Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 126

Thread: Early Tocharian split without European farmer admixture

  1. #101
    Registered Users
    Posts
    775
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    As far as attributing ethnicities to burials, the hunno-sarmatian period is a bit of a frantic mess if you'd ask me. Tons of migrations, newly forming ethnic groups, few historical records, overlapping archaeological traditions etc.

    Take that RISE602 for example, from the Sary-Bel site northwest of the Altai, attributed to the Hunno-Sarmatian period. I'll give you descriptions of the site I came across, first one is in Russian so mind you this is google talking:

    So, the burials of the Sary-Bel burial ground date back to the beginning of the Hunno-Sarmatian time and,possibly belong to the population that entered Gorny Altai from the southeast.
    http://e-lib.gasu.ru/da/archive/1999/N4/st17.pdf

    The combination of varying in their origin funeral and burial traditions suggests that, in the beginning of the Medieval period, complicated ethno-political processes occurred in the region. A minimum of three ethnic groups participated in the process: the population who left the monuments of Bulan-Koby type; the population of South-Eastern Altai, who came from Mongolia not earlier than in the second half of the 3rd century AD and left the sites of KokPash type; the Ashina group who migrated to the Altai in 460 and brought the tradition of square enclosures.

    ...

    The population who left monuments of the Bulan-Koby type was mainly formed at the turn of our era. The anthropological study of the remains showed that a major component of the population was the local Altai people, who lived here in the Scythian time (the descendants of the Pazyryk Culture).
    https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/porta...S_17_00004.pdf

    Here is an old model I made of that sample:

    Target: RUS_Altai_IA:RISE602
    Distance: 2.1929% / 0.02192897
    37.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
    22.6 RUS_Baikal_BA
    20.6 KGZ_Aigyrzhal_BA
    19.2 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
    0.0 MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave

    Which one of the two seems more accurate?

    One description is fairly generalized and paints a rather simple picture of new culture = new peoples. The second one goes in detail in regards to the different groups over the centuries, and paints a slightly different picture.

    This is just one example of the countless of sites this stuff applies too. I'm not sure if its simply due to the complexity of this period that it hard to properly assign dates and ethnic affiliations, or if the level of scholarship regarding this transitional period lacks a little in comparison to earlier and later periods. Perhaps a bit of both?

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     altvred (08-01-2021),  Ebizur (07-27-2021),  Hando (08-10-2021),  J Man (08-01-2021),  Michalis Moriopoulos (07-26-2021),  Ryukendo (07-27-2021)

  3. #102
    Registered Users
    Posts
    775
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    just a quick and easy run:

     


    keep in mind that those Tian Shan Sakas are kind of like 50/50 Tasmola and Tian Shan saka outlier type populations (on average).

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     Hando (08-10-2021)

  5. #103
    Registered Users
    Posts
    775
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    Some of the Wusun samples may not even have been descendants of the nomads that came from western China.
    Adding to this, I made a quick setup for the Shirenzigou samples and the similarly looking Central Asian Xiongnu samples from Damgaard 2019, who both have R1b-PH155, and also added to the published Wusun samples from Damgaard 2019 to the list for a comparison.

     

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

     Alain (08-01-2021),  Hando (08-10-2021)

  7. #104
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,440
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    As far as attributing ethnicities to burials, the hunno-sarmatian period is a bit of a frantic mess if you'd ask me. Tons of migrations, newly forming ethnic groups, few historical records, overlapping archaeological traditions etc.

    Take that RISE602 for example, from the Sary-Bel site northwest of the Altai, attributed to the Hunno-Sarmatian period. I'll give you descriptions of the site I came across, first one is in Russian so mind you this is google talking:


    http://e-lib.gasu.ru/da/archive/1999/N4/st17.pdf

    https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/porta...S_17_00004.pdf

    Here is an old model I made of that sample:

    Target: RUS_Altai_IA:RISE602
    Distance: 2.1929% / 0.02192897
    37.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
    22.6 RUS_Baikal_BA
    20.6 KGZ_Aigyrzhal_BA
    19.2 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
    0.0 MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave

    Which one of the two seems more accurate?

    One description is fairly generalized and paints a rather simple picture of new culture = new peoples. The second one goes in detail in regards to the different groups over the centuries, and paints a slightly different picture.

