PDA

View Full Version : More thoughts of Anatole's work on very deep time R1b branching



alan
05-06-2013, 05:08 PM
Anatole Klyosov in his 'Ancient History of the Arbins, Bearers of Haplogroup R1b, from Central Asia to Europe, 16,000 to 1500 Years before Present' makes some observations about the early days of R1b that I think need further discussion.

He states that

1. R-M73 in Central Asia and R-M269 in Europe had a common ancestor (P297) c. 8600BC. However the two clades that today largely represent the branch are dated by Klyosov to about 6000BC (M73) and 4-5000BC (M269).

2. The R1b1* common ancestor (P297 negative) to 14,500BC. This of course is the root that led to V88. However he dates the main branch of this V88 to only 4 or 5000BC and significantly younger in Africa.




I dont know if everyone agree with his general dating. So if anyone can comment on that that would be great. Taking his dating at face value, it really does show the extremely long period of time in the story of R1b before it took a permanent hold and expanded significantly in a way that is still detectable.

So the first thing to note is that lineage leading to V88 branched off from the other main R1b lines about 14500BC. That waa back in the Palaeolithic. This was also 10000 years before its main descendant clade V88 arose and the parallel M73 and M269 clades on the other line arose. So, surprise really ought not to be so great that V88 has such a different distribution. There was an incredible depth of time for this to happen. This should be remembered when trying to deduce overall cultural or linguistic affliations for R1b. There is no such thing when you consider the suggested date of 14500BC for the lineage split between the ancestors of the V88 line and the other branches. This branching off was back in a period (and was succeeded by a period) when the climate was really fluctuating. That creates many possible scenarios that could have led to near extinction and then the commencing of the sharp distinction of distribution in the three main branches of R1b. The clear impression is that the P297 negative lineage moved southwards but before trying to link this with things like the Dryas periods etc it is worth noting that Klyosov states that European-Middle Eastern R1b1* haplotypes are only c. 8400 years old. That suggests that the move south into the zone of early farming was well after the Neolithic had begun. The lack of evidence for any sort of significant expansion of the lineages of this branch of R1b until well into the Neolithic or after and its non-appearance as a major player in Neolithic European ancient DNA would seem to back this. So, there is a suggestion that this line of R1b which later became very much the southern one was not on the scene and may have arrived from somewhere else away from the near east.


Anatole places the P297 common ancestor at a time c. 8500BC a little after the nasty cold snap of the Younger Dryas in a period of climate improvement and at a time when the Neolithic just getting under way in the Near East. However, the earliest branch of this line to take off was the M73 central Asian branch. Anatole places this around 6000BC. This seems the wrong time and wrong place to be linked to the earliest farming take off zones. It does seem to roughly coincide with the 8.2 kiloyear event which cause three centuries of aridity in the middle east and aridity and cold to the north. It could have been just after this event. Its very complex but I wonder if this paper may contain the answer to the take off of the M73 lineage

www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-UARUOLB0/98491aa4.../PDF

Maybe, maybe not. However, one way or other if Anatole's kind of dating is right it has to be explained why the first of the modern superclades of R1b to take off seems to have done so in the least farming-friendly location and furthest from the area of origin of agriculture.

Another thing worth noting is the similarity in the age Anatole gives for a steppe clade like M73 and the overall age of European-Middle Eastern R1b1* (P297 negative). He places both around the 6000BC mark give or take a century or so. Even though they were separate branches since the Palaeolithic they share the same clade formation period suggesting they both took off from bear extinction at the same time.

The other thing to note is that the split between the ancestors of M269 and M73 is only a little more than half of the time depth of the split with the ancestral line leading to V88 according to Anatole. So a greater affinity (although not neccessarily very close) in terms of cultural origin, linguistics and geography seems more likely between M269 and M73 than between V88 and the other branches. The common ancestor of M269 and M73 lived at the start of the Neolithic (although perhaps peripheral from this development) having survived some mighty climatic swings. It is noticeable that the age of M73 is close to the date of the 8.2 kiloyear event. However, its hard to say at these levels of DNA dating if it took off during or after this. However, if this was an intrusion of farmers from the south into the steppes then that would suggest that the ancestor of both M73 and M269 lay in that early farming area which doesnt seem likely to me given the lack of much P297*.

Another thing worth noting is the similarity in the age Anatole gives for a steppe clade like M73 and the overall age of all European-Middle Eastern P297 negative R1b. He places both around the 6000BC mark give or take a century or so. Its all very unclear but the climatic shock of events like the 8.2 kioyear event as well as others do give possible scenarios of near-extinction events in any areas where aridity is an issue (which includes both eastern Europe, especially the steppes, and SW Asia). I wonder if the event, the kill off it created and the upheavals it created create the origins of simultanious but geographically different rise of M73 and the P297 negative group in SW Asia. Maybe a migration from terrible aridity that went in a couple of directions. A location in the west of SW Asia (Levant etc) before this seems unlikely given ancient DNA results of Neolithic Europeans to date. Then again a position for both lineages that could reach both the steppes and the Levant is required. Also, there may be no trail simply because the descendant lineages only expanded when they reached these new locations and survived the climatic downturn with perhaps M73 occurring among the first settlers in the steppes.

Then we have to account for the delay in growth and different geography (lets call it circumpontic but with status on the northern shore unknown) of M269. This did not take off until rather late, maybe around 4000BC and even then largely in L23 form. Why did it suddenly take off 2000 years after M73? Clearly it didnt have the same driving force. On the other hand this is not so different from the age of take off of V88. What could have triggered too simultanious expansions in two different directions by clades that had brached from each other 10000 years earlier? At the risk of too much climatic determinism that period did see the 5.9 kiloyear event which caused widespread aridity, displacement and movement to river valley in arid regions. Maybe these very distant cousins lived in arid areas (but likely not the same arid area). There could have been near extinction followed by survival and expansion. One thing I would say is that this event killed off the Green Sahara which is probably why when V88 migrated to Africa (either around this time or a millenia or so if you accept Klyosov's dating) they probably headed south down the Nile and not east to west along north Africa. The recent studies would seem to point for the north to south down the Nile then west route for V88.

M269 (well L23* really) might have pushed out of some arid area around this time too. It was the time of collapse of Old Europe, the push of the earliest steppe groups into the Danube mouth both of which were probably closely related to the 5.9 kiloyear event and the aridity it caused. The date of the rise of L23* really does not seem to make it correlate with the Old European farmers. They were around for thousands of years before the existance of L23 and M269 and there really isnt a case for R1b in the Old Europe area before those clades.

Very inconclusive ramblings! However I think they do raise a couple of lessons. Firstly there is no point in looking for an overall R1b backstory that explains V88, M269 and M73. The first split is way back in the Palaelithic when R1b itself was not very old. 16000 years of separation and huge climatic changes in subsequent periods basically absolves us from making sense of the distribtion of the modern distribution of their later Neolthic and Bronze Age descendant clades like V88 and M269. No geographical, cultural or linguistic correlation can be expected at that depth of seperation. People who try to link all R1b linguistically to Chadic etc clearly have not thought this out in any depth. The degree of separation is enormous between V88 and M269. Perhaps somewhat more of a linkage might exist between M269 and M73 as their common ancestor was only about half as long ago as the one they share with V88 and lies at the start of the Asian Neolithic. However, their distribution is very different and it is again possible that the major climatic events of the 8.2 and 5.9 kiloyear events may have separated them significantly geographically, culturally and linguistically for a couple of millenia at least.

R.Rocca
05-07-2013, 12:31 AM
Just a reminder - Anatole Klyosov calculated the age of E-V13 at 1000 BC and yet E-V13 has been found in a 5000 BC sample from Spain. Therefore, I don't know that we can take his dating techniques all that seriously. I do thing that there is a small value however in showing that subclade A is older than subclade B, with the understanding that founder affects could be in play.

alan
05-08-2013, 12:27 AM
Just a reminder - Anatole Klyosov calculated the age of E-V13 at 1000 BC and yet E-V13 has been found in a 5000 BC sample from Spain. Therefore, I don't know that we can take his dating techniques all that seriously. I do thing that there is a small value however in showing that subclade A is older than subclade B, with the understanding that founder affects could be in play.

I partly raised the issue of his paper to draw comment on his methods and results. Certainly most of his more downstream dates for R1b seem in the same ballpark as what other have calculated. I would be curious to hear any other date calculations done for P297 'all' and P25 all or any other method to get an estimate on when the branches leading to V88 and P297 (M73 and M269) split. Its probably been done by someone but I cannot put my hand on it. I just want to get a handle on the depth of time the separation is. I am less sure if other methods come to similar dates for those early splits.

Jean M
05-08-2013, 11:08 AM
All I can suggest is that you contact Vince Vizachero or invite him to this thread. The estimated dates that I have are:

R1 - Age c. 18,500 years ago (Karafet 2008)

R1b (M343/PF6242) - Age 16,000 ya (Vincent Vizachero on his on his FTDNA project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1Asterisk/default.aspx) and fig. 2 in Soares 2010.)

R1b1a1 (M73, M478) - Age c. 7000 ya (V.V.)

R1b1a2 (M269) – Age 4-800 ya (VV); 5-800 ya (Arredi 2007); 6500-8500 ya (Tim Janzen)

R1b1c (V88) - Age 5600-9200 y.a. (Cruciani 2010); 9000 y.a. (V.V.)

TigerMW
05-14-2013, 12:49 PM
Just a reminder - Anatole Klyosov calculated the age of E-V13 at 1000 BC and yet E-V13 has been found in a 5000 BC sample from Spain. Therefore, I don't know that we can take his dating techniques all that seriously. I do thing that there is a small value however in showing that subclade A is older than subclade B, with the understanding that founder affects could be in play.

Not always, but Kylosov's TMRCA calculations for R1b are usually in line with others for R1b so I don't think we need to distrust them just because they are from Klyosov. On the other hand, his error ranges are quite narrow compare to most alternative methods. I just ignore his error ranges.

I'm not sure the E-V13 ancient DNA is a good example to assess the Klyosov methodology's technical correctness. TMRCA intraclade estimates like Klyosov's only represent the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) for the remnant population. The E-V13 MRCA (single man) for those surviving may have very little to do with the ancient DNA E-V13 man found other than some very, very ancient connection. Of course, all of this is what drove Dienekes nuts, particularly as it relates to geographical differentiation.

However, problems with intraclade calculations can be mitigated by doing multiple phylogenetically comparable calculations and using interclade methods like what Ken Nordtvedt developed.

If we want to go deeper into the topic of methodologies we should probably go over to this thread designed for that purpose.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting

TigerMW
05-14-2013, 01:06 PM
... Firstly there is no point in looking for an overall R1b backstory that explains V88, M269 and M73. The first split is way back in the Palaelithic when R1b itself was not very old. 16000 years of separation and huge climatic changes in subsequent periods basically absolves us from making sense of the distribtion of the modern distribution of their later Neolthic and Bronze Age descendant clades like V88 and M269. No geographical, cultural or linguistic correlation can be expected at that depth of seperation.

