PDA

View Full Version : Professor Reich on Yamnaya and Population Turnover in Europe



Angela
10-02-15, 00:11
Jean Manco attended his speech at Oxford and is posting about it at Anthrogenica. I'm not comfortable just lifting her posts.

You can find them at this thread. Kudos to Jean.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3807-David-Reich-lecture-9-February-2015&p=68025#post68025

Angela
10-02-15, 01:06
Jean Manco attended his speech at Oxford and is posting about it at Anthrogenica. I'm not comfortable just lifting her posts.

You can find them at this thread. Kudos to Jean.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3807-David-Reich-lecture-9-February-2015&p=68025#post68025

Professor Reich maintains that the "Near Eastern" half of Yamnaya is not through Europe, and "could be from the Caucasus". So, is it most likely it came over the Caucasus (perhaps through the eastern corridor along the Caspian), or is there an alternate route? Is the ultimate source the highlands of Anatolia or northern Iran or both? Other questions are when, and was it a folk movement, just males, or just females in some way. Also, did it bring new subsistence strategies with it? How, given that the change in mtDna began in 4000 BC, does it relate to the later Maykop culture?

Well, we also know that both R1a and R1b are connected with ANE.

It's also interesting what massive figures they're giving for replacement:
1. The first farmers, who represent 60% - 100% replacement.
2. 2500 BC steppe pastoralists, who represent 60% - 80% replacement.
In both cases there was a subsequent resurgence of previous ancestry.

I would assume the 100% replacement is in some places in southern Europe. I hope that 60-80% replacement is only for northern Europe.

As to the "resurgence" in WHG ancestry, Jean Manco says that, "The resurgence of WHG he had dated 5000-3000 BC in one slide. He said that it is not clear whether this reflects some population movement or greater mixing with local hunter-gatherers in the Late Neolithic than had happened in the Early Neolithic, which was possible in Northern Germany, as the hunter-gatherer lifestyle survived to the north in Scandinavia."

I had speculated here that it might have been a result of a movement south of HGs from Scandinavia caused by climate change. Perhaps that accounts for the slight shift north in Gok type people that shows up in PCA's? There might have been other places that were inhospitalbe in terms of climate where they might have survived and mixed late. Perhaps there were also some marginalized hunter gatherers who had fled to refuges in the mountains who were incorporated as time went on?

I don't understand the resurgence of the EEF (with some minor uptick in WHG) people, however. What were the dynamics, that the people in northern Europe go from 75% to 50% Yamnaya like?
What refuges would they have had?

Can we say that the Paschou et al paper pointing to one general source area for EEF in Europe is vindicated by this? "Early farmer samples are remarkably similar across Europe, whether from Cardial Ware or LBK. (I expect that includes his Hungarian samples, though not specifically mentioned.)"

Also, maybe the hunter-gatherers in eastern Europe weren't very different from those in the West after all: "Mesolithic samples are similar across Europe. (He means those of which he has samples, which does not include Greece it seems.)" So, did the SHG die out?

The ANE is higher in Scandinavia than in the Ukraine, so perhaps they didn't die out?
Norway
Lithuania
Estonia
Iceland
Scotland
Czech Rep.
Belarus
Hungary
Ukraine
England
Croatia

Goga
10-02-15, 01:48
Professor Reich maintains that the "Near Eastern" half of Yamnaya is not through Europe, and "could be from the Caucasus". So, is it most likely it came over the Caucasus (perhaps through the eastern corridor along the Caspian), or is there an alternate route? Is the ultimate source the highlands of Anatolia or northern Iran or both? Other questions are when, and was it a folk movement, just males, or just females in some way. Also, did it bring new subsistence strategies with it? How, given that the change in mtDna began in 4000 BC, does it relate to the later Maykop culture?Thank you very much for the link! According to her Professor Reich said that R1b in Europe came with the Indo-Europeans from Yamnaya. And R1b was not really native to Yamnaya. I'm sure that the 'Near Eastern' half in Yamnaya was brought into the Yamnaya by R1b, J2a and maybe even R1a (, oldest clades of R1a* are West Asian too,) folks from the Iranian Plateau. This is what I did always believe, that R1b was part of the Indo-Europeans that migrated into Europe. R1a is so OVERRATED, although I'm R1a* myself. But the most important info is that R1b in Europe was brought by Indo-European folks from Yamnaya! I LOVE science of genetics!

Greying Wanderer
10-02-15, 02:00
Professor Reich maintains that the "Near Eastern" half of Yamnaya is not through Europe, and "could be from the Caucasus". So, is it most likely it came over the Caucasus (perhaps through the eastern corridor along the Caspian), or is there an alternate route? Is the ultimate source the highlands of Anatolia or northern Iran or both? Other questions are when, and was it a folk movement, just males, or just females in some way. Also, did it bring new subsistence strategies with it? How, given that the change in mtDna began in 4000 BC, does it relate to the later Maykop culture?

Well, we also know that both R1a and R1b are connected with ANE.

It's also interesting what massive figures they're giving for replacement:
1. The first farmers, who represent 60% - 100% replacement.
2. 2500 BC steppe pastoralists, who represent 60% - 80% replacement.
In both cases there was a subsequent resurgence of previous ancestry.

I would assume the 100% replacement is in some places in southern Europe. I hope that 60-80% replacement is only for northern Europe.

As to the "resurgence" in WHG ancestry, Jean Manco says that, "The resurgence of WHG he had dated 5000-3000 BC in one slide. He said that it is not clear whether this reflects some population movement or greater mixing with local hunter-gatherers in the Late Neolithic than had happened in the Early Neolithic, which was possible in Northern Germany, as the hunter-gatherer lifestyle survived to the north in Scandinavia."

I had speculated here that it might have been a result of a movement south of HGs from Scandinavia caused by climate change. Perhaps that accounts for the slight shift north in Gok type people that shows up in PCA's? There might have been other places that were inhospitalbe in terms of climate where they might have survived and mixed late. Perhaps there were also some marginalized hunter gatherers who had fled to refuges in the mountains who were incorporated as time went on?

I don't understand the resurgence of the EEF (with some minor uptick in WHG) people, however. What were the dynamics, that the people in northern Europe go from 75% to 50% Yamnaya like?
What refuges would they have had?

Can we say that the Paschou et al paper pointing to one general source area for EEF in Europe is vindicated by this? "Early farmer samples are remarkably similar across Europe, whether from Cardial Ware or LBK. (I expect that includes his Hungarian samples, though not specifically mentioned.)"

Also, maybe the hunter-gatherers in eastern Europe weren't very different from those in the West after all: "Mesolithic samples are similar across Europe. (He means those of which he has samples, which does not include Greece it seems.)" So, did the SHG die out?

The ANE is higher in Scandinavia than in the Ukraine, so perhaps they didn't die out?
Norway
Lithuania
Estonia
Iceland
Scotland
Czech Rep.
Belarus
Hungary
Ukraine
England
Croatia

Just guesses...

On the farmer resurgence my guess would be selection in place somehow e.g. farmer descended females incorporated into the IE had more surviving kids than IE descended females for some reason or other.

On the ANE thing my guess would be brains vs brawn i.e. 100% ANE had a lot of brawn but were out competed on brains and so got pushed back to the mountains but mixed populations, say 15-20% ANE got an effective dose of both.

.

Fire Haired14
10-02-15, 02:04
Maciamo and others need recongnition for suggesting R1b in west Europe is IE-derived, so many years ago.

Angela
10-02-15, 02:05
Thank you very much for the link! According to her Professor Reich said that R1b in Europe came with the Indo-Europeans from Yamnaya. And R1b was not really native to Yamnaya. I'm sure that the 'Near Eastern' half in Yamnaya was brought into the Yamnaya by R1b, J2a and maybe even R1a (, oldest clades of R1a* are West Asian too,) folks from the Iranian Plateau. This is what I did always believe, that R1b was part of the Indo-Europeans that migrated into Europe. R1a is so OVERRATED, although I'm R1a* myself. But the most important info is that R1b in Europe was brought by Indo-European folks from Yamnaya! I LOVE science of genetics!

Yes, I see where she reports that...
"*Added: I have found my note. He said in the question session that Yamnaya had brought R1a and R1b to Europe."

There's nothing in what she reported to indicate that R1b was not native to Yamnaya. We'll have to wait and see what yDna they have, from where, and from what time period.

I will agree that the advent of ancient DNA testing and advanced statistical models are certainly giving us a lot more clarity concerning the population history of Europe.

Angela
10-02-15, 02:14
Just guesses...

On the farmer resurgence my guess would be selection in place somehow e.g. farmer descended females incorporated into the IE had more surviving kids than IE descended females for some reason or other.

On the ANE thing my guess would be brains vs brawn i.e. 100% ANE had a lot of brawn but were out competed on brains and so got pushed back to the mountains but mixed populations, say 15-20% ANE got an effective dose of both.

.

I don't know if that would explain all of it, but it may explain some of it. Different mtDna lineages do have different fitness indices, and perhaps some combinations of mtDna and yDna have more fertility than others.

Angela
10-02-15, 02:15
Maciamo and others need recongnition for suggesting R1b in west Europe is IE-derived, so many years ago.

Indeed, he does, and Jean Manco as well. I have thought it rather shabby that those who disagreed with her have so often been disrespectful. It continues even today as she is being cross examined and found wanting apparently for not having a photographic memory. Totally boorish and uncivilized behavior...

Goga
10-02-15, 02:17
Yes, I see where she reports that...
"*Added: I have found my note. He said in the question session that Yamnaya had brought R1a and R1b to Europe."

There's nothing in what she reported to indicate that R1b was not native to Yamnaya. We'll have to wait and see what yDna they have, from where, and from what time period.

I will agree that the advent of ancient DNA testing and advanced statistical models are certainly giving us a lot more clarity concerning the population history of Europe.
True, but I was assuming it because R1b clades in West Asia, like in Armenian population, are older than the European R1b clades. And there is a lot of so called 'Gedrosia' component in the areas in Europe where R1b is high. R1b places in Europe are more 'Gedrosia' heavy than other places in Europe! Also, there was a migration from Maykop to Yamnaya; kurgans in Maykop are older than Kurgans in Yamnaya...


http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-migration-map.jpg

Greying Wanderer
10-02-15, 02:36
Indeed, he does, and Jean Manco as well. I have thought it rather shabby that those who disagreed with her have so often been disrespectful. It continues even today as she is being cross examined and found wanting apparently for not having a photographic memory. Totally boorish and uncivilized behavior...

A good deed never goes unpunished.

Aberdeen
10-02-15, 04:32
Okay, Jean Manco reports that David Reich said R1a and R1b are both connected to ANE (not news) and that Bell Beaker had less ANE than Corded Ware. But where did Manco indicate Reich said that Yamnaya had R1b? What I got out of her comments was the idea that Bell Beaker R1b had less ANE than Corded Ware and IE R1a, as one would expect. Or did I miss something?

Clarification: I do think it's possible that some R1b could be connected to Yamnaya but not necessarily and certainly not all of it. So if there was Yamnaya R1b, I want subclade information. I still think most European R1b arrived by sea from Anatolia during the late Neolithic. But hopefully the upcoming paper will finally shed some light.

Fire Haired14
10-02-15, 05:31
Reich said in his presentation R1a and R1b in Europe are from Yamna. He also said they're connected to ANE.

Maciamo
10-02-15, 07:46
Yamnaya are a mixture of ANE and a population of Near Eastern origin which arrived in Europe via a different route than the early farmers. In fact he said they did not come via Europe. I assume that he means they were not simply EEF, but he did not give any details or mention that they were ANE-rich. He speculated that they could have come from the Caucasus.

As we already knew, Reich's team has found a discontinuity between the TRB and Corded Ware. As previously reported, he said that CW samples were 75% Yamnaya, which he qualified as descended from a Yamnaya-like population. ANE linked to R1a and R1b. ANE in Bell Beaker samples at a lower level than in CW. The proportions of the three components (WHG, EEF and ANE) were different in the Iberian BB from that in Germany.


This seems to confirms everything I have theorised over the last six years about the history of R1b.

R1b came from the Near East, crossed the Caucasus to the Pontic Steppe, then spread westward to the rest of Europe. The Bell Beaker period saw the progressive invasion of R1b people in what was originally a non-R1b culture, hence the higher ANE in German BB samples than in Iberian ones (proof that R1b came countercurrent to the original diffusion of the Bell Beaker culture from Iberia to central Europe).

bicicleur
10-02-15, 08:04
This seems to confirms everything I have theorised over the last six years about the history of R1b.

R1b came from the Near East, crossed the Caucasus to the Pontic Steppe, then spread westward to the rest of Europe. The Bell Beaker period saw the progressive invasion of R1b people in what was originally a non-R1b culture, hence the higher ANE in German BB samples than in Iberian ones (proof that R1b came countercurrent to the original diffusion of the Bell Beaker culture from Iberia to central Europe).

it's a pitty they don't say anything about Anatolians and Tochars
David Anthony himself mentioned the part of his story about invasions in Gumelnita 6000 - 6200 years ago by IE recieves a lot of skepticism
it seems to me Anatolians and Tochars split from R1b IE before they crossed the Caucasus where R1a joined the R1b IE
IMO Anatolians and Tochars were R1b, not R1a

bicicleur
10-02-15, 08:08
German BB was later than Iberian BB
German BB would have originated in Hungary

so there is a difference in ANE
this does not necessarily mean there is a difference in R1b
maybe Iberian BB took non-IE wives

bicicleur
10-02-15, 08:23
Maciamo do you still believe in Unetice as the cradle for west-European R1b ?
I think it might be the case
BB was the first wave of R1b to Europe
but R1b-P312 may have originated in Unetice

Aberdeen
10-02-15, 08:25
Reich said in his presentation R1a and R1b in Europe are from Yamna. He also said they're connected to ANE.