    This is just one example of the countless of sites this stuff applies too. I'm not sure if its simply due to the complexity of this period that it hard to properly assign dates and ethnic affiliations, or if the level of scholarship regarding this transitional period lacks a little in comparison to earlier and later periods. Perhaps a bit of both?
    And interestingly enough the RISE602 sample from Sary-Bel is the oldest sample that we have so far that belongs to J-PH1795. As we know J-PH1795 has also shown up among ancient samples from Turkic era Mongolia and Kazakhstan (Karakaba site). One of the ancient Khitan samples also belongs to this subclade as well I think. Among modern samples it shows up everywhere Turkic speaking people's live and in other cultures that have had close contacts with Turkic cultures....In your opinion when do you think that J-PH1795 most likely entered the Turkic ancestral gene pool? Which time period?
    Last edited by J Man; 08-01-2021 at 02:01 PM.

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

     CopperAxe (08-01-2021),  Hando (08-10-2021)

  9. #105
    Registered Users
    Posts
    775
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by J Man View Post
    And interestingly enough the RISE602 sample from Sary-Bel is the oldest sample that we have so far that belongs to J-PH1795. As we know J-PH1795 has also shown up among ancient samples from Turkic era Mongolia and Kazakhstan (Karakaba site). One of the ancient Khitan samples also belongs to this subclade as well I think. Among modern samples it shows up everywhere Turkic speaking people's live and in other cultures that have had close contacts with Turkic cultures....In your opinion when do you think that J-PH1795 most likely entered the Turkic ancestral gene pool? Which time period?
    If J-PH1795 has something of a pan-Turkic distribution, You can assume it had a presence either during the Proto-Turkic period, or that somewhere inbetween the Proto-Turkic breakup and the Gokturk expansions. Obviously Turkic peoples started expanding westwards prior to the Gokturk expansions but barring the Chuvash most modern Turkic people can be directly linked to said event.

    This sample itself will not help all too much with determining when this lineage got into the Turkic genepool I think, as it might be that this sample was contemporary to Turkic peoples already carrying J-PH1795. If it turns out that this lineage wasn't present during the influx of western ancestries in the central/eastern mongolian populations during the Xiongnu period (300 bc 100 ad), then it could be linked to the post-Xiongnu events in the Altai-Sayan region, which were instrumental to the Turkic ethnogenesis and the eventual linguistic transformation. On yfull the tmrca is about 2000 years ago for what it's worth.

    I think it is likely that up to the 4/5th century A.D you still had remnants of the earlier Iranic ethnolinguistic groups there but beyond that you're probably looking at just Turkic speaking people, but with a good amount of R1a-Z93 and Q-L53 lineages floating around. Or J-PH1795 lineages!

    I think it was Peter B. Golden who mentioned that with Turkification, it often were tribes who were (partially) composed of recently assimilated peoples doing the spreading, and causing other people to shift their ethnic identity. Then as the next population undergoes an ethnic and linguistic shift, they go on to the next one. I don't think its simply a case of diffusion or domino effect, but considering the timeframe of the Gokturk expansions it wouldn''t surprise me if many of the lineages carried westwards by the expanding Turkic populations were derived from populations assimilated from around the Altai-Sayan region within the last few centuries. Naturally around this time there was a lot of Sogdian influence as well, so I don't want to give the impression that the only western ancestry in early Turks was steppe related.

    I think these two options, geneflows just prior to and during the Xiongnu period (let's say 400 bc to 100 ad), or the centuries after that leading up to the Gokturk expansions (100 ad to 400 ad) are the most likely periods this lineage first entered the Turkic genepool.

  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     aganmu (08-02-2021),  Hando (08-10-2021),  J Man (08-01-2021),  JoeyP37 (08-01-2021),  pegasus (08-24-2021),  Ryukendo (08-01-2021)

  11. #106
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,440
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    If J-PH1795 has something of a pan-Turkic distribution, You can assume it had a presence either during the Proto-Turkic period, or that somewhere inbetween the Proto-Turkic breakup and the Gokturk expansions. Obviously Turkic peoples started expanding westwards prior to the Gokturk expansions but barring the Chuvash most modern Turkic people can be directly linked to said event.

    This sample itself will not help all too much with determining when this lineage got into the Turkic genepool I think, as it might be that this sample was contemporary to Turkic peoples already carrying J-PH1795. If it turns out that this lineage wasn't present during the influx of western ancestries in the central/eastern mongolian populations during the Xiongnu period (300 bc 100 ad), then it could be linked to the post-Xiongnu events in the Altai-Sayan region, which were instrumental to the Turkic ethnogenesis and the eventual linguistic transformation. On yfull the tmrca is about 2000 years ago for what it's worth.

    I think it is likely that up to the 4/5th century A.D you still had remnants of the earlier Iranic ethnolinguistic groups there but beyond that you're probably looking at just Turkic speaking people, but with a good amount of R1a-Z93 and Q-L53 lineages floating around. Or J-PH1795 lineages!

    I think it was Peter B. Golden who mentioned that with Turkification, it often were tribes who were (partially) composed of recently assimilated peoples doing the spreading, and causing other people to shift their ethnic identity. Then as the next population undergoes an ethnic and linguistic shift, they go on to the next one. I don't think its simply a case of diffusion or domino effect, but considering the timeframe of the Gokturk expansions it wouldn''t surprise me if many of the lineages carried westwards by the expanding Turkic populations were derived from populations assimilated from around the Altai-Sayan region within the last few centuries. Naturally around this time there was a lot of Sogdian influence as well, so I don't want to give the impression that the only western ancestry in early Turks was steppe related.

    I think these two options, geneflows just prior to and during the Xiongnu period (let's say 400 bc to 100 ad), or the centuries after that leading up to the Gokturk expansions (100 ad to 400 ad) are the most likely periods this lineage first entered the Turkic genepool.

    Thanks for your thoughts on this and awesome stuff! I'm looking forward to seeing more ancient Turkic remains tested. Hopefully we will see some more before 2020 is over but I won't hold my breath. There is one J-PH1795 sample among the Xiongnu samples from the Jeong 2020 paper. Here is a list again of all of the J-PH1795 samples so far.


    Ancient J-PH1795:


    Allentoft et al. 2015-

    Sary-Bel Iron Age (Altai)
    Kytmanovo 721-889 AD (Siberia)



    Jeong et al. 2020-

    TUH002 Arkhangai, Mongolia, Xiongnu Period (Mongolia)

    UGU001 Selenge, Mongolia, Early Medieval Turk 687-711 AD (Mongolia)

    ZAA005 Bulgan, Mongolia, Late Medieval Khitan 1025-1155 AD (Mongolia)

    ULA001 Bulgan, Mongolia, Late Medieval Khitan 1033-1159 AD (Mongolia)


    GA Gnecchi-Ruscone 2021-

    CHK004 Chilpek 722-885 AD (Kyrgyzstan)

    KKB001 Karakaba 775-887 AD (Kazakhstan)

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to J Man For This Useful Post:

     Hando (08-10-2021),  Ryukendo (08-06-2021)

  13. #107
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,561
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    C-F5481
    mtDNA (M)
    M8a

    Kyrgyzstan
    Quote Originally Posted by J Man View Post
    Hopefully we will see some more before 2020 is over but I won't hold my breath.
    I wish.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to rozenfeld For This Useful Post:

     Hando (08-10-2021)

  15. #108
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,440
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by rozenfeld View Post
    I wish.
    My bad...2021 I mean. I shouldn't post while exhausted haha.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to J Man For This Useful Post:

     Hando (08-10-2021),  parasar (08-03-2021)

  17. #109
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,206
    Sex
    Location
    Brisbane
    Nationality
    Australian
    Y-DNA (P)
    T-P322 (T1a2b1)
    mtDNA (M)
    H6a1

    Australia Cornwall England Scotland Germany Poland
    Quote Originally Posted by J Man View Post
    My bad...2021 I mean. I shouldn't post while exhausted haha.
    Or after watching the 2020 Olympics which are currently being held in 2021.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Saetro For This Useful Post:

     Hando (08-10-2021),  JoeyP37 (08-05-2021),  parasar (08-08-2021)

  19. #110
    Registered Users
    Posts
    775
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by trivikram View Post
    Copperaxe, what is the theory now regarding this Z93 in dzhungar basin and the new data which suggests that the tarim ancestry was ANE with R1a1a xz93
    Well as far as I can tell the only samples from that article which maybe overlap with these new Tarim_EMBA samples were females.

    What suggests that those Tarim_EMBA had R1a1a, when so far none of these Tarim_EMBA samples have been shown to carry R1a1a? I'd like to see those results replicated with different methods than STR analysis.

    Z93 from Shirenzigou comes from Europe ultimately, just like the millions of other Z93 lineages.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     Hando (08-25-2021)

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 223
    Last Post: 06-02-2021, 09:05 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-18-2021, 02:25 PM
  3. Second early farmer group.
    By wombatofthenorth in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-17-2016, 12:31 AM
  4. Gedmatch results of an Early Farmer from Anatolia
    By Piquerobi in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-08-2016, 07:24 AM
  5. Replies: 51
    Last Post: 01-30-2016, 06:33 AM

Posting Permissions

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