I absolutely agree. At the time of R1b's early branching we can scarely hope to understand what languages they might have spoken.

I disagree slightly on the geographical dimension. I think the geographical distribution gives us some points to corner in an origin point. However, I'm not saying there is any resolution to that to try to narrow down say the East European plains versus the Caucasus versus Anatolia, etc., etc. I think geographically we can point to a very broad area. To me, I just conclude that R1b must have come from the the east, somewhere around the Black Sea, the Near East or points further east.


People who try to link all R1b linguistically to Chadic etc clearly have not thought this out in any depth. The degree of separation is enormous between V88 and M269. Perhaps somewhat more of a linkage might exist between M269 and M73 as their common ancestor was only about half as long ago as the one they share with V88 and lies at the start of the Asian Neolithic. However, their distribution is very different and it is again possible that the major climatic events of the 8.2 and 5.9 kiloyear events may have separated them significantly geographically, culturally and linguistically for a couple of millenia at least.

I agree. Does anyone understand where Proto-Chadic might fit in with other language families?


Modern genetic studies of populations which speak Chadic languages has shown high frequencies of the Y-Chromosome Haplogroup R1b (specifically the R1b R-V88 variant), a marker which is common in parts of Europe and Asia, but otherwise rare in Africa. This has lead to the theory that the Proto-Chadic people originated in Asia (the Middle East) before entering Africa as early as 7 thousand years ago, probably before the First Dynasty of Egypt. The speakers of Proto-Chadic might have been a Levantine population dating back to an Africa migration (a "back-migration") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadic_languages

Ironically, this article tries to use R1b genetics to show the origin of Chadic. We'd rather have an independent (of genetics) assessment of where Chadic comes from so we could look for intersections with R1b.

R.Rocca
05-14-2013, 01:12 PM
Not always, but Kylosov's TMRCA calculations for R1b are usually in line with others for R1b so I don't think we need to distrust them just because they are from Klyosov. On the other hand, his error ranges are quite narrow compare to most alternative methods. I just ignore his error ranges.

I'm not sure the E-V13 ancient DNA is a good example to assess the Klyosov methodology's technical correctness. TMRCA intraclade estimates like Klyosov's only represent the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) for the remnant population. The E-V13 MRCA (single man) for those surviving may have very little to do with the ancient DNA E-V13 man found other than some very, very ancient connection. Of course, all of this is what drove Dienekes nuts, particularly as it relates to geographical differentiation.

However, problems with intraclade calculations can be mitigated by doing multiple phylogenetically comparable calculations and using interclade methods like what Ken Nordtvedt developed.

If we want to go deeper into the topic of methodologies we should probably go over to this thread designed for that purpose.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting

I am well aware of the limitations and will pass on going deeper into the topic, but I only mention it because I want people to be aware that Anatoly's dates only represent the successful living ancestors and are probably fraught with the reduced age of successful founder effects. It in no way means that we will not find R1b hundreds or even thousands of years older than his numbers.

TigerMW
05-14-2013, 04:25 PM
All I can suggest is that you contact Vince Vizachero or invite him to this thread. The estimated dates that I have are:

R1 - Age c. 18,500 years ago (Karafet 2008)

R1b (M343/PF6242) - Age 16,000 ya (Vincent Vizachero on his on his FTDNA project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1Asterisk/default.aspx) and fig. 2 in Soares 2010.)

R1b1a1 (M73, M478) - Age c. 7000 ya (V.V.)

R1b1a2 (M269) – Age 4-800 ya (VV); 5-800 ya (Arredi 2007); 6500-8500 ya (Tim Janzen)

R1b1c (V88) - Age 5600-9200 y.a. (Cruciani 2010); 9000 y.a. (V.V.)

I posted this side by side comparison in another thread.

K years before present

Marko Heinila _ Anatole Klyosov

M343_ 14.0 __ 14.0

V88__ _9.5 __ _6.9
v88__ ____ __ _4.3 (Africa)
V69__ ____ __ _4.3

M73__ _7.2 __ _8.0

M269_ _5.7 __ _7.0
L23__ _5.7 __ _6.2
L51__ _4.9 __ _4.9
L11__ _4.8 __ _4.6
U106_ _4.5 __ _4.2
P312_ _4.2 __ _4.2


We also have Hammer, the FTDNA Chief Scientist, in his presentation in mid 2008 as saying M269 is 4-8K ybp.

In light of the of the Karafet 2008 estimate of 18.5k ybp for R1b's predecessor, R1, all of these numbers roughly align. I think this particularly important because Karafet used a completely different estimation method, avoiding Y STRs altogether. It serves as a good checkpoint.

I don't think we should view any of these estimates as precise, be they from Klyosov, Nordtvedt's tool, Vizachero or anyone.

I can't say I'd rely too much on M73 dating in particular. It does look diverse but it's not like we have thousands of long haplotypes.

MJost
05-14-2013, 05:06 PM
Since Cruciani etal 2010 data was mentioned, and if someone is interested, I ran their dataset for Variance/Modal TRMCA's using MH's 2012 Mutation Rates Stated in Generations for reference.

I have posted a zipped copy my latest version TRMCA Estimator spreadsheet (modified to handle limited STR sets to be able to match any study set of STRs using the largest marker setting where an STR is presented in that panel) loaded with Cruciani Datasets for review at:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNbUVvRThacVdtYlk/edit?usp=sharing



Count IntraClade Coalescence (n-1) Age MeanGenerations___StdDevInGen___CI-SDGenCoal(n-1)

N=45 Clade A: Cruciani etal 2010 R-V88 (R1b1a)____153.4___+-78.3___CI+-135.80
N=145 Clade B: R1b1 ALL_______________________240.6___+-98.1___CI+-147.46

Count Intraclade Founder's Modal Age ModalGenAge___StdDevInGen___CI-SDGenModal
N=45 Clade A: Cruciani etal 2010 R-V88 (R1b1a)_____164.5___+-81.1____CI+-104.01
N=145 Clade B: R1b1 ALL________________________353.8___+-119.0___CI+-83.67
Diff = 189.3

Pooled SD Clades A & B
R1b (R-M343) for Cruciani etal 2010 R-V88 (R1b1a) & R1b1 ALL

InterClade Coalescence (n-1) Age:
Generations___StdDevInGen___ CI-SDInterClade
208.3___+-91.3___CI+-104.01

Interclade Modal Founder's:
Generations___StdDevInGen___ CI-SDInterClade
187.8___+-37.5___CI+-83.67

Confidence Level (CI) at 99.73%

The question I have is, how should the years per generation be applied maybe as different lengths at different milleniums?

MJost

alan
05-14-2013, 05:39 PM
Here is a question. Why does M73 appear to have expanded 2000 years before M269 (both share a common ancestor perhaps around 8000BC). TODAY M73 is largely preserved in central Asia and the steppes in pre-Slavic Turkic groups. Yet it appears to be the first major clade of P297 to emerge. Not the sort of location one would generally see as having a better chance of expansion back in the Neolithic. M269, or rather the P297 branch leading to it, seems to have expanded much later. Again not the sort of pattern one would expect if it was in the farming zone while M73 was in central Asia.

R.Rocca
05-14-2013, 06:20 PM
Here is a question. Why does M73 appear to have expanded 2000 years before M269 (both share a common ancestor perhaps around 8000BC). TODAY M73 is largely preserved in central Asia and the steppes in pre-Slavic Turkic groups. Yet it appears to be the first major clade of P297 to emerge. Not the sort of location one would generally see as having a better chance of expansion back in the Neolithic. M269, or rather the P297 branch leading to it, seems to have expanded much later. Again not the sort of pattern one would expect if it was in the farming zone while M73 was in central Asia.

Perhaps there was a downturn in agriculture and M73 had a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in whatever area it expanded.

MJost
05-14-2013, 06:50 PM
I would say that the Modal Interclades between the M73 and M269 are very close with Cruciani etal's 2010 Hts.

M73 R1b1b1's Interclade Generations from R1b1 R-P25* Small sample n=3 is:
Coal. 210.2 +-91.7
Modal 352.7 +-112.3

M269* R1b1b2 's interclade Generations from R1b1 R-P25* sample n=69 is:
Coal. 206.6 +-90.9
Modal 353.8 +-119.0

MJost

Jean M
05-14-2013, 08:18 PM
Why does M73 appear to have expanded 2000 years before M269 (both share a common ancestor perhaps around 8000BC)..

What makes you think it expanded so early? It is not the date of the common ancestor which tells you the expansion time of the offspring. That common date (if correct) just gives you a time that enough sons were surviving that we have two lineages from that period today. The point at which we see a star-burst of new offspring from a single parent suggests an expanding population. So far we don't have a lot of data to work with about downstream clusters within M73. Or am I missing something?

I assumed that M73 actually spread east along the Silk Road after the movements that began with Andronovo, since M73 does not seem to appear in Iran or South Asia. But it could just happen that this lineage (a single man at this point perhaps) remained on the steppe rather than join the streams southwards.

alan
05-17-2013, 12:21 AM
I just mean expanded enough to survive the constant cycle of extinctions and daughtering out etc. I think it was VV that encouraged me to see every very old lineage survival as highly significant rather than random given the odds of not surviving. Anatole's method certainly favoured the second option that you mention - a line that remained on the steppe.

The real point I was making is that if the M73 line was on the steppe/central Asia then it could suggest that P297 was native to that area. The other option is to try and relate it to farming people who headed into the steppes but there is no M73 trail outside the steppe as far as I am aware (I believe it dies away to virtually nothing south and west of the Ukraine). Its absence from eastern Europe west of the Ukraine is interesting and I am sure that also has some significance. If I had to guess at the significance I would tend to think it indicates it was not on the western Old Europe/steppe boundary - I say that because even after many millenia it still barely makes it to that point while it stretches east a huge distance. I think it also dies off at the Caucasus too. The fact it appears to have only prospered in the steppe type environment or adjacent could be highly significant. Its distribution looks environmentally determined. It looks likely (although we could never be sure) to me that M73 is an SNP that occurred on the steppe. Hence no non-steppe trail. That would appear to place at least some P297* on the steppe before 6000BC. The position of the brother may be the only hint of the position of other P297* lines including that leading to future M269*. If it was in the farming zones of the Balkans, Anatolia etc why is there so little expansion of P297* clades other than the steppe-specific M73 until L23* c. 4000BC? Why did the steppe-specific clade commence 2000 years before M269? I think the very thin evidence could point to a steppe location for P297*. That apparently is at least 10000 years old.

All in all while there is no doubt the interests of many folk in this hobby ultimately focus on m269, M73 is it closest relative with any sort of useful pattern and frequency. I really am just on that basis trying to raise a little more interest in it. It is the closest thing we have to a sibling clade (unlike distant cousin V88) that was in existence for 2000 years before M269. It is the closest thing we have to an idea where the pre-M269 P297* sibling line to M73 may also have been.