So were you present at the conference? Or did someone else who was present at the conference clearly state that? Because it definitely doesn't seem clear to me from what Jean Manco posted. I may be mistaken and R1b may in fact be from Yamnaya, but I don't think Manco's posts on the other forum make that clear at all. And in fact we do have two pre-IE Bell Beaker Rib samples. I wonder if Reich's sampling included Iberia Bell Beaker Y DNA samples. I would assume it must have, as otherwise any comments he made about Iberian BB Y DNA would have been made sans data. I had assumed that all the new DNA samples being looked at were from the Samara region.

bicicleur
10-02-15, 08:32
Goga may be right after all : maybe Leyla Tepe were the first IE
but apart from wikipedia I don't find any info about Leyla Tepe
anybody else?

kosmonomad
10-02-15, 08:34
Now a clarification is needed if R1b was the Old Yamnaya.

Maciamo
10-02-15, 08:42
Maciamo do you still believe in Unetice as the cradle for west-European R1b ?
I think it might be the case
BB was the first wave of R1b to Europe
but R1b-P312 may have originated in Unetice

Depends what you mean by cradle. As you can see on my migrations maps, I showed red dots (R1b) advancing in the blue Bell Beaker/Megalithic cultures. So R1b already spread across most of western Europe during the late Bell Beaker period, but these early R1b skirmishers were culturally absorbed by the native populations. Unetice represents the first true steppe-like culture founded by R1b people in central Europe. Corded Ware was the slightly earlier R1a variant. The two overlapped, explaining the dual R1a-R1b nature of modern Germans and Czechs (whose R1a is apparently descended primarily from the Corded Ware and not from later Slavic migrations).

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/early_middle_bronze_europe.png

bicicleur
10-02-15, 08:49
BB was the first wave
but the main R1b in Europe are U106 and P312
IMO this was the 2nd wave and P312 may have originated in Unetice

Maciamo
10-02-15, 09:01
it's a pitty they don't say anything about Anatolians and Tochars
David Anthony himself mentioned the part of his story about invasions in Gumelnita 6000 - 6200 years ago by IE recieves a lot of skepticism
it seems to me Anatolians and Tochars split from R1b IE before they crossed the Caucasus where R1a joined the R1b IE
IMO Anatolians and Tochars were R1b, not R1a

I doubt that the Anatolian and Tocharian branches split before R1b IE crossed the Caucasus. The linguistic distance points at a separation just before IE languages coalesced in the Yamna period. How else would Anatolian and Tocharian languages have vocabulary for steppe-related terms, chariots, and even Uralic borrowings ? In this regard I completely agree with David Anthony's new paper (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812).

The scenario that makes the most sense is that the Anatolian branch descended from the pre-Yamna steppe people who invaded the eastern Balkans (Gumelniţa–Karanovo), while the Tocharian branch descended from the pre-Yamna steppe people (Repin culture ?) who migrated to the Altai and founded the Afanasevo culture.

I am not as sure as you that Anatolian and Tocharian branches lacked R1a. There is enough old R1a in both Anatolia and the Altai to suppose that they were both R1a and R1b.

bicicleur
10-02-15, 10:35
I doubt that the Anatolian and Tocharian branches split before R1b IE crossed the Caucasus. The linguistic distance points at a separation just before IE languages coalesced in the Yamna period. How else would Anatolian and Tocharian languages have vocabulary for steppe-related terms, chariots, and even Uralic borrowings ? In this regard I completely agree with David Anthony's new paper (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812).

The scenario that makes the most sense is that the Anatolian branch descended from the pre-Yamna steppe people who invaded the eastern Balkans (Gumelniţa–Karanovo), while the Tocharian branch descended from the pre-Yamna steppe people (Repin culture ?) who migrated to the Altai and founded the Afanasevo culture.

I am not as sure as you that Anatolian and Tocharian branches lacked R1a. There is enough old R1a in both Anatolia and the Altai to suppose that they were both R1a and R1b.

isn't almost all R1a in the Altai Z-93 ?
I don't know about Anatolian ..
IMO hte R1b east of Ural are Tochars, who were ousted by the later Indo-Iranians
do you know more about Uyghur R1b ? are they M73 or M269 ?

bicicleur
10-02-15, 11:24
The ANE is higher in Scandinavia than in the Ukraine, so perhaps they didn't die out?
Norway
Lithuania
Estonia
Iceland
Scotland
Czech Rep.
Belarus
Hungary
Ukraine
England
Croatia

There may have been multiple sources for European ANE, not only IE R1a and R1b, but also Uralic N1c1 and even Q in Scandinavia or more recent Hunnic Q and C2.
Or the N1a Iron age Hungarian or Turkic or Mongolian ...

Maciamo
10-02-15, 11:32
isn't almost all R1a in the Altai Z-93 ?
I don't know about Anatolian ..
IMO hte R1b east of Ural are Tochars, who were ousted by the later Indo-Iranians
do you know more about Uyghur R1b ? are they M73 or M269 ?

I don't have much data on the deep R1a subclades of Altaians or Uyghurs. But the nearby Bashkirs (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/suyun/default.aspx?section=yresults), who have a lot of R1b like the Uyghurs, have a mixture of R1a-Z280 (including the Central European CTS3402), R1a-Z93 (mostly the Andronovo Z2123), R1b-L23 (with some L150) and a bit of Central Asian R1b-M73 and Celtic R1b-L2.

The Tocharians almost certainly belonged to R1b-L23 and R1a-Z280. I'd say in a proportion 2:1.

bicicleur
10-02-15, 11:42
Just guesses...

On the farmer resurgence my guess would be selection in place somehow e.g. farmer descended females incorporated into the IE had more surviving kids than IE descended females for some reason or other.

On the ANE thing my guess would be brains vs brawn i.e. 100% ANE had a lot of brawn but were out competed on brains and so got pushed back to the mountains but mixed populations, say 15-20% ANE got an effective dose of both.

.

we know some of the Y-DNA of the first EEF, and IE is ascribed to R1a and R1b, maybe some J2a and G2a2-P303
I miss J1 and T whose presence in Europe is very patchy
I think they arrived in the 2nd wave of farmers, befor IE and after EEF : Hamangia, Lengyel, Rössen cultures
Their pottery styles are linked with Anatolia
I think they were more herders than farmers, and maybe it was easier for WHG to join these folks than EEF, hence their resurgance.

Another tribe that resurected was I2a2a.
Maybe survivers of the drowned Doggerland in coastal areas : M284 on the British Isles, but the other clades as Ertebolle and Swifterband along the Northsea coast, an area never reached by LBK nor TRB.

Goga
10-02-15, 11:56
I doubt that the Anatolian and Tocharian branches split before R1b IE crossed the Caucasus. The linguistic distance points at a separation just before IE languages coalesced in the Yamna period. How else would Anatolian and Tocharian languages have vocabulary for steppe-related terms, chariots, and even Uralic borrowings ? In this regard I completely agree with David Anthony's new paper (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812).

The scenario that makes the most sense is that the Anatolian branch descended from the pre-Yamna steppe people who invaded the eastern Balkans (Gumelniţa–Karanovo), while the Tocharian branch descended from the pre-Yamna steppe people (Repin culture ?) who migrated to the Altai and founded the Afanasevo culture.

I am not as sure as you that Anatolian and Tocharian branches lacked R1a. There is enough old R1a in both Anatolia and the Altai to suppose that they were both R1a and R1b.Impossible!! Armenians, East Iranians, Indians etc. don't have some WHG component in them. While there was some WHG in Yamnaya!

" Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said. " http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

Goga
10-02-15, 12:02
Btw, the masterclass by Professor Reich is based on the latest findings in the upcoming paper. Reich didn't come with conclusiond. He only mentioned what he has found. And tthat here was R1b among the Yamnaya burials. Reich was part of the same team as Patterson. And Patterson already stated that PIE was NOT located around Yamnaya, but farther south. The last paper of David Anthony is very defensive and reiterative, like that of a loser who doesn't want to recognise his defeat. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

bicicleur
10-02-15, 12:04
I don't have much data on the deep R1a subclades of Altaians or Uyghurs. But the nearby Bashkirs (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/suyun/default.aspx?section=yresults), who have a lot of R1b like the Uyghurs, have a mixture of R1a-Z280 (including the Central European CTS3402), R1a-Z93 (mostly the Andronovo Z2123), R1b-L23 (with some L150) and a bit of Central Asian R1b-M73 and Celtic R1b-L2.

The Tocharians almost certainly belonged to R1b-L23 and R1a-Z280. I'd say in a proportion 2:1.

Thank you Maciamo.
Do you also have details of Anatolian R1a and R1b subclades?

bicicleur
10-02-15, 12:09
Impossible!! Armenians, East Iranians, Indians etc. don't have some WHG component in them. While there was some WHG in Yamnaya!

" Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said. " http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

don't jump to conclusions to fast
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some I2a1b in Yamnaya too, which represents WHG
That I2a1b ended up as I2a-Dinaric in the Balkans, but it didn't get to Armenia or India

Goga
10-02-15, 12:23
don't jump to conclusions to fast
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some I2a1b in Yamnaya too, which represents WHG
That I2a1b ended up as I2a-Dinaric in the Balkans, but it didn't get to Armenia or IndiaCould be, if you assume that Yamnaya folks were not homogenous themselves. But I don't think so, I think that all Yamnaya folks were every similar to each other and that everybody around Yamnaya had some degree of WHG in her/him. but my point is that Reich was part of the same team as Patterson. And Petterson already stated his conclusion that Yamnaya is NOT PIE Urheimat. Yamaya was just intermediate place where Indo-Europized folks just migrated from there into Europe. If he had his doubts he would never mention that! Why would he come with such a premature conclusion of ruling out that Yamnay was part of pie IF he had any doubts? I'm sure that the upcoming paper on Yamnaya will suggest that PIE Urheimat must be located somewhere south of Yamnaya, because lack of WHG in Armenians, East Iranians, Indians. It's even possible that they found some J2a in Yamnaya too, we only have to wait for some time for the results. But Patterson already revealed what we should expect!

Goga
10-02-15, 12:32
Goga may be right after all : maybe Leyla Tepe were the first IEOf course I'm right. Just wait and see. I don't have hidden agenda at all. I'm not sensitive or insecure for this kind of things. I want concrete answers, but I don't care for the what kind of answers. I'm not looking for manipulative answers to feed my hidden agenda; I want FACTS. I do use my brains and I'm very rational. More people should be more rational and less insecure...

bicicleur
10-02-15, 12:40
Could be, if you assume that Yamnaya folks were not homogenous themselves. But I don't think so, I think that all Yamnaya folks were every similar to each other and that everybody around Yamnaya had some degree of WHG in her/him. but my point is that Reich was part of the same team as Patterson. And Petterson already stated his conclusion that Yamnaya is NOT PIE Urheimat. Yamaya was just intermediate place where Indo-Europized folks just migrated from there into Europe. If he had his doubts he would never mention that! Why would he come with such a premature conclusion of ruling out that Yamnay was part of pie IF he had any doubts? I'm sure that the upcoming paper on Yamnaya will suggest that PIE Urheimat must be located somewhere south of Yamnaya, because lack of WHG in Armenians, East Iranians, Indians. It's even possible that they found some J2a in Yamnaya too, we only have to wait for some time for the results. But Patterson already revealed what we should expect!

we should await the publication of the paper
but IMO , Yamnaya folks spoke the same language but they consisted of different mobile tribes with regular contacts among them and probably also some exchange of mtDNA
otherwise it is hard to explain how they split along genetic lines : R1b-M269, R1b-M73, R1a-Z283, R1a-Z93 they all seem to have gone there own seperate ways after Yamnaya
i don't think you can explain all this as founder effects

Goga
10-02-15, 12:42
We have 6 concrete facts from archaeological and genetic view of points. 1) Kurgans in Maykop are older than Kurgans in Yamnaya. FACT. 2) There was a migration of people from south INTO Yamnaya, R1b was just 1 of those haplogroups that migrated into Yamnaya from West Asia. FACT. 3) There's a Gedrosia component among R1b rich areas in Europe. And Gedrosia is NOT native to Europe, is it? FACT. 4) Indo-European Armenians are R1b (and J2a) folks and the don't have WHG in them. Indo-European South-Central Asians are R1a-Z93 (and J2a) folks that also lack of WHG component. R1a-Z93 in SouthCentral Asia came from West Asia, together with J2a 6) Last but not least, there's J2a in ALL Indo-European folks. There's a lot J2a in Greeace, Armenia, South-Central Asia etc. So J2a has also to be part of PIE. And we know for sure that J2a is West Asian!

bicicleur
10-02-15, 12:44
Of course I'm right. Just wait and see. I don't have hidden agenda at all. I'm not sensitive or insecure for this kind of things. I want concrete answers, but I don't care for the what kind of answers. I'm not looking for manipulative answers to feed my hidden agenda; I want FACTS. I do use my brains and I'm very rational. More people should be more rational and less insecure...

do you have more info on Leyla Tepe than what's in wikipedia? I don't find any
it might answer my questions here : did Anatolian and Tochars split from IE south or north of the Caucasus?

bicicleur
10-02-15, 12:52
We have 6 concrete facts from archaeological and genetic view of points. 1) Kurgans in Maykop are older than Kurgans in Yamnaya. FACT. 2) There was a migration of people from south INTO Yamnaya, R1b was just 1 of those haplogroups that migrated into Yamnaya from West Asia. FACT. 3) There's a Gedrosia component among R1b rich areas in Europe. And Gedrosia is NOT native to Europe, is it? FACT. 4) Indo-European Armenians are R1b (and J2a) folks and the don't have WHG in them. Indo-European South-Central Asians are R1a-Z93 (and J2a) folks that also lack of WHG component. R1a-Z93 in SouthCentral Asia came from West Asia, together with J2a 6) Last but not least, there's J2a in ALL Indo-European folks. There's a lot J2a in Greeace, Armenia, South-Central Asia etc. So J2a has also to be part of PIE. And we know for sure that J2a is West Asian!

and what subclade(s) of J2a would that be ?
J2a is very old, IMO they split allready some 22000 years ago
there is J2a-M67 with 2 different centers of highest diversity : the levant and the Caucasus ?

Goga
10-02-15, 12:53
do you have more info on Leyla Tepe than what's in wikipedia? I don't find any
it might answer my questions here : did Anatolian and Tochars split from IE south or north of the Caucasus?I've more info about Leyla-Tepe but it's in Russian. Not much people write about this, because most folks are ethnocentric and don’t like the fact that Leyla-Tepe is the Urheimat of everything. It's also a very recent discovery. It's possible that the split of Anatolian and Tochars occured not in Leyla-Tepe, but rather around MAYKOP! I've only some links in Russian for you about Leyla-Tepe (Лейлатепинская культура) . http://arxeoloq.az/?p=283 is one of them.

http://arxeoloq.az/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ar31.jpg

Goga
10-02-15, 12:57
and what subclade(s) of J2a would that be ?
J2a is very old, IMO they split allready some 22000 years ago
there is J2a-M67 with 2 different centers of highest diversity : the levant and the Caucasus ?So what, about the age of J2a? R1b and R1a are also VERY old. I do belong to a R1a* which is ancestral to both European and Indian R1a*. Some (African) clades of R1b are also old and not really Indo-European. What kind of J2a did they found not so long time ago in a Bronze age Hungary fella?

Fire Haired14
10-02-15, 13:20
So were you present at the conference? Or did someone else who was present at the conference clearly state that? Because it definitely doesn't seem clear to me from what Jean Manco posted. I may be mistaken and R1b may in fact be from Yamnaya, but I don't think Manco's posts on the other forum make that clear at all. And in fact we do have two pre-IE Bell Beaker Rib samples. I wonder if Reich's sampling included Iberia Bell Beaker Y DNA samples. I would assume it must have, as otherwise any comments he made about Iberian BB Y DNA would have been made sans data. I had assumed that all the new DNA samples being looked at were from the Samara region.

JEan said this. It was the biggest news, and as a result there were like 100s of comments about it.

bicicleur
10-02-15, 14:59
So what, about the age of J2a? R1b and R1a are also VERY old. I do belong to a R1a* which is ancestral to both European and Indian R1a*. Some (African) clades of R1b are also old and not really Indo-European. What kind of J2a did they found not so long time ago in a Bronze age Hungary fella?

IE is 6-6500 years old
it is very likely that anything beyond the R1a-M417 split is IE
it is very likely that anything beyond the R1b-M297 or M-269 split is IE
but 6500 years ago there were allready a lot of subclades for J2a

bicicleur
10-02-15, 15:11
I've more info about Leyla-Tepe but it's in Russian. Not much people write about this, because most folks are ethnocentric and don’t like the fact that Leyla-Tepe is the Urheimat of everything. It's also a very recent discovery. It's possible that the split of Anatolian and Tochars occured not in Leyla-Tepe, but rather around MAYKOP! I've only some links in Russian for you about Leyla-Tepe (Лейлатепинская культура) . http://arxeoloq.az/?p=283 is one of them.

http://arxeoloq.az/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ar31.jpg

2000 BC - 2000 years later a mystery tribe arrived in Iberia and conquered La Bastida http://www.la-bastida.com/LaBastida/
https://www.google.be/search?q=La+Bastida&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=799&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=EBDaVK7-IMvzavrSgdgJ&ved=0CDYQsAQ
they had the same burrials
they were warriors and introduced the Iberian Bronze : El Argar culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Argar

it is 2000 year later, very much later, but still before Hittites entered history
so it is still possible this tribe had the same origin

Goga
10-02-15, 15:30
IE is 6-6500 years old
it is very likely that anything beyond the R1a-M417 split is IE
it is very likely that anything beyond the R1b-M297 or M-269 split is IE
but 6500 years ago there were allready a lot of subclades for J2aOk, but do you really think that J2a stopped evolving 6000 years ago? Of course not. There were already different subclades of R1b, R1a AND J2a 6000 years ago. There're many different types of J2a. J2a is still evolving. The Romans and ancient Greeks had different J2a than the Southwest Asian people. People in the Caucaus have different J2a than the Jews. Subclade of J2a in Caucasus, Kurdistan, Iran, Central Asia, India are different than sublcades outside those regions, etc.
I think that some subclades of J2a1 have something to do with the migration of Indo-European tribes into SouthCentral Asia (BMAC) and Yamnaya. Fact is that there's J2a all over Europe and it came AFTER 6000 BCE. The most ancient J2a they found was not so long time ago, among the Bronze age warrior people in Hungary. And that J2a is from the times when Indo-Europized folks from Yamnaya migrated into Europe...

Angela
10-02-15, 16:05
Some new information from Jean Manco:

"Mesolithic samples are similar across Europe. (He means those of which he has samples, which does not include Greece it seems.)

Elsewhere, Krefter has assumed that this included EHG. Reich did not say so. I took it that he was referring to WHG. There would be no point in a different label if EHG was the same as WHG. Reich said that EHG was was 50% X and 50% Y (I wasn't fast enough to note the components, but assume ANE and WHG.) "

Also,
"I did indeed make a mistake. Looking at my notes, what he actually said was that in Yamnaya we see a shift towards ANE, so that from around 3000 BC the Late Neolithic migration samples start to look like modern Europeans. He did not say that Yamnaya were a mixture of ANE and the Near Eastern type population. We did indeed already know from Nick Patterson that Yamnaya was a mix of EHG and something ANE/Near Eastern. http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2015...f-eastern.html (http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/yamnaya-genomes-are-5050-mix-of-eastern.html)

I noted that Reich did not mention the ANE-richness of the Near Eastern type component, but what he did say was perfectly compatible with it. "

That rather confuses the issue for me. On the one hand, he says that the samples started to look like modern Europeans around 3000 BC, which is rather late. On the other hand, he says that he sees a shift toward more ANE as time passes. So, does he mean that the admixture event between the NearEastern/ANE group and the EHG (WHG and ANE) group didn't take place until 3000 BC?

Also, didn't they previously say that the mtDna around Samara started to change around 4000 BC?

That's pretty late, right? Some steppe groups will have already moved to the Balkans and other areas by that time, yes?

Also, Razib Khan has chimed in...
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/there-were-giants-in-the-earth-in-those-days/

Silesian
10-02-15, 16:14
Also, Razib Khan has chimed in...
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/there-were-giants-in-the-earth-in-those-days/

Oh that guy isn't he R1a ?
LMAO

Aaron1981
10-02-15, 16:19
So were you present at the conference? Or did someone else who was present at the conference clearly state that? Because it definitely doesn't seem clear to me from what Jean Manco posted. I may be mistaken and R1b may in fact be from Yamnaya, but I don't think Manco's posts on the other forum make that clear at all. And in fact we do have two pre-IE Bell Beaker Rib samples. I wonder if Reich's sampling included Iberia Bell Beaker Y DNA samples. I would assume it must have, as otherwise any comments he made about Iberian BB Y DNA would have been made sans data. I had assumed that all the new DNA samples being looked at were from the Samara region.

Pre-IE Bell Beaker? What evidence do you have of that? "Just 'Cuz"?

Jean Manco is pretty clear stating Reich said Yamnaya was a spread of both R1a and R1b. To make such a bold statement would mean the earlier remains were xR1a, xR1b, and the Yamnaya burials had both R1a and R1b.

Angela
10-02-15, 17:16
Oh that guy isn't he R1a ?
LMAO

I would say that "Giants" is not the word I would choose for people whom Razib Khan suspects deliberately "cleared" central and northern Europe of their previous inhabitants.

"In this case I suspect that a better analogy may be the future that Genghis Khan had in mind for Northern China before his adviser Yelü Chucai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yel%C3%BC_Chucai) dissuaded him: the North European plain was cleared out of people and turned over to pastureland. Genghis Khan and his Mongols were convinced of the value of Chinese as tax paying peasants, who could support the Mongol elite with their surplus. I suspect in a pre-state society such considerations were less relevant, as the institutional frameworks which would allow for the smooth absorption of subordinate groups were less elaborated, or even non-existent. "

By that measure, the Nazis who also wanted to clear the North European plain, in this case of Poles, in order to replace them with German farmers, were also "Giants".

I can't speak to Razib Khan's motivations. Probably it was just an unfortunate formulation. However, the problem with this entire field is that many of the enthusiasts, usually men, approach it with an agenda based on their own particular yDna, and their to me inexplicable desire to have it associated with a culture that rose to dominance, even if that rise meant that they wiped out whole other cultures or at least all the males of that culture.

I used to think it was puerile thinking by adolescent or twenty something young men, but even older and one would think wiser people also buy into these kinds of scenarios. So, I suspect that racialist thinking is a substratum to some of these kinds of analyses even in people who don't verbalize that kind of philosophy, that, combined with a serious lack of moral training. If people have been around long enough, which it seems many have not, they would know that those kinds of noxious opinions were openly expressed just a few years ago. It also has a long history in Indo-European studies. The opinions of the original writers for the Journal of Indo-European studies are appallingly racialist. They will be turning over in their graves if it turns out that half of the genetics of these people was Near Eastern. Good.

Silesian
10-02-15, 18:33
I would say that "Giants" is not the word.......

Angela I love your posts coupled with knowledge and mild and professional demeanor. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed or the sharpest crayon in the pack so any post has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. However I have been around long enough to know the players and their perspectives/slant of competing y male lineages. The post is not alluding to the article you posted. Not long ago I debated a very well known blogger about the Caucasus; which he insisted no by-directional gene flow.He almost made it seem like an impenetrable barrier. Well now we have come full circle imo, so I'll save you the details out of respect for him[over all he is well mannered and quite bright-although he is stubborn at times]; these debates have been going on for years on various boards. Thankfully we have the Maestro at the helm of this important website.

As for giants I agree. However I like the weird and unusual take on history, ultimate science will provide us with answers.[ it was nice also for JeanM to take time from her schedule and relay the comments of Professor of Genetics, David Reich]

Anyway, I always wondered about some of the the accounts below, not scientific and no actual proof anyway interesting


Later historians (e.g. Johannes Aventinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Aventinus) and Johann Hübner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_H%C3%BCbner)) managed to furnish numerous further details, including the assertion by James Anderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Anderson_%28Freemason%29) in the early 18th century that this Tuiscon was in fact none other than the biblical Ashkenaz, son of Gomer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomer).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenaz#cite_note-Anderson-5) James Anderson's 1732 tome Royal genealogies reports a significant number of antiquarian or mythographic traditions regarding Askenaz as the first king of ancient Germany, for example the following entry:

Askenaz, or Askanes, called by Aventinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Aventinus) Tuisco the Giant, and by others Tuisto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuisto) or Tuizo (whom Aventinus makes the 4th son of Noah, and that he was born after the flood, but without authority) was sent by Noah into Europe, after the flood 131 years, with 20 Captains, and made a settlement near the Tanais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanais), on the West coast of the Euxin sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euxine) (by some called Asken from him) and there founded the kingdom of the Germans and the Sarmatians... when Askenaz himself was 24 years old, for he lived above 200 years, and reigned 176.
In the vocables of Saxony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxony) and Hessia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessia), there are some villages of the name Askenaz, and from him the Jews call the Germans Askenaz, but in the Saxonic and Italian, they are called Tuiscones, from Tuisco his other name. In the 25th year of his reign, he partitioned the kingdom into Toparchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toparchies), Tetrarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchies), and Governments, and brought colonies from diverse parts to increase it. He built the city Duisburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duisburg), made a body of laws in verse, and invented letters, which Kadmos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmus) later imitated, for the Greek and High Dutch are alike in many words.The 20 captains or dukes that came with Askenaz are: Sarmata, from whom Sarmatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatia); Dacus or Danus – Dania or Denmark; Geta from whom the Getae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae); Gotha from whom the Goths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths); Tibiscus, people on the river Tibiscus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibiscus); Mocia - Mysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysia); Phrygus or Brigus - Phrygia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygia); Thynus - Bithynia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithynia); Dalmata - Dalmatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatia); Jader – Jadera Colonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadar); Albanus from whom Albania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania); Zavus – the river Save (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sava); Pannus – Pannonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonia); Salon - the town Sale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale,_Piedmont), Azalus – the Azali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azali_%28Illyrian_tribe%29); Hister – Istria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istria); Adulas, Dietas, Ibalus – people that of old dwelt between the rivers Oenus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oenus_%28river%29) and Rhenus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine); Epirus, from whom Epirus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epirus).Askenaz had a brother called Scytha (say the Germans) the father of the Scythians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians), for which the Germans have of old been called Scythians too (very justly, for they came mostly from old Scythia) and Germany had several ancient names; for that part next to the Euxin was called Scythia, and the country of the Getes, but the parts east of the Vistule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula) or Weyssel were called Sarmatia Europaea, and westward it was called Gallia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallia), Celtica, Allemania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamanni), Francia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francia) and Teutonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuton); for old Germany comprehended the greater part of Europe; and those called Gauls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauls) were all old Germans; who by ancient authors were called Celts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celt), Gauls and Galatians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia), which is confirmed by the historians Strabo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabo) and Aventinus, and by Alstedius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Heinrich_Alsted) in his Chronology, p. 201 etc. Askenaz, or Tuisco, after his death, was worshipped as the ambassador and interpreter of the gods, and from thence called the first German Mercury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28mythology%29), from Tuitseben to interpret.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenaz#cite_note-Anderson-5)


I can't read Hebrew but this one also looks interesting.
In rabbinic literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_literature), the kingdom of Ashkenaz was first associated with the Scythian region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia), then later with the Slavic territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_Europe),- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenaz#cite_note-1)Kraus. S, 1932, Hashemot 'ashkenaz usefarad, Tarbiz 3:423-435

Aberdeen
10-02-15, 19:42
JEan said this. It was the biggest news, and as a result there were like 100s of comments about it.

Perhaps. What I read in that post that Angela linked to was Manco's comment about R1b having less ANE than R1a and the proportions of EEF, WHG and ANE being different among Iberian Bell Beaker than in Germany (she didn't clarify whether he meant among German BB). So I assumed that she was talking about differences between Iberian BB R1b versus CW and/or IE R1a. Especially since Eurogenes has clarified that Reich does have unpublished samples from around Europe, including Iberia. But I haven't had time to read all the posts on that other forum, so perhaps that wasn't what she meant. Am having a busy day, but I will read more on the other forum this evening in to get a better idea of what's been said about it. Like I said before, if there is R1b among Yamnaya, I want subclade details.

Aberdeen
10-02-15, 19:56
Pre-IE Bell Beaker? What evidence do you have of that? "Just 'Cuz"?

Jean Manco is pretty clear stating Reich said Yamnaya was a spread of both R1a and R1b. To make such a bold statement would mean the earlier remains were xR1a, xR1b, and the Yamnaya burials had both R1a and R1b.

Certainly pre Bronze Age in Europe. I was talking about the samples from graves 5 and 8 in the Kromsdorf samples from Germany dated to 2600-2500 BC. And Corded Ware samples found so far are partly R1a but no R1b. If we consider CW to be 75% Yamnaya but not necessarily IE, I think we have to consider BB to be not necessarily IE - they were certainly pre Bronze Age. But since Reich apparently has unpublished results from across Europe, apparently including some BB from Iberia, the results should be interesting.

Maciamo
10-02-15, 20:18
Thank you Maciamo.
Do you also have details of Anatolian R1a and R1b subclades?

There is also a little bit of R1a-Z280 in Anatolia that could have come in the Early Bronze Age. Of course the majority of R1a today is Z93, because that was the variety brought by the Mittani, Indo-Iranians, Scythians, Turks and Kurds. What is almost certain is that the Anatolian branch of IE was predominantly R1b-L23. I think the proportion of R1b to R1a would have been closer to 10:1. The Tocharians would have absorbed R1a people in the Volga-Ural region, but the Anatolian descended straight from the R1b-rich tribes from the coastal Pontic steppe.

Greying Wanderer
10-02-15, 21:33
This seems to confirms everything I have theorised over the last six years about the history of R1b.

R1b came from the Near East, crossed the Caucasus to the Pontic Steppe, then spread westward to the rest of Europe. The Bell Beaker period saw the progressive invasion of R1b people in what was originally a non-R1b culture, hence the higher ANE in German BB samples than in Iberian ones (proof that R1b came countercurrent to the original diffusion of the Bell Beaker culture from Iberia to central Europe).


If the BB that arrived in Iberia were only or mostly males who took local wives the ANE of their offspring would be lower.

edit1: I think the source region for R1b will be a region with extensive copper deposits.

More generally I this will be the general pattern over the metal ages with the sources of cultural innovation shifting to those regions with the requisite metal deposits first copper deposits, then arsenic copper or copper and tin and then finally iron.

edit2:
I think Razib's point about giants i.e. physical size, is likely to be relevant.

Fire Haired14
10-02-15, 22:53
Perhaps. What I read in that post that Angela linked to was Manco's comment about R1b having less ANE than R1a and the proportions of EEF, WHG and ANE being different among Iberian Bell Beaker than in Germany (she didn't clarify whether he meant among German BB). So I assumed that she was talking about differences between Iberian BB R1b versus CW and/or IE R1a. Especially since Eurogenes has clarified that Reich does have unpublished samples from around Europe, including Iberia. But I haven't had time to read all the posts on that other forum, so perhaps that wasn't what she meant. Am having a busy day, but I will read more on the other forum this evening in to get a better idea of what's been said about it. Like I said before, if there is R1b among Yamnaya, I want subclade details.

She said it. I'm, not a liar, geez!!

Fire Haired14
10-02-15, 22:56
Indeed, he does, and Jean Manco as well. I have thought it rather shabby that those who disagreed with her have so often been disrespectful. It continues even today as she is being cross examined and found wanting apparently for not having a photographic memory. Totally boorish and uncivilized behavior...

Just because she went to the lecture, doesn't mean we have to spoil her.

For whatever reasons she took hours to tell key info, like EHG was 50/50 x/y(WHG/ANE?) and that Reich said R1a and R1b are from Yamna. If you think she's somehow justified to make 100s of people online to wait for hours and hours and waste their days reloading their screen, there's problem. She took the conservative skeptical scientific mindset too far. She can at least make guesses based on her memory.

bicicleur
11-02-15, 00:41
There is also a little bit of R1a-Z280 in Anatolia that could have come in the Early Bronze Age. Of course the majority of R1a today is Z93, because that was the variety brought by the Mittani, Indo-Iranians, Scythians, Turks and Kurds. What is almost certain is that the Anatolian branch of IE was predominantly R1b-L23. I think the proportion of R1b to R1a would have been closer to 10:1. The Tocharians would have absorbed R1a people in the Volga-Ural region, but the Anatolian descended straight from the R1b-rich tribes from the coastal Pontic steppe.

If Anatolians really entered the Balkans 6000 years ago, we have to find out how they succeeded to conquer Anatolia and come into history 2000 years later.
David Anthony also mentions Usatovo in control of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people and trading with people near the Volga and with the Aegean Sea (glass beads) till 5000 years ago.
That is when Troy was founded, probably by another rival Anatolian tribe. They must have blocked the trade between Usatovo and the Aegean Sea.
It is this kind of power play, dominating other indogenous tribes and competing with other tribes to dominate trade routes that must have made Hittites dominate the Hattians.
Through their trading skills and their connections, they were probably the first with horses and charriots in the Anatolian area. They also may have been the ones that brought the bronze age into the Aegean.

Aberdeen
11-02-15, 01:04
She said it. I'm, not a liar, geez!!

I never said you were a liar. I said I hadn't personally found that comment, just something in her initial post that I thought could be misinterpreted. However, I've now waded through that long thread and she did indeed say that Reich said Yamnaya brought R1b to Europe, but I think that's a bit vague. Did he mean the Samara samples included R1b or was he making assumptions based on something he found elsewhere? And what subclades were involved? I'm no longer expecting the paper to provide definitive results. I'm sure it will shed some light, but only if people don't jump to too many conclusions on the basis of too little data.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 12:01
If Anatolians really entered the Balkans 6000 years ago, we have to find out how they succeeded to conquer Anatolia and come into history 2000 years later.
David Anthony also mentions Usatovo in control of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people and trading with people near the Volga and with the Aegean Sea (glass beads) till 5000 years ago.
That is when Troy was founded, probably by another rival Anatolian tribe. They must have blocked the trade between Usatovo and the Aegean Sea.
It is this kind of power play, dominating other indogenous tribes and competing with other tribes to dominate trade routes that must have made Hittites dominate the Hattians.
Through their trading skills and their connections, they were probably the first with horses and charriots in the Anatolian area. They also may have been the ones that brought the bronze age into the Aegean.

The Hittites only appear in the historical record 2000 years later, but that doesn't mean that IE Anatolian speakers weren't already in Anatolia before that. In fact, Troy was founded 5000 years ago and was Luwian speaking. It is certain that not all IE Anatolian speakers moved to Anatolia at the same time. Eventhough the Hittites appear c. 2000 BCE, the Phrygians and Armenians only migrated from the Balkans to Anatolia c. 1200 BCE.

Tomenable
12-02-15, 02:44
I'm confused about this paper - there are contradictory opinions about its credibility, for example here:

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=85&p=23613#p23613


David Reich and his associates have published a paper containing a lot of new genetic data from prehistoric Europe. These data utterly refute the Kurgan hypothesis, and yet Reich and his associates are so stupid that they actually think the data support the hypothesis.

Tomenable
12-02-15, 12:19
Tocharians were R1a, but they were not Z93 (instead, they were European R1a) - check:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15

And this is from the comments section (about Tocharians from Xiaohe and their R1a):


Hui Zhou (2014-07-18 16:14) Jilin University

Archaeological and anthropological investigations have helped to formulate two main theories to account for the origin of the populations in the Tarim Basin. The first, so-called “steppe hypothesis”, maintains that the earliest settlers may have been nomadic herders of the Afanasievo culture (ca. 3300-2000 B.C.), a primarily pastoralist culture distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions of the steppe north of the Tarim Basin. The second model, known as the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis”, it maintains that the first settlers were farmers of the Oxus civilization (ca. 2200-1500 B.C.) west of Xinjiang in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan. These contrasting models can be tested using DNA recovered from archaeological bones. Xiaohe cemetery contains the oldest and best-preserved mummies so far discovered in the Tarim Basin, possible those of the earliest people to settle the region. Genetic analysis of these mummies can provide data to elucidate the affinities of the earliest inhabitants.

Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried Hg R1a1 in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M*in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belonging to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data) which is mainly found in Asians. mtDNA Hgs H, K, C4 primarily distributed in northern Eurasians. Though H, K, C4 also presence in modern south Asian, they immigrated into South Asian recently from nearby populations, such as Near East , East Asia and Central Asia, and the frequency is obviously lower than that of northern Eurasian. Furthermore, all of the shared sequences of the Xiaohe haplotypes H and C4 were distributed in northern Eurasians. Haplotype 223-304 in Xiaohe people was shared by Indian. However, these sequences were attributed to HgM25 in India, and in our study it was not HgM25 by scanning the mtDNA code region. Therefore, our DNA results didn't supported Clyde Winters’s opinion but supported the “steppe hypothesis”. Moreover, the culture of Xiaohe is similar with the Afanasievo culture. Afanasievo culture was mainly distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions, and didn’t spread into India. This further maintains the “steppe hypothesis”.

In addition, our data was misunderstand by Clyde Winters. Firstly, the human remains of the Xiaohe site have no relation with the Loulan mummy. The Xiaohe site and Loulan site are two different archaeological sites with 175km distances. Xiaohe site, radiocarbon dated ranging from 4000 to 3500 years before present, was a Bronze Age site, and Loulan site, dated to about 2000 years before present. Secondly, Hgs H and K are the mtDNA haplogroups not the Y chromosome haplogroups in our study. Thirdly, the origin of Xiaohe people in here means tracing the most recently common ancestor, and Africans were remote ancestor of modern people.

Tomenable
12-02-15, 12:24
Check also (about Tocharians):

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/tokol-0-X.html

http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm

bicicleur
12-02-15, 14:50
Tocharians were R1a, but they were not Z93 (instead, they were European R1a) - check:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15

And this is from the comments section (about Tocharians from Xiaohe and their R1a):

Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belonging to R1a1a-Z93 branch

The Y chromosome haplogroup of the seven males were all assigned to haplogroup R1a1a through screening the Y-SNPs at M89, M9, M45, M173 and M198 successively.

Where they tested for Z93 ?
M198 = R1a1a, but there is no mention of any snp further downstream
the mummies are not more than 4000 years old, not older than the Indo-Iranian expansian, and much younger than the Tochars

Tomenable
12-02-15, 15:39
Where they tested for Z93 ?

The paper is from 2010, but the new data (which says that they were not Z93) is from 2014, and has not yet been published:


Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belonging to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data)

The comment was made (in 2014) by one of authors of that 2010 paper - Hui Zhou. Maybe he will publish this new data soon ???

bicicleur
12-02-15, 17:43
The paper is from 2010, but the new data (which says that they were not Z93) is from 2014, and has not yet been published:



The comment was made (in 2014) by one of authors of that 2010 paper - Hui Zhou. Maybe he will publish this new data soon ???

ok , that is new
I'd like to see the paper when it'll be published - for what snps did they test ?
any idea whether there is any R1a1a - xZ93 in present Chinese/Mongolian/eastern Siberian left ?

Tomenable
12-02-15, 19:30
By the way:


R1a1a1b1a2-Z280 from Late Bronze Age East Germany, Halberstadt, Lusatian Culture. 1113 -1021 BCE

So we have Balto-Slavic Y-DNA in Lusatian Culture:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml


R1a-Z280 is also an Balto-Slavic marker, found all over central and Eastern Europe, with a western limit running from East to south-west Germany and to Northeast Italy. It can be divided in many clusters: East Slavic, Baltic, Pomeranian, Polish, Carpathian, East-Alpine, Czechoslovak, and so on.

Moreover, it was found in the westernmost peripheries:

http://s23.postimg.org/ejjquv6d7/Lusatian_Culture.png

Tomenable
15-02-15, 22:45
BTW:

1) All of modern R1a M417 (which is 99% of total R1a in the world today) is descended from ONE SINGLE MALE who lived 4800 - 6800 years ago.

2) All of modern I1 M253 (which is also great majority of I1 in the world) is descended from ONE SINGLE MALE who lived around 5000 years ago.

And ancestor of all R1a M417 lived in Karelia 7500 - 7000 years ago, while ancestor of all I1 M253 lived in Hungary 7000 years ago.

===============================

Is most of R1b among the Basques descended from that Pre-Indo-European Neolithic Spanish R1b ???

Check:


I0410 (Spain_EN)
We determined that this individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (M415:9170545C→A), with upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, the individual was ancestral for R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C), R1b1a2 (PF6399:2668456C→T, L265:8149348A→G, L150.1:10008791C→T and M269:22739367T→C), R1b1c2 (V35:6812012T→A), and R1b1c3 (V69:18099054C→T), and could thus be designated R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2, R1b1c2, R1b1c3). The occurrence of a basal form of haplogroup R1b1 in both western Europe and R1b1a in eastern Europe (I0124 hunter-gatherer from Samara) complicates the interpretation of the origin of this lineage. We are not aware of any other western European R1b lineages reported in the literature before the Bell Beaker period (ref. 2 and this study). It is possible that either (i) the Early Neolithic Spanish individual was a descendant of a Neolithic migrant from the Near East that introduced this lineage to western Europe, or (ii) there was a very sparse distribution of haplogroup R1b in [Western] European hunter-gatherers and early farmers, so the lack of its detection in the published literature may reflect its occurrence at very low frequency. The occurrence of a basal form of R1b1 in western Europe logically raises the possibility that presentday western Europeans (who belong predominantly to haplogroup R1b1a2-M269) may trace their origin to early Neolithic farmers of western Europe. However, we think this is not likely given the existence of R1b1a2-M269 not only in western Europe but also in the Near East; such a distribution implies migrations of M269 males from western Europe to the Near East which do not seem archaeologically plausible. We prefer the explanation that R-M269 originated in the eastern end of its distribution, given its first appearance in the Yamnaya males (below) and in the Near East17.

And also:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/


Interestingly, all seven of the Yamnaya males sampled by Haak et al., mostly from the Samara Valley on the Ural steppe, belong to R1b-M269, the most common subclade of R1b today. However, five belong to the West Asian-specific R1b-Z1203, but none to the West European-specific R1b-M412. Also, all nine Yamnaya samples show Near Eastern admixture, described in the paper as Armenian-like.

Yamnaya subclades:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

R1b1a2a2*
R1b1a
R1b1a2a2
R1b1a2a*
R1b1a2a2
R1b1a2a2*
R1b1a2a2*