Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: What happened to Afanasievo

  1. #21
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,228
    Location
    Gonur Tepe

    Afghanistan Jammu and Kashmir United States of America Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Yes, you are right in everything. But if we need to sick the details. Ancient Chinese texts described Tocharians mostly as red haired and blue/green eyed, more linked with Celtic and Udmurts people, Udmurtia is just a little bit further north than the Samara Bend. Also for me the Centum character of the language, and the high proximity with Celtic and Italic groups according to some linguists, exclude totally a CWC/Sintashta related ancestry. I think for my side that Afanasievo / Tocharians makes the most sense, but what do i know. Also western tarim was clearly indo-iranian looking at the name Kashgar, so it might even be more difficult to separate both. A very early Poltavka R1a/R1b with a centum language could still be a possibility, but can it even be feasable?
    Udmurts are Uralic peoples and having distant Centum relationships here does not mean much , your conflating many things. IIr groups were already in the Tarim by the late Bronze Age. Those Tocharians mentioned by Chinese were East Iranic related people, not Afanasievo relics.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pegasus For This Useful Post:

     agent_lime (02-12-2019),  Coldmountains (02-10-2019)

  3. #22
    Registered Users
    Posts
    285
    Sex

    Going back to a couple page one comments:

    Quote Originally Posted by xenus View Post
    The theories I've read attribute to Afanasievo the source population that reflects the early Tocharian split. I'm not sure where else in time it could have occurred otherwise. After this they are partially absorbed by Okunevo followed by Andronovo and then finally the last speakers of a Tocharian language were absorbed by the Uyghurs.
    It seems quite hard to think of Okunevo and then Andronovo (or some people within these cultures) adopting the language of a minority element in the population, particularly over multiple layers, and the Okunevo being seen as a non-Indo-European forest culture and Andronovo in theory being part of an expansive and interconnected proto-Indo-Iranian landscape and identity.

    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I think the link between Afanasievo-related and the Tocharians is intuitively too strong to be deluded. Just like before dna results, the link between Afanasievo and Yamnaya was. About what they have became, probably most of it was diluted into Proto-Turkic peoples, while the rest went to the eastern tarim and the gansu corridor. The Tocharian question might be an exeption to the rest of IE hypothesis, because it's plausible that R1b was replaced with some Scythian R1a-Z93 but the language stayed a Prestige Language used for whatever reasons.
    Kind of similarly to above, it does seem quite hard to imagine the survival through layers of absorptions.

    But really I just wanted to comment that linguistics does suggest that Tocharian A and B could have been quite divergent, and to have had no ancestor/descendant relationship - from a phonological and morphological perspective suggested to be mutually unintelligble. That might suggest that they were representative of a formerly wider ranging linguistic community? OTOH basic lexical data suggests that they are quite similar, and only diverged centuries beforehand. But that could be unusual lexical conservatism in both branches.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Eterne For This Useful Post:

     Pribislav (02-10-2019),  Ryukendo (02-11-2019)

  5. #23
    Registered Users
    Posts
    794
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R1a-Z93
    mtDNA
    H28 (UA)

    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I dont think the idea is outdated, i just think interactions were more complexe especially in the Balkanic and Iranic contextes. It seems to be a weird transition in Illyrian-Thracian-Greek-Armenian continuum, wich probably result in the fact that both Balkans and Armenia were in the middle of very intense cultural relations between the Centum and Satem world. There is a clear cut that Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic are distantly related to each other, and the CWC-Sintashta relationship hypothesis demonstrate this clear cut. But, there was Poltavka, Catacomb, Srubna, cultures that could have been transitional into those distinctions. Remember that Centum people like Italo-Celtic-Germanic and Tocharian highly predate those cultures. Aremnian, just like Greek are probably coming from Late Yamnaya or such related culture like Catacombs, where the more homogenenous R1b-Centum / R1a-Satem didn't exist anymore.
    Satem is just an areal linguistic feature of IE languages, which stayed closer to the center of IE expansion. Corded Ware can not be classified as "Satem culture" because more and more evidences points to a CWC origin of Centum Italo-Celtic and Germanic languages. Either they are derived from CWC groups in Moravia or around the Rhine. I personally prefer the theory of a Moravian origin but there are also good arguments for an origin in the Single Grave culture of the Rhine.