I was inspired to post on this when I saw 'never' in the M73 thread. I dont have the answers or a solid opinion but I would like to hear any thoughts on this. I just find it odd that we tend to try and extrapolate on M269 and its deeper history discussing V88 more than M73 when in fact the P297 and the P25XP297XM335 (leading to V88) lines appear to have separated way back in the Palaeolithic according to Anatole, a far deeper separation. I would certainly like to see more discussion on M73.

Jean M
05-17-2013, 10:53 AM
appear to have separated way back in the Palaeolithic according to Anatole

To be frank, I no longer bother to read the work of A.K., which appears to be amateurish in the worst sense of the [corrected] word, heavily biased, nationalistic, ill-informed and unreliable. I see no reason to prefer dates from such a source, where they are wildly out of line with those calculated by Karafet, Soares, Vince Vizachero and others. Where they are in line with the calculations of other people, there is no reason to use them in preference. In short I see no reason to pay any attention at all to the work of A.K.

In my book, I have noted the significance of M73, which springs from its location today and position on the R1b tree as a brother to M269, not from any date calculated for it.

Rathna
05-17-2013, 12:37 PM
in the worst sense of the world

English speaking? Mother tongue?

Jean M
05-17-2013, 12:40 PM
Sorry - typo now corrected.

alan
05-17-2013, 11:02 PM
Oh I have serious reservations about Anatole too but I find his method interesting where he tries to overcome the 'tip of iceberg' aspect of genetics by comparing age differences between basal haplotypes of separate clusters of the same clade in the same general area interesting and perhaps a good method for thin mobile populations in places like Central Asia. His method does usually come in with similar results to other methods and I think his method might occasionally be better than normal localisted intraclades. I disagree with his interpretations to a large degree in terms of detail and cultural/linguistic correlations but I also think his data is very useful and can fit into much more conventional interpretations. The main thing Anatole says about M73 is that there are huge differences between the basal haplotypes of various clusters on a scale totally unheard of for other major clades. I find that hard to ignore although I would love to see a direct critique of his statements about M73 by one of our hobbiest number crunchers.

TigerMW
05-17-2013, 11:31 PM
What makes you think it expanded so early? It is not the date of the common ancestor which tells you the expansion time of the offspring. That common date (if correct) just gives you a time that enough sons were surviving that we have two lineages from that period today. The point at which we see a star-burst of new offspring from a single parent suggests an expanding population. So far we don't have a lot of data to work with about downstream clusters within M73. Or am I missing something? ....
We don't have a lot of data on M73 so I'm reticent to say too much.

I think the reason why Klyosov gets the older age for M73 is the high diversity. He's getting, and I see it anecdotally, that there is a lot of diversity in M73's haplotypes. M73's intraclade coalescence looks to be well before M269's.

alan
05-17-2013, 11:42 PM
We don't have a lot of data on M73 so I'm reticent to say too much.

I think the reason why Klyosov gets the older age for M73 is the high diversity. He's getting, and I see it anecdotally, that there is a lot of diversity in M73's haplotypes. M73's intraclade coalescence looks to be well before M269's.

This is a very important issue and would almost deserve a thread of its own. I would love all the mathematically gifted hobbiests who have worked on variance etc to have a mighty debate on this running to several pages as I think that is usually the way the best take on such things emerges but the main people who dabble in this seems scattered across various forums.

Jean M
05-17-2013, 11:59 PM
OK. If I go along with it for the sake of argument, then M73 might actually have sprung from the Ice Age refuge in the Altai, rather than from that which I propose for the rest of R1b in southern Caspian. That would certainly fit what we see and explain the lack of it (or extreme rarity) among IE speakers.

alan
05-18-2013, 12:38 AM
OK. If I go along with it for the sake of argument, then M73 might actually have sprung from the Ice Age refuge in the Altai, rather than from that which I propose for the rest of R1b in southern Caspian. That would certainly fit what we see and explain the lack of it (or extreme rarity) among IE speakers.

But from what I understand the overall age of P297 or the split of the future M73 and M279 is given by Anatole at about 8000BC. So whatever refugia the ancestor of M73 was in, that also surely applies to the ancestor of M269 and perhaps we need to think about a single P297 refuge

(Can anyone link or quote M269-M73 interclades dates by someone other than Anatole?)..

Actually talking of refugia, I have been slowly starting to think that the main split in R1b in terms of refugia may have been between a P297 one somewhere like the steppes or nearby and another more southerly one where the other line (negative for P297) was located that ultimatley led to V88. Anatole certainly placed the split between these two lines way back something like 14000 years ago if memory serves right.

Jean M
05-18-2013, 01:01 AM
given by Anatole at about 8000BC. .

So not actually in the Palaeolithic (as you stated earlier) or even very close to same.

newtoboard
05-18-2013, 01:20 AM
M73 isn't some sort of IE Steepe lineage. Just something picked up by Turks in a location not known to anyone. Its pretty telling that the Tajiks of Central Asia don't carry this lineage and the Turkic groups do. It wasn't a steepe lineage imo or it wasn't a significant once because it would have likely migrated southward with R1a.

MJost
05-18-2013, 04:20 PM
Anatole A. Klyosov etal has a new paper published

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=31366

DNA Genealogy and Linguistics. Ancient Europe
Anatole A. Klyosov, Giancarlo T. Tomezzoli


ABSTRACT
This article attempts to merge the data of contemporary linguistics and DNA genealogy in order to describe
the migrations and settlement of peoples and languages in Europe after the last Ice Age.

Advances in Anthropology
2013. Vol.3, No.2, 101-111
Published Online May 2013


MJost

Silesian
05-18-2013, 05:01 PM
Anatole A. Klyosov etal has a new paper published

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=31366

DNA Genealogy and Linguistics. Ancient Europe
Anatole A. Klyosov, Giancarlo T. Tomezzoli


ABSTRACT
This article attempts to merge the data of contemporary linguistics and DNA genealogy in order to describe
the migrations and settlement of peoples and languages in Europe after the last Ice Age.

Advances in Anthropology
2013. Vol.3, No.2, 101-111
Published Online May 2013


MJost

I'm surprised Tomatoes isn't in the credits LMAO.

alan
05-18-2013, 05:50 PM
So not actually in the Palaeolithic (as you stated earlier) or even very close to same.

Its the other branch P297-negative branch (which much later led to V88) that I stated separated off in the Upper Palaeolithic according to Klyosov c. 12500BC. Now that branch could well have been in a seperate area given the much greater depth of time and the amount of drastic climatic fluctations in the 4000 years or so after that date.

M73 and M269 converge as P297* far too recently c. 8000BC (early Neolithic) to have been in separate ice age refugia. They dont have separate histories prior to 8000BC. So my point is that the different distribution of M73 and M269 cannot relate to them or their ancestral lineages being is separate refugia. They were at the same spot c. 8000BC.

That is what makes M73 as the oldest of the two P297 clades by perhaps 2000 years the best shot we have at understanding P297 lineage. Its not perfect but its substantially closer in time to P297 than M269 as an identifiable clade. Its also 4000 years closer to M269 than V88 so its much better to look to brother lineage M73 as a tangential way of looking further back in time to infer something about the lineage leading to M269 than it is to look to V88 for the same purpose. However, I dont think this tends to be done enough.

If M73, the oldest solid P297 clade, is very much steppe/central Asian and dates to 6000BC then either P297 was already there (and that would include the ancestral line of M269) or it moved into the steppes about then leaving no trail as such. I am not saying its impossible that a line could have moved into the steppes from the farming world at this time although it isnt what is normally discussed. In fact I have posted a couple of times a paper that does discuss possible farmer intrusions into the steppes. So, I dont have a hard and fast opinion as to whether M73 (and P297) was native to the steppes but if it was not then it might be identifiable with some of the intrusions of farmers noted in the paper I posted.

www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-UARUOLB0/98491aa4.../PDF

My best guess is that P297 was already in the steppes or entered it in P297* form prior to the M73 SNP (sometime between 8000 and 6000BC). I cannot think of anyway to make a call on which is correct.

alan
05-18-2013, 06:52 PM
I once thought quite highly of this individual. I could have spent my time much better, than reading your link. It is so vague on any detail, it is a wonder how any academic takes this individual seriously. I'm surprised Tomatoes isn't in the credits LMAO.

I mentally completely separate Klysov's cultural-linguistic interpretations from his raw date. What puzzles me about his interpretations is that the basic story of R1a and R1b he paints is so similar in several points it would be as easy for him to say that both were involved in the spread of IE languages. I dont see why he needs to create contrasting cultural links like that. He gives them a similar origin and a considerably overlapping route and timeframe.

Anyway, I am not as much interested in the IE angle but more on people's opinions about the routes and sequences he mentions. I think the IE question is a distraction and is best returned too after his migration routes, dates and sequences are discussed. Only then should we return to the IE question.

Do others find his evidence for these routes from central Asia feasible? He obviously thinks his data supports the movements.

Take R1a for example. His model is very roughly:

Central Asia in palaeolithic
Tibet-Hinfustan-Iran-Anatolia c. 10-8000BC
Balkans 8-6000BC
Russian Plain c. 3000BC
and on from there almost completing a circle.

Does his data support this (leaving languages etc aside for now)? It is slightly interesting he sees a move south through the mountaisn around the time of the Younger Dryas and into the early farming zone. The move from Anatolia to the Balkans is in the correct ballpark for Neolithic movements of some sort A thin spread through Europe is hardly impossible after that. A late entry into the steppes is not impossible given the links many of the eastern IE languages do have with cultures with corded ware roots. I dont see all of this as outlandishly impossible. Maybe this needs its own thread though in the R1a section.

MJost
05-18-2013, 08:23 PM
I once thought quite highly of this individual. I could have spent my time much better, than reading your link. It is so vague on any detail, it is a wonder how any academic takes this individual seriously. I'm surprised Tomatoes isn't in the credits LMAO.

Don't shoot the messenger. I didnt see alot of detail except references to previous papers.

His statement that the 'migration of the Arbins (R1b) was marked by an almost complete elimination of the E1b, F, G2a, J, I1, I2, and K haplogroups from Europe.' But he later explained that the Haplogroup's G, I1 & I2 populations were almost completely exterminated in Europe 4500 ybp each. Even that the IE (R1a) populations fled from Europe around 2.6K BC.

In the paper, 'were not brought by R1b “invaders” who arrived in Europe at the beginning of the 5th millennium bp.'

He wrote that the 'NIE speakers (R1b) arrived in Europe near the Pyreneesaround 4800 ybp; they arrived at the Apennines and the Balkans from the Pontic steppes, around 4500 ybp. These migrations caused major disruptions in the populations and languages of Old Europe.'

MJost

Jean M
05-18-2013, 08:33 PM
I mentally completely separate Klysov's cultural-linguistic interpretations from his raw data.

Does his data support ....

Does A.K. have any raw data? Has he been conducting studies of ancient or modern DNA? As far as I can see, he churns out self-published attempts to interpret data which is available to the rest of us. So the only thing to discuss is his interpretation.

So do you think that statements like this would command general support among scholars? :


the Anatolian theory is generally compatible with DNA genealogy data; —the Vasconic and Afro-asiatic substratum theory is partially in agreement with DNA genealogy data; —the Kurgan theory and the Palaeolithic Continuity Theory (PCT) appear incompatible with the history of Europe based on haplogroup data. —the “Out of Africa” theory has questionable validity.

No genetic data can support the Vasconic or Afro-Asiatic substratum theories. They have to be based on linguistic evidence. And linguists don't generally go for them. Out-of-Africa has been supported by a mass of genetic evidence. Frankly I don't want to get drawn into detailed analysis of what seems to be another load of fringe fantasy.

R.Rocca
05-18-2013, 09:07 PM
I really, really try to keep an open mind when readying through his stuff, but seriously, how can one not call this stuff anything but "crap"...

"It seems that the arrival of the Aryans (R1a) in Europe was peaceful. There are no clear indications that their arrival triggered any sort of violence. However, the migration of the Arbins (R1b) was marked by an almost complete elimination of the E1b, F, G2a, J, I1, I2, and K haplogroups from Europe."

Got it...R1a good, R1b evil. And then we have this little nugget of wisdom...

"During the period of 3000 - 2300 ybp many R1a tribes migrated with their IE languages from the Russian Plain to central, western and southern Europe bringing to Europe the peoples later called Germans, Italics, Greeks, Illyrians, Balto-Slavs, and Celts (the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures flourished between 2600 and 2400 ybp)."

Taking credit for IE speech is one thing, but taking credit for almost all of Western Civilization???...I actually think he is getting worse with age.

Silesian
05-18-2013, 09:42 PM
I really, really try to keep an open mind.....

I suspect the article is a little short on specific snps for a reason. Take it as a compliment for whatever he wants to call R1b, it is acknowledging one of the main qualities of R1b is that they excelled at warfare.


(R1b) was marked by an almost complete elimination I notice he did not add the R1a the famous vegetarian millet eaters from the Kurgan on the list. Does anyone know how much R1b the Brahui have?

alan
05-18-2013, 11:10 PM
Does A.K. have any raw data? Has he been conducting studies of ancient or modern DNA? As far as I can see, he churns out self-published attempts to interpret data which is available to the rest of us. So the only thing to discuss is his interpretation.

So do you think that statements like this would command general support among scholars? :



No genetic data can support the Vasconic or Afro-Asiatic substratum theories. They have to be based on linguistic evidence. And linguists don't generally go for them. Out-of-Africa has been supported by a mass of genetic evidence. Frankly I don't want to get drawn into detailed analysis of what seems to be another load of fringe fantasy.

Data is the wrong word. I should have said his calculations and methodology leading to geographical-chronological conclusions.

I dont agree with any of his cultural linguistic interpretations. The only thing that interests me about it are his calculations and his method of looking at the age of clades on an area by area basis. I would rather hear a critique of his methods and calculations because in general many people seem to think his calculations are pretty good. If at least his methodology and calculations are sound then it makes his geographical sequencing worth discussing. I have no interest in his interpretations of the cultural-linguistic side of things as he really doesnt have the tools to dabble in that and to many is damaging the credibility of his mathematical work. What I am curious to know is if the clumsy interpretive dabblings isnt discrediting some otherwise valid and interesting more basic calculations he is doing.

Jean M
05-18-2013, 11:31 PM
What I am curious to know is if the clumsy interpretive dabblings isnt discrediting some otherwise valid and interesting more basic calculations he is doing.

I personally do not carry out calculations. So when A.K. published a claim years ago that R1a1a was oldest in the Balkans, which seemed odd, I asked Ken Nordtvedt to check this for me. He found an error in the calculation. As I recall, he suspected further problems with the selection of the sample. If you desperately want commentary on A.K.'s more recent output, why not approach someone such as K.N. or V.V.?

All I can say is that there really seems no reason to prefer the dating estimates of an author who is not characterized by scientific detachment to the estimates in published sources. It is not as if you don't get a wide enough range from them! :\ We have massive problems with dating methodology. I ceased to pay attention to the general run of it some time ago.

alan
05-18-2013, 11:57 PM
M73 isn't some sort of IE Steepe lineage. Just something picked up by Turks in a location not known to anyone. Its pretty telling that the Tajiks of Central Asia don't carry this lineage and the Turkic groups do. It wasn't a steepe lineage imo or it wasn't a significant once because it would have likely migrated southward with R1a.

I disagree. M73 is pretty well only known in a steppe and central Asia type location and is the oldest surviving clade in the P297 family that also had a branch leading to M269. You are right it was probably picked up by Turks but not before it had been in existence (probably in the same area) for 9000 years before Turks entered the scene. In fact its very distribution suggests it had already reached far to the east before the Turks appeared. In fact it probably is at its oldest in the east. Remember that areas like central Asia were dominanted by Europeans first before the far eastern elements rolled in.

So who do you expect M73 to be found in today? Certainly not Slavic populations as they didnt even remotely approach that area until fairly recent history. The area that had once had European type steppe peoples was largely taken over by Asiatic type peoples for nearly 2000 years. So any in-situ traces of pre-Asiatic steppe peoples are naturally going to be found among Turkic and other peoples. So, I dont think its any big deal that M73 is found mainly among non-IE peoples today. In fact its inevitable.

I think when you look in detail at the steppe history its not nearly as simple as the idea of hoards of kurgan peoples heading west from the western steppes and forming IE languages. Most Saetem languages for example are linked to the a west-east moving group of cultures (Corded ware-Middle Dnieper-Fatyanovo-Abashevo-Sintashta) that passed through the forrest steppes into Asia not an east-west one from the steppes from 3000BC or so onwards. This group of languages is now very R1a associated. It has yet to be shown directly that any of the steppe cultures predating these actually bore R1a. The only suggestion of this is a tentative linking of the Tarim mummies with Afanasievo culture and Tocharian but neither of those two linkages are certain at all given that by the stage of the tested mummies there were other IE groups in the area. When that is considered, R1a has yet to be shown to be be connected with actual steppe groups moving west or to the period pre-3000BC. So nothing is certain about the actual steppes pre-3000BC before the saetem spread into the area from the west. M73 at present simply has to be guessed to have originated in its present spread and a date of c. 6000BC has been given to its age. So, at the moment its origin must (by the standards applied to all other such studies) be placed somewhere in the steppes or central Asia c. 6000BC with a potential prior ancestry there for an unknown period before. There is nothing to place it anywhere else. Just because it didnt end up in Iranian or Indic groups doesnt mean anything at all. They may have had a slightly different chronology, geography, traditional routes or even economy. Also I posted above an article that does show, for those who care to see that things are not at all simple, that there was multiple potential intrusions into the steppes by farmers thousands of years before Yamnaya etc so its simple silly to think of the steppes as an R1a mono-haplogroup area.

alan
05-19-2013, 12:11 AM
I personally do not carry out calculations. So when A.K. published a claim years ago that R1a1a was oldest in the Balkans, which seemed odd, I asked Ken Nordtvedt to check this for me. He found an error in the calculation. As I recall, he suspected further problems with the selection of the sample. If you desperately want commentary on A.K.'s more recent output, why not approach someone such as K.N. or V.V.?

All I can say is that there really seems no reason to prefer the dating estimates of an author who is not characterized by scientific detachment to the estimates in published sources. It is not as if you don't get a wide enough range from them! :\ We have massive problems with dating methodology. I ceased to pay attention to the general run of it some time ago.

He has refined and even u-turned his calculations a bit (at one time he didnt even bother with snps!) and by and large I have not seen much recent criticism of his calculations and have heard a few fairly favourable comments about his calculations from people in the hobby who seem fairly skilled in that area. In general his calculations agree with that of others despite a very different method. What he does provide though which others do not is a method that compares different subclusters of the same clade in the same general geography and compares basal haplotypes to work out common ancestry dates. That seems to provide a method that overcomes the huge problems in simply using intraclades by geography - a method which often simply leads to far too young dates in sparsely populated groups. Noone else uses a method which allows a single clade to be looked at by geography in a way like that. I have never seen a methodical critique of his method. Funny thing is I think a lot of people quite admire his mathematical stuff as he has refined it in the last couple of years but his interpretative stuff is pretty barking at times. I completely ignore it. However, he is simply the only person who offers elaborate area by area clade dating using a method that overcomes the problem of intraclades. An area by area dating of clades is pretty well the only non-ancient DNA method of working out direction of population movement through modern DNA so I am hesitant to throw that away until I am persuaded his method doesnt work.

alan
05-19-2013, 12:53 AM
I cant reiterate enough just how much I do not agree with most of his cultural-linguistic conclusions. A quick skim of his new paper makes it seem even more bonkers than before. I laughed at the genocidal R1b interpretation. I would love to know how that was achieved when P312 was just one man c. 2500BC lol. How did he manage to persaude the thousands of locals to let him take their wives and kill them. I know successful men may have been able to proliferate but seriously how could one man at c. 2500BC have generated enough people over the next few centuries to displace the population of Europe? Crazy. If the dates linking P312 closely to the beaker people are correct then at the start of the beaker age then it must be remembered that the success of P312 or even L11 as a whole was still in the future and was mainly achieved by the descendants of one early beaker man. That simply couldnt have involved force.

Unless we are to invisage one guy (Mr P312)who by luck was leader of a crack force of a few hundred L11* brothers and L51* cousins and maybe non-R1b guys who helped him conquer important node after important node. He is allowed to form a dynasty and they hog the resources and women creating a one man baby boom while his men dont and produce very little offspring. Not the sort of leader I would imagine would be too popular and keep his head attached for very long.

lgmayka
05-19-2013, 01:27 AM
So when A.K. published a claim years ago that R1a1a was oldest in the Balkans, which seemed odd, I asked Ken Nordtvedt to check this for me. He found an error in the calculation. As I recall, he suspected further problems with the selection of the sample.
In the matter of Balkan R1a1a, my own recollection is that Ken objected to:
- Klyosov's claimed precision based on only a handful of early samples and only a handful of STRs
- Ken's suspicion that those samples were cherry-picked or siimply "lucky," because much larger Balkan R1a1a databases showed no such variance.

GailT
05-19-2013, 06:12 AM
Anatole's new paper is worth reading for laughs but not much else. He writes:


We have been able to disprove the Kurgan theory and the Palaeolithic Continuity Theory and bring into question the “Out of Africa” hypothesis.

Of course no data is presented - instead he cites previously self-published papers. But this "paper" will be much cited by the type of people who, for ideological reasons, don't want to accept that modern humans originated in Africa.

newtoboard
05-19-2013, 11:31 AM
Linking Andronovo to Corded Ware seems to be the sort of thinking linked to the same R1a biased mentality you dislike. I have never seen anyone seriously entertain this theory minus the people who think Slavs are Scythians. I haven't seen any linguistic evidence for all Satem languages being linked to Corded Ware. It ignores the concept of NW Indo-European which is probably better than the fringe theory stated by you. I believe there is evidence for Balto-Slavic not even being fully Satemized like Indo-Iranian. It also ignores the differences in R1a clades (Indo-Iranians being entirely Z93+) not to mention the fact that Corded Ware remains have shown some ydna I which is non existent among Indo-Iranians for the most part with the exception of a few Kurds whose ydna I has nothing to do with Poland. M73 has nothing to do with the Central Asian steepe. Why didn't it show up in any of the Siberian, Afanasevo or Andronovo remains? It is the Tocharians who likely have something to do with the forest steepe cultures not Indo-Iranians. This would actually explain how they avoided admixture with the steepe people as well as avoided Indo-Iranian loan words. And it is these Centum speakers who lived a lifestyle rooted in vertical transhumance ( a lifestyle likely native to Central/West Asia) while the actual steepe people ie Indo-Iranians were actual nomadic pastoralists.

And you can link Abashevo all you want to Corded Ware. I haven't seen any evidence that Abashevo didn't have a mixed cosmopolitan population. It likely did have Baltc and Uralic speakers and the Indo-Iranian element is quite often seen as an intrusive element in the forest steepe from the south. Plus I guess we are going to ignore Timber Grave being ancestral to NE Iranian speakers.

Rathna
05-19-2013, 12:08 PM
M73 has nothing to do with the Central Asian steepe. Why didn't it show up in any of the Siberian, Afanasevo or Andronovo remains? It is the Tocharians who likely have something to do with the forest steepe cultures not Indo-Iranians. This would actually explain how they avoided admixture with the steepe people as well as avoided Indo-Iranian loan words. And it is these Centum speakers who lived a lifestyle rooted in vertical transhumance ( a lifestyle likely native to Central/West Asia) while the actual steepe people ie Indo-Iranians were actual nomadic pastoralists.


I have written a lot about the Western European origin of R-M73, but here it is plenty of people who know without reading or studying.

newtoboard
05-19-2013, 12:24 PM
I have written a lot about the Western European origin of R-M73, but here it is plenty of people who know without reading or studying.

One thing is for certain is that it does not originate in the Middle East, Central Asia or European steepe.

[Moderator/Mikewww on 5/19/2013: Let's stay away from posts that just re-iterate a prior position. It's okay to add new information or logic but no need to restate what's already been stated. There is a sub-category on M73 if you have specific points on that.]

Jean M
05-19-2013, 01:21 PM
An area by area dating of clades is pretty well the only non-ancient DNA method of working out direction of population movement through modern DNA ...

1) The methodology cannot be separated from the man, unless someone else uses it - someone who can be trusted to not (consciously or subconsciously) massage the figures to support some bonkers theory. That is why I am suggesting that you get figures checked by a trustworthy person before you place any weight on them.

2) Area by area dating of clades is no better than any other method using modern DNA. It simply tells you about the people who live in place A now, after millennia of moving around. For example the archaeology shows us people moving from the steppe near the Urals to the Altai c. 3500 BC. Are we going to see that movement in modern DNA? No, because the people who now live in the departure point are Slavs, not direct and unchanged representatives of Repin/Yamnaya, and the people who now live in the Minusinsk Depression are not descendants of the people of the Afansievo culture. The latter moved to the Tarim Basin. What you might see is some types of R1a1a in Uyghurs which appear earlier than those in Slavs. So you might conclude that people carrying R1a1a actually moved in the opposite direction, from Central Asia to the European steppe. And indeed they did at a later date, when Scythians (descendants of Andronovo people) moved back west. In fact the picture is a whole lot more complicated than that, with a confusing mass of movements to and fro across the steppe, but you get the general idea. All that movement has created a pattern in modern DNA which can easily deceive us, if we ignore other sources of information.

GailT
05-19-2013, 02:05 PM
Another howler, quoting from the abstract of Anatole's new paper:

R1a haplogroup bearers, conditionally identified as Aryans. They arose around 20,000 years before the present (ybp) in central Asia and the Altai Mountains; after their migration along the southern route, they arrived in Europe between 10,000 - 9000 ybp, bringing proto-Indo European (PIE) and Indo European (IE) languages. In 4800 ybp they migrated eastward from Europe to the Russian Plane and then to India. About 3000 - 2500 ybp they migrated with their IE languages from the Russian Plain back to central, western, and southern Europe, laying the genetic groundwork for peoples later called Celts, Germans, Italics, Greeks, Illyrians, and Balto-Slavs.

I would not even bother to discuss his work, except that some people do take him seriously, and there are people citing his self-published papers as evidence that "Out of Africa" is a politically correct theory propagated by the establishment for ideological reasons.

alan
05-19-2013, 02:09 PM
Linking Andronovo to Corded Ware seems to be the sort of thinking linked to the same R1a biased mentality you dislike. I have never seen anyone seriously entertain this theory minus the people who think Slavs are Scythians. I haven't seen any linguistic evidence for all Satem languages being linked to Corded Ware. It ignores the concept of NW Indo-European which is probably better than the fringe theory stated by you. I believe there is evidence for Balto-Slavic not even being fully Satemized like Indo-Iranian. It also ignores the differences in R1a clades (Indo-Iranians being entirely Z93+) not to mention the fact that Corded Ware remains have shown some ydna I which is non existent among Indo-Iranians for the most part with the exception of a few Kurds whose ydna I has nothing to do with Poland. M73 has nothing to do with the Central Asian steepe. Why didn't it show up in any of the Siberian, Afanasevo or Andronovo remains? It is the Tocharians who likely have something to do with the forest steepe cultures not Indo-Iranians. This would actually explain how they avoided admixture with the steepe people as well as avoided Indo-Iranian loan words. And it is these Centum speakers who lived a lifestyle rooted in vertical transhumance ( a lifestyle likely native to Central/West Asia) while the actual steepe people ie Indo-Iranians were actual nomadic pastoralists.

And you can link Abashevo all you want to Corded Ware. I haven't seen any evidence that Abashevo didn't have a mixed cosmopolitan population. It likely did have Baltc and Uralic speakers and the Indo-Iranian element is quite often seen as an intrusive element in the forest steepe from the south. Plus I guess we are going to ignore Timber Grave being ancestral to NE Iranian speakers.

The corded ware (or at least an element)-Middle Dnieper-Fatyanovo-Abashevo-Sintashta chain of cultures moving west to east through the forrest steppe and into Asia and being linked to Slavic, Baltic, Indo-Iranian etc is actually from Anthony and is the mainstream interpretation of these cultures. Ii think too that Fatyanovo or Abashevo is said to have had some role in Andronovo too. I dont have opinions on this stuff myself and have just read what the experts say these days. I am not saying it wasnt a mixed culture but the chain of cultures attributed to those languages is interpreted as a west to east movement. I am not saying that prior to the west -east movement there wasnt an east-west movement of steppe elements which entered the mix but there was also a corded ware element in that chain of cultures and they are seen as sequential fissions of each other. I have no wish to align myself with the R1a-Slavo-maniacs! I am just quoting the mainstream interpretation of these cultures. I only point this out because before deciding on R1a's roots its important to note that there is a common denonomator of links back through that chain of cultures to corded ware groups that applies to most if not all R1a-associated IE languages. That may or may not be significant but its there and at present there is nothing that places R1a in a context that cannot be linked back somehow to that chain of cultures and their offshoots. So, for me it remains open as to whether R1a was located in a near-steppe area near the Carpathians or in the steppe c. 3500BC or before. That remains to be shown one way or the other. The Tocharian-Tarmin mummies-Afansievo link is deduction and Mallory himself never is absolute where dount remains. Its his readers who tends to forget his more nuanced statements on this. Only when DNA from actual Afansievo burials is tested would there be direct evidence for a culture-DNA link and even then its not going to be able to confirm the linguistic link.

That culture does look like a steppe originated group with a close relationship to Yamnaya and not linked at all to corded ware. It is no coincidence to me that the south Ural-Volga area is the likely origin of the genesis of these cultures and that this area at the very same time saw a take off of CMP (Caucasian metallurgy, Urals mining at Kargaly etc). There was clearly a small but inportant input direct into the Volga-Urals area at that time from the Caucasus c. 3500BC or shortly after. That is a possible source for M76. and/or L23 on the steppe They may have then looked east to the Altai mountains for metal sources. I think through this would have been in combination with R1a people. In fact some kind of partnerhship between people with the metallurgy knowledge from the south and local people with steppe survival skills seems inevitable to me. Remember at the time of Afanasievo and Yamnaya metalworking and mining (other than importing from the old Balko-Carpathian area) had only just arrived in the steppes. The CMP techniques are so specific that there is no question of the local steppe population with little or no metallurgical skills just copying this. A human element from outside was involved. M73 (maybe L23* too) may have been involved in the spread towards Altai associated with Afanasievo. The distribution of R1b in the steppes and Asia is highly suggestive of interest in metallurgy. The Russians even bought Kargaly mines off the local Bashkir population who just so happen to be very high in R1b. Not all Bashkirs show this so its clear they absorbed R1b from some sort of existing group around this mining area.

Regarding M73 its almost impossible I think to conclude anything other from the available evidence that its is associated with the steppes and virtually unknown in the farming zone. I wouldnt conclude anything on the fact it is not in Indo-Iranian groups. M73 may well have been on the steppes for thousands of years before even PIE had formed, let alone Indo-Iranian. It is after all dated to 8000 years old and is not really known outside the steppes. I think if one doesnt have preconcieved ideas it is only fair until further evidence to conclude it was on the steppes in the Neolithic at least and possible earlier and there is no current evidence that it entered from outside.

The fact that today this is mostly the eastern steppes is almost inevitable given that first it was absorbed by many waves heading west including many waves of Asiatic groups, then the latter groups were displaced (from dominance to virtual extinction) from the Ukraine and south Russian steppes in the last 200 years or so by Russians and Ukrainians. That essentially completely altered the yDNA of the western steppes. That made the current pattern almost inevitable. The Ukraine steppe has seen a profound lingusitic-DNA change from the Tatars (and a few other minority groups) to Slavs in very recent times and with a throroughness that is unusual (Stalin etc). So, virtually nothing can be inferred from the present Ukraine steppe population.

I think its a case of hold your horses (sorry for the pun) and wait for more DNA evidence from earlier steppe groups/

alan
05-19-2013, 02:32 PM
1) The methodology cannot be separated from the man, unless someone else uses it - someone who can be trusted to not (consciously or subconsciously) massage the figures to support some bonkers theory. That is why I am suggesting that you get figures checked by a trustworthy person before you place any weight on them.

2) Area by area dating of clades is no better than any other method using modern DNA. It simply tells you about the people who live in place A now, after millennia of moving around. For example the archaeology shows us people moving from the steppe near the Urals to the Altai c. 3500 BC. Are we going to see that movement in modern DNA? No, because the people who now live in the departure point are Slavs, not direct and unchanged representatives of Repin/Yamnaya, and the people who now live in the Minusinsk Depression are not descendants of the people of the Afansievo culture. The latter moved to the Tarim Basin. What you might see is some types of R1a1a in Uyghurs which appear earlier than those in Slavs. So you might conclude that people carrying R1a1a actually moved in the opposite direction, from Central Asia to the European steppe. And indeed they did at a later date, when Scythians (descendants of Andronovo people) moved back west. In fact the picture is a whole lot more complicated than that, with a confusing mass of movements to and fro across the steppe, but you get the general idea. All that movement has created a pattern in modern DNA which can easily deceive us, if we ignore other sources of information.

