, among others) were independent processes, just like the Satemization in Armenian and Balto-Slavic.

Michał
08-25-2017, 09:47 AM
R1b-M269 has been found in Afanasievo as a matter of fact. (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9852-Peuplement-du-sud-de-la-Sib%E9rie-et-de-l-Alta%EF-%E0-l-%E2ge-du-Bronze-apport-de-la-pal%E9og&p=217070&viewfull=1#post217070) No R1a though.
Do you have a link to the original publication (and not just to that review paper in French) that reported those findings?

Gravetto-Danubian
08-25-2017, 09:57 AM
Do you have a link to the original publication (and not just to that review paper in French) that reported those findings?

https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01296484/

Michał
08-25-2017, 10:11 AM
https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01296484/
I see, so this was a PhD dissertation published in French in 2014.
It wonders me a bit why the author has never published those results in any peer-reviewed journal with IF.