    Yamnaya on the other hand looks less and less likely like the homeland of Italo-Celtic and Germanic languages and seems to be more associated with Proto-Greeks, Proto-Armenians and Proto-Balkan IE people. And the languages of their descendants were actually either Satem languages or Satem-shifted.
    Last edited by Coldmountains; 02-10-2019 at 12:35 PM.
    Y-DNA: R1a> R-M417> R-Z645> R-Z93> R-Z94> R-Y3 (Sredny Stog culture)> R-L657> R-Y4(Andronovo)> R-Y6> R-Y5> R-Y920* (Pashtun)

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     parasar (02-12-2019)

  7. #24
    Registered Users
    Posts
    186
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Volat View Post

    Also Minusink basin is more of a large valley surrounded by mountains from four sides. Climate and environment are different to those of Mongolian or Kazakh steppes.
    Did the afanasievo people enter Mongolian steppe or not? problem is Shatar chuluu culture.

    Molecular evidences of paleogeographical ancestry of neolithic proto-mongolians and their craniofacial reconstruction

    Abstract

    To give thumbnail sketch of genetic lineage, physical appearance and dietary life of Neolithic proto-Mongolians, two individuals excavated in Dunguljin, Dornod, Eastern Mongolia and Shatar chuluu, Bayankhongor, Western Mongolia were examined for haplotypes/haplogroups of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome, craniofacial features and carbon/nitrogen stable isotopic signatures. Physical anthropological analysis revealed that Eastern and Western individuals were Mongoloid and Caucasoid, respectively, and were all males by amelogenin-based sex determination. Eastern individual belonged to mtDNA haplogroup D4e5b and Y haplogroup C2 whereas Western individual was affiliated to mtDNA haplogroup N1a1a1a and Y haplogroup R1b, indicating that Eastern and Western individuals had Mongoloid and Caucasoid origins given their patrilineal and matrilineal lineages. In addition, HIrisplex estimation for alleles of pigment-associated SNP markers showed that both individuals had brown eyes, black hair and light brown skin. Interestingly, combining results of HIrisplex estimations and computerized 3D modelling based craniofacial reconstruction, Western proto-Mongolian revealed mixed physical appearance between Mongoloid and Caucasoid, although his patrilineal and matrilineal origins were all Caucasoid. His brown eyes and black hair may imply that alleles of genes determining eye and hair colors were not mutated to reveal light-colored eyes and hair in Neolithic proto-Mongolians. Carbon and nitrogen stable isotopic values of bone collagen were -16.6 and 12.8 in Eastern Mongoloid and -18.6 and 11.3 in Western Caucasoid, respectively. This may indicate that the staple diets of Neolithic proto-Mongolians consisted of C3/C4 mixed plant foods with small proportion of C4, mainly millet, and high amount of meat sources, presumably including freshwater fishes. This investigation clearly indicates that Eastern and Western parts of the Mongolian Plateau were occupied by individuals with Mongoloid and Caucasoid genetic lineages, respectively, but were not mixed in their genetic makeups. However, difference of their physical appearance was not so apparent compared to that in modern Asian and European.

    Open Access http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T14428880
    http://www.ranhaer.org/forum.php?mod...extra=page%3D1


    Last edited by johen; 02-10-2019 at 10:14 PM.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to johen For This Useful Post:

     Alain (02-12-2019),  parasar (02-11-2019)

  9. #25
    Registered Users
    Posts
    44
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Eterne View Post
    Going back to a couple page one comments:



    It seems quite hard to think of Okunevo and then Andronovo (or some people within these cultures) adopting the language of a minority element in the population, particularly over multiple layers, and the Okunevo being seen as a non-Indo-European forest culture and Andronovo in theory being part of an expansive and interconnected proto-Indo-Iranian landscape and identity.



    Kind of similarly to above, it does seem quite hard to imagine the survival through layers of absorptions.

    But really I just wanted to comment that linguistics does suggest that Tocharian A and B could have been quite divergent, and to have had no ancestor/descendant relationship - from a phonological and morphological perspective suggested to be mutually unintelligble. That might suggest that they were representative of a formerly wider ranging linguistic community? OTOH basic lexical data suggests that they are quite similar, and only diverged centuries beforehand. But that could be unusual lexical conservatism in both branches.


    I think that since we don't have more obvious PIE derived groups that migrated away to the east at the time we expect the linguistic ancestors of the tocharians to choose from we have to assume that the language of afanasievo survived down to the ethnogenesis of the Tocharians and died with them. IMHO it just best fits occam's razor unless we find an unrelated early PIE migration to the east. To me it's no different than assuming the Albanian language descends from the language of one of the noted peoples of the Balkans like the Illyrians, Dacians or Thracians that long predate Albanian ethnogenesis in spite of how admixed the Albanians are.