That is all true but we know the limitations of modern populations studies and I realise its especially acute on the steppe. Apart from the occasional light shone by ancient DNA its all there really is to work on in this hobby and we may as well give up and wait for papers. That would kill the speculatative fun which at the end of the day is what 99% of this hobby is. The problem is just wheen people dont realise that that is all this is.

Regarding Klyosov I dont agree that necessarily someone who is away with the fairies in terms of interpretation or allegedly has motives means his calculations or methods are dodgy. They could be but it doesnt always follow. In fact the odd thing is that his calculations are capable of being intepreted in much more mainstream ways and generally that aspect of his work is not subject to a whole lot of criticism compared to his 'imaginative' interpretations. In fact the very fact that his calculations can be interpreted in a more mainstream way does make me thinking he hasnt 'sexed up the dossier'. As for how that stacks up for Anatole I am seeking comment on his methodology not his interpretations. He is after all basically a hobbiest himself and if we rounded up all those hobbiests who have had crackers theories or nationalistic motives there wouldnt be many left. I certainly dont think of him as any sort of mainstream professional in this discipline or related ones. Its abundantly clear he is dabbling well beyond his area of knowledge in a new sphere and should not be seen as an academic in the sense of some sort of archaeogeneticist. There are many in this hobby who are very gifted mathematicians and a blessing to the hobby but who are not so hot on the interpretation. Anatole's main fault is perhaps no recognising his own limitations in the non-mathematical area and that he should have collaborated with an archaeologist or someone who could interpret his calculations with reference to possibilities in the archaeological record in a mainstream way.

Jean M
05-19-2013, 06:54 PM
I would not even bother to discuss his work, except that some people do take him seriously, and there are people citing his self-published papers as evidence that "Out of Africa" is a politically correct theory propagated by the establishment for ideological reasons.

eastward from Europe to the Russian Plane


The reality is that "Out-of-Africa" gets challenged for ideological reasons, and they tend to be ugly.

A.K.'s particular "Russian plane" can only crash land. I'd rather not see innocent bystanders caught in the burning wreckage. The strong desire to disassociate from amateur Aryan visions has already had one Russian geneticist drawing away from any idea that R1a1a had any connection with IE speakers. The silly extremes to which A.K. has pushed his ideas, and his blatant ethnic bias, are such a turn-off that there could be a backlash against the whole amateur genetic genealogy community. My policy has been to disassociate myself completely from such authors, while continuing to support the best efforts of the community, citing the properly published papers of citizen scientists and good FTDNA projects.

alan
05-19-2013, 11:29 PM
I actually thought that AK was slowly modifying his interpretations over the years and edging towards something more realistic and sound but this paper just seems like a step backwards to worst excesses. I still find his calculations interesting but they are lost in a sea of extremely weird interpretation, some of which seems completely unnecessary. His obsession with an African stepping stone for R1b baffles me and his idea of a landing in the Pyrenees (which doesnt tally with beaker) clearly shows he is fixated on the Basque exception. As I said before, if he genuinely wanted to intepret his calculations in a balanced and with a real understanding of the possibilities then he badly needs advised by someone competent in archaeology, linguistics etc. At present the interpretations look like a very confused linking together of ideas (some of which are not mainstream) to make up a model. He may be trained in mathematical matters (and that is where his stuff may be useful) but he really lacks the training to be discerning when it comes to the interpretative stuff.

DMXX
05-19-2013, 11:58 PM
His obsession with an African stepping stone for R1b baffles me ..

On other forums where genetics are discussed, a circle of users have concocted a hypothesis postulating that Haplogroup R1b spread to Europe in part through North Africa via maritime routes. A supposed autosomal signal pulling South/West Europeans slightly more towards Africa than those from the North/East is sometimes used to support that line of thinking.

Adding two and two together, it isn't unreasonable to speculate Mr. Klyosov has been exploring such forums for some "inspiration" and recently took this idea on. I recall him supporting some other idea in the past concerning the spread of R1b that did not involve Africa.

newtoboard
05-20-2013, 02:28 AM
Once again this linking it to Corded Ware doesn't agree with the genetics. A lack of Z280/Z283/M458 R1a in Indo-Iranians along with a lack of ydna I disagrees with this. There is no real lingusitc connection that Indo-Iranian has with Balto-Slavic other than both being satem groups even though Indo-Iranian is actually satemized and Balto-Slavic is partially satemized and Balto-Slavic languages have been influenced by Indo-Iranian languages while the reverse is not true. Abashevo was just an element in the Indo-Iranian ethnogensis. Linking Indo-Iranians to Corded Ware completely ignores the genetics.

There really wasn't any massive replacement of superior R1b people on the steepe by R1a barbarians with no culture who stole everything from R1b people. What is the difference between this view and Klyosov's? Just the Western European version of it and seem to agree with the people who think they are long lost Scythians and the Indo-Iranians were actually Z93- and all Z93+ is turkic everywhere in Europe and Central Asia.

Jean M
05-20-2013, 11:14 AM
On other forums where genetics are discussed, a circle of users have concocted a hypothesis postulating that Haplogroup R1b spread to Europe in part through North Africa via maritime routes.

The idea that R1b reached Spain via North Africa was constantly pressed by one chap on the now defunct DNA Forums going back to 2008 at least. That was before a SNP was found for V88. He had many clashes with those who had already deduced on STRs that V88 was on a different branch from M269. Even after V88 was discovered, he continued to insist on his pet theory. As I recall, the only piece of evidence he advanced that is actually solid was for cattle moving from the Near East to Spain via North Africa, but that would be in the Neolithic, presumably. Those who think R1b spread with the Neolithic might add 2 and 2 and get 15.

Frankly, if a person is not satisfactorily explaining why he thinks this, or anything else, I see no reason to bother trying to work out his thought processes. Anyone can make any dotty statement they like. If it is not supported by evidence it does not deserve a lot of attention.

lgmayka
05-20-2013, 02:22 PM
Once again this linking it to Corded Ware doesn't agree with the genetics. A lack of Z280/Z283/M458 R1a in Indo-Iranians along with a lack of ydna I disagrees with this.
The Corded Ware hypothesis proposes that Corded Ware initially had R1a-M417* , such as we have apparently found in kit 259861 (the Leavitt cluster, similar to the Eulau burial). Then L664 headed west, Z93 headed east, Z284 headed north, etc.

alan
05-20-2013, 04:57 PM
On other forums where genetics are discussed, a circle of users have concocted a hypothesis postulating that Haplogroup R1b spread to Europe in part through North Africa via maritime routes. A supposed autosomal signal pulling South/West Europeans slightly more towards Africa than those from the North/East is sometimes used to support that line of thinking.

Adding two and two together, it isn't unreasonable to speculate Mr. Klyosov has been exploring such forums for some "inspiration" and recently took this idea on. I recall him supporting some other idea in the past concerning the spread of R1b that did not involve Africa.

He should try and be more selective about the self appointed experts he looks to for inspiration from. He couldnt have made a worse choice. He should avoid the 'get R1b as far away from the steppes as possible' R1a supremicist crowd like the plague. They seem to be into proving who is most European and irrational in their analysis. As far as I am concerned SW Asia and Europe were pretty well a continuoum and I dont really distinguise how I see them. Europe and Asia are really just theoretical constructs and the real continent is Eurasia. I would consider that most of western and central Europe throughout most of prehistory and history had far more in common in lifestyle-economic terms with SW Asia than with tribes rolling along in wagons in the far steppes, regardless of language families or genes.

Also more specifically, noone who isnt naive or trying to spin the data would look at the latest information and see a route for European R1b via Africa. Very recent studies make it clear that V88 must have gone down the Nile to Lake Chad etc. It is practially unknown further west in north Africa where R1b is dominated by western European clades from L51 downstream but completely lacks the ancestral L23* and M269* forms. Only people who have not thought this through propertly (Anatole?) or who have some idealogical reason (other self appointed experts who influenced him?) could possibly interpret that as a migration across north Africa into Europe. It just doesnt make any sense. Also, the beakers did not originate in the Pyrennees or near the Basque country. They originated in Portugal at the other side of the Iberian peninsula and that is only the pot design we are talking about. He is apparently mesmerised by the whole Basque R1b thing which really is an exception not the rule.

alan
05-20-2013, 05:16 PM
Once again this linking it to Corded Ware doesn't agree with the genetics. A lack of Z280/Z283/M458 R1a in Indo-Iranians along with a lack of ydna I disagrees with this. There is no real lingusitc connection that Indo-Iranian has with Balto-Slavic other than both being satem groups even though Indo-Iranian is actually satemized and Balto-Slavic is partially satemized and Balto-Slavic languages have been influenced by Indo-Iranian languages while the reverse is not true. Abashevo was just an element in the Indo-Iranian ethnogensis. Linking Indo-Iranians to Corded Ware completely ignores the genetics.

There really wasn't any massive replacement of superior R1b people on the steepe by R1a barbarians with no culture who stole everything from R1b people. What is the difference between this view and Klyosov's? Just the Western European version of it and seem to agree with the people who think they are long lost Scythians and the Indo-Iranians were actually Z93- and all Z93+ is turkic everywhere in Europe and Central Asia.

Well you will have to take up the corded ware connection with the experts in this field who (even Anthony who isnt taking a corded ware angle at all) acknowledge its input through that chain of cultures and who in turn connect them with satem IE language branches. They may be wrong but I dont have the knowledge of that specialist area other than to rely on them.

I dont think anyone is saying R1a replaced R1b on the steppe. I only posted the corded ware link to show that the R1a-satem connected cultures have such a root just as much as a steppic one and it will take mroe ancient DNA to prove this one way or another. All we see now are fiendishly complicated results of all sorts of back and forth movements of the last 5000 years and on the steppes its practically impossible to sort out. We even know from history that the western end of the steppes was cleared of its Tatar population of several centuries only a few hundred years ago. They probably had absorbed other Asiatic and IE steppic groups but they have been since displaced again -mainly eastwards. How on earth are we to interpret western steppe DNA today? We just cannot from the modern population who are basically modern Slavic migrants from the forrest and forrest steppe zones to the north and west. It may well be that R1a was dominant in the steppes and that is its original home but all I am saying is its not certain. As far as I can see from the ancient DNA all we know about the steppes relates to Indo-Iranian groups who did apparently have a dominant R1a lineage in their ancestry. That is just one branch of the IE family. The other R1a dominated group, the Balto-Slavic peoples are not even associated with the steppes in any proveable way, being more associated with the forrest steppe and forrest zones. The other thing I would warn against is the idea that IEs were all of one haplogroup on the steppes and around. That is almost certainly nonsense. At best royal lineages are single-line (that is possibly the problem in looking at fancy burials). Entire populations are unlikely to be.

newtoboard
05-20-2013, 05:21 PM
Well you will have to take up the corded ware connection with the experts in this field who (even Anthony who isnt taking a corded ware angle at all) acknowledge its input through that chain of cultures and who in turn connect them with satem IE language branches. They may be wrong but I dont have the knowledge of that specialist area other than to rely on them.

I dont think anyone is saying R1a replaced R1b on the steppe. I only posted the corded ware link to show that the R1a-satem connected cultures have such a root just as much as a steppic one and it will take mroe ancient DNA to prove this one way or another. All we see now are fiendishly complicated results of all sorts of back and forth movements of the last 5000 years and on the steppes its practically impossible to sort out. We even know from history that the western end of the steppes was cleared of its Tatar population of several centuries only a few hundred years ago. They probably had absorbed other Asiatic and IE steppic groups but they have been since displaced again -mainly eastwards. How on earth are we to interpret western steppe DNA today? We just cannot from the modern population who are basically modern Slavic migrants from the forrest and forrest steppe zones to the north and west. It may well be that R1a was dominant in the steppes and that is its original home but all I am saying is its not certain. As far as I can see from the ancient DNA all we know about the steppes relates to Indo-Iranian groups who did apparently have a dominant R1a lineage in their ancestry. That is just one branch of the IE family. The other R1a dominated group, the Balto-Slavic peoples are not even associated with the steppes in any proveable way, being more associated with the forrest steppe and forrest zones. The other thing I would warn against is the idea that IEs were all of one haplogroup on the steppes and around. That is almost certainly nonsense. At best royal lineages are single-line (that is possibly the problem in looking at fancy burials). Entire populations are unlikely to be.

Maybe I confused you with someone else who constantly posts about R1a having replaced R1b and R1a being Indo-Europeanized by R1b and how R1b created a superior civilization. Essentially a Western European version of the thinking above.

It isn't even established that the steepe is the PIE homeland. It could very well be the forest steepe/South Urals.

alan
05-20-2013, 05:21 PM
The idea that R1b reached Spain via North Africa was constantly pressed by one chap on the now defunct DNA Forums going back to 2008 at least. That was before a SNP was found for V88. He had many clashes with those who had already deduced on STRs that V88 was on a different branch from M269. Even after V88 was discovered, he continued to insist on his pet theory. As I recall, the only piece of evidence he advanced that is actually solid was for cattle moving from the Near East to Spain via North Africa, but that would be in the Neolithic, presumably. Those who think R1b spread with the Neolithic might add 2 and 2 and get 15.

Frankly, if a person is not satisfactorily explaining why he thinks this, or anything else, I see no reason to bother trying to work out his thought processes. Anyone can make any dotty statement they like. If it is not supported by evidence it does not deserve a lot of attention.

It doesn not even seem possible to reason with people in that small school of thought.

newtoboard
05-20-2013, 05:22 PM
The Corded Ware hypothesis proposes that Corded Ware initially had R1a-M417* , such as we have apparently found in kit 259861 (the Leavitt cluster, similar to the Eulau burial). Then L664 headed west, Z93 headed east, Z284 headed north, etc.

Maybe but that R1a-M417* likely came from the steepe or forest steepe imo. It probably had to in order to get to Central Europe. It could easily be that the R1a splits occured regionally and not within Corded Ware.

AJL
05-20-2013, 05:26 PM
He should try and be more selective about the self appointed experts he looks to for inspiration from. He couldnt have made a worse choice. He should avoid the 'get R1b as far away from the steppes as possible' R1a supremicist crowd like the plague. They seem to be into proving who is most European in a childish and worryingly racial sounding way and seem to be nationalistically and racially motivated and selective and irrational in their analysis.

An open question is whether he has consciously chosen this association, but I suppose it's better not to speculate on others' motives.

In any case, Klyosov has no monopoly on the "get them away from the Steppes" mentality:

"Complementary to the movements of R-M269 and R-M73 out of the PC steppe, the SNP marker R-M417 moved into the PC steppe, which were mostly R-M417 deprived, after many of the EWSP had vacated the PC steppe."
<http://distantconnections.wordpress.com/25-2/>

Silesian
05-20-2013, 05:39 PM
I will put in a good word for A. Klyosov and Tomatoes, and defend them, even though I disagree with them, both of them have been fair in exchanging ideas. Since I do not know all that has been exchanged between all the posters in this thread, I refrain from judging; however in my personal dealings they have been fair. I think there is a little more to this than meets the eye, just a personal observation.

alan
05-20-2013, 05:46 PM
Maybe I confused you with someone else who constantly posts about R1a having replaced R1b and R1a being Indo-Europeanized by R1b and how R1b created a superior civilization. Essentially a Western European version of the thinking above.

It isn't even established that the steepe is the PIE homeland. It could very well be the forest steepe/South Urals.

lol no I dont think that is me! Problem with DNA is its full of paradox. Look at R1b as a whole. Its piled up high about as far away from the likely R1b homeland as possible. Its impossible to be sure that similar paradoxes are not present in other haplogroups without very detailed studies of phylogeny etc.

Actually one of the main things I dont like in some approaches in the R1 hobby is that it often seems that people want to create extremely contrasting stories for R1a and R1b. I think that is based on modern end result and we all know that is not reliable. Its like there is an unnecessary antogonistic rivalry being projected on these brother haplogroups. When I see the ancient DNA evidence they have so much in common:

1. Apparent absence in all ancient DNA pre-3000BC.
2. Absense in particular in Neolithic European DNA.
3. Sudden appearance c. 2600BC in the ancient DNA record.
4. Variance and phylogeny evidence of stunted growth in the Neolithic (marginality to the main flow of early farmers?) followed by massive expansion in the end of the Neolithic and copper age.
5. Most likely origin points somewhere in eastern Europe or adjacent.
6. Linkages with two expansionist cultures that took off c. 3000BC or so that were identified before ancient DNA and subsequently confirmed by the latter.
7. Both first appear in the ancient DNA very close to each other in Germany in what were new cultures at that time.
8. Both subsequenly linked to IE languages in later times.

I would not be surprised if they actually were located close to each other and in a similar environment in the Neolithic. The huge contrast in distribution today probably post-dates 4000BC. I suspect both were in the same general eastern Europe and adjacent zone at that time. We tend to try and put them on opposing sides of the steppic-old european divide of later Neolithic eastern Europe but as far as I can see its possible that they were on the same side. The evidence for location of R1b prior to 6000BC is unknown because no substantial clades pre-dating that exist, just confusing light scatters. Indeed, bfore 4 or 5000BC the only major modern clade that even existed was M73, the brother clade of the future M269 line, and that is on the wrong side of the old european farmer-steppe boundary according to many popular theories. That is interesting but if we chose to ignore this we have to accept that we know nothing at all about R1b before 4 or 5000BC. I am not an expert of R1a but I would imagine from some papers I have read that it is in a similar situation.

BTW-I agree about the steppes IE homeland not being certain. A near-steppe area to the west seems possible to me.

alan
05-20-2013, 05:57 PM
I will put in a good word for A. Klyosov and Tomatoes, and defend them, even though I disagree with them, both of them have been fair in exchanging ideas. Since I do not know all that has been exchanged between all the posters in this thread, I refrain from judging; however in my personal dealings they have been fair. I think there is a little more to this than meets the eye, just a personal observation.

I have actually some admiration for Anatole is having a go at trying a big picture analysis and devising a method that at least gives some promise of overcoming the problem with local intraclades. To be fair too he doesnt try and 'get R1b as far from the steppes' in recent versions of his work. He just seems to take on a totally unnecessarily convoluted model to make R1b non-IE and I think that is down to him being overimpressed by the Basques having a lot of R1b. Most people have moved away from that and realise they are an exception not the rule.

Silesian
05-20-2013, 06:51 PM
I have actually some admiration for Anatole is having a go at trying a big picture analysis and devising a method that at least gives some promise of overcoming the problem with local intraclades. To be fair too he doesnt try and 'get R1b as far from the steppes' in recent versions of his work. He just seems to take on a totally unnecessarily convoluted model to make R1b non-IE and I think that is down to him being overimpressed by the Basques having a lot of R1b. Most people have moved away from that and realise they are an exception not the rule.

I have a conflict of interest. Even though I'm not directly related to them, indirectly my [email protected], list is populated with almost all R1a/R1b/I1/I2, majority R1a/R1b in that order. That said A.K. and Tomatoes have always been fair with me with the limited exchanges I have had with them. I know that some members on here have many years of debating and exchanging ideas, and I'm not aware of those exchanges and or hostilities , that is why I refrain from saying anything negative, about anyone.I would do my best to defend Dienekes/JeanM/Alan. At first I was a little let down by A.K's latest work. However it forces one to think, and in the end that is a good thing, in my opinion. R1b Northern African migration route is very easy to dispel you just have to know what to look for, . Don't forget at one time ydna I was touted
[I]I1 is estimated to be 4000 to 5000 years old (the now outdated "15,000 -20,000 years ago in Iberia" information was wrong), and confirmed by the single nucleotide polymorphism, SNP, known as M253 There are some very bright people on the admin of I1 clades so if that can change in magnitude by hundreds of years perhaps there are other assumptions that can also change, we just don't have the right tools or questions. That is why it would be nice to get support for Richard R's project to get more information tested or released. Personally I would love to see official Tut result's it's been quite a long time and nothing official.

TigerMW
05-20-2013, 10:20 PM
I have actually some admiration for Anatole is having a go at trying a big picture analysis and devising a method that at least gives some promise of overcoming the problem with local intraclades...

Agreed, his willingness to study the situation and put forth a supposition is admirable. He's also actually quite giving with his time. He is also intelligent and I am glad to hear from anyone who is intelligent, sincere and puts in some work.

As far as raw data, I think he has all of the data we have and only that. I have not seen him cherry pick genetic data but any time there is deselection (i.e. like Busby's study), cherry picking can be perceived... possibly correctly, but I think it takes a statistician to oversee another statistician.

As far as R1b goes and the data, I see nothing wrong with this time estimates.

However, in terms of his linkages to genetics to cultures, that appears very, very weak to me. I rarely understand his cultural alignments very well. It appears to me he is relying way too much on his time estimates! :eek: I just don't think they can be seen as precise as the ranges he some times lists. When you add precision concerns to concerns about STR diversity across geographies, I can see why he and Dienekes are diametrically opposed on some topics.:argue: If he is relying on the time estimates by geography, the cultural alignments could be totally off very easily.

Far be it from to say I have the answers on the cultural alignments.:)

alan
05-21-2013, 12:02 AM
Agreed, his willingness to study the situation and put forth a supposition is admirable. He's also actually quite giving with his time. He is also intelligent and I am glad to hear from anyone who is intelligent, sincere and puts in some work.

As far as raw data, I think he has all of the data we have and only that. I have not seen him cherry pick genetic data but any time there is deselection (i.e. like Busby's study), cherry picking can be perceived... possibly correctly, but I think it takes a statistician to oversee another statistician.

As far as R1b goes and the data, I see nothing wrong with this time estimates.

However, in terms of his linkages to genetics to cultures, that appears very, very weak to me. I rarely understand his cultural alignments very well. It appears to me he is relying way too much on his time estimates! :eek: I just don't think they can be seen as precise as the ranges he some times lists. When you add precision concerns to concerns about STR diversity across geographies, I can see why he and Dienekes are diametrically opposed on some topics.:argue: If he is relying on the time estimates by geography, the cultural alignments could be totally off very easily.

Far be it from to say I have the answers on the cultural alignments.:)

I notice he tends to place his earliest dates for both R1a and R1b very far east. However, I would have to say that that needs balanced against the fact that the western steppe population has had a very thorough phase of replacement in the last 200 years with the western steppe populations displaced eastwards. However, I think its inevitable that heavier traces of the ancient steppe peoples of both IE and non-IE type will be found among the Turkic groups in the eastern steppe. Its 100% clear that they did absorb pre-Turkic R1a and R1b lineages, sometimes to an increbly high degree such as the Uygurs around Altai. It seems to me that they had a tendency to absorb. I dont think this is true of the Ukraine steppes where modern systematic removal of the Tatars and replacement with Slavic farmers from the forest and forest steppes seems to have been very very thorough. That IMO is a possiblly the reason why higher age estimates are arrived at by Anatole in the eastern steppes than the west. I find it very hard to believe, given the history of the arrival of Europeans in the Tarim/Altai area, that R1a and R1b actually originated in that area. I think more likely that population movements to that area from the western steppes c. 3300BC have preserved ancient lineages there that have since been removed from the western steppe by the profound modern population replacement in the latter area. As far as I am aware Afanasievo was the first human group to actually settle the Tarim area and was Europoid. Mongoloid phenotypes didnt arrive until much later. Afanasievo is a heck of a lot later than the dates for early R1a or R1b. So, to me, unless I am missing something, it seems pretty well an impossibility for them to have actually originated in Tarmic/Altai or that sort of area. Take (just for example) M73. Its estimated age is nearly 3000 years older than Afanasievo and the arrival of the first settlers in the Tarim basis area. So, it must have had a life somewhere else for the previous 3000 years. Not to mention earlier forms of R1b, R1a etc. So, I think there is a logic gap in placing early R1a and R1b as far east (Altai etc) as Anatole suggests. It is far far easier to invisage them as being located further west.

TigerMW
05-23-2013, 01:53 PM
I notice he tends to place his earliest dates for both R1a and R1b very far east.
...
As far as I am aware Afanasievo was the first human group to actually settle the Tarim area and was Europoid. Mongoloid phenotypes didnt arrive until much later. Afanasievo is a heck of a lot later than the dates for early R1a or R1b. So, to me, unless I am missing something, it seems pretty well an impossibility for them to have actually originated in Tarmic/Altai or that sort of area. Take (just for example) M73. Its estimated age is nearly 3000 years older than Afanasievo and the arrival of the first settlers in the Tarim basis area. So, it must have had a life somewhere else for the previous 3000 years. Not to mention earlier forms of R1b, R1a etc. So, I think there is a logic gap in placing early R1a and R1b as far east (Altai etc) as Anatole suggests. It is far far easier to invisage them as being located further west.

I'm not sure I really understand how Afanasievo is characterized. It is not thought of as being IE based, is it? Are they early farmers from the Near East or Eastern Europe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasevo_culture

alan
05-23-2013, 02:04 PM
I'm not sure I really understand how Afanasievo is characterized. It is not thought of as being IE based, is it? Are they early farmers from the Near East or Eastern Europe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasevo_culture

Its now dated about the same as Yamnaya and considered related to it. Probably best to see them as very close brother cultures from the same roots around the Urals/Volga area.

TigerMW
05-23-2013, 02:41 PM
Its now dated about the same as Yamnaya and considered related to it. Probably best to see them as very close brother cultures from the same roots around the Urals/Volga area.

So this is where JP Mallory admits there are some difficulties, right?


These resemblances to the Yamna culture make the Afanasevo culture is a strong candidate to represent the earliest cultural form of a people later called the Tocharians.

The Afanasevo are used to explain the Tocharians but since the latter's language is IE the explanation further goes that Afanasevo must have been PIE or something of the sort. However, this conflicts with the hard core dating for PIE and the Yamnaya as being the PIE homeland.

If JP Mallory and David Anthony allows for Afanasevo to be PIE/IE then there needs to be no hard line on PIE/IE leaking out to the west coincident or prior to the Anythony Yamnaya/IE expansion time-line. We also can't for sure date the earliest vehicles/wheels to the PIE homeland in the Yamnaya culture. Logically, all we can say is where the wheel is used at it's earliest known date which is only good until something earlier is found since the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The alternative is not proven, either, but the door must be left open.

Am I making too much out of this line of thinking?

Of course, the implications of the door being "left open" is that some R1b may have been speaking IE or variants on the western or southern edges of the Mallory/Anthony proposed Yamnaya/PIE homeland.

alan
05-24-2013, 01:52 AM
So this is where JP Mallory admits there are some difficulties, right?



The Afanasevo are used to explain the Tocharians but since the latter's language is IE the explanation further goes that Afanasevo must have been PIE or something of the sort. However, this conflicts with the hard core dating for PIE and the Yamnaya as being the PIE homeland.

If JP Mallory and David Anthony allows for Afanasevo to be PIE/IE then there needs to be no hard line on PIE/IE leaking out to the west coincident or prior to the Anythony Yamnaya/IE expansion time-line. We also can't for sure date the earliest vehicles/wheels to the PIE homeland in the Yamnaya culture. Logically, all we can say is where the wheel is used at it's earliest known date which is only good until something earlier is found since the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The alternative is not proven, either, but the door must be left open.

Am I making too much out of this line of thinking?

Of course, the implications of the door being "left open" is that some R1b may have been speaking IE or variants on the western or southern edges of the Mallory/Anthony proposed Yamnaya/PIE homeland.

The way I understand it is Yamnaya and Afanasievo are seen as variants of the same culture derived from Khvalynsk culture culture around the same sort of Volga area. Basically the idea is that one branch took a great leap east (Afanasievo) while another branch initially remained in the Khvalynsk root area. They both have very similar dates last I heard. Initially Afansievo was thought to be much younger. Then dates looked to make it a few centuries older than Yamnaya. Recently a further review of the dates has dragged it back in line with Yamnaya, removing what had been a problem when Anthony wrote. The interesting thing about Afanasievo is that it made its leap eastwards almost at the very start of the Yamnaya period. This was c. 300 years earlier than its movement west. This is thought to fit well with the Tocharian branch being an early offshoot and an archaic centum language.

Interestingly the ancestral Khvalynsk culture ran up to the north Caucasus.

I found this article on the Yamnaya intrusion west a very interesting one which towards the end tries to draw a picture of the effect at the time. It suggests the Kurgans in this area stick to the steppe-like lands west of the Black Sea and seemingly avoid the farming areas

TigerMW
05-25-2013, 04:08 AM
j... The interesting thing about Afanasievo is that it made its leap eastwards almost at the very start of the Yamnaya period. This was c. 300 years earlier than its movement west. This is thought to fit well with the Tocharian branch being an early offshoot and an archaic centum language.

Interestingly the ancestral Khvalynsk culture ran up to the north Caucasus.

I found this article on the Yamnaya intrusion west a very interesting one which towards the end tries to draw a picture of the effect at the time. It suggests the Kurgans in this area stick to the steppe-like lands west of the Black Sea and seemingly avoid the farming areas

What would have caused the leap east by the Afanasievo? Do you think some form of R1b was involved in western or southern Khvalnsk? How far west did Khvalnsk go?

alan
05-26-2013, 08:06 PM
What would have caused the leap east by the Afanasievo? Do you think some form of R1b was involved in western or southern Khvalnsk? How far west did Khvalnsk go?

Very hard to say. I wouldnt rule out R1b being somewhere on the steppes. The Ukraine steppes have essentially been swept almost completely of their pre-1700AD population so we cannot rule out it was in their somewhere as its a huge area and IMO its absurd to think of it as a one-haplogroup zone.

Alternatively, lets for a minute suppose R1b was in the Caucasus at that time. There is no doubt that Maykop's CMP traditions were extended into the steppes around the time of the appearance of the transformation to Yamnaya and Afanansievo, both of which first appear in areas of interest to metallurgists (Urals and the east end of the steppes). In the case of the urals the Kargaly complex seems to have started about the same time as the coming into being of both Yamnaya locally and Afansievo as a far flung eastern offshoot. (The relationship of the two cultures is still debated) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Xh2-veMeqbIC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=origins+of+yamanaya&source=bl&ots=Dqr64t-nn3&sig=xhMrcRTZP4Gx_GpUAz_XJFR9kV8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zmCiUdY7hMnQBfSRgJgI&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=origins%20of%20yamanaya&f=false So, in such a scenario I would suspect R1b was involved as the Maykop derived metallurgical experts at Kargaly and Altai, perhaps as a minority among steppe nomands. Both elements would be needed in order to survive in the area and exploit the metal resources. R1b's present distribution makes it tempting to give it the latter role. That really though is just one possible scenario for R1b and its actual location, cultural association etc around 4000-3000BC present many options given we have no ancient DNA datapoints before 2600BC. I certainly wouldnt bet any significant money on any particular option right now!

TigerMW
06-20-2013, 10:32 AM
Very hard to say. I wouldnt rule out R1b being somewhere on the steppes. The Ukraine steppes have essentially been swept almost completely of their pre-1700AD population so we cannot rule out it was in their somewhere as its a huge area and IMO its absurd to think of it as a one-haplogroup zone.

Alternatively, lets for a minute suppose R1b was in the Caucasus at that time. There is no doubt that Maykop's CMP traditions were extended into the steppes around the time of the appearance of the transformation to Yamnaya and Afanansievo, both of which first appear in areas of interest to metallurgists (Urals and the east end of the steppes). In the case of the urals the Kargaly complex seems to have started about the same time as the coming into being of both Yamnaya locally and Afansievo as a far flung eastern offshoot. (The relationship of the two cultures is still debated) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Xh2-veMeqbIC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=origins+of+yamanaya&source=bl&ots=Dqr64t-nn3&sig=xhMrcRTZP4Gx_GpUAz_XJFR9kV8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zmCiUdY7hMnQBfSRgJgI&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=origins%20of%20yamanaya&f=false So, in such a scenario I would suspect R1b was involved as the Maykop derived metallurgical experts at Kargaly and Altai, perhaps as a minority among steppe nomands. Both elements would be needed in order to survive in the area and exploit the metal resources. R1b's present distribution makes it tempting to give it the latter role. That really though is just one possible scenario for R1b and its actual location, cultural association etc around 4000-3000BC present many options given we have no ancient DNA datapoints before 2600BC. I certainly wouldnt bet any significant money on any particular option right now!

Any chance that Afanasevo was influenced by people coming from the south, as in the Iranian Plateau?

The culture became known from excavations in the Minusinsk area of the Krasnoyarsk Krai, southern Siberia, but the culture was also widespread in western Mongolia, northern Xinjiang, and eastern and central Kazakhstan, with connections or extensions in Tajikistan and the Aral area.