    It's tenuous and subject to change or refinement but assigning the split of the proto-tocharians to the migration that created Afanasievo fits better than anything else and just requires the survival of the language by a small portion of speakers.

  10. #26
    Registered Users
    Posts
    186
    Sex

    As Mallory said, the afanasievo people could be not be connected with torchrain. The torchrian had the neolithic farming words, while there is not any cereal in afanasievo. But a problem is we know now that afanasievo people has EEF. It is ok to have EEF, but how is it possible that the afanasievo have not WHG?

    I think there is a slight possibility of afanasievo CHG gene thru Inner asia mountain corridor, as Dali eneolithic has CHG and creamation culture related with south caucasus. Moreover, the neolithic mongol R1b guy looks like a jomon, being different from afanasievo type, but I can anthropologically, with lots of academic papers, explain about the relation between the Jomon type and afanasievo type. Long story short, the jomon type is more older type (to be closer to cromagnon) than the afansievo type (CM + mediterranean type as their genetic admixture)
    Of course, I think the tocharian could use the IAMC with CHG and farmer gene also.
    Last edited by johen; 02-11-2019 at 08:08 PM.

  11. #27
    Bronze Class Member
    Posts
    1,586
    Sex

    Turkmenistan Suriname South Africa Costa Rica Norway Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by johen View Post
    As Mallory said, the afanasievo people could be not be connected with torchrain. The torchrian had the neolithic farming words, while there is not any cereal in afanasievo. But a problem is we know now that afanasievo people has EEF. It is ok to have EEF, but how is it possible that the afanasievo have not WHG?

    I think there is a slight possibility of afanasievo CHG gene thru Inner asia mountain corridor, as Dali eneolithic has CHG and creamation culture related with south caucasus. Moreover, the neolithic mongol R1b guy looks like a jomon, being different from afanasievo type, but I can anthropologically, with lots of academic papers, explain about the relation between the Jomon type and afanasievo type. Long story short, the jomon type is more older type (to be closer to cromagnon) than the afansievo type (CM + mediterranean type as their genetic admixture)
    Of course, I think the tocharian could use the IAMC with CHG and farmer gene also.
    Afanasievo was identical to Yamnaya. Yamnaya already had CHG while being located in the Pontic steppe. Where did you read that Afanasievo had EEF? As far as I was aware, neither Yamnaya or Afanasievo had EEF or WHG.

  12. #28
    Registered Users
    Posts
    186
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Censored View Post
    Afanasievo was identical to Yamnaya. Yamnaya already had CHG while being located in the Pontic steppe. Where did you read that Afanasievo had EEF? As far as I was aware, neither Yamnaya or Afanasievo had EEF or WHG.
    post 4 in your thread:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....-to-Afanasievo

  13. #29
    Bronze Class Member
    Posts
    1,586
    Sex

    Turkmenistan Suriname South Africa Costa Rica Norway Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by johen View Post
    Ah yes thanks. Admittedly I did not know that ANF was present in Yamnaya. G25 appears to demonstrate this admixture as well.

    As for WHG, not all the Yamnaya samples show it. Afanasievo was probably descended from those samples explaining why it too lacks whg.
    Last edited by Censored; 02-12-2019 at 08:25 AM.

  14. #30
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,208

    Quote Originally Posted by Censored View Post
    Ah yes thanks. Admittedly I did not know that ANF was present in Yamnaya. G25 appears to demonstrate this admixture as well.

    As for WHG, not all the Yamnaya samples show it. Afanasievo was probably descended from those samples explaining why it too lacks whg.
    Yamna and Afanasevo are contemporary so one does not descend from the other. They both probably descend from Repin with the western part picking up EEF and more WHG.

    Anthony: "just before the Yamnaya horizon appeared,
    the Repin culture of the Volga-Ural region threw off a subgroup that mi-
    grated across the Kazakh steppes about 3700-3500 BCE and established
    itself in the western Altai, where it became the Afanasievo culture. The
    separation of the Afanasievo culture from Repin probably represented the
    separation of Pre-Tocharian from classic Proto-Indo-European."
    The Horse, the Wheel, and Language

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to parasar For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (02-12-2019),  Onur Dincer (02-13-2019),  palamede (02-13-2019),  xenus (02-13-2019)

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Tocharians, Afanasievo and the Tarim Mummies
    By alan in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-21-2018, 09:42 AM
  2. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-04-2015, 07:32 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-23-2014, 01:42 AM
  4. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12-15-2013, 03:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •