PDA

View Full Version : Central and South Asian DNA Paper



Pages : [1] 2 3

Johane Derite
31-03-18, 19:27
The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia

Vagheesh M Narasimhan, Nick J Patterson, Priya Moorjani, Iosif Lazaridis, Lipson Mark, Swapan Mallick, Nadin Rohland, Rebecca Bernardos, Alexander M Kim, Nathan Nakatsuka, Inigo Olalde, Alfredo Coppa, James Mallory, Vyacheslav Moiseyev, Janet Monge, Luca M Olivieri, Nicole Adamski, Nasreen Broomandkhoshbacht, Francesca Candilio, Olivia Cheronet, Brendan J Culleton, Matthew Ferry, Daniel Fernandes, Beatriz Gamarra, Daniel Gaudio, Mateja Hajdinjak, Eadaoin Harney, Thomas K Harper, Denise Keating, Ann-Marie Lawson, Megan Michel, Mario Novak, Jonas Oppenheimer, Niraj Rai, Kendra Sirak, Viviane Slon, Kristin Stewardson, Zhao Zhang, Gaziz Akhatov, Anatoly N Bagashev, Baurzhan Baitanayev, Gian Luca Bonora, Tatiana Chikisheva, Anatoly Derevianko, Enshin Dmitry, Katerina Douka, Nadezhda Dubova, Andrey Epimakhov, Suzanne Freilich, Dorian Fuller, Alexander Goryachev, Andrey Gromov, Bryan Hanks, Margaret Judd, Erlan Kazizov, Aleksander Khokhlov, Egor Kitov, Elena Kupriyanova, Pavel Kuznetsov, Donata Luiselli, Farhad Maksudov, Chris Meiklejohn, Deborah C Merrett, Roberto Micheli, Oleg Mochalov, Zahir Muhammed, Samridin Mustafakulov, Ayushi Nayak, Rykun M Petrovna, Davide Pettner, Richard Potts, Dmitry Razhev, Stefania Sarno, Kulyan Sikhymbaevae, Sergey M Slepchenko, Nadezhda Stepanova, Svetlana Svyatko, Sergey Vasilyev, Massimo Vidale, Dima Voyakin, Antonina Yermolayeva, Alisa Zubova, Vasant S Shinde, Carles Lalueza-Fox, Matthias Meyer, David Anthony, Nicole Boivin, Kumarasmy Thangaraj, Douglas Kennett, Michael Frachetti, Ron Pinhasi, David Reich

Abstract

The genetic formation of Central and South Asian populations has been unclear because of an absence of ancient DNA. To address this gap, we generated genome-wide data from 362 ancient individuals, including the first from eastern Iran, Turan (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan), Bronze Age Kazakhstan, and South Asia. Our data reveal a complex set of genetic sources that ultimately combined to form the ancestry of South Asians today. We document a southward spread of genetic ancestry from the Eurasian Steppe, correlating with the archaeologically known expansion of pastoralist sites from the Steppe to Turan in the Middle Bronze Age (2300-1500 BCE). These Steppe communities mixed genetically with peoples of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) whom they encountered in Turan (primarily descendants of earlier agriculturalists of Iran), but there is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians. Instead, Steppe communities integrated farther south throughout the 2nd millennium BCE, and we show that they mixed with a more southern population that we document at multiple sites as outlier individuals exhibiting a distinctive mixture of ancestry related to Iranian agriculturalists and South Asian hunter-gathers. We call this group Indus Periphery because they were found at sites in cultural contact with the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) and along its northern fringe, and also because they were genetically similar to post-IVC groups in the Swat Valley of Pakistan. By co-analyzing ancient DNA and genomic data from diverse present-day South Asians, we show that Indus Periphery-related people are the single most important source of ancestry in South Asia — consistent with the idea that the Indus Periphery individuals are providing us with the first direct look at the ancestry of peoples of the IVC — and we develop a model for the formation of present-day South Asians in terms of the temporally and geographically proximate sources of Indus Periphery-related, Steppe, and local South Asian hunter-gatherer-related ancestry. Our results show how ancestry from the Steppe genetically linked Europe and South Asia in the Bronze Age, and identifies the populations that almost certainly were responsible for spreading Indo-European languages across much of Eurasia.

LINK:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/31/292581

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior.../292581-2.xlsx (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2018/03/31/292581.DC1/292581-2.xlsx)

Johane Derite
31-03-18, 19:36
https://abload.de/img/iir_mfa6ns5v.png

Johane Derite
31-03-18, 19:38
https://abload.de/img/si_mfazcph8.png

Johane Derite
31-03-18, 19:39
"One Sentence Summary: Genome wide ancient DNA from 357 individuals from Central and South Asia sheds new light on the spread of Indo-European languages and parallels between the genetic history of two sub-continents, Europe and South Asia."

Johane Derite
31-03-18, 19:57
deleted comment, formatting issues

bicicleur
31-03-18, 20:17
looks interesting, I need some time to read and digest

Olympus Mons
31-03-18, 21:15
OMG!

I had already written about David Reich change of heart about PIE being from the South Caucasus. Now we know why.

“Andronovo pastoralists brought steppe ancestry to South Asia (Vagheesh et al. 2018 preprint)” is out and in the supplement there is a guy from Hajji Firuz in western Iran, that is a R1b-M269….by 5500bc(!). This means, in plain terms, OMG I was so right all along for all these years.

Let me talk about him, and why he is related to Shulaveri -Shomu in Armenia/Georgia. He was found in Hajji along side a couple J2b guys:
a. Both places have the oldest wine residue. So Shulaveri by 5800bc and here in Hajji 5500bc.
b. Both share the same pottery, specially the ones with “grapes” at the mouth.
c. Both settlements use tipical shulaveri circular mudbrick construction… and specially babies and women are buried under the floor in the same manner.
Its just a couple info. But to me it’s a glorious day. Indeed.

markozd
31-03-18, 21:48
R1b-Z2013 in 5900-5500 BCE Western Iran (I2327) at Hajji Firuz Tepe. We've found the male ancestor of the Yamnaya phenomenon :-)

Ygorcs
31-03-18, 21:53
That looks really fantastic. Do you have the links for that preprint? This and maybe several other findings that we will see in the next months or years are what probably covinced David Reich to propose an ultimate urheimat that is neither of the most well accepted ones, nor the steppe, nor Anatolia.

Angela
31-03-18, 21:56
Two immediate stand-outs:
No BMAC in Indians

R1b M269 6000 BC in Iran, along side J2b
I2327 K1a17a R1b1a1a2a2 Hajji_Firuz_C 5900-5500 BCE Iran

Maciamo was right, not that the usual suspects will acknowledge it.

markozd
31-03-18, 22:02
Also 2850-2460 BCE R1b-L151 in Afghanistan. Is this the earliest R1b-L151 discovered to date?

Olympus Mons
31-03-18, 22:12
deleted comment, formatting issues

Why did you move my thread?
Its not about the paper is about the fact that M269 is found in 5500 bc in Hajji Feruz.

Angela
31-03-18, 22:14
Why did you move my thread?
Its not about the paper is about the fact that M269 is found in 5500 bc in Hajji Feruz.

It belongs with the discussion of this paper.

Marko:

Also 2850-2460 BCE R1b-L151 in Afghanistan. Is this the earliest R1b-L151 discovered to date?

There's one in Northeastern Europe but I don't remember the date.

IronSide
31-03-18, 22:22
Two immediate stand-outs:
No BMAC in Indians
R1b M269 6000 BC in Iran, along side J2b
I2327 K1a17a R1b1a1a2a2 Hajji_Firuz_C 5900-5500 BCE Iran
Maciamo was right, not that the usual suspects will acknowledge it.

That's it. The homeland of the Indo-European languages is Iran. Done.

markozd
31-03-18, 22:24
Why did you move my thread?
Its not about the paper is about the fact that M269 is found in 5500 bc in Hajji Feruz.

According to the supplementary tables it's not only M269, it's Z2103 (i. e. the Y-DNA that predominates in Yamnaya) 1500 years before its predicted to have made its appearance as per mutation rate estimates. The nomenclature is quite unwieldy, but the table gives it as R1b1a1a2a2.

Olympus Mons
31-03-18, 22:32
According to the supplementary tables it's not only M269, it's Z2103 (i. e. the Y-DNA that predominates in Yamnaya) 1500 years before its predicted to have made its appearance as per mutation rate estimates. The nomenclature is quite unwieldy, but the table gives it as R1b1a1a2a2.

Yes. The excel seems all screwed up. Lets wait a bit longer.

Olympus Mons
31-03-18, 22:39
That's it. The homeland of the Indo-European languages is Iran. Done.
Not Iran. Actually irritatingly wrong by everyone. Enough. Its in Georgia Neolithic because that is where 90% of the shulaveri lived.
That is why oldest wine making was first in georgia and a couple centuries later it shows here in Hajji.
Btw, hajji firuz was clearly a Shulaveri Shomu offshoot in lake Urmia. Then, around 5400/5200bc some others arrive, the Dalma people.
But these dates they were the Shulaveri.

Sile
31-03-18, 22:40
OMG!

I had already written about David Reich change of heart about PIE being from the South Caucasus. Now we know why.

“Andronovo pastoralists brought steppe ancestry to South Asia (Vagheesh et al. 2018 preprint)” is out and in the supplement there is a guy from Hajji Firuz in western Iran, that is a R1b-M269….by 5500bc(!). This means, in plain terms, OMG I was so right all along for all these years.

Let me talk about him, and why he is related to Shulaveri -Shomu in Armenia/Georgia. He was found in Hajji along side a couple J2b guys:
a. Both places have the oldest wine residue. So Shulaveri by 5800bc and here in Hajji 5500bc.
b. Both share the same pottery, specially the ones with “grapes” at the mouth.
c. Both settlements use tipical shulaveri circular mudbrick construction… and specially babies and women are buried under the floor in the same manner.
Its just a couple info. But to me it’s a glorious day. Indeed.

Game over ...its Gonur Turkmenistan

site over 7000BC old
on the silk road
agriculture and mining
Site of founding of Zorastrian
haplogroup A found there as well as BT and CT ...........plus P , E and T

Thats it Turkmenistan home of BMAC ............

Ygorcs
31-03-18, 22:54
Game over ...its Gonur Turkmenistan

site over 7000BC old
on the silk road
agriculture and mining
Site of founding of Zorastrian
haplogroup A found there as well as BT and CT ...........plus P , E and T

Thats it Turkmenistan home of BMAC ............

Well, IE languages spread mostly with pastoralism, not agriculture (the earliest of its speakers actually seem to have practiced a pretty incipient agriculture)... BMAC also shows some (minor) AASI, which doesn't appear in later remains associated with IE expansive cultures. I don't know... And what exactly does haplogroup A being found there as well as BT and CT have to do with proving definitely that the earliest form of PIE came from BMAC Turkmenistan? I honestly didn't understand.

Sile
31-03-18, 23:20
Well, IE languages spread mostly with pastoralism, not agriculture (the earliest of its speakers actually seem to have practiced a pretty incipient agriculture)... BMAC also shows some (minor) AASI, which doesn't appear in later remains associated with IE expansive cultures. I don't know... And what exactly does haplogroup A being found there as well as BT and CT have to do with proving definitely that the earliest form of PIE came from BMAC Turkmenistan? I honestly didn't understand.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319453538_Manufacturing_and_trade_of_Asian_elephan t_ivory_in_Bronze_Age_Middle_Asia_Evidence_from_Go nur_Depe_Margiana_Turkmenistan

there is more.....much more from this area/site

Ygorcs
31-03-18, 23:42
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319453538_Manufacturing_and_trade_of_Asian_elephan t_ivory_in_Bronze_Age_Middle_Asia_Evidence_from_Go nur_Depe_Margiana_Turkmenistan

there is more.....much more from this area/site

I see, but there is no reason to believe that the earliest PIE speakers must have come from BMAC civilization just because it was very advanced and sophisticated for its time. The earliest PIE tribes were probably not even that developed and sophistiated compared to others, so I see no necessary cultural link between them. If we had seen a huge IE expansion based mostly on refined urban civilizations and luxury trades, I'd take this much more seriously, but that isn't what the archaeological and linguistic records indicate.

Besides, the article in the link you provided refers to the Bronze Age Oxus civilization of Turkmenistan. In the Bronze Age the fully developed and in fact already diverging IE tribes were already spreading from Central Europe to Central Asia, and Anatolian speakers were already in Anatolia forming their kingdoms. There is no use in investigating Bronze Age features of cultures in Turkmenistan when we are discussing about the earliest formation of PIE still in the Neolithic age, probably earlier than 4,500 or even 5,000 BC, before Yamna, CWC and any other seemingly IE-speaking culture. What happens in Iran or in Turkmenistan before the earliest introgression of CHG and R1b in the steppes probably interests us, but that was at the latest around 4,000 BC.

johen
01-04-18, 01:10
Are there any kazark Eneolithic and west siberian neolithic Y DNAs? why did they miss all of them? How come the yamna and afanasievo connection is to be explanined w/o their genes. They were all intermediate like okunevo.


All Botaya skulls are large, have a characteristic horizontal
Flatness in the front part, which is also noted in some ancient
Finds of Western Siberia (Protoka & Sopka-2), the steppe Urals (Gladunino-3),
Western Kazakhstan (Shoktybai, Kumsai, Zhirenkopa, Ishkinovka), the Eastern
Kazakhstan (Shiderty, Zhelezinka, Ust-Narymsky, Rough II), and the Northern
Turkmenistan (Tumek-Kichidzhik / Priaralye). Thus the Botany skulls
Represent a separate anthropological type, formed in the steppe
Part of Asia during the Eneolithic period - "Kazakh steppe type".

Angela
01-04-18, 01:44
Other than the fact that there's no BMAC in Indians, and that they found the ANE heavy admixing population (West Siberian hunter-gatherers), not much surprising in terms of the ethnogenesis of the South Asian populations.

I guess Reich got tired of waiting for the Indian scientists to bite the bullet and accept the obvious.

markozd
01-04-18, 03:22
Looks like someone on Anthrogenica got his hands on the data and sure enough the Hajji Firuz Tepe individual is R1b-Z2103. Autosomally all samples from this site are very similar - i. e. a coalescence of Iran Neolithic and Anatolian Neolithic streams of ancestry, with an emphasis on the former. Lazaridis predicted that such a population would have been the source of the southern ancestry in the PC steppe. Wow.

Angela
01-04-18, 03:28
Looks like someone on Anthrogenica got his hands on the data and sure enough the Hajji Firuz Tepe individual is R1b-Z2103. Autosomally all samples from this site are very similar - i. e. a coalescence of Iran Neolithic and Anatolian Neolithic streams of ancestry, with an emphasis on the former. Lazaridis predicted that such a population would have been the source of the southern ancestry in the PC steppe. Wow.

Wow indeed. So, the Anatolian Neolithic stream may have come from two directions, one from over the Caucasus and one from "Old Europe"?

If this is right, it also means our predictions as to dating are really off, yes? Wasn't R1b Z2103 supposed to be a lot younger than this?

I'm interested in those two pulses north too, one into Khvalynsk and the other into Yamnaya.

Overall "steppe" impact is not at all as high in South Asia as some would have had us believe. Maybe 10-20%, which would analogous perhaps to the situation in Greece? It's higher in Brahmins and princely castes, however, maybe from 20-30%.

Balkanite
01-04-18, 03:39
Hajji Firuz autosomal data for these 6 samples. (Green: Iranian Farmer - Orange: Anatolian Farmer)
http://i68.tinypic.com/xd5kc5.png
1. R1b-M269
2. J2b
3. No Y-dna
4. J2b
5. No Y-dna
6. CT


A simpler overview of the Y-Hg's from the study:
http://i65.tinypic.com/ehaczq.png

markozd
01-04-18, 04:13
Wow indeed. So, the Anatolian Neolithic stream may have come from two directions, one from over the Caucasus and one from "Old Europe"?

If this is right, it also means our predictions as to dating are really off, yes? Wasn't R1b Z2103 supposed to be a lot younger than this?

I'm interested in those two pulses north too, one into Khvalynsk and the other into Yamnaya.

Overall "steppe" impact is not at all as high in South Asia as some would have had us believe. Maybe 10-20%, which would analogous perhaps to the situation in Greece? It's higher in Brahmins and princely castes, however, maybe from 20-30%.

There was a paper last year that anticipated that age estimates based on ancient West Eurasian samples would be a bit off. Harris et al. "Rapid evolution of the human mutation spectrum". I think Reich referenced it a couple of times.

About South Asia: could the Siberian HGs have been the confounding factor? I have long wondered about groups like the Kalash, who in some models appeared to have steppe ancestry on par with north-eastern Europeans, but 'tribal' South Asian Y-DNA profiles. It's the mtdna that appears to be West Eurasian.

johen
01-04-18, 04:41
edit.........

Angela
01-04-18, 05:16
There was a paper last year that anticipated that age estimates based on ancient West Eurasian samples would be a bit off. Harris et al. "Rapid evolution of the human mutation spectrum". I think Reich referenced it a couple of times.

About South Asia: could the Siberian HGs have been the confounding factor? I have long wondered about groups like the Kalash, who in some models appeared to have steppe ancestry on par with north-eastern Europeans, but 'tribal' South Asian Y-DNA profiles. It's the mtdna that appears to be West Eurasian.

Well, having them as part of the equation certainly deflates the amount of steppe being proposed.

It's weird, as I said in one of these threads, that there's only one R1a among all these ancient samples, and that's from a relatively more recent time, a couple of centuries BC. I mean, who brought the darn steppe genes to the Kalash among others? Amazon type female migrants? :)

Maybe there are samples which the Reich Lab couldn't use because of the disputes with the Indian researchers?

It's a puzzle.

Tomenable
01-04-18, 05:28
According to this study, Mal'ta Boy was R1b-M269 and one of Iron Age Pakistan samples was R1b-U106.

Something is wrong with some haplogroup assignments here. Unless there were Germanics in Pakistan.

Mal'ta Boy is also way too old (~24,000 kya) to be R1b-M269.

Angela
01-04-18, 05:35
That may very well be. From what I hear, though, someone got the whole list of calls for this one sample and it does seem to be Z2103, and the archaeological setting seems pretty airtight.

Also, the analysis of the other two bodies in the grave matches that one autosomally. I mean, if he's an intrusive Bronze Age sample and he's Z2103, everyone would expect to see "steppe" in him, yes? The fact is he's just Iranian and Anatolian farmer, no steppe at all, and very similar to the two J2b samples with whom he's buried.

Of course, if there is a problem, everything would have to be re-thought.

berun
01-04-18, 08:17
Two immediate stand-outs:
No BMAC in Indians

R1b M269 6000 BC in Iran, along side J2b
I2327 K1a17a R1b1a1a2a2 Hajji_Firuz_C 5900-5500 BCE Iran

Maciamo was right, not that the usual suspects will acknowledge it.

Are you Maciamo's mom? ;)

Angela, Maciamo provides HG links for R1b in the steppe coming from Iran, but many more millenia ago: he suffers the same kind of steppitis as others, including blurred vision about steppe males getting by rape or import Caucasian brunettes to explain their CHG component. I remember when he said that Villabruna R1b was a steppe wanderer in Italy, now I'm waiting his opinion about other HG R1b wanderers in Germany, Lithuania, Romania... the same was true for R1b south of Caucasus, when I suggested that Yamna R1b-Z2103 was coming from the Caucasus as it was found a R1b guy in Kura-Araxes the answer was... that this guy came from... the steppe!

Game over for R1b from steppe! And now the new R1b guy from Iran, his date is allowing to his M269 bro a chance to participate with the EEF expansion from Anatolia...

Maciamo
01-04-18, 10:37
Are you Maciamo's mom? ;)
Angela, Maciamo provides HG links for R1b in the steppe coming from Iran, but many more millenia ago: he suffers the same kind of steppitis as others, including blurred vision about steppe males getting by rape or import Caucasian brunettes to explain their CHG component. I remember when he said that Villabruna R1b was a steppe wanderer in Italy, now I'm waiting his opinion about other HG R1b wanderers in Germany, Lithuania, Romania... the same was true for R1b south of Caucasus, when I suggested that Yamna R1b-Z2103 was coming from the Caucasus as it was found a R1b guy in Kura-Araxes the answer was... that this guy came from... the steppe!
Game over for R1b from steppe! And now the new R1b guy from Iran, his date is allowing to his M269 bro a chance to participate with the EEF expansion from Anatolia...

Did you even read my work? In my history of R1b (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Indo-European) I postulated many years ago that R1b-M269 probably crossed over the Caucasus into the Pontic Steppe shortly before 5200 BCE because the first clearly Proto-Indo-European cultures were the Khvalynsk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvalynsk_culture) (5200-4500 BCE).

This migration map from 2009 shows R1b moving from the South Caucasus into the Steppe between 6000 and 5000 BCE. I wasn't sure where exactly was the source of R1b-M269 in the South Caucasus, so I added a ? next to Hassuna. No DNA from Hassuna has been tested yet, so it could still be related to Shulaveni-Shomu.

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/old_neolithic_map.gif

On the very first R1b migration map that I made in 2009 (see this link (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#R1b_migration)as I can't copy/paste Flash maps here) I wrote that R1b crossed the Caucasus c. 7000 ybp (5000 BCE), although my arrow shows that it crossed on the western side of the Caucasus toward Maykop, but then I changed my mind a few months later for the above map as I thought it would be more likely that R1b have crossed to the east along the Caspian (just a little detail, it doesn't change the course of history).

I also wrote (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml#J2b2a1) that J2b2-L283 crossed the Caucasus at the same period and also become a PIE lineage. This was a simple deduction based on the fact that this haplogroup is about 6000 years old (according to Y-Full, but might be 7500 years old I think) and that it is found throughout Europe and South Asia, as well as in the South Caucasus from Eastern Anatolia to NW Iran (exactly the region where Neolithic R1b-M269 would have been found).

IronSide
01-04-18, 11:28
From Anthrogenica

Hajji Firuz (I2327) R1b calls:

R1b-1 derived call
R1b1-2 derived calls
R1b1a-4 derived calls
R1b1c-2 ancestral calls
R1b1a2-1 derived call
R1b1a1a(R1b-P297)- 5 derived calls
R1b1a2b-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2 (R1b-M269)-9 derived calls
R1b1a1a2a1-1 ancestral calls
R1b1a1a2a2 (R1b-Z2103) -3 derived calls
R1b1a1a2a1a-3 ancestral calls
R1b1a1a2a1a1-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1d-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1e-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1c3-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1g2-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2a5-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2b1-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a2c1a1-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2b1a-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2b1b-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2b3a-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1b-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1g-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1i-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1j-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1k-1 ancestral call
R1b1a2a1a1b1a1a-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1c2a1d-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b1b-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2a-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2b1c1b-1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1b2a 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1c1b 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1g3c 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b1a1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2a1a1a1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2a1b1a1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2b1c1b4 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1b1b3 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1e2b1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1g1a1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1g1b1 2 ancestral calls
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1g2a1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1k1a2 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a 2 ancestral calls
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1e2b3b 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1e2b4a 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1g1b1a 2 ancestral calls
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1k1a1a 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2b1c1b3a1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1e2b2a1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1e2b3a1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1g1b1a1 2 ancestral calls
R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2a1b1a 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a1a1a1a 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a1a1a1e 2 ancestral calls
R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2a1b1a1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a1a1a1a1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2a1b1a1b1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a2c1c1b1a2a1b1 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2a1b1a4a1a 1 ancestral call
R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a1a1e3a1 1 ancestrall call

IronSide
01-04-18, 11:30
I agree that there might be mistakes in assigning y dna. Mal'ta can't be that deep in the R1b tree.

The fundemental association between EHG or ANE in general to haplogroup R subclades seems valid to me. CHG has 20% EHG. Iran_N shares more alleles with EHG than WHG. This type of ancestry has a deep history in Iran and Caucasus. So it is possible for R subclades to exist without obvious EHG ancestry in this part of the world.

Maciamo
01-04-18, 11:42
It's a great paper, very extensive. Most of the results are what I expected.

- BMAC was a mixture of J2a (main haplogroup), G2a, L1a, Q1b and R2a, just as I had predicted.

- R1b went south from the Caspian Steppe across Central Asia and settled in Turan/BMAC. Nowadays R1b is far higher than Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and northern Afghanistan (Hazaras).

- R1a-Z93 went south from southern Siberia along the Tianshan to reach Pakistan and India. Once again that is expected as the R1a-Z93 concentration today are much higher along the Tianshan (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, eastern Afghanistan). What I don't understand is why this paper insists on separating the admixture of those R1a-Z93 people and calling them 'West Siberian HG related' when they in fact originated in the northern forest-steppe of Europe (around Belarus and northern Ukraine).


Here are a few things no one could expect:

- E1b1a1a1c2b1 (aka Z6005) in Mesolithic Iran (12,000 to 8,000 BCE), a Sub-Saharan African clade now found mostly in the far western end of Africa (Gambia, Sierra Leone). Hunter-gatherers did travel a long way... Y-Full says that its parent clade CTS6649 formed 9600 ybp and has a TMRCA of only 6700 ybp, so that is a gross underestimation as it had time to travel over 7000 km and be in Iran about 12,000 years ago.

- E1b1a1a1c2c3c, another SSA lineage, and plenty of Y-DNA A, BT and CT in the BMAC during the Bronze Age. The A, BT and CT could be early Homo sapiens lineages that died out, but why again West African Y-DNA in Central Asia?

- Surprisingly lots of (Levantine?) E1b1b1b2 with also some A0, CT, DE and E in Early Iron Age northern Pakistan. Was there a massive Natufian migration to the region in the Early Neolithic? Or is that more Paleolithic or Mesolithic African hunter-gatherers?

- I2a2a2a in Neolithic Turkmenistan (5000-2000 BCE). Is that an offshoot of a Neolithic culture of Old Europe, a Mesolithic European tribe that ended up in Central Asia, or an early Steppe invader?

- As mentioned before, Mal'ta can't be R1b1a1a2 and it's extremely suspicious to find a Nordic Bronze Age clade of R1b-U106 (S21728, downstream of Z9) in Iron Age Pakistan. Either it's a typo or that sample was contaminated.

IronSide
01-04-18, 11:56
E1b1a ... amazing.

The fun thing is that no sub Saharan ancestry in Iran Neolithic has been detected. Using formal stats. The same with the Natufians who are E1b1b.

Maybe Basal Eurasian is somehow connected to Africa ?

Olympus Mons
01-04-18, 11:59
Did you even read my work? In my history of R1b (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Indo-European) I postulated many years ago that R1b-M269 probably crossed over the Caucasus into the Pontic Steppe shortly before 5200 BCE because the first clearly Proto-Indo-European cultures were the Khvalynsk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvalynsk_culture) (5200-4500 BCE).
This migration map from 2009 shows R1b moving from the South Caucasus into the Steppe between 6000 and 5000 BCE. I wasn't sure where exactly was the source of R1b-M269 in the South Caucasus, so I added a ? next to Hassuna. No DNA from Hassuna has been tested yet, so it could still be related to Shulaveni-Shomu.
https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/old_neolithic_map.gif
On the very first R1b migration map that I made in 2009 (see this link (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#R1b_migration)as I can't copy/paste Flash maps here) I wrote that R1b crossed the Caucasus c. 7000 ybp (5000 BCE), although my arrow shows that it crossed on the western side of the Caucasus toward Maykop, but then I changed my mind a few months later for the above map as I thought it would be more likely that R1b have crossed to the east along the Caspian (just a little detail, it doesn't change the course of history).
I also wrote (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml#J2b2a1) that J2b2-L283 crossed the Caucasus at the same period and also become a PIE lineage. This was a simple deduction based on the fact that this haplogroup is about 6000 years old (according to Y-Full, but might be 7500 years old I think) and that it is found throughout Europe and South Asia, as well as in the South Caucasus from Eastern Anatolia to NW Iran (exactly the region where Neolithic R1b-M269 would have been found).
Then you were right the first time. They did cross via eastern black sea coast...to kuban river and up to samarra river.
Something dislodged the Shulaveri and that something came from south /south eastern.
They flee to west and northwest.
Btw, That Kum6 girl was clearly a shulaveri fleeing by 4700bc as I have been saying. So Pie went to north caucasus also to marmara sea region. At least.
Note: I always amed Hussuna as the culprits of attacking the Shulaveri but nowadays not so sure.
Also I think halaf might turn out R1b...
But, as in my "story", after 5000 bc all was defined by the Ubaid , Dalma and Uruk. The farmers , highly pastoral R1b were pretty much gone.

FIREYWOTAN
01-04-18, 12:01
Thank you for sharing the full contents of a subject that helped me to better understand. At times each thread seems more important than any other. Yet the locating a spark makes the choices less difficult. Opening the door to discovery add a focus for supporting a point of entry.

Population genetic characterization of ancient individuals
Population Modeling Strategy

In this section, we describe our overall strategy to model the admixture history in our set of3251 newly reported samples described in Supplementary materials section 1, which takes 33252 ordered steps in increasing order of complexity, each drawing on an understanding developed3253 by the previous step.32543255 First line of analysis – PCA and ADMIXTURE3256 We examine qualitative differences in ancestry in the newly reported samples by observing3257 the position of the samples on the West Eurasian and All Eurasian PCA plot (Methods) and3258 the magnitude and number of major components for each sample on the ADMIXTURE plot3259 (Methods). We have chosen the orientation of the West Eurasian and All Eurasian PCA plots3260 to correlate with geography (the genetic patterns mirror geography to an extent), providing an3261 intuitive map of the population structure and to some extent the history

Saetrus
01-04-18, 14:36
I used to give R1a the benefit of the doubt, but no R1a in Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Iran is a very strong indication that R1a is not even Indoeuropean.
R1a-Z93 only gained some relevance in IE Asia thousands of years after the spread of Indo-Iranian, Baltoslav(e)s must have picked up the IE language from their Scythian masters. R1b-M269 and J2 are the major IE markers.
https://i.imgur.com/wixAFlq.jpg

Silesian
01-04-18, 15:32
R1b-dates of 15 various samples.


1) Villabruna (Italia), Epigravettian, 12 200-11 800 BC
2)I5235, I5237, Mesolithic, 9500-6200 BCE-Iron Gates3)I1734, Mesolithic, 9000-7000 BCE-Ukraine4)SC1_Meso, SC2_Meso, I5411Mesolithic, 7000-6500 BC-Iron Gates5)OC1_Meso, I5408, Mesolithic, 7000-5000 calBCE-Iron Gates6) I4916 Mesolithic, 7300-6000 BCE-Iron Gates7) I5772, Mesolithic-Neolithic, 7100-5900 BCE-Iron Gates
8)I5232, Mesolithic-Neolithic, 6224-5841 calBCE-Iron Gates9)Hajji Fieuz(Iran) 5900-5500 BCE-Azerbijian
10)HG2, Zvejnieki (Latvia), 5841-5636 cal BC -Latvia
11)I0124, EHG, Lebyazhinka IV (Russia), 5640-5555 calBCE-Russia
12)HG3, Zvejnieki (Latvia), 5302-4852 cal BC-Latvia
13)ATP3, El Portalón (Spain), 5466-5312 calBP I0371-Spain
14)I0122, Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara (Russia), 5200-4000 BCE-Russia
15)I1593, Blatterhole Cave (Germany), 3958-3344 calBCE I1594,-Germany

kingjohn
01-04-18, 16:20
It's a great paper, very extensive. Most of the results are what I expected.

- BMAC was a mixture of J2a (main haplogroup), G2a, L1a, Q1b and R2a, just as I had predicted.

- R1b went south from the Caspian Steppe across Central Asia and settled in Turan/BMAC. Nowadays R1b is far higher than Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and northern Afghanistan (Hazaras).

- R1a-Z93 went south from southern Siberia along the Tianshan to reach Pakistan and India. Once again that is expected as the R1a-Z93 concentration today are much higher along the Tianshan (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, eastern Afghanistan). What I don't understand is why this paper insists on separating the admixture of those R1a-Z93 people and calling them 'West Siberian HG related' when they in fact originated in the northern forest-steppe of Europe (around Belarus and northern Ukraine).


Here are a few things no one could expect:

- E1b1a1a1c2b1 (aka Z6005) in Mesolithic Iran (12,000 to 8,000 BCE), a Sub-Saharan African clade now found mostly in the far western end of Africa (Gambia, Sierra Leone). Hunter-gatherers did travel a long way... Y-Full says that its parent clade CTS6649 formed 9600 ybp and has a TMRCA of only 6700 ybp, so that is a gross underestimation as it had time to travel over 7000 km and be in Iran about 12,000 years ago.

- E1b1a1a1c2c3c, another SSA lineage, and plenty of Y-DNA A, BT and CT in the BMAC during the Bronze Age. The A, BT and CT could be early Homo sapiens lineages that died out, but why again West African Y-DNA in Central Asia?

- Surprisingly lots of (Levantine?) E1b1b1b2 with also some A0, CT, DE and E in Early Iron Age northern Pakistan. Was there a massive Natufian migration to the region in the Early Neolithic? Or is that more Paleolithic or Mesolithic African hunter-gatherers?

- I2a2a2a in Neolithic Turkmenistan (5000-2000 BCE). Is that an offshoot of a Neolithic culture of Old Europe, a Mesolithic European tribe that ended up in Central Asia, or an early Steppe invader?

- As mentioned before, Mal'ta can't be R1b1a1a2 and it's extremely suspicious to find a Nordic Bronze Age clade of R1b-U106 (S21728, downstream of Z9) in Iron Age Pakistan. Either it's a typo or that sample was contaminated.


please people wait for the finale version this a pre-print
one the mesolitic e1b1a is wierd as hell must be a mistake
while e1b1b1 in bmac people and iron age pakistan could be logical given the time frame of those samples .....
chad rolfson from anthrogenica ask one of the authours of this paper to check the dna haplogroups table again ......

johen
01-04-18, 16:25
The followings should be reviewed later as rebuttal against Harvard genetics, b/c genetics is still on early stage not an universal medication at all.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NgS98pXc5xQ/WsBG3hBeptI/AAAAAAAAGmk/lPfc18ty8FMEhIdRIyoKK2O9qWEDH4RCQCLcBGAs/s1600/Narasimhan_et_al_Fig_4_Tale.png
1. As mentioned, karzakstan eneolithic genes are very important to explain the relationship between yamna and afanasievo. Moreover botai, sintashta and andronovo culture is said to belong to east Ural culture, surtanda culture.

2. Could gracile yamna skull produce the bellbeaker skull, which is very close to cromagnon? I really don’t think so.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13563-Ancient-DNA-upends-the-horse-family-tree/page2 (post 13)

3. Could yamana and CWC culture be related with sintasha? The CWC has nothing to do with horse, CWC’s skull cannot produce paleotype sintshta skull.
Their burial type(B) is supine burial type, and their horse is genetically proved to be arctic horse like east scythian.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qaC8OwBVY8Y/Vikl1gtaqsI/AAAAAAAAKL4/EnHCn8mTiiA/s1600/gr1.jpg

4. As I mentioned several times, I don’t think the 1st gracile yamna and sintashta type cannot produce source population of andronovo ferodova, 2nd pamir type to be connected to Aryan.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/2-2.jpg (http://s39.photobucket.com/user/Borntobeking/media/2-2.jpg.html)

Think about the fact that PHD scholar should say like this at 2013, "not proving but plausible". why did he say that, not connecting to existing samples by statics like the other scholars?
That is why it is very important to have y dna of eneolithic karzak people, who have a brachy large skull of UP to produce any type of people, being easily changed to proto-caucasoid and proto-mongoloid by just a one drop, b/c they are intermediate, I think.


The origin of the Andronovo variant of the Proto-European trait combination appears to be the least disputable. Its wide distribution was evidently associated with the spread of the Andronovo (Fedorovka) culture from a single area. Because admixture seldom if ever results in the decrease of the facial height (Bunak, 1980), very low faces of the Andronovo people support the idea that this population originated in a single region, and that isolation was the major factor in its origin (Alekseyev, 1961). While the idea that the ancestors of the Andronovo (Fedorovka) people lived in Kazakhstan before the Middle Bronze Age (Ibid.) appears plausible, it cannot be supported by available data at present.


Culturally, they were associated with Afanesyev, Timbergrave (Srubnaya), and Tazabagyab cultures, with the Andronovo (Alakul) culture of western Kazakhstan, and with the Sintashta-like culture of Potapovka. Morphologically, this cluster is intermediate between the “Andronovo proper” (Proto-European) cluster and the “Mediterranean” cluster. Accordingly, the “intermediate” cluster includes both Proto-European and Mediterranean series.

THE ORIGINS OF THE ANDRONOVO (FEDOROVKA) POPULATION OF SOUTHWESTERN SIBERIA, BASED ON A MIDDLE BRONZE AGE CRANIAL SERIES FROM THE ALTAI FOREST-STEPPE ZONE

Maciamo
01-04-18, 17:08
The followings should be reviewed later as rebuttal against Harvard genetics, b/c genetics is still on early stage not an universal medication at all.


1. As mentioned, karzakstan eneolithic genes are very important to explain the relationship between yamna and afanasievo. Moreover botai, sintashta and andronovo culture is said to belong to east Ural culture, surtanda culture.

2. Could gracile yamna skull produce the bellbeaker skull, which is very close to cromagnon? I really don’t think so.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13563-Ancient-DNA-upends-the-horse-family-tree/page2 (post 13)

3. Could yamana and CWC culture be related with sintasha? The CWC has nothing to do with horse, CWC’s skull cannot produce paleotype sintshta skull.
Their burial type(B) is supine burial type, and their horse is genetically proved to be arctic horse like east scythian.

4. As I mentioned several times, I don’t think the 1st gracile yamna and sintashta type cannot produce source population of andronovo ferodova, 2nd pamir type to be connected to Aryan.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/2-2.jpg (http://s39.photobucket.com/user/Borntobeking/media/2-2.jpg.html)

Think about the fact that PHD scholar should say like this at 2013, "not proving but plausible". why did he say that, not connecting to existing samples by statics like the other scholars?
That is why it is very important to have y dna of eneolithic karzak people, who have a brachy large skull of UP to produce any type of people, being easily changed to proto-caucasoid and proto-mongoloid by just a one drop, b/c they are intermediate, I think.



I wouldn't rely too much on cranial shapes as these can change quickly when two populations merge with each other, and a lot of diversity is generally found within a single population. For example Yamna skulls could be brachycephalic, mesocephalic and dolichocephalic. Bell Beakers weren't even a single ethnic group.

Angela
01-04-18, 17:09
I used to give R1a the benefit of the doubt, but no R1a in Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Iran is a very strong indication that R1a is not even Indoeuropean.
R1a-Z93 only gained some relevance in IE Asia thousands of years after the spread of Indo-Iranian, Baltoslav(e)s must have picked up the IE language from their Scythian masters. R1b-M269 and J2 are the major IE markers.
https://i.imgur.com/wixAFlq.jpg

You don't get to t-roll Slavs or any other nationalities here. You already got an infraction. Keep this stuff up and you'll be out of here very soon.

@Johen,
You want to take issue with a genetics paper? Argue the genetics. Stop with this kind of nonsense.

Maciamo
01-04-18, 17:11
R1b-dates of 15 various samples.


1) Villabruna (Italia), Epigravettian, 12 200-11 800 BC
2)I5235, I5237, Mesolithic, 9500-6200 BCE-Iron Gates

3)I1734, Mesolithic, 9000-7000 BCE-Ukraine

4)SC1_Meso, SC2_Meso, I5411Mesolithic, 7000-6500 BC-Iron Gates

5)OC1_Meso, I5408, Mesolithic, 7000-5000 calBCE-Iron Gates

6) I4916 Mesolithic, 7300-6000 BCE-Iron Gates

7) I5772, Mesolithic-Neolithic, 7100-5900 BCE-Iron Gates
8)I5232, Mesolithic-Neolithic, 6224-5841 calBCE-Iron Gates

9)Hajji Fieuz(Iran) 5900-5500 BCE-Azerbijian
10)HG2, Zvejnieki (Latvia), 5841-5636 cal BC -Latvia
11)I0124, EHG, Lebyazhinka IV (Russia), 5640-5555 calBCE-Russia
12)HG3, Zvejnieki (Latvia), 5302-4852 cal BC-Latvia
13)ATP3, El Portalón (Spain), 5466-5312 calBP I0371-Spain
14)I0122, Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara (Russia), 5200-4000 BCE-Russia
15)I1593, Blatterhole Cave (Germany), 3958-3344 calBCE I1594,-Germany

I can be quite misleading for newcomers to see such a list as it doesn't include subclades. It's hard to see how these related to one another with clades and without a phylogenetic tree like this one to see where the samples fit.

https://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-tree.png

Maciamo
01-04-18, 17:24
I used to give R1a the benefit of the doubt, but no R1a in Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Iran is a very strong indication that R1a is not even Indoeuropean.
R1a-Z93 only gained some relevance in IE Asia thousands of years after the spread of Indo-Iranian, Baltoslav(e)s must have picked up the IE language from their Scythian masters. R1b-M269 and J2 are the major IE markers.
https://i.imgur.com/wixAFlq.jpg


This is exactly why I am reluctant to define Proto-Indo-European solely as the group of R1b-M269 and J2b2a people who lived in the Central and South Caucasus between, say, 5800 and 5200 BCE.

Some people think that it's better than the Pontic-Caspian Steppe as a PIE homeland because it could be made to include the archaic Anatolian branch. But we don't know anything about the genetics of the Anatolian branch, and in any case the Hittites, Luwians and Lydians don't show up until about 1650 BCE, with horses, chariots and what is in fact more of a Middle Bronze Age Steppe cultural package. I think that the archaic traits of that branch can be explained either by some sort of isolation from other PIE groups within the Steppe (e.g. early migration to the Balkans from 4200 BCE or to Turan from 3500 to 4000 BCE) or by a hydrisation of their language with non-IE languages.

It's nonsense to reject the whole R1a branch as Indo-European, as they correlates extremely well with Baltic, Slavic, Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches of IE languages.

That is why I keep firm on my grounds and insist on defining PIE as the language that emerged in either during the Yamna or Khvalynsk culture, by the merger of Caucasian R1b-M269 and J2b2-L283 with the indigenous I2a2a-L701, R1a and old clades of R1b (L297, L388, etc.).

IronSide
01-04-18, 17:41
From Anhrogenica Chad Rohlfsen:

There is also going to be a C14 done on the Hajji Firuz R1b. Results should be back in the next couple of weeks.

bicicleur
01-04-18, 17:45
Here are a few things no one could expect:

- E1b1a1a1c2b1 (aka Z6005) in Mesolithic Iran (12,000 to 8,000 BCE), a Sub-Saharan African clade now found mostly in the far western end of Africa (Gambia, Sierra Leone). Hunter-gatherers did travel a long way... Y-Full says that its parent clade CTS6649 formed 9600 ybp and has a TMRCA of only 6700 ybp, so that is a gross underestimation as it had time to travel over 7000 km and be in Iran about 12,000 years ago.

- E1b1a1a1c2c3c, another SSA lineage, and plenty of Y-DNA A, BT and CT in the BMAC during the Bronze Age. The A, BT and CT could be early Homo sapiens lineages that died out, but why again West African Y-DNA in Central Asia?

- Surprisingly lots of (Levantine?) E1b1b1b2 with also some A0, CT, DE and E in Early Iron Age northern Pakistan. Was there a massive Natufian migration to the region in the Early Neolithic? Or is that more Paleolithic or Mesolithic African hunter-gatherers?

- I2a2a2a in Neolithic Turkmenistan (5000-2000 BCE). Is that an offshoot of a Neolithic culture of Old Europe, a Mesolithic European tribe that ended up in Central Asia, or an early Steppe invader?

- As mentioned before, Mal'ta can't be R1b1a1a2 and it's extremely suspicious to find a Nordic Bronze Age clade of R1b-U106 (S21728, downstream of Z9) in Iron Age Pakistan. Either it's a typo or that sample was contaminated.

surprises, or does this cast doubt about some of the Y-DNA results in this paper ?

Olympus Mons
01-04-18, 17:57
From Anhrogenica Chad Rohlfsen:

There is also going to be a C14 done on the Hajji Firuz R1b. Results should be back in the next couple of weeks.

Calls have been checked. He is R1b- m269- L23 - and Z2103. And buried with the others that have been dated. So, slim to none chances he is a steppe warrior traveling in time from 3000 years later.
... And citing Chad, a kid still at school completly fanatic steppe yamnaya center of the universe....pfuuf.

Silesian
01-04-18, 17:57
I can be quite misleading for newcomers to see such a list as it doesn't include subclades. It's hard to see how these related to one another with clades and without a phylogenetic tree like this one to see where the samples fit.

https://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-tree.png

Irrespective of what branch of R1b the 14 of the 15 would fall into, all from oldest 14,000YBP+/- to 5958YBP+/-(with the exception of 1 sample)are found in the territory of modern day Europe. Also all plot between WHG & EHG & SHG & ANE on a global pca.

https://d8v5jhqx5tv4l.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/pca2-mathieson.png

Olympus Mons
01-04-18, 18:00
surprises, or does this cast doubt about some of the Y-DNA results in this paper ?

True. But the one on everyone's mind really is a R1b Z2103 by his calls already been checked. So...get use to it.

Maciamo
01-04-18, 18:02
Irrespective of what branch of R1b the 14 of the 15 would fall into, all from oldest 14,000YBP+/- to 5958YBP+/-(with the exception of 1 sample)are found in the territory of modern day Europe. Also all plot between WHG & EHG & SHG & ANE on a global pca.


That's because the overwhelming majority of ancient DNA tested came from Europe, and because there were already lots of old and mostly extinct branches of R1b in Central and Eastern Europe from the Late Glacial period to the Mesolithic. Where are you going with that?

IronSide
01-04-18, 18:04
Calls have been checked. He is R1b- m269- L23 - and Z2103. And buried with the others that have been dated. So, slim to none chances he is a steppe warrior traveling in time from 3000 years later.
... And citing Chad, a kid still at school completly fanatic steppe yamnaya center of the universe....pfuuf.

Add to that that he is autosomally similar to the others in the same context, I believe he is legitimate.

Olympus Mons
01-04-18, 18:05
Irrespective of what branch of R1b the 14 of the 15 would fall into, all from oldest 14,000YBP+/- to 5958YBP+/-(with the exception of 1 sample)are found in the territory of modern day Europe. Also all plot between WHG & EHG & SHG & ANE on a global pca.
https://d8v5jhqx5tv4l.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/pca2-mathieson.png
In 15K years those r1b were everywhere!!
So its meaningless. Everybody is looking for M269, L23, L51.... And that guy in Hajji Firuz really breaks it all. Specially because of his links to Shulaveri in georgia...

Silesian
01-04-18, 18:05
That's because the overwhelming majority of ancient DNA tested came from Europe, and because there were already lots of old and mostly extinct branches of R1b in Central and Eastern Europe from the Late Glacial period to the Mesolithic. Where are you going with that?
Yes the forum is called Eupedia right? The 14/15 oldest R1b samples are from Europe. At one time people thought R1b-V88 came from Africa, and R1b-L51 originated from Egypt to Morroco[no joke]. I'm just pointing out factual data. We actually have no data from the huge amount of Kurgans{not one tested from the Yamnaya-region in Hungary-estimates depending on some 40,000+)and or Italy which also has some very interesting R1b branches including the oldest sample to date.

bicicleur
01-04-18, 18:26
True. But the one on everyone's mind really is a R1b Z2103 by his calls already been checked. So...get use to it.

I wasn't mentioning this one, there are others which are doubtfull, most the R1b-M269 in Mal'ta but also the E1b1a..

Ailchu
01-04-18, 18:57
Calls have been checked. He is R1b- m269- L23 - and Z2103. And buried with the others that have been dated. So, slim to none chances he is a steppe warrior traveling in time from 3000 years later.
... And citing Chad, a kid still at school completly fanatic steppe yamnaya center of the universe....pfuuf.

was the same done with the other samples? malta boy?
we also have no contemporary male samples from the steppe it seems and also nothing from georgia or aserbaidschan. so i don't see how one sample from north western iran can lead to the conclusion that ie spread from iran.

Angela
01-04-18, 19:00
surprises, or does this cast doubt about some of the Y-DNA results in this paper ?

From what I understand, the lead author used some automated system which they plan to publish in the final paper. Obviously, there are bugs in it.

If I had to guess, and that's all it is, some of these samples are probably degraded or there was a one-off private mutation, and so something like one call on a mutation by an automated program should be ignored. That may explain the weird result for Mal'ta and the E1b1a results.


As for the Z2103 in Neolithic Iran, that doesn't seem to be the case. It looks legit. The only way to discount it would be the dating of it. Given how important it is, radio carbon dating is probably a good idea. However, it would be very odd if a sample buried with two J2b in an undisturbed grave, and matching the two J2b in being only a mix farmers was somehow a steppe person from thousands of years later.

That's sort of where I am with that sample. Time will tell, though.

I think we also have to consider those 3000 additional ancient samples in the Reich Lab but not yet published. I don't think it's unreasonable to propose that some may be from Maykop, or other areas in now Georgia/Armenia/ or Iran.

I highly doubt he would base a hypothesis on one sample.

What I find more intriguing, as I said above, is the lack of R1a. Are they saving that for another paper, when they will also reveal the yDna of the "Siberian Hunter-Gatherers" and perhaps draw the line to specific groups within the Andronovo horizon, now we know there was structure there?

Or, is some of this ambiguity due to the apparent breakdown in cooperation with the Indian scientists, perhaps leading to them being unable to use certain samples, and thus trying to come to the right conclusion without the best samples?

Maciamo
01-04-18, 19:05
Yes the forum is called Eupedia right? The 14/15 oldest R1b samples are from Europe. At one time people thought R1b-V88 came from Africa, and R1b-L51 originated from Egypt to Morroco[no joke]. I'm just pointing out factual data. We actually have no data from the huge amount of Kurgans{not one tested from the Yamnaya-region in Hungary-estimates depending on some 40,000+)and or Italy which also has some very interesting R1b branches including the oldest sample to date.

Well, if you started with these beliefs, then I understand how you can find it interesting...

Maciamo
01-04-18, 19:07
In 15K years those r1b were everywhere!!
So its meaningless. Everybody is looking for M269, L23, L51.... And that guy in Hajji Firuz really breaks it all. Specially because of his links to Shulaveri in georgia...

You don't seem to understand that none of those Mesolithic R1b is ancestral to modern European R1b. The oldest R1b-M269 ever found to date is that one from Hajji Firuz.

Olympus Mons
01-04-18, 19:07
I wasn't mentioning this one, there are others which are doubtfull, most the R1b-M269 in Mal'ta but also the E1b1a..

AFAIK only this one made people rush to prove/disprove it. Its also telling ...

Olympus Mons
01-04-18, 19:10
You don't seem to understand that none of those Mesolithic R1b is ancestral to modern European R1b. The oldest R1b-M269 ever found to date is that one from Hajji Firuz.
Maciamo. Thats not for me right? I am telling the same as you.

... And by 5500bc would clearly expect a L23....but Z2103 not really.

Maciamo
01-04-18, 19:16
What I find more intriguing, as I said above, is the lack of R1a. Are they saving that for another paper, when they will also reveal the yDna of the "Siberian Hunter-Gatherers" and perhaps draw the line to specific groups within the Andronovo horizon, now we know there was structure there?


R1a-M417 is much younger (TMRCA of 5500 years, at the start of Yamna) than R1b-M269 or even R1b-L23. Considering that all Indo-European R1a descends from a single R1a-M417 who lived at the beginning of the Yamna period, I don't see how R1a-M417 could be found alongside R1b-M269 in the South Caucasus. It was clearly an indigenous R1a lineage that got lucky, probably becoming a prolific chieftain or king in the forest-steppe zone that gave rise to Corded Ware. Yamna individuals tested were mostly from elite graves, but there is little doubt in my mind that the 'common people' were the same as in Sredny Stog (old clades of R1a and R1b + I2a2a-L701). It's thanks to elitism, patriarchy and polygamy that R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 managed to expand so very fast at the expense of now nearly extinct side lineages of R1a and R1b.

Maciamo
01-04-18, 19:17
Maciamo. Thats not for me right? I am telling the same as you.

All right. Then I misunderstood you.

Angela
01-04-18, 19:20
R1a-M417 is much younger (TMRCA of 5500 years, at the start of Yamna) than R1b-M269 or even R1b-L23. Considering that all Indo-European R1a descends from a single R1a-M417 who lived at the beginning of the Yamna period, I don't see how R1a-M417 could be found alongside R1b-M269 in the South Caucasus. It was clearly an indigenous R1a lineage that got lucky, probably becoming a prolific chieftain or king in the forest-steppe zone that gave rise to Corded Ware. Yamna individuals tested were mostly from elite graves, but there is little doubt in my mind that the 'common people' were the same as in Sredny Stog (old clades of R1a and R1b + I2a2a-L701). It's thanks to elitism, patriarchy and polygamy that R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 managed to expand so very fast at the expense of now nearly extinct side lineages of R1a and R1b.

Yes, I understand that, Maciamo. I meant the lack of R1a in the South Asian samples. Out of all those samples, there's only one, and it's very late. Yet the "steppe" ancestry is there, if not as high as an average as many predicted.

Angela
01-04-18, 19:44
Razib Khan's take on the paper. Good summary, I think.

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/03/31/the-maturation-of-the-south-asian-genetic-landscape/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Maciamo
01-04-18, 19:45
Yes, I understand that, Maciamo. I meant the lack of R1a in the South Asian samples. Out of all those samples, there's only one, and it's very late. Yet the "steppe" ancestry is there, if not as high as an average as many predicted.

Sorry, I didn't know you meant in South Asia as we were discussing the R1b from the South Caucasus. R1a did enter quite late in South Asia (from 1800-1500 BCE), but the reason it is so rare in these samples is probably because the Indo-Aryan established a very segregated society and the samples aren't from Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Actually there is not much diversity in the South Asian samples. All are from the Swat Valley of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in northern Pakistan and all from the Iron Age. One mountain valley could easily have been bypassed by the Indo-Aryan invaders.

Silesian
01-04-18, 19:45
In 15K years those r1b were everywhere!!
So its meaningless. Everybody is looking for M269, L23, L51.... And that guy in Hajji Firuz really breaks it all. Specially because of his links to Shulaveri in georgia...
Olympus Mons alot of R1b guys break it all.
The Basal R1b project has these samples as M269-no mutations thereafter, again all within Europe. You will have to correspond with admin of that project of your findings with regards to adding or deleting the M269 samples.
http://images.devs-on.net/Image/hWHFcWO85gWXp9RQ-Region.png



http://images.devs-on.net/Image/WK8COV04dWFBNtG1-Region.png
https://kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b_xP312xU106_V.38.1.pdf

Olympus Mons
01-04-18, 19:52
Olympus Mons alot of R1b guys break it all.
The Basal R1b project has these samples as M269-no mutations thereafter, again all within Europe. You will have to correspond with admin of that project of your findings with regards to adding or deleting the M269 samples.
http://images.devs-on.net/Image/hWHFcWO85gWXp9RQ-Region.png



http://images.devs-on.net/Image/WK8COV04dWFBNtG1-Region.png
https://kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b_xP312xU106_V.38.1.pdf

Kumbarov already got me into troubles with a M269 that genetiker showed me was H2. So I stay clear.

Silesian
01-04-18, 19:55
Kumbarov already got me into troubles with a M269 that genetiker showed me was H2. So I stay clear.
Everyone makes mistakes. Have you seen the list that have put their names to this paper. Was it peer reviewed?



Vagheesh M Narasimhan, Nick J Patterson, Priya Moorjani, Iosif Lazaridis, Lipson Mark, Swapan Mallick, Nadin Rohland, Rebecca Bernardos, Alexander M Kim, Nathan Nakatsuka, Inigo Olalde, Alfredo Coppa, James Mallory, Vyacheslav Moiseyev, Janet Monge, Luca M Olivieri, Nicole Adamski, Nasreen Broomandkhoshbacht, Francesca Candilio, Olivia Cheronet, Brendan J Culleton, Matthew Ferry, Daniel Fernandes, Beatriz Gamarra, Daniel Gaudio, Mateja Hajdinjak, Eadaoin Harney, Thomas K Harper, Denise Keating, Ann-Marie Lawson, Megan Michel, Mario Novak, Jonas Oppenheimer, Niraj Rai, Kendra Sirak, Viviane Slon, Kristin Stewardson, Zhao Zhang, Gaziz Akhatov, Anatoly N Bagashev, Baurzhan Baitanayev, Gian Luca Bonora, Tatiana Chikisheva, Anatoly Derevianko, Enshin Dmitry, Katerina Douka, Nadezhda Dubova, Andrey Epimakhov, Suzanne Freilich, Dorian Fuller, Alexander Goryachev, Andrey Gromov, Bryan Hanks, Margaret Judd, Erlan Kazizov, Aleksander Khokhlov, Egor Kitov, Elena Kupriyanova, Pavel Kuznetsov, Donata Luiselli, Farhad Maksudov, Chris Meiklejohn, Deborah C Merrett, Roberto Micheli, Oleg Mochalov, Zahir Muhammed, Samridin Mustafakulov, Ayushi Nayak, Rykun M Petrovna, Davide Pettner, Richard Potts, Dmitry Razhev, Stefania Sarno, Kulyan Sikhymbaevae, Sergey M Slepchenko, Nadezhda Stepanova, Svetlana Svyatko, Sergey Vasilyev, Massimo Vidale, Dima Voyakin, Antonina Yermolayeva, Alisa Zubova, Vasant S Shinde, Carles Lalueza-Fox, Matthias Meyer, David Anthony, Nicole Boivin, Kumarasmy Thangaraj, Douglas Kennett, Michael Frachetti, Ron Pinhasi, David Reich

I'm very great full that educated people are using their time and resources to figure out who we are and how we fit into the genetic story of our ancestors. However, have you seen what MA1, is something like R1b? Have you or Genetiker ever made any mistakes, anything that you overlooked? The point is sometimes mistakes happen. We can only try our best, and not judge others for the same mistakes the we ourselves could make, and keep and open mind to the data. In my opinion.

Olympus Mons
01-04-18, 20:28
Everyone makes mistakes. Have you seen the list that have put their names to this paper. Was it peer reviewed?
I'm very great full that educated people are using their time and resources to figure out who we are and how we fit into the genetic story of our ancestors. However, have you seen what MA1, is something like R1b? Have you or Genetiker ever made any mistakes, anything that you overlooked? The point is sometimes mistakes happen. We can only try our best, and not judge others for the same mistakes the we ourselves could make, and keep and open mind to the data. In my opinion.
... Just saying not all R1b are the same.
For the story that have been pushed into the throat of people like me for the past 5 years to be true, there could never be found where it was a M269. Let alone a L23... But a z2103 from 5500b? -Hell this a revolution.

Silesian
01-04-18, 20:33
... Just saying not all R1b are the same.
For the story that have been pushed into the throat of people like me for the past 5 years to be true, there could never be found where it was a M269. Let alone a L23... But a z2103 from 5500b? -Hell this a revolution.

Okay Olympus. I don't know your ydna group, but we can use my group-----to explain, since by your theory I should be related to your subject.
Lets start at L23-what date do you give that mutation? yfull gives the mutation 6400YBP --do you agree or disagree?
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L23/

Olympus Mons
01-04-18, 20:43
Okay Olympus. I don't know your ydna group, but we can use my group-----to explain, since by your theory I should be related to your subject.
Lets start at L23-what date do you give that mutation? yfull gives the mutation 6400YBP --do you agree or disagree?
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L23/

According to my theory that date of 6400 ybp would be impossible. L23 had to be born as a Shulaveri still (so latest 7500 ybp) in time to allow z2103 to be born close to shulaveri disappearance 7000 ybp. Because by 6900ybp they were fleeing into kuban river up to steppe.

Silesian
01-04-18, 21:01
According to my theory that date of 6400 ybp would be impossible. L23 had to be born as a Shulaveri still (so latest 7500 ybp) in time to allow z2103 to be born close to shulaveri disappearance 7000 ybp. Because by 6900ybp they were fleeing into kuban river up to steppe.

Okay then perhaps yfull dates are incorrect?
Here are some more, try and put a time on them-

R-Z2103 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/)

R-L584 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L584/)


R-Z2106 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2106/)
-Z2108 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2108/)

R-Z2110 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2110/)

R-L51 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L51/)

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L23/

Balkanite
01-04-18, 21:52
R1a-M417 is much younger (TMRCA of 5500 years, at the start of Yamna) than R1b-M269 or even R1b-L23. Considering that all Indo-European R1a descends from a single R1a-M417 who lived at the beginning of the Yamna period, I don't see how R1a-M417 could be found alongside R1b-M269 in the South Caucasus. It was clearly an indigenous R1a lineage that got lucky, probably becoming a prolific chieftain or king in the forest-steppe zone that gave rise to Corded Ware. Yamna individuals tested were mostly from elite graves, but there is little doubt in my mind that the 'common people' were the same as in Sredny Stog (old clades of R1a and R1b + I2a2a-L701). It's thanks to elitism, patriarchy and polygamy that R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 managed to expand so very fast at the expense of now nearly extinct side lineages of R1a and R1b.

I would say J2b2-L283 probably expanded in the same manner as those 3 Hg's you just mentioned, just in the direction of balkan, instead of in the direction of northern Europe.
If they were not one of the elite lineages too, then it does not make sense why J-L283 and R-Z2103 got to colonize the best and most fertile areas with the most lootable stuff, while L51 and M417 got the more desolate and mineral-poor north.

bicicleur
01-04-18, 22:15
Yes, I understand that, Maciamo. I meant the lack of R1a in the South Asian samples. Out of all those samples, there's only one, and it's very late. Yet the "steppe" ancestry is there, if not as high as an average as many predicted.

indeed, there is a lot of R1a in South Asia today, and according to the paper, it does not come from the Scyths, it got there earlier, that should be Steppe MLBA then

bicicleur
01-04-18, 22:21
the paper tries to modell all observed populations as a mixture from 7 anciant genomes

can anybody tell how much Basal Eurasian each of these 7 godfathers had?
it would be interesting to know ..

Maciamo
01-04-18, 23:19
I would say J2b2-L283 probably expanded in the same manner as those 3 Hg's you just mentioned, just in the direction of balkan, instead of in the direction of northern Europe.
If they were not one of the elite lineages too, then it does not make sense why J-L283 and R-Z2103 got to colonize the best and most fertile areas with the most lootable stuff, while L51 and M417 got the more desolate and mineral-poor north.

I think that J2b2-L283 just happened to be more common in the Balkans today due to a founder effect in the Illyrian population. Otherwise J2b2-L283 is found pretty much all over Europe, even if at lower frequencies in the north.

MOESAN
01-04-18, 23:42
I wouldn't rely too much on cranial shapes as these can change quickly when two populations merge with each other, and a lot of diversity is generally found within a single population. For example Yamna skulls could be brachycephalic, mesocephalic and dolichocephalic. Bell Beakers weren't even a single ethnic group.

For I think cranial shapes has always some indications to give to us when seriously studied - variations exist within pops but for the most these variations has an history - OK for BB's as an heterogenous pop in space and time, not only variated - the most of Yamna were rather meso-dolicho (but with rather low faces) and the most of CWC were rather dolicho high faced and high skulled, what does not exclude a common component among both at some degree - that said, Joren provided 'Pamir-Ferghana' type evocates curiously 'dinaric' (so a part of early BBs "linker" population, if not the true first BBs)- I noticed this upon current Tadjiks of the mountains - origin? convergence in microevolution?
I know the little confidence of people in craniometrics so this ought to be discussed in an anthropo thread, even if it could be linked from far to the present thread

Trojet
02-04-18, 00:08
I think that J2b2-L283 just happened to be more common in the Balkans today due to a founder effect in the Illyrian population. Otherwise J2b2-L283 is found pretty much all over Europe, even if at lower frequencies in the north.

I agree with this. I think the most likely scenario is that J2b2-L283 was a minor lineage among an IE population that expanded mostly into Balkans/Europe. With J-L283>>Z2507 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-L283/) (YFull TMRCA 4400 ybp) going through some founder effects after reaching the (western) Balkans. Currently all Balkan samples are below J-Z2507, including the Bronze Age Dalmatian which was proven Z2507+ Y15058+
https://j2-m172.info/2018/02/y-snp-analysis-of-i4331-j2b2a-l283-bronze-age-croatia-mathieson-et-al-2018/

hrvclv
02-04-18, 00:52
This is exactly why I am reluctant to define Proto-Indo-European solely as the group of R1b-M269 and J2b2a people who lived in the Central and South Caucasus between, say, 5800 and 5200 BCE.
Some people think that it's better than the Pontic-Caspian Steppe as a PIE homeland because it could be made to include the archaic Anatolian branch. But we don't know anything about the genetics of the Anatolian branch, and in any case the Hittites, Luwians and Lydians don't show up until about 1650 BCE, with horses, chariots and what is in fact more of a Middle Bronze Age Steppe cultural package. I think that the archaic traits of that branch can be explained either by some sort of isolation from other PIE groups within the Steppe (e.g. early migration to the Balkans from 4200 BCE or to Turan from 3500 to 4000 BCE) or by a hydrisation of their language with non-IE languages.

Linguistically, it is indeed difficult to explain how, by the time they appeared, the Hittites could still be speaking such an archaic form of PIE. This said, we must keep in mind that some phonological changes are one-way, no-return changes.

Hittite still has laryngeals, which are postulated only as "algebric" remnants in reconstructed steppe PIE - meaning that they had already begun to evolve into different, more "modern" sounds : eg, [H²] had become, or was in the process of becoming [a] (except when followed by s in some environments). No hybridization can ever restore extinct laryngeals. How they survived intact among Hittites while fading out elsewhere is hard to tell. It certainly implies a high degree of isolation. Now, could a tribe remain so extremely isolated in the open geography of the steppe ? Did they remain isolated in a valley of the Caucasus for 2000 years or more ? As to the "warrior package" (horse, chariot, etc.) I think it was extensively shared by all warlike groups in the middle-east by Hittite times, including the Egyptians and the early Assyrians. I feel tempted to stick to my idea that they were a small tribe who moved early from the south west Caspian into Anatolia (along with other small tribes), and then had a hard time surviving among hostile neighbors. Until they emerged and conquered - a bit like the Romans did in Italy.

The same applies to Satem IE. Satem is the result of palatalization. I've never heard "de-palatalization" mentioned. So Satem forms derive from original, "hard" Centum forms. It can't work the other way round. Palatalization, on the other hand, could be due to hybridization, or adoption of a language by people who had difficulties managing some of its sounds. A powerful R1a expatriate from south Yamna, plus a founder effect, plus a degree of isolation, would do the trick, to some extent. It doesn't leave much time, though, to multiply enough to muster the might to found the CWC.

holderlin
02-04-18, 02:01
Wow awesome paper. Finally some South and Central Asian.

Has anyone thrown the site coordinates into Google maps? I just started doing this and it's really cool. In many cases you can see features of the dig.

According to the authors we essentially have Indus River samples, which is sweet. They're just South Asian+Iran Neolithic. I guess that should have been expected.

The West Siberian is interesting and helps fill some gaps from the Scythians paper.

There's E1b in a 10000BC Northern Iranian sample. That seemed strange initially, but I guess it's not.

The R1b Z2103 in 5500BC Northern Iran is very interesting, but saying that this single sample proves that copper age Iranians were speaking PIE is crazy, even if this very guy is the direct ancestor to those Z2103 Yamnaya guys, which is unlikely. The consequence of this being true would make for a very strange mechanism of dispersal, which would probably generate more mysteries than it solves.

It would provide a nice explanation for the origin of Anatolian languages, but that's about it. Remember we're now about as certain as we'll ever be that Indo-Iranian and the European IE languages came from the steppe, so how is this reconciled with PIE/Anatolian in Iran all the way up to the bronze age, where Non-IE languages are attested? They would have had to quietly and quickly move to Anatolia and the steppe and been immediately replaced with other non-IE speakers. The whole time being absent from history.

Also this Iranian Z2103 guy is contemporaneous with the Khvalynsk guys, who are already showing an increase in CHG/Iranian Neolithic. So we would have to also say that these guys have nothing to do with IE or Yamnaya, and yet they're very clearly ancestors of steppe populations that would later expand and spread IE languages. Not only this, but these Iranian PIE speakers would also have immediately assimilated into a steppe culture exhibiting none of their Iranian Neolithic cultural characteristics.

So these are stealth ninja PIEs who infiltrated the steppe, and only then did they expand rapidly in every direction from the steppe.

I guess it's possible. We really need Maykop males and more ancient Caucasian genomes then because if the IE L23 lines are really exploding out of the Caucuses then we should find much more evidence than one dude in Copper age Iran.

Promenade
02-04-18, 03:31
It's a great paper, very extensive. Most of the results are what I expected.

- BMAC was a mixture of J2a (main haplogroup), G2a, L1a, Q1b and R2a, just as I had predicted.

- R1b went south from the Caspian Steppe across Central Asia and settled in Turan/BMAC. Nowadays R1b is far higher than Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and northern Afghanistan (Hazaras).

- R1a-Z93 went south from southern Siberia along the Tianshan to reach Pakistan and India. Once again that is expected as the R1a-Z93 concentration today are much higher along the Tianshan (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, eastern Afghanistan). What I don't understand is why this paper insists on separating the admixture of those R1a-Z93 people and calling them 'West Siberian HG related' when they in fact originated in the northern forest-steppe of Europe (around Belarus and northern Ukraine).


Here are a few things no one could expect:

- E1b1a1a1c2b1 (aka Z6005) in Mesolithic Iran (12,000 to 8,000 BCE), a Sub-Saharan African clade now found mostly in the far western end of Africa (Gambia, Sierra Leone). Hunter-gatherers did travel a long way... Y-Full says that its parent clade CTS6649 formed 9600 ybp and has a TMRCA of only 6700 ybp, so that is a gross underestimation as it had time to travel over 7000 km and be in Iran about 12,000 years ago.

- E1b1a1a1c2c3c, another SSA lineage, and plenty of Y-DNA A, BT and CT in the BMAC during the Bronze Age. The A, BT and CT could be early Homo sapiens lineages that died out, but why again West African Y-DNA in Central Asia?

- Surprisingly lots of (Levantine?) E1b1b1b2 with also some A0, CT, DE and E in Early Iron Age northern Pakistan. Was there a massive Natufian migration to the region in the Early Neolithic? Or is that more Paleolithic or Mesolithic African hunter-gatherers?

- I2a2a2a in Neolithic Turkmenistan (5000-2000 BCE). Is that an offshoot of a Neolithic culture of Old Europe, a Mesolithic European tribe that ended up in Central Asia, or an early Steppe invader?

- As mentioned before, Mal'ta can't be R1b1a1a2 and it's extremely suspicious to find a Nordic Bronze Age clade of R1b-U106 (S21728, downstream of Z9) in Iron Age Pakistan. Either it's a typo or that sample was contaminated.


E1b1a ... amazing.
The fun thing is that no sub Saharan ancestry in Iran Neolithic has been detected. Using formal stats. The same with the Natufians who are E1b1b.
Maybe Basal Eurasian is somehow connected to Africa ?

These results caught me off guard too. Assuming it's not some kind of error I can think of two crack pot theories for why there is african/natufian haplogroups in central asia. Either it was mediated from Oman which had extensive cultural and economic connections with the IVC cultures into the "Turan" area or it turns out Elamites had a partially Natufian origin and didn't just transmit their script, numeral system and language as far as Sharh-i-Sokhta, but also some of their genes. Both of these groups had a presence in the area as early as the late 4th millennium bc.

As for the seeming lack of Natufian/Levantine autosomal ancestry, Matt from eurogenes pulled out a telling quote from the Supplementary section which reveals the Anatolian farmer ancestry is just a representative for a "western Near East Neolithic population"

p106 "An important caveat is that we do not consider here Levantine agriculturalists who were closely related to those of Anatolia with some uncertainty as the direction of gene flow between Anatolia and the Levant [Laz16].

Relatedly, the distribution of Anatolian/Levantine/Iranian-Neolithic related populations in the ancient Near East is only sparsely known[Cite Laz/Broushaki/Boncuklu paper], with an important lacuna in Mesopotamia. Our results do not imply that the shift related to populations sampled in northwestern Anatolia [Mathieson] implies admixture from that area, but we use this set because of its large sample size and high quality as representatives of Neolithic populations of the western Near East."


It's in response to a user who questions that there could be Natufian/Levantine ancestry this far north before the Akkadian era, but it's actually entirely possible given the immense amount of economic and cultural exchange occuring across the Arabian Sea hundreds of years before the Akkadians existed. The absence of mesopotamian and Elamite genes also leaves open the possibility that it was simply brought through the middle east as well. This of course is all conjecture, but I see these theories as the most probable possibilities if in fact the y-dna here isn't just an error.

Tomenable
02-04-18, 03:48
Anyone still remembers this study?:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3559/figures/4

"Each circle represents a phylogenetic node whose branching pattern suggests rapid expansion. The horizontal axis indicates the timings of the expansions, and circle radii reflect growth rates—the minimum number of sons per generation, as estimated by our two-phase growth model. Nodes are grouped by continental superpopulation (AFR, African; AMR, admixed American; EAS, East Asian; EUR, European; SAS, South Asian) and colored by haplogroup. Line segments connect phylogenetically nested lineages. This figure was generated with ggplot2 (ref. 32)."

https://media.nature.com/lw926/nature-assets/ng/journal/v48/n6/images/ng.3559-F4.jpg

R1a-Z93 exploded in South Asia (SAS) during the Bronze Age, not later.

If they didn't find it one possible explanation is that Z93 were practicing cremation.

Angela
02-04-18, 04:51
indeed, there is a lot of R1a in South Asia today, and according to the paper, it does not come from the Scyths, it got there earlier, that should be Steppe MLBA then

There is a substantial amount of R1a, particularly in the northwest, and yet in the 41 samples from 1200 to 800 BC there is 10-15% steppe ancestry, but not a single R1a. Even in the Iron Age, there is only one R1a, and that's from 400 BC.

Either this is an unusual area, and R1a arrived via another route(?), or R1a was just a founder effect for some reason, or a lot of it did come with various SAKA groups.

It's like there's a disconnect between the conclusions and the data.

Also, the steppe MLBA percentages are pretty darn low in these samples. I mean, they vary, but a lot are in that 10-15% range.

I have to read the Supplement again, I guess. :)

kingjohn
02-04-18, 09:18
Wow awesome paper. Finally some South and Central Asian.

Has anyone thrown the site coordinates into Google maps? I just started doing this and it's really cool. In many cases you can see features of the dig.

According to the authors we essentially have Indus River samples, which is sweet. They're just South Asian+Iran Neolithic. I guess that should have been expected.

The West Siberian is interesting and helps fill some gaps from the Scythians paper.

There's E1b in a 10000BC Northern Iranian sample. That seemed strange initially, but I guess it's not.

The R1b Z2103 in 5500BC Northern Iran is very interesting, but saying that this single sample proves that copper age Iranians were speaking PIE is crazy, even if this very guy is the direct ancestor to those Z2103 Yamnaya guys, which is unlikely. The consequence of this being true would make for a very strange mechanism of dispersal, which would probably generate more mysteries than it solves.

It would provide a nice explanation for the origin of Anatolian languages, but that's about it. Remember we're now about as certain as we'll ever be that Indo-Iranian and the European IE languages came from the steppe, so how is this reconciled with PIE/Anatolian in Iran all the way up to the bronze age, where Non-IE languages are attested? They would have had to quietly and quickly move to Anatolia and the steppe and been immediately replaced with other non-IE speakers. The whole time being absent from history.

Also this Iranian Z2103 guy is contemporaneous with the Khvalynsk guys, who are already showing an increase in CHG/Iranian Neolithic. So we would have to also say that these guys have nothing to do with IE or Yamnaya, and yet they're very clearly ancestors of steppe populations that would later expand and spread IE languages. Not only this, but these Iranian PIE speakers would also have immediately assimilated into a steppe culture exhibiting none of their Iranian Neolithic cultural characteristics.

So these are stealth ninja PIEs who infiltrated the steppe, and only then did they expand rapidly in every direction from the steppe.

I guess it's possible. We really need Maykop males and more ancient Caucasian genomes then because if the IE L23 lines are really exploding out of the Caucuses then we should find much more evidence than one dude in Copper age Iran.


take it with grain of salt
there y and mtdna table is a big mess

Maciamo
02-04-18, 09:51
For I think cranial shapes has always some indications to give to us when seriously studied - variations exist within pops but for the most these variations has an history - OK for BB's as an heterogenous pop in space and time, not only variated - the most of Yamna were rather meso-dolicho (but with rather low faces) and the most of CWC were rather dolicho high faced and high skulled, what does not exclude a common component among both at some degree - that said, Joren provided 'Pamir-Ferghana' type evocates curiously 'dinaric' (so a part of early BBs "linker" population, if not the true first BBs)- I noticed this upon current Tadjiks of the mountains - origin? convergence in microevolution?
I know the little confidence of people in craniometrics so this ought to be discussed in an anthropo thread, even if it could be linked from far to the present thread

The problems with craniometrics are that:

1) the variables are too limited (dolicho vs brachy, high vs low face) compared to DNA

2) the same skull shapes can be found in completely unrelated populations (e.g. dolichocephalic Nordics and Berbers)

3) cranial traits recombine when two different populations mix and can give rise to intermediate traits that are different from both source populations and closer to other unrelated populations. You can't extract percentages of admixtures from the original populations based on craniometics.

It's like mixing colours. If you mix one type of yellow with one type of blue, you get one type of green. With DNA you can see what the original colours were and what percentage of each is present in the mixture. With craniometrics all you know is that you have green, but don't know what the original colours were, nor how many were used and in what proportions. In the case of the colour green, you know that either you already had some green and could have altered it with adding another colour, or you could make it from scratch with blue and yellow. But if the colour is brown, it's much harder to know what was mixed originally.

Maciamo
02-04-18, 10:14
Linguistically, it is indeed difficult to explain how, by the time they appeared, the Hittites could still be speaking such an archaic form of PIE. This said, we must keep in mind that some phonological changes are one-way, no-return changes.

Hittite still has laryngeals, which are postulated only as "algebric" remnants in reconstructed steppe PIE - meaning that they had already begun to evolve into different, more "modern" sounds : eg, [H²] had become, or was in the process of becoming [a] (except when followed by s in some environments). No hybridization can ever restore extinct laryngeals. How they survived intact among Hittites while fading out elsewhere is hard to tell. It certainly implies a high degree of isolation. Now, could a tribe remain so extremely isolated in the open geography of the steppe ? Did they remain isolated in a valley of the Caucasus for 2000 years or more ? As to the "warrior package" (horse, chariot, etc.) I think it was extensively shared by all warlike groups in the middle-east by Hittite times, including the Egyptians and the early Assyrians. I feel tempted to stick to my idea that they were a small tribe who moved early from the south west Caspian into Anatolia (along with other small tribes), and then had a hard time surviving among hostile neighbors. Until they emerged and conquered - a bit like the Romans did in Italy.

The same applies to Satem IE. Satem is the result of palatalization. I've never heard "de-palatalization" mentioned. So Satem forms derive from original, "hard" Centum forms. It can't work the other way round. Palatalization, on the other hand, could be due to hybridization, or adoption of a language by people who had difficulties managing some of its sounds. A powerful R1a expatriate from south Yamna, plus a founder effect, plus a degree of isolation, would do the trick, to some extent. It doesn't leave much time, though, to multiply enough to muster the might to found the CWC.

I agree with everything, except perhaps with the Hittites moving early from the south west Caspian into Anatolia. The Hittites were close relatives of the Luwians (from Troy), Carians, Lydians and Lycians, who were all living in western Anatolia. The Lycians are said to be originally from Crete. That's why I think that an early migration from the Steppe to the Balkans is more likely. Furthermore, the R1b-L51 branch (Centum or Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic) only moved to central Europe between 3000 and 2500 BCE, but Steppe people started invading the Carpathians and Balkans ("Old Europe") from 4200 BCE. What happened to all those Steppe people who settled in SE Europe for over one thousand years? I believe that they were the Anatolian branch and that later Steppe invasions pushed them to western Anatolia (and probably also Greece and Albania).

Olympus Mons
02-04-18, 11:07
Wow awesome paper. Finally some South and Central Asian.

Has anyone thrown the site coordinates into Google maps? I just started doing this and it's really cool. In many cases you can see features of the dig.

According to the authors we essentially have Indus River samples, which is sweet. They're just South Asian+Iran Neolithic. I guess that should have been expected.

The West Siberian is interesting and helps fill some gaps from the Scythians paper.

There's E1b in a 10000BC Northern Iranian sample. That seemed strange initially, but I guess it's not.

The R1b Z2103 in 5500BC Northern Iran is very interesting, but saying that this single sample proves that copper age Iranians were speaking PIE is crazy, even if this very guy is the direct ancestor to those Z2103 Yamnaya guys, which is unlikely. The consequence of this being true would make for a very strange mechanism of dispersal, which would probably generate more mysteries than it solves.

It would provide a nice explanation for the origin of Anatolian languages, but that's about it. Remember we're now about as certain as we'll ever be that Indo-Iranian and the European IE languages came from the steppe, so how is this reconciled with PIE/Anatolian in Iran all the way up to the bronze age, where Non-IE languages are attested? They would have had to quietly and quickly move to Anatolia and the steppe and been immediately replaced with other non-IE speakers. The whole time being absent from history.

Also this Iranian Z2103 guy is contemporaneous with the Khvalynsk guys, who are already showing an increase in CHG/Iranian Neolithic. So we would have to also say that these guys have nothing to do with IE or Yamnaya, and yet they're very clearly ancestors of steppe populations that would later expand and spread IE languages. Not only this, but these Iranian PIE speakers would also have immediately assimilated into a steppe culture exhibiting none of their Iranian Neolithic cultural characteristics.

So these are stealth ninja PIEs who infiltrated the steppe, and only then did they expand rapidly in every direction from the steppe.

I guess it's possible. We really need Maykop males and more ancient Caucasian genomes then because if the IE L23 lines are really exploding out of the Caucuses then we should find much more evidence than one dude in Copper age Iran.
Our brain always finds a way to spin things around does it not? And that is what you are doing .

a. Khvalynsk is not contemporaneous with this R1b Z2103 5500bc. Its a 1000 years later and with reservoir effect balanced it now is pushing Khvalynsk dating to something like 4200Bc or even later.

b. This guy Z2103 is the father of those eneolithic and yamnaya.

c. Hajji Fizuz is not a culture. Its a offshoot remote place where people used to settle and many places around are clearly seasonal for transhumance pastorals. At that period they were making wine, like the shulaveri shomu in georgia. Many books state the links with south caucasus pastorals and obsidian.

d. shulaveri were many. The Kura river basin was packed with settlements. They were highly developed pastorals with big cattle, they were masters of domestication of plants and animals, we even find many horse bones in some settlements....

e. Do you think is a coincidence that when they suddenly and completely vanished, by 5000bc (some settlement even have a layer of ashes), at the exact time agriculture arrives in the north caucasus?

There is no better pattern for dispersal of PIE than them.

Ygorcs
02-04-18, 11:07
You don't get to t-roll Slavs or any other nationalities here. You already got an infraction. Keep this stuff up and you'll be out of here very soon.

@Johen,
You want to take issue with a genetics paper? Argue the genetics. Stop with this kind of nonsense.

Not to mention that Indo-Iranian "Scythian masters" of the Iron Age (that's when Scythians proper existed), who by the way were also heavy in R1a percentages, certainly couldn't have taught a Balto-Slavic language to R1a-majority anestors of Slavs and Balts. Not only a language doesn't "back-evolve" to its former stages to be then reshaped when it is adopted by another people (believe it or not, Balto-Slavic is clearly not a daughter of Indo-Iranian), but also Baltic and Slavic languages already had developed their very distinctive fundamental sound rules by the end of the Bronze Age, what's suggestive of a long internal and independent development. I ask myself why people don't seem to even think twice about the linguistic implications of these hypothesis before they think they are pausible enough to be even posted here for appreciation.

Olympus Mons
02-04-18, 11:25
I agree with everything, except perhaps with the Hittites moving early from the south west Caspian into Anatolia. The Hittites were close relatives of the Luwians (from Troy), Carians, Lydians and Lycians, who were all living in western Anatolia. The Lycians are said to be originally from Crete. That's why I think that an early migration from the Steppe to the Balkans is more likely. Furthermore, the R1b-L51 branch (Centum or Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic) only moved to central Europe between 3000 and 2500 BCE, but Steppe people started invading the Carpathians and Balkans ("Old Europe") from 4200 BCE. What happened to all those Steppe people who settled in SE Europe for over one thousand years? I believe that they were the Anatolian branch and that later Steppe invasions pushed them to western Anatolia (and probably also Greece and Albania).

Maybe is time to give a pause to this Steppe thing because clearly its no as crank up as some (and probably you) have been saying.

Every body was expecting to find a mythical place north caucasus full of R1bs and actualy the oldest (m269) is found in northwestern Iran. The only importance of Steppe is the fact that is the last component of europe admix and there is a clear possibilities it did so by providing extended exogamy to crazy Bell beakers males with CWC females in central europe (and other way around i suppose) something even nmdental traits have been saying for15 years.

People speaking Pie during 5th and 4th milenia clearly were in anatolia, armenia, even in Thrace or western shores of black sea or southeast balkans. There is no need for steppe anything.
At least that Kum6 girl in north anatolia spoke PIE (shulaveri fleeing 4700bc).

Ownstyler
02-04-18, 11:27
Linguistically, it is indeed difficult to explain how, by the time they appeared, the Hittites could still be speaking such an archaic form of PIE. This said, we must keep in mind that some phonological changes are one-way, no-return changes.

Hittite still has laryngeals, which are postulated only as "algebric" remnants in reconstructed steppe PIE - meaning that they had already begun to evolve into different, more "modern" sounds : eg, [H²] had become, or was in the process of becoming [a] (except when followed by s in some environments). No hybridization can ever restore extinct laryngeals. How they survived intact among Hittites while fading out elsewhere is hard to tell. It certainly implies a high degree of isolation. Now, could a tribe remain so extremely isolated in the open geography of the steppe ? Did they remain isolated in a valley of the Caucasus for 2000 years or more ? As to the "warrior package" (horse, chariot, etc.) I think it was extensively shared by all warlike groups in the middle-east by Hittite times, including the Egyptians and the early Assyrians. I feel tempted to stick to my idea that they were a small tribe who moved early from the south west Caspian into Anatolia (along with other small tribes), and then had a hard time surviving among hostile neighbors. Until they emerged and conquered - a bit like the Romans did in Italy.

The same applies to Satem IE. Satem is the result of palatalization. I've never heard "de-palatalization" mentioned. So Satem forms derive from original, "hard" Centum forms. It can't work the other way round. Palatalization, on the other hand, could be due to hybridization, or adoption of a language by people who had difficulties managing some of its sounds. A powerful R1a expatriate from south Yamna, plus a founder effect, plus a degree of isolation, would do the trick, to some extent. It doesn't leave much time, though, to multiply enough to muster the might to found the CWC.

Sorry if it's a silly question - I don't know linguistics - but could there have been many IE speaking peoples, even before the Hittites? We don't have written records from them but they could have existed. Then of course there were huge migrations of an IE Steppe population in the Bronze Age, but maybe they weren't the only IE speaking people at the time.

Olympus Mons
02-04-18, 11:32
There is no better pattern for dispersal of PIE than them.

..and Holderlin
Do you want a bet that Maykop is going to be essently either: farmers from Balkans or southern caucasus later leylatepe with connections to Uruk and nothing to do with PIe or R1b?

Olympus Mons
02-04-18, 11:35
Sorry if it's a silly question - I don't know linguistics - but could there have been many IE speaking peoples, even before the Hittites? We don't have written records from them but they could have existed. Then of course there were huge migrations of an IE Steppe population in the Bronze Age, but maybe they weren't the only IE speaking people at the time.
Good question. Of course there were many.
Hittite is just a reference because left a written legagy. For milenia people spoke Pie before Hittite.

Ownstyler
02-04-18, 11:38
I wouldn't be too surprised from Sub-Saharan DNA in Neolithic west/central Asia, or any kind of DNA anywhere else honestly, except for Australia and the Americas, which were more isolated. We know about the major out of Africa migrations of 60-120kya, and we know that many haplogroups reached Eurasia in different waves. Humans were traveling far and wide as early as that. I would assume with time, traveling could have only gotten easier, except for the melted land bridges. There already was a paper showing booth Sub-Saharan and Near Eastern ancestry in Morocco around 12kya iirc, so long distance travel should not have been too uncommon.

Thinking about the differences in trait variance in different populations, which Reich mentioned, I wonder how much of that difference is due to actual differentiation through evolution, selection and archaic admixture, and how much it is just random differentiation that naturally occurs you split with bias any data base into two groups (bias because splits happened by lineages and not completely randomly).

bicicleur
02-04-18, 11:39
Not to mention that Indo-Iranian "Scythian masters" of the Iron Age (that's when Scythians proper existed), who by the way were also heavy in R1a percentages, certainly couldn't have taught a Balto-Slavic language to R1a-majority anestors of Slavs and Balts. Not only a language doesn't "back-evolve" to its former stages to be then reshaped when it is adopted by another people (believe it or not, Balto-Slavic is clearly not a daughter of Indo-Iranian), but also Baltic and Slavic languages already had developed their very distinctive fundamental sound rules by the end of the Bronze Age, what's suggestive of a long internal and independent development. I ask myself why people don't seem to even think twice about the linguistic implications of these hypothesis before they think they are pausible enough to be even posted here for appreciation.

there are many here - including me - with a very limited knowledge of linguistics
on the other hand I sometimes get the impression that others - not you - who claim to know something about linguistics try to twist their arguments in favour of their own biassed opinions or believe they can explain everything with linguistics

bicicleur
02-04-18, 11:51
Maybe is time to give a pause to this Steppe thing because clearly its no as crank up as some (and probably you) have been saying.
Every body was expecting to find a mythical place north caucasus full of R1bs and actualy the oldest (m269) is found in northwestern Iran. The only importance of Steppe is the fact that is the last component of europe admix and there is a clear possibilities it did so by providing extended exogamy to crazy Bell beakers males with CWC females in central europe (and other way around i suppose) something even nmdental traits have been saying for15 years.
People speaking Pie during 5th and 4th milenia clearly were in anatolia, armenia, even in Thrace or western shores of black sea or southeast balkans. There is no need for steppe anything.
At least that Kum6 girl in north anatolia spoke PIE (shulaveri fleeing 4700bc).
the authors are convinced that all extant branches of IE were spread by steppe EMBA or steppe MLBA

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/europeindianmap.jpg

but indeed the Anatolian branch may have another source

as for R1b, a strange pattern emerges
pré-Yamna steppe and Iron Gates seem to have been populated by the R1b-V88 branch
while R1b-P297 was observed in the Baltic area, and now also western Azerbaijan

Ygorcs
02-04-18, 13:05
Every body was expecting to find a mythical place north caucasus full of R1bs and actualy the oldest (m269) is found in northwestern Iran. The only importance of Steppe is the fact that is the last component of europe admix and there is a clear possibilities it did so by providing extended exogamy to crazy Bell beakers males with CWC females in central europe (and other way around i suppose) something even nmdental traits have been saying for15 years.

People speaking Pie during 5th and 4th milenia clearly were in anatolia, armenia, even in Thrace or western shores of black sea or southeast balkans. There is no need for steppe anything.

Actually there is. The only admixture that clearly starts to appear and incrase whenever and wherever IE languages started to appear, except for West Asia (until now), is the Bronze Age steppe one. I'm perfecty fine with the hypothesis, increasingly supported by evidences, that the earliest form or PIE (maybe even still pre-PIE) was in West Asia, south of the Caucasus and near the Caspian and/or Black Sea, but that is a really long way from claiming that the steppe peoples had nothing to do nor were "necessary" at all for the spread of IE languages much, much later, when the Late PIE that expanded the most was certainly very different from that Earliest PIE if we consider that even the Anatolian branch, which is itself an evolution of that, and not a fossil that preserved that Early PIE intact, is already so distinct from the non-Anatolian IE branches that some once found it even hard to believe it was really IE and not a closely related language family. To talk about the spread of IE languages in the Bronze Age trying to link that phenomenon exclusively with Shulaveri-Shomu south of the Caucasus around 5,000 BC would be more or less like trying to establish how Portuguese and Spanish spread to South America relying just on the expansion of Italic tribes in Iron Age Italy.

The steppe component was probably NOT the source of PIE, but to say it was not "necessary" and had nothing to do with the spread of the vast majority of IE branches is simply unsubstantiated if you look at the ample evidences and the conclusions of virtually every studies based on evidences. People mix, change their genetics, absorb others, and the subsequent generations, even if totally transformed genetically, may keep the language and culture alive.

Of course, admixtures and Y-DNA haplogroups don't transmit languages, people do, so you and no one can expect to find a completely seamless and always intensive association of steppe admixture with the arrival of IE-speaking peoples, but there is undoubtedly a very strong correlation with the sole exception, until now, of Bronze Age Anatolia (as for Iberia, we have no reason to believe IE languages were there very early, all the IE languages documented there were very clearly not that divergent from Central European IE tongues to have been spoken there since the early Bronze Age).

Ownstyler
02-04-18, 13:21
Good question. Of course there were many.
Hittite is just a reference because left a written legagy. For milenia people spoke Pie before Hittite.

I was trying to reconcile some genetic evidence pointing to migrations from Steppe to southeast Europe to Anatolia, with the Anatolian languages not being in the same branch as Balkan languages. So maybe some early IE languages already existed there, straight from Armenia/Iran, then when the Steppe migration arrived, their relatively new IE form mixed with the old one, which would explain the archaic elements in there, and the seemingly Steppe ancestry. Seems a little complicated though.

Balkanite
02-04-18, 13:22
I think that J2b2-L283 just happened to be more common in the Balkans today due to a founder effect in the Illyrian population. Otherwise J2b2-L283 is found pretty much all over Europe, even if at lower frequencies in the north.

I agree. There sure were founder effects after the arrival in illyria, yes. And L283 probably were in small numbers, yes.

But i was not claiming L283 came in big numbers, but rather that there is no proof they were just commoners. Or at least the chance that they were commoners is just the same as for any of the 3 other Hg's mentioned. Both M417, Z2103, L51 and L283 experienced founder effects after the dispersals from the steppe. And all of them can be found all throughout europe in residual amounts. I dont know much about M417 and L51, but both R1b-Z2103 and J2b2-L283 have been found in high status bronze age graves, and now also "high" status neolithic graves in Iran.

Maybe it was me who misunderstood your first post, but it just seemed like L51, Z2103 and M417 were presented as high status lineages, while all other steppe lineages (J2b-L283 and other minor R1b/R1a clades) were presented as 'commoners'.
Small numbers of J2b2-L283 in the steppe migrants does not mean that they were insignificant. Remember for a 1000 soldiers there is 1 king, not a 1000 kings for 1 soldier.

Anyways these are just minor details, and its just my opinion.
In the big strokes we pretty much agree on what happened; J2b2-L283 came from the east during the bronze age, and multiplied their numbers in the balkans during the ethnogenesis of the Illyrians, as well as after the ethnogenesis. While in the rest of Europe, the amount of J2b2-L283 stayed residual. (until roman expansionism began later of course. Which with the help of balkan soldiers would raise the level of J2b2-L283 once again in places like spain, britain and Italy.)

Ygorcs
02-04-18, 13:42
I was trying to reconcile some genetic evidence pointing to migrations from Steppe to southeast Europe to Anatolia, with the Anatolian languages not being in the same branch as Balkan languages. So maybe some early IE languages already existed there, straight from Armenia/Iran, then when the Steppe migration arrived, their relatively new IE form mixed with the old one, which would explain the archaic elements in there, and the seemingly Steppe ancestry. Seems a little complicated though.

Anatolian probably branched off - according to most glottochronological estimates I've seen - before 3,500 BC or even 4,000 BC, and the later southward waves of steppe or steppe-related migrations that impacted the Balkans took place much later, including some that went on as late as the Iron Ages (that was certainly the case of at least some Dacian and Illyrian tribes). If IE languages akin to Anatolian were spoken in the Balkans much earlier than 2,000 BC, they must've been swept away by Greeks, Phrygians, Thracians and many others along the subsequent centuries, or even earlier by languages related to the Copper Age/Bronze Age CHG expansion that possibly brought languages like Minoan. IMO the steppe admixture probably increased significantly only after these later Bronze Age/Iron Age IE migrations, especially those after the spread of Proto-Greeks.

Maciamo
02-04-18, 13:45
Every body was expecting to find a mythical place north caucasus full of R1bs and actualy the oldest (m269) is found in northwestern Iran.


We don't have any ancient Y-DNA from the North Caucasus (e.g. Maykop) yet. Anyway I always said that R1b-M269 originated south of the Caucasus and crossed north between 6000 and 5000 BCE (most probably as R1b-L23 and some of its subclades).

Who on this forum expected R1b-M269 to have originated in the North Caucasus?

Maciamo
02-04-18, 13:50
Sorry if it's a silly question - I don't know linguistics - but could there have been many IE speaking peoples, even before the Hittites? We don't have written records from them but they could have existed. Then of course there were huge migrations of an IE Steppe population in the Bronze Age, but maybe they weren't the only IE speaking people at the time.

The Hittites actually arrived quite late (1650 BCE), many centuries after Proto-Celtic R1b-P312 and Proto-Germanic R1b-U106 spread all over Western Europe and Proto-Indo-Iranian R1a-Z93 spread over western Siberia and Central Asia. It was about the time of the Indo-Aryan conquest of India and when R1b-U106 entered Scandinavia (Nordic Bronze Age). Their language was archaic, but as a people they appear quite late in the context of Indo-European migration. That's why they must have split early but remained isolated (like in the mountainous southern Balkans) for a long time before entering the historical record.

Balkanite
02-04-18, 13:52
Anyway I always said that R1b-M269 originated south of the Caucasus and crossed north between 6000 and 5000 BCE (most probably as R1b-L23 and some of its subclades).

What tipped you off back then, that R1b-M269 came from south of the caucasus?
Personally i did not see it coming. But i love when samples like this comes around and challenges peoples beliefs and conceptions.

Maciamo
02-04-18, 13:58
What tipped you off back then, that R1b came from south of the caucasus?
Personally i did not see it coming. But i love when samples like this comes around and challenges peoples beliefs.

That's because R1b-V88 is found all over the Levant and spread from there to Africa, and because the highest diversity of old R1b clades was reported to be in the Middle East. Both African R1b-V88 and Steppe R1b-M269 are/were cattle herders and cattle were domesticated halfway between the Levant (V88) and South Caucasus (M269), so my logic is that they must have a common origin there.

What I did not see coming was that there would be R1b-P297 and R1b-V88 in the Balkans (Iron Gates), Ukraine and Latvia in the Mesolithic. For me R1b was only in the Middle East in the Mesolithic and domesticated cattle around the modern border of Syria and Turkey, then moved to the South Caucasus, then crossed to the Steppe. I underestimated the propensity of Mesolithic HG to travel long distances and settled a bit everywhere. If the West African E1b1a in Mesolithic Iran in this paper isn't a mistake, that is another remarkable example.

Tomenable
02-04-18, 14:43
There is a substantial amount of R1a, particularly in the northwest, and yet in the 41 samples from 1200 to 800 BC there is 10-15% steppe ancestry, but not a single R1a. Even in the Iron Age, there is only one R1a, and that's from 400 BC.

Either this is an unusual area, and R1a arrived via another route(?), or R1a was just a founder effect for some reason, or a lot of it did come with various SAKA groups.

It's like there's a disconnect between the conclusions and the data.

Also, the steppe MLBA percentages are pretty darn low in these samples. I mean, they vary, but a lot are in that 10-15% range.

I have to read the Supplement again, I guess. :)

Wouldn't Saka groups be partially East Asian admixed (and modern Indians are not, except for speakers of Munda languages in the east).

Ailchu
02-04-18, 14:48
IMO the steppe admixture probably increased significantly only after these later Bronze Age/Iron Age IE migrations, especially those after the spread of Proto-Greeks.


something i was thinking about too. i think the study that looked at minoans and myceneans also tried to model myceneans as a mix of armenian populations and EEF and it would work pretty well. so the amount of "steppe" they had would not really be steppe in that case. maybe the same thing happened in italy.
actual steppe might come from later migrations south and slavery.

though when we speak about steppe admixture what exactly is it? EHG and CHG? as far as i know the exact propotions of CHG and EHG in the total amount of "steppe" is not clearly defined. wouldnt it be better to just look at EHG and CHG admixture seperatly to look at steppe and caaucasus movements since CHG might have come in two independent routes? or can we clearly distinguish what came from what direction?

Balkanite
02-04-18, 15:25
That's because R1b-V88 is found all over the Levant and spread from there to Africa, and because the highest diversity of old R1b clades was reported to be in the Middle East. Both African R1b-V88 and Steppe R1b-M269 are/were cattle herders and cattle were domesticated halfway between the Levant (V88) and South Caucasus (M269), so my logic is that they must have a common origin there.

What I did not see coming was that there would be R1b-P297 and R1b-V88 in the Balkans (Iron Gates), Ukraine and Latvia in the Mesolithic. For me R1b was only in the Middle East in the Mesolithic and domesticated cattle around the modern border of Syria and Turkey, then moved to the South Caucasus, then crossed to the Steppe. I underestimated the propensity of Mesolithic HG to travel long distances and settled a bit everywhere.

Nice. Great prediction.

I was thinking maybe the mesolithic P297 and V88 in Iron gates and eastern europe, are a hint towards that the R1b population was in fact already rather big in the middle east by the time cattle were domesticated. As the supply of animals to hunt began to run low, some R1b hunters would migrate far(maybe via the black sea) to hunt somewhere else (Iron gates, latvia etc.), while some V88 and M269 stayed and domesticated those few animals that were left in that part of the middle east where they resided. So those domesticators did not need to move away like the rest, as they now had a reliable food source.
But i dont know, i am just speculating. They are rather peculiar those mesolithic samples of the Iron gates, Ukraine and Latvia.
Would be interesting to see ancient DNA from the mesolithic southern coasts of the black sea and northern anatolia, to see if that could have been the migration route of those hunters.


If the West African E1b1a in Mesolithic Iran in this paper isn't a mistake, that is another remarkable example.
Yes that sample will indeed be telling if it turns out its not a mistake. Let's hope they'll release the final paper soon.(or at least an updated spreadsheet)

MOESAN
02-04-18, 15:31
The problems with craniometrics are that:

1) the variables are too limited (dolicho vs brachy, high vs low face) compared to DNA

2) the same skull shapes can be found in completely unrelated populations (e.g. dolichocephalic Nordics and Berbers)

3) cranial traits recombine when two different populations mix and can give rise to intermediate traits that are different from both source populations and closer to other unrelated populations. You can't extract percentages of admixtures from the original populations based on craniometics.

It's like mixing colours. If you mix one type of yellow with one type of blue, you get one type of green. With DNA you can see what the original colours were and what percentage of each is present in the mixture. With craniometrics all you know is that you have green, but don't know what the original colours were, nor how many were used and in what proportions. In the case of the colour green, you know that either you already had some green and could have altered it with adding another colour, or you could make it from scratch with blue and yellow. But if the colour is brown, it's much harder to know what was mixed originally.

I 'll answer this in an appropriate thread when I have time; just keep in mind serious cranial study implies metrics and tries to taxinomy; means are not sufficient, extremes and their interpretation are to be taken in account, and evolution in time when possible, of means but also of individuals - the shape is the result of very numerous dimensions, made sometimes by the only eye of the observator but depending on theses dimensions all the way - I consider it can help to capture brutal enough changes in a place peopling as a proof of historical moves, and as I said already it is more useful to separate pops than to settle their common origin - it's a complement, not the ideal tool, but sometimes it give us a more detailed sketche than does auDNA (anDNA research itself has different levels of accuracy and depth according to surveys, and can also give way to oversimplifications or pure errors)

Olympus Mons
02-04-18, 15:58
Actually there is. The only admixture that clearly starts to appear and incrase whenever and wherever IE languages started to appear, except for West Asia (until now), is the Bronze Age steppe one. I'm perfecty fine with the hypothesis, increasingly supported by evidences, that the earliest form or PIE (maybe even still pre-PIE) was in West Asia, south of the Caucasus and near the Caspian and/or Black Sea, but that is a really long way from claiming that the steppe peoples had nothing to do nor were "necessary" at all for the spread of IE languages much, much later, when the Late PIE that expanded the most was certainly very different from that Earliest PIE if we consider that even the Anatolian branch, which is itself an evolution of that, and not a fossil that preserved that Early PIE intact, is already so distinct from the non-Anatolian IE branches that some once found it even hard to believe it was really IE and not a closely related language family. To talk about the spread of IE languages in the Bronze Age trying to link that phenomenon exclusively with Shulaveri-Shomu south of the Caucasus around 5,000 BC would be more or less like trying to establish how Portuguese and Spanish spread to South America relying just on the expansion of Italic tribes in Iron Age Italy.
The steppe component was probably NOT the source of PIE, but to say it was not "necessary" and had nothing to do with the spread of the vast majority of IE branches is simply unsubstantiated if you look at the ample evidences and the conclusions of virtually every studies based on evidences. People mix, change their genetics, absorb others, and the subsequent generations, even if totally transformed genetically, may keep the language and culture alive.
Of course, admixtures and Y-DNA haplogroups don't transmit languages, people do, so you and no one can expect to find a completely seamless and always intensive association of steppe admixture with the arrival of IE-speaking peoples, but there is undoubtedly a very strong correlation with the sole exception, until now, of Bronze Age Anatolia (as for Iberia, we have no reason to believe IE languages were there very early, all the IE languages documented there were very clearly not that divergent from Central European IE tongues to have been spoken there since the early Bronze Age).
There is no need for steppe to explain Pie in Anatolia, armenia ....that is what i meant.
But being at that, Pie (if shulaveri) went as far as balkans... What.would have been the impact of thiose?
What if bell beaker came from there and not steppe and spoke pie?
What if Myceanian was a Pie nothing to do with steppe?

Angela
02-04-18, 15:59
Wouldn't Saka groups be partially East Asian admixed (and modern Indians are not, except for speakers of Munda languages in the east).

Perhaps twenty percent from only one group might have drifted out of the population.

The only other possibility I can see is that the West Siberian hunter-gatherers carried R1a as well.

Another question for investigation is which other route it might have taken.

Saetrus
02-04-18, 16:30
The Hittites actually arrived quite late (1650 BCE), many centuries after Proto-Celtic R1b-P312 and Proto-Germanic R1b-U106 spread all over Western Europe and Proto-Indo-Iranian R1a-Z93 spread over western Siberia and Central Asia. It was about the time of the Indo-Aryan conquest of India and when R1b-U106 entered Scandinavia (Nordic Bronze Age). Their language was archaic, but as a people they appear quite late in the context of Indo-European migration. That's why they must have split early but remained isolated (like in the mountainous southern Balkans) for a long time before entering the historical record.

This story that Hittites arrived 1650 BC makes no sense, it's like saying Italics only arrived in Italy when Rome became an empire, you can see autosomally that Anatolia becomes Indoeuropean in the Chalcolithic.
https://i.imgur.com/GQ66BLE.png

bicicleur
02-04-18, 16:40
Wouldn't Saka groups be partially East Asian admixed (and modern Indians are not, except for speakers of Munda languages in the east).

yes, that is what they say in the paper
their conclusion is that the bulk of steppe admixture arrived in India with steppe MLBA

bicicleur
02-04-18, 16:46
Perhaps twenty percent from only one group might have drifted out of the population.

The only other possibility I can see is that the West Siberian hunter-gatherers carried R1a as well.

Another question for investigation is which other route it might have taken.

there was R1a in Kitoi, but IMO it was R1a-YP1272, the combed ware branch which is supposed to originate in that area
that makes sense too, the Kitoi for sure didn't speak IE

holderlin
02-04-18, 16:47
I agree with everything, except perhaps with the Hittites moving early from the south west Caspian into Anatolia. The Hittites were close relatives of the Luwians (from Troy), Carians, Lydians and Lycians, who were all living in western Anatolia. The Lycians are said to be originally from Crete. That's why I think that an early migration from the Steppe to the Balkans is more likely. Furthermore, the R1b-L51 branch (Centum or Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic) only moved to central Europe between 3000 and 2500 BCE, but Steppe people started invading the Carpathians and Balkans ("Old Europe") from 4200 BCE. What happened to all those Steppe people who settled in SE Europe for over one thousand years? I believe that they were the Anatolian branch and that later Steppe invasions pushed them to western Anatolia (and probably also Greece and Albania).

OK, here we agree.

bicicleur
02-04-18, 16:50
This story that Hittites arrived 1650 BC makes no sense, it's like saying Italics only arrived in Italy when Rome became an empire, you can see autosomally that Anatolia becomes Indoeuropean in the Chalcolithic.


that's right, but on the other hand, before the Hittites conquered the land of the Hatti, ca 1900 BC, they were just a minor tribe, other non-IE languages were spoken in that area

Cpluskx
02-04-18, 16:54
There is no movement towards the Anatolia on David Reich's whiteboard. Arrow from Central Anatolia (Node A) goes probably to Northern Iran (Hajji Firuz) and from there to north, Caucasus and then to Ukraine. If this is not only an assumption and he has Hittite data, Central Anatolia may be the PIE (Indo-Hittite) home. I can't post the link now but you can look at the whiteboard from the NYT article.

Angela
02-04-18, 17:50
Nick Patterson interjects:

"Nick Patterson (Broad) (https://www.blogger.com/profile/15606881879148004553) [email protected] Dykstra:

I am extremely grateful to my South Asian collaborators
(and this goes for the whole Reich lab.); they are honest,
excellent scientists. There's a simple reason we have not
published on DNA from the IVC proper -- we have no useful DNA, and as you might guess this is not from lack of trying. "

Well, that's that.

holderlin
02-04-18, 17:50
There is no need for steppe to explain Pie in Anatolia, armenia ....that is what i meant.
But being at that, Pie (if shulaveri) went as far as balkans... What.would have been the impact of thiose?
What if bell beaker came from there and not steppe and spoke pie?
What if Myceanian was a Pie nothing to do with steppe?

There is not a shred of evidence that Indo-Europeans were in Anatolia or Armenia before after 2000BC (for Hittite and Mitanni), and long after that for Armenian and Iranian. And there is mountains of evidence to the contrary for transmission from the steppe.

Imagine if we found some particular G2a clade responsible for farmer expansion into the Balkans in 10000BC Iberia. Would we then have to say that Anatolian farmers actually came from Iberia? This is what you're trying to do with this 5500BC Iranian R1b-M269 guy.

Alan
02-04-18, 17:52
OMG!

I had already written about David Reich change of heart about PIE being from the South Caucasus. Now we know why.

“Andronovo pastoralists brought steppe ancestry to South Asia (Vagheesh et al. 2018 preprint)” is out and in the supplement there is a guy from Hajji Firuz in western Iran, that is a R1b-M269….by 5500bc(!). This means, in plain terms, OMG I was so right all along for all these years.

Let me talk about him, and why he is related to Shulaveri -Shomu in Armenia/Georgia. He was found in Hajji along side a couple J2b guys:
a. Both places have the oldest wine residue. So Shulaveri by 5800bc and here in Hajji 5500bc.
b. Both share the same pottery, specially the ones with “grapes” at the mouth.
c. Both settlements use tipical shulaveri circular mudbrick construction… and specially babies and women are buried under the floor in the same manner.
Its just a couple info. But to me it’s a glorious day. Indeed.

Also interesting J2a in MLBA Steppes.

holderlin
02-04-18, 17:52
Nick Patterson interjects:

"Nick Patterson (Broad) (https://www.blogger.com/profile/15606881879148004553) [email protected] Dykstra:

I am extremely grateful to my South Asian collaborators
(and this goes for the whole Reich lab.); they are honest,
excellent scientists. There's a simple reason we have not
published on DNA from the IVC proper -- we have no useful DNA, and as you might guess this is not from lack of trying. "

Well, that's that.

Wait, what does Lenny Dykstra the professional baseball player turned con man have to do with anything? I hope that's not just a random handle because it would just be too awesome if he has something to do with all of this.

holderlin
02-04-18, 17:54
This is clearly racism against steppe peoples, and very offensive.

Alan
02-04-18, 17:58
I see, but there is no reason to believe that the earliest PIE speakers must have come from BMAC civilization just because it was very advanced and sophisticated for its time. The earliest PIE tribes were probably not even that developed and sophistiated compared to others, so I see no necessary cultural link between them. If we had seen a huge IE expansion based mostly on refined urban civilizations and luxury trades, I'd take this much more seriously, but that isn't what the archaeological and linguistic records indicate.

Besides, the article in the link you provided refers to the Bronze Age Oxus civilization of Turkmenistan. In the Bronze Age the fully developed and in fact already diverging IE tribes were already spreading from Central Europe to Central Asia, and Anatolian speakers were already in Anatolia forming their kingdoms. There is no use in investigating Bronze Age features of cultures in Turkmenistan when we are discussing about the earliest formation of PIE still in the Neolithic age, probably earlier than 4,500 or even 5,000 BC, before Yamna, CWC and any other seemingly IE-speaking culture. What happens in Iran or in Turkmenistan before the earliest introgression of CHG and R1b in the steppes probably interests us, but that was at the latest around 4,000 BC.

Iran and Turkmenistan are neighbouring countries and as we see from the aDNA data probably belonged to the same ancestry for most.

Angela
02-04-18, 17:58
yes, that is what they say in the paper
their conclusion is that the bulk of steppe admixture arrived in India with steppe MLBA

Yet I don't see where the proof is in their analysis for the conclusions they're drawing, at least not iron clad proof.

This whole set of samples from the Bronze Age only shows steppe MLBA in some analyses, not all. Also, the culture itself doesn't seem very "Indo-European" at all. The amount is much lower than in modern Northwest Indians as well. Maybe it's pseudo-steppe because of this West Siberian HG ancestry mixed with Iran Neo.

Then there's the R1a problem. Not one. Only one in the Iron Age. Yet look at all of it now.

Do you know of any other route they could have taken?

Alan
02-04-18, 18:15
That's because the overwhelming majority of ancient DNA tested came from Europe, and because there were already lots of old and mostly extinct branches of R1b in Central and Eastern Europe from the Late Glacial period to the Mesolithic. Where are you going with that?
Correct, just by looking at the sample size in this paper. Steppe samples alone are twice as many as samples from Iranian Plateau and South_Central Asia.

Every region outside the Steppes and Europe is very undersampled.

Alan
02-04-18, 18:35
while R1b-P297 was observed in the Baltic area, and now also western Azerbaijan

Agree, but the thing is, we had found signs of Iran_Neo/CHG admixture in these Baltic samples but no EHG admixture in NW Iran. This Hajji Firuz m269 sample might be the reason why the authors pointed that out to begin with.

NW Iran is pretty much in the sphere of Leyla Tepe influence. I always pointed out that the oldest Kurgans are found there.

berun
02-04-18, 19:11
Did you even read my work? In my history of R1b (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Indo-European) I postulated many years ago that R1b-M269 probably crossed over the Caucasus into the Pontic Steppe shortly before 5200 BCE because the first clearly Proto-Indo-European cultures were the Khvalynsk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvalynsk_culture) (5200-4500 BCE).

This migration map from 2009 shows R1b moving from the South Caucasus into the Steppe between 6000 and 5000 BCE. I wasn't sure where exactly was the source of R1b-M269 in the South Caucasus, so I added a ? next to Hassuna. No DNA from Hassuna has been tested yet, so it could still be related to Shulaveni-Shomu.

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/old_neolithic_map.gif

On the very first R1b migration map that I made in 2009 (see this link (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#R1b_migration)as I can't copy/paste Flash maps here) I wrote that R1b crossed the Caucasus c. 7000 ybp (5000 BCE), although my arrow shows that it crossed on the western side of the Caucasus toward Maykop, but then I changed my mind a few months later for the above map as I thought it would be more likely that R1b have crossed to the east along the Caspian (just a little detail, it doesn't change the course of history).

I also wrote (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml#J2b2a1) that J2b2-L283 crossed the Caucasus at the same period and also become a PIE lineage. This was a simple deduction based on the fact that this haplogroup is about 6000 years old (according to Y-Full, but might be 7500 years old I think) and that it is found throughout Europe and South Asia, as well as in the South Caucasus from Eastern Anatolia to NW Iran (exactly the region where Neolithic R1b-M269 would have been found).
back from holidays I can check things, simply what you say here is just the contrary that I read here from 2014

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29666-Copper-Bronze-Age-Steppe-people-(PIE)-had-mixed-light-and-dark-pigmentation?highlight=araxes


On a side note, it is highly frustrating that this team of geneticists tested 63 samples from the Yamna and Catacomb and related cultures and did not test any Y-DNA at all ! This could prove once and for all that R1b people spread from the Pontic Steppe and not with Neolithic Near Eastern farmers as so many academic papers have claimed.

I will try to find the discussion had with this issue

markozd
02-04-18, 19:18
So does someone have an opinion on Darra.I.Kur_d from northern Afghanistan? The coverage is bad, but I've compared it with the samples in Olalde (2017) and it looks like if the assignment is correct this would be the oldest occurence of typically Western European R1b (L151). That can't be right, no?

The mtdna is H2a, which looks like it is associated with the Bronze Age in Europe.

Angela
02-04-18, 19:25
So does someone have an opinion on Darra.I.Kur_d from northern Afghanistan? The coverage is bad, but I've compared it with the samples in Olalde (2017) and it looks like if the assignment is correct this would be the oldest occurence of typically Western European R1b (L151). That can't be right, no?

This is one person's opinion:

" Originally Posted by Megalophias file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.png (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?p=373983#post373983)
I've gone through some of the suspect haplogroups:

There are 6 Gonur Tepe and 1 Swat Iron Age samples listed as A. As far as I can tell these are just super low coverage samples with no haplogroup assignment, they do not have any derived calls for A(xBT) clades or ancestral calls for BT or CT.

- I2312 - Belt Cave Iran Mesolithic - listed as E1b1a1a1c2b1 - very unlikely. It has one derived allele for this, contradicted by 1 ancestral E1b1a1. It is some kind of BT. J, as at Hotu next door, is not excluded.
- I6119 - Gonur Tepe BMAC - listed as E1b1a1a1c2c3c - definitely not, it has 5 ancestral calls for E. It is CT(xC, E, G, J, R), with single ancestral calls also for D, H1a1, L1, Q1b. Perhaps T?
- I1992 - Swat Iron Age - listed as E1a-M132 - very unlikely, it has 4 ancestral calls and only 1 derived call for E1a. It is E, with 3 derived calls. E1b1b1b2-Z830, which is the majority at this site, is not excluded.
- I8998 - Swat Iron Age - listed as R1b-S21782 (under U106) - definitely not, it has dozens of upstream calls contradicting this. It is R(xR1, R2a), probably R2* (found in northern Pakistan today).
- Darra-i-Kur - Afghanistan EBA - listed as R1b-P311. Low coverage, there is one positive call for the SNP, nothing + or - upstream. This is some kind of BT.
- I1003 - Sintashta - listed as I2a1a1a - seems not, as it has 1 ancestral IJ call, 3 ancestral and 1 derived for I, 1 derived R. Looks like R(xR1b1a), so probably the usual R1a.
- I8527 - Geoksyur - listed as I2a2a2a - unlikely, there is 1 positive call, but 1 ancestral call for I2a2. Some kind of F."

Sile
02-04-18, 19:29
ycalls
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l2fevb2yjbyg5wj/Ycalls.xlsx?dl=0

was interested on how

I1781 T T-M272 T-M184

is genetically related to

I6117 A A A

as per paper ............makes no sense ...unless I6117 is contaminated

johen
02-04-18, 19:30
1. In the map, european cline is EEF and CWC, but indian cline is ANI and ASI.
So which cline is the steppe people except CWC?

2. Why did they not use the lake bikal R1a?


https://d8v5jhqx5tv4l.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/yamna-expansion.jpg

https://s21.postimg.org/mn8tnjkhj/Capture.png

A. Papadimitriou
02-04-18, 19:49
We don't have any ancient Y-DNA from the North Caucasus (e.g. Maykop) yet. Anyway I always said that R1b-M269 originated south of the Caucasus and crossed north between 6000 and 5000 BCE (most probably as R1b-L23 and some of its subclades).Who on this forum expected R1b-M269 to have originated in the North Caucasus?But you were labeling haplogroups 'European' and 'Middle Eastern' based on their modern frequencies and you were associating R1b or R1 in general with blondness. Do you remember that?

Balkanite
02-04-18, 20:15
1. In the map, european cline is EEF and CWC, but indian cline is ANI and ASI.
So which cline is the steppe people except CWC?

2. Why did they not use the lake bikal R1a?



according to the paper, steppe EMBA/yamnaya was a mix of khvalynsk and the 'Iran chl cline'

Megalophias
02-04-18, 20:17
ycalls
I1781 T T-M272 T-M184

is genetically related to

I6117 A A A

as per paper ............makesno sense ...unless I6117 is contaminated
It's not contaminated, there are no A clade calls, it's just extremely low coverage. I'm not sure why the samples with no haplogroup assigned are labelled as A, though technically all modern human DNA is haplogroup A. I6117 probably does have T, well spotted.

Olympus Mons
02-04-18, 20:17
... Anyway I always said that R1b-M269 originated south of the Caucasus and crossed north between 6000 and 5000 BCE (most probably as R1b-L23 and some of its subclades).

Maciamo. Lets settle this once and for all. Point me to where you say that!

(it felt pretty lonely this last 3 years talking about Shulaveri, 4900 bc, Mesokho, kuban river, samara river etc.)

bicicleur
02-04-18, 20:30
Yet I don't see where the proof is in their analysis for the conclusions they're drawing, at least not iron clad proof.

This whole set of samples from the Bronze Age only shows steppe MLBA in some analyses, not all. Also, the culture itself doesn't seem very "Indo-European" at all. The amount is much lower than in modern Northwest Indians as well. Maybe it's pseudo-steppe because of this West Siberian HG ancestry mixed with Iran Neo.

Then there's the R1a problem. Not one. Only one in the Iron Age. Yet look at all of it now.

Do you know of any other route they could have taken?

no, I don't know any other route, but this is what the paper says :

Second, samples from three sites from the southern and eastern end of the Steppe dated to 1600-
353 1500 BCE (Dashti-kozy, Taldysay and Kyzlbulak) show evidence of significant admixture from
354 Iranian agriculturalist-related populations, demonstrating northward gene flow from Turan into
355 the Steppe at the same time as there was southward movement of Steppe_MLBA ancestry
356 through Turan and into South Asia. These findings are consistent with evidence of a high degree
357 of human mobility both to the north and south along the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor (32, 33).
358
359 Third, we observe samples from multiple sites dated to 1700-1500 BCE (Maitan, Kairan,
360 Oy_Dzhaylau and Zevakinsikiy) that derive up to ~25% of their ancestry from a source related to
361 present-day East Asians and the remainder from Steppe_MLBA. A similar ancestry profile
362 became widespread in the region by the Late Bronze Age, as documented by our time transect
363 from Zevakinsikiy and samples from many sites dating to 1500-1000 BCE, and was ubiquitous
364 by the Scytho-Sarmatian period in the Iron Age (34). This observation decreases the probability
that populations in the 1st millennium BCE and 1 365 st millennium CE—including Scythians,
peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
bioRxiv preprint first posted online Mar. 31, 2018; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/292581. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not
12
366 Kushans, and Huns, sometimes suggested as sources for the Steppe ancestry influences in South
367 Asia today (17)—contributed to the majority of South Asians, which have negligible East Asian
368 ancestry in our analysis. It is possible that there were unsampled groups in Central Asia with
369 negligible East Asian admixture that could have migrated later to South Asia. However, at least
370 some (possibly all) of the Steppe pastoralist ancestry in South Asia owes its origins to southward
pulses in the 2 371 nd millennium BCE, as indeed we prove directly through our observation of this
372 ancestry in the Swat Iron Age individuals dating to ~1000 BCE (discussed further below).

so, either there are unsampled R1a steppe MLBA en route toward south Asia
or there are unsampled R1a Scyths without East Asian admixture that made their way to South Asia

markozd
02-04-18, 20:48
This is one person's opinion:

- I2312 - Belt Cave Iran Mesolithic - listed as E1b1a1a1c2b1 - very unlikely. It has one derived allele for this, contradicted by 1 ancestral E1b1a1. It is some kind of BT. J, as at Hotu next door, is not excluded.
- I6119 - Gonur Tepe BMAC - listed as E1b1a1a1c2c3c - definitely not, it has 5 ancestral calls for E. It is CT(xC, E, G, J, R), with single ancestral calls also for D, H1a1, L1, Q1b. Perhaps T?
- I1992 - Swat Iron Age - listed as E1a-M132 - very unlikely, it has 4 ancestral calls and only 1 derived call for E1a. It is E, with 3 derived calls. E1b1b1b2-Z830, which is the majority at this site, is not excluded.
- I8998 - Swat Iron Age - listed as R1b-S21782 (under U106) - definitely not, it has dozens of upstream calls contradicting this. It is R(xR1, R2a), probably R2* (found in northern Pakistan today).
- Darra-i-Kur - Afghanistan EBA - listed as R1b-P311. Low coverage, there is one positive call for the SNP, nothing + or - upstream. This is some kind of BT.
- I1003 - Sintashta - listed as I2a1a1a - seems not, as it has 1 ancestral IJ call, 3 ancestral and 1 derived for I, 1 derived R. Looks like R(xR1b1a), so probably the usual R1a.
- I8527 - Geoksyur - listed as I2a2a2a - unlikely, there is 1 positive call, but 1 ancestral call for I2a2. Some kind of F."

Thanks! Perhaps the authors just listed those low coverage samples as belonging to whatever the last positive call was that their software gave them. A bit misleading, but then again those samples can easily be ignored.

IronSide
02-04-18, 20:55
What of the Indo Aryan speaking groups in the Kingdom of Mittani in the Levant ? what migration path did they take ?

Late Bronze Age Canaanites from Megiddo should be a mixture of Levant EBA + Armenia MLBA (source (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34856-Upcoming-paper-on-Bronze-Age-Canaanites)), the Armenian admixing population should be the Hurrians.

The Hurrians had connections to Indo-Aryan speakers, Armenia MLBA is different from the preceding Early Bronze Age in having a larger portion of ancestry from the EHG, so my theory is Steppe populations moved to south Caucasus and admixed genetically and culturally with the Hurrian population there, and then migrated to the Levant.

bicicleur
02-04-18, 21:16
What of the Indo Aryan speaking groups in the Kingdom of Mittani in the Levant ? what migration path did they take ?
Late Bronze Age Canaanites from Megiddo should be a mixture of Levant EBA + Armenia MLBA (source (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34856-Upcoming-paper-on-Bronze-Age-Canaanites)), the Armenian admixing population should be the Hurrians.
The Hurrians had connections to Indo-Aryan speakers, Armenia MLBA is different from the preceding Early Bronze Age in having a larger portion of ancestry from the EHG, so my theory is Steppe populations moved to south Caucasus and admixed genetically and culturally with the Hurrian population there, and then migrated to the Levant.
afaik the Mittani didn't speak IE, but there is a text about horse training for charriot warfare translated from Mittani into Hittite in which some technical terms are not translated, and these technical terms are Indo Aryan

this means that charriots and horses were introduced to the Mittani by a few Indo-Aryan people, probably an offshoot of those MLBA steppe people in the BMAC area, who instead of going further south got in contact with the Mittani court
these few people need not have left a detectable genetic mark in the Levant

there is no convincing evidence that the Hittites or the Egyptians had charriots before the Mittani got them

IronSide
02-04-18, 21:32
afaik the Mittani didn't speak IE, but there is a text about horse training for charriot warfare translated from Mittani into Hittite in which some technical terms are not translated, and these technical terms are Indo Aryan
this means that charriots and horses were introduced to the Mittani by a few Indo-Aryan people, probably an offshoot of those MLBA steppe people in the BMAC area, who instead of going further south got in contact with the Mittani court
these few people need not have left a detectable genetic mark in the Levant
there is no convincing evidence that the Hittites or the Egyptians had charriots before the Mittani got them

Indo Aryans may have been fewer in number than the Hurrians, but not reduced historically to just mercinaries from the east. they had a larger impact on Middle Bronze Age history and on Hurrian culture.

The rulers of many small polities in the Levant had Sanskrit and Hurrian names.

Amarna letters–localities and their rulers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letters%E2%80%93localities_and_their_rulers )

An enjoyable reading on the subject: Hurrians and Their Gods in Canaan (http://journals.pan.pl/Content/82350/mainfile.pdf)

holderlin
02-04-18, 21:34
..and Holderlin
Do you want a bet that Maykop is going to be essently either: farmers from Balkans or southern caucasus later leylatepe with connections to Uruk and nothing to do with PIe or R1b?

You're saying that Maykop will have nothing to do with PIE, yet you're also saying that PIE originated in the Southern Caucuses and expanded onto the steppe. These two things are likely incompatible.

Angela
02-04-18, 21:45
no, I don't know any other route, but this is what the paper says :

Second, samples from three sites from the southern and eastern end of the Steppe dated to 1600-
353 1500 BCE (Dashti-kozy, Taldysay and Kyzlbulak) show evidence of significant admixture from
354 Iranian agriculturalist-related populations, demonstrating northward gene flow from Turan into
355 the Steppe at the same time as there was southward movement of Steppe_MLBA ancestry
356 through Turan and into South Asia. These findings are consistent with evidence of a high degree
357 of human mobility both to the north and south along the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor (32, 33).
358
359 Third, we observe samples from multiple sites dated to 1700-1500 BCE (Maitan, Kairan,
360 Oy_Dzhaylau and Zevakinsikiy) that derive up to ~25% of their ancestry from a source related to
361 present-day East Asians and the remainder from Steppe_MLBA. A similar ancestry profile
362 became widespread in the region by the Late Bronze Age, as documented by our time transect
363 from Zevakinsikiy and samples from many sites dating to 1500-1000 BCE, and was ubiquitous
364 by the Scytho-Sarmatian period in the Iron Age (34). This observation decreases the probability
that populations in the 1st millennium BCE and 1 365 st millennium CE—including Scythians,
peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
bioRxiv preprint first posted online Mar. 31, 2018; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/292581. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not
12
366 Kushans, and Huns, sometimes suggested as sources for the Steppe ancestry influences in South
367 Asia today (17)—contributed to the majority of South Asians, which have negligible East Asian
368 ancestry in our analysis. It is possible that there were unsampled groups in Central Asia with
369 negligible East Asian admixture that could have migrated later to South Asia. However, at least
370 some (possibly all) of the Steppe pastoralist ancestry in South Asia owes its origins to southward
pulses in the 2 371 nd millennium BCE, as indeed we prove directly through our observation of this
372 ancestry in the Swat Iron Age individuals dating to ~1000 BCE (discussed further below).

so, either there are unsampled R1a steppe MLBA en route toward south Asia
or there are unsampled R1a Scyths without East Asian admixture that made their way to South Asia

Honestly, I never thought I'd say this, but I can see why the Indian scientists might have balked at the conclusions drawn in the text. It's really murky, and I can definitely see how you could argue that it's up in the air precisely how and with whom and how much actual Bronze Age "Steppe MLBA" ancestry there is in India, even northwestern India.

With almost no R1a even in the Iron Age, and the fact that we have an EHG/ANE population which was there previously, along with lots and lots of Iran Neo, I can see how someone could make the argument that most of the R1a does not come from Bronze Age migrants from somewhere in the Andronovo horizon, and that most of the "Steppe MLBA" type ancestry either arrived earlier or later with Scythians.

I wonder if there was total agreement among all the authors about this. Sometimes, when you want to not rock the boat too much in your own world, don't want to lose certain collaborators, you have to break with others, even though they might have very valid points. It's a shame if that happened.

Yes, I saw that about the movement from Turan north. That explains the J2a on the steppe. Anyone know if there is a trail for that particular branch later on in Europe?
Also, do you remember our discussions here about the development of metallurgy on the steppe, and I thought it didn't make sense that there was such sophisticated metallurgy in Sintashta, but never any trail for that from the western steppe, and indeed the fact that the metallurgy on the western steppe didn't reach that kind of sophistication until later than Sintashta? I think this is the reason. It may have come from the indeed sophisticated BMAC north along the Inner Asian Corridor. This also correlates with the work Frachetti has been doing. I was glad to see he was one of the collaborators.

Olympus Mons
02-04-18, 21:58
You're saying that Maykop will have nothing to do with PIE, yet you're also saying that PIE originated in the Southern Caucuses and expanded onto the steppe. These two things are likely incompatible.
That is the problem. People seem to be playing a PlayStation game.
Maykop is over 1200 years after Shulaveri were gone!
Whatever pushed Shulaveri away and out was not PiE. Or at least we can assume so.
So if they later became leylatepe and maykop they probably were not PIE. Hence so many languagesnin caucasus.
If Maykop arrived from Balkans, as some defend...then not Pie also... Probably.

Olympus Mons
02-04-18, 22:11
....Yes, I saw that about the movement from Turan north. That explains the J2a on the steppe. Anyone know if there is a trail for that particular branch later on in Europe?
Also, do you remember our discussions here about the development of metallurgy on the steppe, and I thought it didn't make sense that there was such sophisticated metallurgy in Sintashta, but never any trail for that from the western steppe, and indeed the fact that the metallurgy on the western steppe didn't reach that kind of sophistication until later than Sintashta? I think this is the reason. It may have come from the indeed sophisticated BMAC north along the Inner Asian Corridor. This also correlates with the work Frachetti has been doing. I was glad to see he was one of the collaborators.

Angela, one day someone will review what nmdental traits were saying for decades and compare with Adna theories over time.
I remember a PCA from i think Zubova on nmdental traits that made me look on maps where the hell was east of Aral sea, because it cluster with armenian or anatolian something neolithic population...
Will try to find it again.

holderlin
02-04-18, 22:24
Our brain always finds a way to spin things around does it not? And that is what you are doing .

You're taking a single sample and fitting it to a fantastical sweeping theory that is based almost entirely on your conjecture. How am I spinning anything? I'm methodically running through the consequences of this guy and this region in general being PIE speakers. I've said it was possible, but unlikely given all the other data we have.


a. Khvalynsk is not contemporaneous with this R1b Z2103 5500bc. Its a 1000 years later and with reservoir effect balanced it now is pushing Khvalynsk dating to something like 4200Bc or even later.

5200-4000BC vs 5900-5500 BC and neither are radio carbon dated. The ranges are 300 years from touching, but I can use Samara Hunter gatherer to support the same point being that we see clear cultural continuity on the steppe from Samara through the Bronze Age. There isn't any huge change signaling the imposition of some external influence, which is something we'd like to see in IE expansions from the Caucuses.


b. This guy Z2103 is the father of those eneolithic and yamnaya.

No, not if he's Z2103. We could then only assign a likelyhood that he's father to the Z2103 Yamnaya Samara samples specifically.


d. shulaveri were many. The Kura river basin was packed with settlements. They were highly developed pastorals with big cattle, they were masters of domestication of plants and animals, we even find many horse bones in some settlements....

That's great, but this sample wasn't on the Kura river. It was considerably south, so I don't know why you continue obsessing over this culture as if it definitely has something to do with the samples in question. And show me these horse findings. I'd love to see them.


e. Do you think is a coincidence that when they suddenly and completely vanished, by 5000bc (some settlement even have a layer of ashes), at the exact time agriculture arrives in the north caucasus?

And what does this have to do with Indo-europeans or the Iranian samples?


There is no better pattern for dispersal of PIE than them.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this but it would be the least parsimonious method of expansion out of the region you tout. I've already given a basic explanation as to why, but of course I couldn't possibly cover all of the problems that need solving.

Angela
02-04-18, 22:38
Honestly, I never thought I'd say this, but I can see why the Indian scientists might have balked at the conclusions drawn in the text. It's really murky, and I can definitely see how you could argue that it's up in the air precisely how and with whom and how much actual Bronze Age "Steppe MLBA" ancestry there is in India, even northwestern India.

With almost no R1a even in the Iron Age, and the fact that we have an EHG/ANE population which was there previously, along with lots and lots of Iran Neo, I can see how someone could make the argument that most of the R1a does not come from Bronze Age migrants from somewhere in the Andronovo horizon, and that most of the "Steppe MLBA" type ancestry either arrived earlier or later with Scythians.

I wonder if there was total agreement among all the authors about this. Sometimes, when you want to not rock the boat too much in your own world, don't want to lose certain collaborators, you have to break with others, even though they might have very valid points. It's a shame if that happened.

Yes, I saw that about the movement from Turan north. That explains the J2a on the steppe. Anyone know if there is a trail for that particular branch later on in Europe?
Also, do you remember our discussions here about the development of metallurgy on the steppe, and I thought it didn't make sense that there was such sophisticated metallurgy in Sintashta, but never any trail for that from the western steppe, and indeed the fact that the metallurgy on the western steppe didn't reach that kind of sophistication until later than Sintashta? I think this is the reason. It may have come from the indeed sophisticated BMAC north along the Inner Asian Corridor. This also correlates with the work Frachetti has been doing. I was glad to see he was one of the collaborators.

Let me be clear, though. I absolutely don't believe there was any OIT.

Nor do I think the modern Indians, alone among mankind, have no admixture and are exactly the same as they were in the Neolithic or even the Paleolithic. It's clear there was a huge gene flow from Iranian farmers into India. It's also clear, imo, there was a substantial impact from the north, even if not as large as the former. It's the nature, timing and amount of the latter which I think is much more complicated than the version which has been peddled.

berun
02-04-18, 22:41
My apologies Maciamo, I think that I confussed you with another member discussing R1b in Kura-Araxes, and by the fact to remember your map about R1b or someone's else delivering R1b from Iran in unspecified dates, supposedly in Paleolithic.

9959

markozd
02-04-18, 22:45
That is the problem. People seem to be playing a PlayStation game.
Maykop is over 1200 years after Shulaveri were gone!
Whatever pushed Shulaveri away and out was not PiE. Or at least we can assume so.
So if they later became leylatepe and maykop they probably were not PIE. Hence so many languagesnin caucasus.
If Maykop arrived from Balkans, as some defend...then not Pie also... Probably.

Some of the newer work on Leyla Tepe is interesting. Najaf Museyibli (2016):


The ceramic traditionof the Leilatepe culture society was a developedand independent handicraft. The culture, both as awhole, and with particular regard to its ceramic production,is linked to Eastern Anatolian- NorthernMesopotamian Late Chalcolithic traditions originating from post-Ubaid developments. Meanwhile, the Maikop culture of the Northern Caucasus emerged from the Leilatepe culture. The spread of these culturesstage covers occurred during the first half of the fourth millennium B.C. in Western Asia and theCaucasus. Pottery is the main diagnostic material ofthe Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Ages. In this sense, the Leilatepe culture is not an exception. Theunique ceramic wares of this culture indicate an influentialrole in the development of the potter‟swheel, and they differs radically from the pottery ofpreceding archaeological cultures in the South Caucasus and of the Leilatepe culture‟s contemporary neighbors, with whom they did not have genetic ties.

The Ubaid culture quite peculiar too. I've read Alberto Green's "The Storm God in the Ancient Near East" just recently, not expecting it to be so heavy on archaeological research. Describing the female-centred rites of the hunter gatherers and early peasants he asks this question:


How then can we account for the conceptual emergence of a dominant masculine “storm-god” and his endemic role as a fertility deity in historic times?

He sees the beginning of this shift (that would take place across language barriers) in Ubaid:


Although fishing may have been the dominant industry when southern Mesopotamia emerged during the Eridu culture and into the Ubaid civilization, greater reliance on agriculture and changing climatic conditions forced the inhabitants to engage in drainage operations and work on irrigation. Because this development necessitated the cooperation of men in larger units than the typical Neolithic village, this could have had widespread consequences that led to the emergence of the characteristic city-state of the third millennium b.c.e. . The Ubaid culture, through a highly efficient peasanteconomy based on irrigation, still made fish offerings to a prehistoric male Water-god of the region. This is the earliest prehistoric evidence of the prominence of a male deity.

Perhaps the emergence of single-grave kurgans in Leila Tepe as a supposedly male-centred symbol is a symptom of these changes in religious rite.

holderlin
02-04-18, 22:48
What of the Indo Aryan speaking groups in the Kingdom of Mittani in the Levant ? what migration path did they take ?

Late Bronze Age Canaanites from Megiddo should be a mixture of Levant EBA + Armenia MLBA (source (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34856-Upcoming-paper-on-Bronze-Age-Canaanites)), the Armenian admixing population should be the Hurrians.

The Hurrians had connections to Indo-Aryan speakers, Armenia MLBA is different from the preceding Early Bronze Age in having a larger portion of ancestry from the EHG, so my theory is Steppe populations moved to south Caucasus and admixed genetically and culturally with the Hurrian population there, and then migrated to the Levant.

I had always figured they came from the East around the Caspian because this is what Indo-Iranian seems to have done.

The Mittani thing is interesting. The Aryan seems only to be a horse training lexicon. Conclude what you will from that. Some say an Aryan horse riding elite who dominated Hurrian speakers forming the Mittani, but others don't like this for obvious reasons, so I say "horse training vocabulary" to keep people from getting excited.

markozd
02-04-18, 23:04
I had always figured they came from the East around the Caspian because this is what Indo-Iranian seems to have done.

The Mittani thing is interesting. The Aryan seems only to be a horse training lexicon. Conclude what you will from that. Some say an Aryan horse riding elite who dominated Hurrian speakers forming the Mittani, but others don't like this for obvious reasons, so I say "horse training vocabulary" to keep people from getting excited.

IIRC the consensus is that the Kikkuli text is something like a translation of a translation, since the original Hurrian text retained the Indo-Iranian words when the vocabulary was either very specialized or difficult to translate. So the Mitanni were definitely Indo-Iranian.

Ygorcs
02-04-18, 23:14
There is no need for steppe to explain Pie in Anatolia, armenia ....that is what i meant.
But being at that, Pie (if shulaveri) went as far as balkans... What.would have been the impact of thiose?
What if bell beaker came from there and not steppe and spoke pie?
What if Myceanian was a Pie nothing to do with steppe?

Extremely unlikely scenarions from the point of view of linguistics. I think you're overestimating the possible survival time of a Common PIE without any significant divergence. If the Bell Beaker-derived languages (I presume Celtic, Lusitanian and Italic, at least, ultimately descend from one of those) hadn't even crossed to Transcaucasia by 5,500 BC, it would certainly have diverged into an extremely divergent language in relation the "steppe-derived" branches like Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (probably derived from a Yamna language more than 2,500 years later), and instead what we clearly see is that they all, without exception, look like closely related from a common source not many thousands of years prior to their first attestations, especially because they share a whole lot of innovations that for example Anatolian IE lacks.

They could have developed or mutually exchanged 1 or 2 of those features, but it's extremely improbable that they would somehow converge to the same point in several different features ranging from phonetics to morphology and syntax.

That's especially true of Mycenaean Greek compared to Indo-Iranian (which most clearly expanded together with Eastern European/North Asian steppe ancestry), since these two branches share so many commonalities that some linguists even proposed that they should be grouped together as an intermediary Graeco-Indo-Iranian language between Late PIE and themselves. Greek has clearly split from Indo-Iranian quite late in historic terms, not as early as before 5,000 BC, and take into consideration that it's most certain that the PIE speakers in the steppe mixed extensively with entirely different peoples and languages, so their language must've evolved significantly in such a scenario of intense migration, cultural shifts and displacement (like medieval English, for example).

The Shulaveri-Shomu that lived in the Balkans most certainly did not speak PIE at all, but an ancestor language of the PIE that eventually developed as one homogeneous and expansive language in the South Caucasus. If Bell Beakers and Mycenaeans came from a branch of Shulaveri-Shomu that had simply stayed in the Balkans while another offshoot came to West Asia, spent centuries there, migrated to the North Caucasus and from there expanded to the open steppes, well, I'm pretty sure that we'd have in fact 2 starkly different but related language families in Europe (e.g. Semitic vs. Berber), and not one common and still reconstructible Proto-Indo-European language. The divergence would've been much more significant, and the typological similarities between these "southern" branches and the "northern" (steppe) branches would be much fewer.

Languages inevitably change, it seems to me quite misleading to talk uniformly of a "PIE" from Shulaveri-Shomu still in the Balkans in e.g. 5,700 BC until the final divergence of PIE after 3,000 BC. No language survives more than 2,500 years without severe divergence (look at Romance languages, they ceased to be just variants of Latin for a mere 1,300-1,400 years).

I don't think (quite the contrary) it's unlikely that Para-Indo-European languages existed elsewhere in Asia and Europe, but THE Proto-Indo-European that really survived into many daughter languages was not much older than the Late Neolithic/Copper Age, so it corresponds much more plausibly with the period when the migration from Transcaucasia to the Steppes happened, not before that. The others, sister languages of PIE, simply died out.

Ygorcs
02-04-18, 23:24
Perhaps twenty percent from only one group might have drifted out of the population.

The only other possibility I can see is that the West Siberian hunter-gatherers carried R1a as well.

Another question for investigation is which other route it might have taken.

There is this issue that also confuses me: are we even sure that Scythians or, more broadly, all Steppe Iranic peoples were significantly admixed with East Asians as early as the Bronze Age? Weren't those Scythian samples with relevant East Asian admixture mostly from the Iron Age onwards? I know craniometrical measures are flawed and limited and so on, but I remind reading a paper from a Kazakh archaeologist which claimed that, analyzing the skulls of ancient steppe inhabitants of Kazakhstan, they estimated that there was 0% East Asian genetic impact in the Bronze Age, 25% in the later Iron Age, 50% in the early Middle Ages and up to 75% in the end of the Middle Ages.

Anyway, we haven't seen that many sweeps of East Asian ancestry in European samples until the Middle Ages, so somehow, knowing the extreme mobility and the semi-nomad lifestyle promoted by the steppes, I somehow doubt that there was relevant East Asian introgression into Eastern European/Western Siberian steppe peoples as early as the Bronze Age (I mean, before 1,200-1,300 BC).

Ygorcs
02-04-18, 23:34
This story that Hittites arrived 1650 BC makes no sense, it's like saying Italics only arrived in Italy when Rome became an empire, you can see autosomally that Anatolia becomes Indoeuropean in the Chalcolithic.
https://i.imgur.com/GQ66BLE.png

It seems like you're assigning a very restrictive label "Indo-European" to any shift towards Neolithic_Iranian and CHG into Anatolia, which wouldn't be right. Right next to the possible earliest PIE speakers (possibly even a mother language to PIE, not Common PIE proper) there were certainly several other non-IE-speaking tribes heavy in Neo_Iran and CHG, and in the Bronze Age we can clearly see in the contemporary documentation that there was an active non-IE expansion from eastern Anatolian peoples (neighboring Armenia and Western Iran, probable cradles of Early PIE), particularly Urartians and Hurrians. The present linguistic diversity of the Caucasus also point to the likelihood of even other language families in that very region.

In my opinion (many would disagree of course) even the pre-Proto-Semitic speakers came from roughly northeastern Mesopotamia/southeastern Anatolia, for I think adopted they just adopted the Afro-Asiatic language of their conquered Levantine people like IE males probably did in the ethnogenesis of the Basque people.

Angela
02-04-18, 23:48
There is this issue that also confuses me: are we even sure that Scythians or, more broadly, all Steppe Iranic peoples were significantly admixed with East Asians as early as the Bronze Age? Weren't those Scythian samples with relevant East Asian admixture mostly from the Iron Age onwards? I know craniometrical measures are flawed and limited and so on, but I remind reading a paper from a Kazakh archaeologist which claimed that, analyzing the skulls of ancient steppe inhabitants of Kazakhstan, they estimated that there was 0% East Asian genetic impact in the Bronze Age, 25% in the later Iron Age, 50% in the early Middle Ages and up to 75% in the end of the Middle Ages.

Anyway, we haven't seen that many sweeps of East Asian ancestry in European samples until the Middle Ages, so somehow, knowing the extreme mobility and the semi-nomad lifestyle promoted by the steppes, I somehow doubt that there was relevant East Asian introgression into Eastern European/Western Siberian steppe peoples as early as the Bronze Age (I mean, before 1,200-1,300 BC).

The short answer is that I don't know. However, even if that's the case, we have a lot of Bronze Age samples in the spot through which it was assumed, I thought, that the steppe groups would have migrated into India during the Bronze Age, and there's not a single R1a, and there's a very small "steppe like" component.

So, either that's not the right spot, or it came later in the Iron Age, perhaps with groups which didn't have a lot of East Asian.

Angela
02-04-18, 23:49
It seems like you're assigning a very restrictive label "Indo-European" to any shift towards Neolithic_Iranian and CHG into Anatolia, which wouldn't be right. Right next to the possible earliest PIE speakers (possibly even a mother language to PIE, not Common PIE proper) there were certainly several other non-IE-speaking tribes heavy in Neo_Iran and CHG, and in the Bronze Age we can clearly see in the contemporary documentation that there was an active non-IE expansion from eastern Anatolian peoples (neighboring Armenia and Western Iran, probable cradles of Early PIE), particularly Urartians and Hurrians. The present linguistic diversity of the Caucasus also point to the likelihood of even other language families in that very region.

In my opinion (many would disagree of course) even the pre-Proto-Semitic speakers came from roughly northeastern Mesopotamia/southeastern Anatolia, for I think adopted they just adopted the Afro-Asiatic language of their conquered Levantine people like IE males probably did in the ethnogenesis of the Basque people.

Completely agree.

Alan
03-04-18, 00:48
I had always figured they came from the East around the Caspian because this is what Indo-Iranian seems to have done.

The Mittani thing is interesting. The Aryan seems only to be a horse training lexicon. Conclude what you will from that. Some say an Aryan horse riding elite who dominated Hurrian speakers forming the Mittani, but others don't like this for obvious reasons, so I say "horse training vocabulary" to keep people from getting excited.


Kurdish scientists are arguing for decades that the Mitanni came to be born from Gutians that merged with the Hurrians. They argue that at least this Indo_Iranian substrata in Mitanni are the Gutians. They also argue that the Medes came to be born after the Assyrians conquered Mitanni, and this Gutian substrata retreated back into the Zagros Mountains where they formed the Medes. Think of that what you want. As Cyrus used to call all Medes West of the Iranian Plateau, "Gutians". Gutians-Medes became a synonym for each other.


Various tribes and places to the east and northeast were often referred to as Gutians or Gutium.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#cite_note-iranicagutians-4) For example, Assyrian royal annals use the term Gutians in relation to populations known to have been Medes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes) or Mannaeans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannae). As late as the reign of Cyrus the Great (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great) of Persia, the famous general Gubaru (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gubaru) (Gobryas) was described as the "governor of Gutium".

There are many things we still have no idea of and I am pleased that with new samples things I have been arguing for quite a while show up.

Mark my words Gutian samples if we find any, will be identical to Medes and Mitanni. There is a reason Greek historians often used to use Mede and Mitanni interchangable too.

And as I mentioned previously I am still not convinced about the "Indo Aryan-ness" of the Mitanni. And it seems scientists do not agree on that toi. As I argued the reason why it appears more "Indo_Aryan" than Iranian can basically be explained by the fact that this Indo_Iranian substrata in Mitanni was very archaic. And as Indo_Aryan is more archaic than Iranian it will naturally fall closer to the Indo_Aryan languages. I argue that this was still an undivided Indo_Iranian substrata or a very archaic Iranic tongue that later formed into what we call West Iranic.

hrvclv
03-04-18, 00:53
What of the Indo Aryan speaking groups in the Kingdom of Mittani in the Levant ? what migration path did they take ?
Late Bronze Age Canaanites from Megiddo should be a mixture of Levant EBA + Armenia MLBA (source (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34856-Upcoming-paper-on-Bronze-Age-Canaanites)), the Armenian admixing population should be the Hurrians.
The Hurrians had connections to Indo-Aryan speakers, Armenia MLBA is different from the preceding Early Bronze Age in having a larger portion of ancestry from the EHG, so my theory is Steppe populations moved to south Caucasus and admixed genetically and culturally with the Hurrian population there, and then migrated to the Levant.

Mitanni is interesting indeed. Apparently they were a Hurrian people with an Indo-Iranian-speaking elite ruling over them, at least in the early phase. Hurrian itself seems to have been an agglutinative Caucasian language from Armenia. It's hard to tell where the Indo-Iranian people came from. Perhaps from the east.

What is interesting is the fact that on one side of the border in Mitanni, you have Indo-Iranian, a daughter language of PIE, "moving with the times", sort of, and following the normal chronological evolution of the language; and on the other side, the Hittites, speaking their "relic language", with traits that pre-date the earliest forms of the PIE reconstructed as the ancestor of European and Indo-Iranian languages. Regardless of DNA, Hittite is the riddle.

While I am at it... I can't see what the problem is with PIE arriving in the steppe from NW Iran. What does the history of haplogroup R+ tell us, from historic times as far back as we can see ? They were mobile, apparently quite aggressive, they arrived, conquered, and moved on. This is what may have happened around Lake Urmia and/or the Kura valley. They came, partly subdued the locals, intermarried with them, assimilated some of the J2b men, and moved on. They needn't have stayed very long - perhaps two or three generations. There were no written records to remember them - not even Sumer had yet emerged, so no wonder they went unremembered. No matter how we look at it, there has to be some explanation to the CHG genes in Yamna. This scenario works, with or without the R1b in the south west Caspian.

This does not rule out the possibility that some specific, very mobile, adventurous, R tribes reached Latvia, the Iron Gates, or other places in mesolithic or early neolithic times. They could have spoken some ancestral version of PIE. Or not. Still, Yamna seems to be the place where the IE package gets together : language, burial rites, weaponry, EHG+CHG. I have nothing against going into the slightest details of a picture, but sometimes, looking from too close, you just lose sight of the whole picture.

To lift suspicions, if any (you never know), let me make it clear that as far as I am concerned, should PIE come from the moon, I wouldn't care a fig!

Alan
03-04-18, 00:58
In my opinion (many would disagree of course) even the pre-Proto-Semitic speakers came from roughly northeastern Mesopotamia/southeastern Anatolia, for I think adopted they just adopted the Afro-Asiatic language of their conquered Levantine people like IE males probably did in the ethnogenesis of the Basque people.

Pre Proto Semites and Proto Semites most definitely came from South_Levant that should be clear by now. As they seem to share Levant_Neolithic ancestry with their Berber and Egyptian cousins + E1b and J1 being the most typical Haplogroups for these groups. And Levant_Neolithic being the time and place that did combined these elements.

Alan
03-04-18, 01:05
Mitanni is interesting indeed. Apparently they were a Hurrian people with an Indo-Iranian-speaking elite ruling over them, at least in the early phase. Hurrian itself seems to have been an agglutinative Caucasian language from Armenia. It's hard to tell where the Indo-Iranian people came from. Perhaps from the east.

Hurrian has not been grouped with any modern language family so far and is usually considered a "isolated language". That usually means they simply couldn't get them into any modern language family. However some Russian scientists argue about similarities to modern Northeast Caucasian languages. It is very much possible that the Northeast Caucasian languages are new arrivals to the region and indeed expanded from a region close to Central Anatolia.

But Hurrian being an isolate is the most accepted theory.

Alpenjager
03-04-18, 01:05
I2514

T-M184 (xT1a1, T1a2, T1a3b1, T1a3b2a1) (xT1a derived=ancestral)

Most probably T2, orT1b and less probably T1a3.

-----
-----

I2512

T-M184 (xT1a1, T1a2b)

-----
-----

I1781

T-M184 (xT1a1, T1a2a1, T1a3b2a1)

-----
-----

These T seems to be unrelated to those found in ancient Europe, just like the previously found among the PPNB samples.

Saetrus
03-04-18, 01:20
It seems like you're assigning a very restrictive label "Indo-European" to any shift towards Neolithic_Iranian and CHG into Anatolia, which wouldn't be right. Right next to the possible earliest PIE speakers (possibly even a mother language to PIE, not Common PIE proper) there were certainly several other non-IE-speaking tribes heavy in Neo_Iran and CHG, and in the Bronze Age we can clearly see in the contemporary documentation that there was an active non-IE expansion from eastern Anatolian peoples (neighboring Armenia and Western Iran, probable cradles of Early PIE), particularly Urartians and Hurrians. The present linguistic diversity of the Caucasus also point to the likelihood of even other language families in that very region.

In my opinion (many would disagree of course) even the pre-Proto-Semitic speakers came from roughly northeastern Mesopotamia/southeastern Anatolia, for I think adopted they just adopted the Afro-Asiatic language of their conquered Levantine people like IE males probably did in the ethnogenesis of the Basque people.

"There were other language families spoken in that region"

True, but let me show you something, here are the two Y-DNA haplogroups found in Hajji Firuz:

J2
https://i.imgur.com/T2rpFLD.jpg
R1b-L23
https://i.imgur.com/qUDsunP.gif

The two form the exact same pattern in Anatolia and southeast Europe, curious don't you think?

Languages that used to be spoken in that general region in antiquity include Palaic, Luwic, Luwian, Lycian, Milyan, Carian, Sidetic, Pisidian, Hittite, Lydian, Greek, Ancient Macedonian, Dacian, Illyrian, Liburnian, Messapic, Mysian, Paeonin, Phrygian, Thracian, Venetic, Faliscan, Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, etc.

Not many of which are Hurro-Urartian.

In the Steppe meanwhile they spoke 1(One) IE language, Proto-Balto-Slavic.

Angela
03-04-18, 01:57
Trojet posted this in another forum:


I looked at the two J2b's from Hajji Firuz (ca. 6000-5700 calBCE). From the reported SNPs, one of them is J2b-M12(L283-) and the other is J2b-M12(M241- M205-)

Ygorcs
03-04-18, 04:46
Kurdish scientists are arguing for decades that the Mitanni came to be born from Gutians that merged with the Hurrians. They argue that at least this Indo_Iranian substrata in Mitanni are the Gutians. They also argue that the Medes came to be born after the Assyrians conquered Mitanni, and this Gutian substrata retreated back into the Zagros Mountains where they formed the Medes. Think of that what you want. As Cyrus used to call all Medes West of the Iranian Plateau, "Gutians". Gutians-Medes became a synonym for each other.



There are many things we still have no idea of and I am pleased that with new samples things I have been arguing for quite a while show up.

Mark my words Gutian samples if we find any, will be identical to Medes and Mitanni. There is a reason Greek historians often used to use Mede and Mitanni interchangable too.

And as I mentioned previously I am still not convinced about the "Indo Aryan-ness" of the Mitanni. And it seems scientists do not agree on that toi. As I argued the reason why it appears more "Indo_Aryan" than Iranian can basically be explained by the fact that this Indo_Iranian substrata in Mitanni was very archaic. And as Indo_Aryan is more archaic than Iranian it will naturally fall closer to the Indo_Aryan languages. I argue that this was still an undivided Indo_Iranian substrata or a very archaic Iranic tongue that later formed into what we call West Iranic.

Okay with the probable role of Hurrians as a significant proportion of the ancestors of modern Kurds, and also a possible connection between Mitanni and the later Medes, but it's really a bit hard to believe the latter came from the Mitanni, because the Mitanni elite superstrate was clearly Indo-Aryan, with phonetic developments that are very specific to Indo-Aryan/Old Indic and did not happen in Iranian (they are not just "fossilized" retentions), whereas the Medes were undeniably speakers of Northwestern Iranian, a quite distinct branch by a margin of at least some centuries of linguistic divergence. It's hard to explain how Mitanni people would have went through a "de-evolution" of their own language to go back to Indo-Iranian and then evolve again now following the phonological innovations and sound rules of other Iranic languages that, coincidentally, also migrated to the same Iranian Plateau later in the Bronze & Iron Ages. Or then we'll have to hypothesize that these Mitanni became the Medes but lost their language and adopted it from Iranic neighbors.

Also, I fail to see any direct cultural and linguistic evidences of connection between the earliest Gutians and the Medes, except for the very frequent (and, because of that, misleading) use by Middle Eastern kingdoms of already common geographic and ethnic words to describe new peoples that arrived and were living in the same broad area and had a similar - read, not-civilized-farmer-states-like-us, way of life (a classic case is the Mushki, a term that seems to refer to at least 2 completely different peoples). The Middle Eastern ancient scribes of the kingdoms were not ethnologists nor even historians, so it is not actually rare at all to find them calling different peoples by the same name much like many people afterwards called all West Asian ethnicities "Turks" or "Sarracens", or Chinese ethnicities, including the several minorities, simply "Chinese". Names like "Gutians" often meant little more than "barbarian hordes coming from the same place in the mountains outside the empire".

Ygorcs
03-04-18, 04:59
Pre Proto Semites and Proto Semites most definitely came from South_Levant that should be clear by now. As they seem to share Levant_Neolithic ancestry with their Berber and Egyptian cousins + E1b and J1 being the most typical Haplogroups for these groups. And Levant_Neolithic being the time and place that did combined these elements.

Do we really have many samples of J1 and specifically J1-P58 or its close ancestors in the South Levant? Also, historically, the first attestations of Semitic peoples seem to come from the north and northwest (North Iraq & Syria). Early Akkadian, coming down to Sumerians from the north of Mesopotamia, was still pretty close to Proto-Semitic, which has been dated to circa 3,750 BC, and by 2,500 BC there were already long documents fully in Akkadian).

holderlin
03-04-18, 05:17
IIRC the consensus is that the Kikkuli text is something like a translation of a translation, since the original Hurrian text retained the Indo-Iranian words when the vocabulary was either very specialized or difficult to translate. So the Mitanni were definitely Indo-Iranian.

I hadn't read this, but I just did and it seems so obvious now. There's even footnotes where he explains the meaning of words in Mitanni (Indo-Aryan).

holderlin
03-04-18, 05:44
Kurdish scientists are arguing for decades that the Mitanni came to be born from Gutians that merged with the Hurrians. They argue that at least this Indo_Iranian substrata in Mitanni are the Gutians. They also argue that the Medes came to be born after the Assyrians conquered Mitanni, and this Gutian substrata retreated back into the Zagros Mountains where they formed the Medes. Think of that what you want. As Cyrus used to call all Medes West of the Iranian Plateau, "Gutians". Gutians-Medes became a synonym for each other.



There are many things we still have no idea of and I am pleased that with new samples things I have been arguing for quite a while show up.

Mark my words Gutian samples if we find any, will be identical to Medes and Mitanni. There is a reason Greek historians often used to use Mede and Mitanni interchangable too.

And as I mentioned previously I am still not convinced about the "Indo Aryan-ness" of the Mitanni. And it seems scientists do not agree on that toi. As I argued the reason why it appears more "Indo_Aryan" than Iranian can basically be explained by the fact that this Indo_Iranian substrata in Mitanni was very archaic. And as Indo_Aryan is more archaic than Iranian it will naturally fall closer to the Indo_Aryan languages. I argue that this was still an undivided Indo_Iranian substrata or a very archaic Iranic tongue that later formed into what we call West Iranic.

Wish we knew who the Gutians were.

The Mitanni actually looked more Indo-Aryan than Indo-Iranian, which probably means it's at least as young as Indo-Iranian. And it would have been an Indo-(aryan/Iranian) SUPER-stratum since it was the kings using the Indo-Iranian names.

IronSide
03-04-18, 06:57
Pre Proto Semites and Proto Semites most definitely came from South_Levant that should be clear by now. As they seem to share Levant_Neolithic ancestry with their Berber and Egyptian cousins + E1b and J1 being the most typical Haplogroups for these groups. And Levant_Neolithic being the time and place that did combined these elements.

I actually think proto Semitic speakers lived in Iran and Caucasus, while also holding that Levant Neolithic is the ancestral Afro-Asiatic component, some reasons for this:

-haplogroup J1 doesn't appear until the Bronze Age, accompanying the Iran/Caucasus admixture, J1-P58 has a clear association to Semitic speakers.

-a linguistic argument in favor of this is: Proto Semitic; dating and locating it (https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/proto-semitic-dating-and-locating-it/)

-if Semitic speakers originated in the East, is that the origin of Afro-Asiatic ? no, Levant Neolithic ancestry did migrate to Iran and Caucasus, merging with them to become like the Iran Chalcolithic population, I'm not claiming all Iran Chal groups spoke Semitic but certainly a subset of them did, this hypothetical group then back-migrated to the Levant bringing with it CHG ancestry and haplogroup J1.

holderlin
03-04-18, 07:14
What is interesting is the fact that on one side of the border in Mitanni, you have Indo-Iranian, a daughter language of PIE, "moving with the times", sort of, and following the normal chronological evolution of the language; and on the other side, the Hittites, speaking their "relic language", with traits that pre-date the earliest forms of the PIE reconstructed as the ancestor of European and Indo-Iranian languages. Regardless of DNA, Hittite is the riddle.

Linguists would tell you that this is because Hittite departed from the linguistic homeland earlier than Indo-Iranian thus retaining these archaisms. Conversely this means that Indo-Iranians would have needed to remain in the homeland longer to innovate with the core language.

And the Hittites made themselves a riddle. Bastards trolled us all by absorbing/adopting all the gods of the people they conquered. This was their thing and their neighbors even mention it.


While I am at it... I can't see what the problem is with PIE arriving in the steppe from NW Iran. What does the history of haplogroup R+ tell us, from historic times as far back as we can see ? They were mobile, apparently quite aggressive, they arrived, conquered, and moved on. This is what may have happened around Lake Urmia and/or the Kura valley. They came, partly subdued the locals, intermarried with them, assimilated some of the J2b men, and moved on. They needn't have stayed very long - perhaps two or three generations. There were no written records to remember them - not even Sumer had yet emerged, so no wonder they went unremembered. No matter how we look at it, there has to be some explanation to the CHG genes in Yamna. This scenario works, with or without the R1b in the south east Caspian.


It's not impossible, but it requires some maneuvering. Maneuvering that also happens to require a lack of evidence for this maneuvering aside from what is at this time one Z2103 male. Steppe culture was remarkably continuous from Samara all the way to Srubna, who we know spoke Iranian. So we'd be talking about a small group of males, lacking any characteristics that would identify them with known Indoeuropeans nor leaving any trace of evidence to the question, moving through the Caucuses and quite literally infiltrating a steppe culture, while being absorbed by them, while changing their language to IE, from Uralic as Goga would say? And of course they would have completely decamped from the near east because they were replaced by Caucasian and Hurrian by the earliest records of the regions in question.

You're right about Hittite being really the only thing that really throws a wrench into steppe PIE , but this is an exception, and the nature of the culture does offer an explanation.

holderlin
03-04-18, 07:34
I actually think proto Semitic speakers lived in Iran and Caucasus, while also holding that Levant Neolithic is the ancestral Afro-Asiatic component, some reasons for this:

-haplogroup J1 doesn't appear until the Bronze Age, accompanying the Iran/Caucasus admixture, J1-P58 has a clear association to Semitic speakers.

-a linguistic argument in favor of this is: Proto Semitic; dating and locating it (https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/proto-semitic-dating-and-locating-it/)

-if Semitic speakers originated in the East, is that the origin of Afro-Asiatic ? no, Levant Neolithic ancestry did migrate to Iran and Caucasus, merging with them to become like the Iran Chalcolithic population, I'm not claiming all Iran Chal groups spoke Semitic but certainly a subset of them did, this hypothetical group then back-migrated to the Levant bringing with it CHG ancestry and haplogroup J1.

I could buy this. Akkad just down from the mountains.

bicicleur
03-04-18, 08:05
Indo Aryans may have been fewer in number than the Hurrians, but not reduced historically to just mercinaries from the east. they had a larger impact on Middle Bronze Age history and on Hurrian culture.

The rulers of many small polities in the Levant had Sanskrit and Hurrian names.

Amarna letters–localities and their rulers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letters%E2%80%93localities_and_their_rulers )

An enjoyable reading on the subject: Hurrians and Their Gods in Canaan (http://journals.pan.pl/Content/82350/mainfile.pdf)

thx, I was not aware of that
still, I guess these people first bypassed BMAC prior to arrival in Mittani land

Alan
03-04-18, 08:10
Do we really have many samples of J1 and specifically J1-P58 or its close ancestors in the South Levant? Also, historically, the first attestations of Semitic peoples seem to come from the north and northwest (North Iraq & Syria). Early Akkadian, coming down to Sumerians from the north of Mesopotamia, was still pretty close to Proto-Semitic, which has been dated to circa 3,750 BC, and by 2,500 BC there were already long documents fully in Akkadian).

As I wrote above, the whole Semitic package already formed in the South Levant by Calcolthic. There is no need for Semites evolving in Iran and turning back to Levant cause, the Levant_Neolithic package includes most ancestry that is shared between all Afro_Asiatic speakers. So when the Berbers left, a whole Iran_N package arrived in the South Levant, forming Levant_CHL. And this is where the Semite profile fits in perfectly.

Akkadians coming down from North Mesopotamia, that is factually incorrect. The reason why they are first mentioned in Mesopotamia is because that is the first time they came into contact with other highly advanced cultures there. The Akkadians basically adopted the Sumerian culture.
their offshots, the Assyrians actually called themselves "conquerers" of Subaru. Doesn't sound like they were natives to North Mesopotamia to me.

Let me give you an example. The first time anything Indo_Iranic is mentioned is in Mesopotamia with the Mitanni. That doesn't mean Indo_Iranians were formed there.

bicicleur
03-04-18, 08:12
Also, do you remember our discussions here about the development of metallurgy on the steppe, and I thought it didn't make sense that there was such sophisticated metallurgy in Sintashta, but never any trail for that from the western steppe, and indeed the fact that the metallurgy on the western steppe didn't reach that kind of sophistication until later than Sintashta? I think this is the reason. It may have come from the indeed sophisticated BMAC north along the Inner Asian Corridor. This also correlates with the work Frachetti has been doing. I was glad to see he was one of the collaborators.

there were large tin deposits in the Sintashta area - east of the Ural, but not on the west of the Ural
I also recall from David Anthony that BMAC was very sophisticated in lost wax casting bronze techniques and this would be linked with the spread of Seima-Turbino

Alan
03-04-18, 08:13
I actually think proto Semitic speakers lived in Iran and Caucasus, while also holding that Levant Neolithic is the ancestral Afro-Asiatic component, some reasons for this:

-haplogroup J1 doesn't appear until the Bronze Age, accompanying the Iran/Caucasus admixture, J1-P58 has a clear association to Semitic speakers.

-a linguistic argument in favor of this is: Proto Semitic; dating and locating it (https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/proto-semitic-dating-and-locating-it/)

-if Semitic speakers originated in the East, is that the origin of Afro-Asiatic ? no, Levant Neolithic ancestry did migrate to Iran and Caucasus, merging with them to become like the Iran Chalcolithic population, I'm not claiming all Iran Chal groups spoke Semitic but certainly a subset of them did, this hypothetical group then back-migrated to the Levant bringing with it CHG ancestry and haplogroup J1.

During Calcolthic you actually have already the whole "Semite package" there in the Southern Levant. There is no reason to assume Semites formed in Iran imo. There was most definitely ongoing influence from Iran towards the Semites/Levant and vica versa but the Semite package was already formed during Calcolthic. The Afro_Asiatic package even earlier during the Neolithic.

Also there are many other factors that speak against this theory. Too many to list them imo.

Ygorcs
03-04-18, 08:14
I actually think proto Semitic speakers lived in Iran and Caucasus, while also holding that Levant Neolithic is the ancestral Afro-Asiatic component, some reasons for this:

-haplogroup J1 doesn't appear until the Bronze Age, accompanying the Iran/Caucasus admixture, J1-P58 has a clear association to Semitic speakers.

-a linguistic argument in favor of this is: Proto Semitic; dating and locating it (https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/proto-semitic-dating-and-locating-it/)

-if Semitic speakers originated in the East, is that the origin of Afro-Asiatic ? no, Levant Neolithic ancestry did migrate to Iran and Caucasus, merging with them to become like the Iran Chalcolithic population, I'm not claiming all Iran Chal groups spoke Semitic but certainly a subset of them did, this hypothetical group then back-migrated to the Levant bringing with it CHG ancestry and haplogroup J1.

That's a very plausible hypothesis, thanks. It fits with my observatiion that Proto-Semitic seems to have come from the north and was not "old" Levantine stuff, but a population very influenced by non-Levantine, "northern" admixtures, mainly CHG and/or Neolithic Iranian(-like). I had thought about the possible scenario, a group of CHG/Iranian-heavy "highlanders" descending into Afro-Asiatic pre-Semitic, still mostly Neolithic Levantine people in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent, and there mixing with them, merging the two cultures and adopting the local Afro-Asiatic language, which after this intensive cultural change became Proto-Semitic. Do you think that's much more unlikely than what you propose? I mean, the results since "that" Lazaridis study pointed out to a more or less generalized post-Neolithic mixing everywhere with migrations and back-migrations of the formerly isolated admixtures in all the regions. That is, there was just as much Levant > Iran migration as Iran > Levant waves. So, couldn't Neolithic Iranian peoples have migrated to the Fertile Crescent (its northern part, more or less present-day Iraqi Kurdistan) and merge there, accounting thus for the very "Levantine" cultural makeup of the Proto-Semites?

Somehow I have a bit of trouble believing that Levantine people going to the Iranian Plateau or Caucasus, mixing there for many generations, going under other different cultural and linguistic influences, and then coming back much later, would still have retained their seemingly "native Levantine" character when they came back.

I kind of think that a scenario of foreign conquest and subsequent inter-ethnic mixing (kind of like Indo-Europeans coming to Central Europe) fits the way Proto-Semitic appeared (not just in genetics, but culture and linguistics) a bit better and is also more straightforward (yielding the same results), though I think your hypothesis is also very plausible and substantiated. If my hypothesis is correct, the Proto-Semites would've been a sort of "Basques of the Middle East", people who had mixed to some extent with the mobile pastoralists from the "north" but managed to preserve much of their genetics (less than the Basques, admittedly, the analogy is flawed, lol), indigenous culture and particularly their original language.

Alan
03-04-18, 08:27
Okay with the probable role of Hurrians as a significant proportion of the ancestors of modern Kurds, and also a possible connection between Mitanni and the later Medes, but it's really a bit hard to believe the latter came from the Mitanni, because the Mitanni elite superstrate was clearly Indo-Aryan, with phonetic developments that are very specific to Indo-Aryan/Old Indic and did not happen in Iranian (they are not just "fossilized" retentions), whereas the Medes were undeniably speakers of Northwestern Iranian, a quite distinct branch by a margin of at least some centuries of linguistic divergence. It's hard to explain how Mitanni people would have went through a "de-evolution" of their own language to go back to Indo-Iranian and then evolve again now following the phonological innovations and sound rules of other Iranic languages that, coincidentally, also migrated to the same Iranian Plateau later in the Bronze & Iron Ages. Or then we'll have to hypothesize that these Mitanni became the Medes but lost their language and adopted it from Iranic neighbors.

Also, I fail to see any direct cultural and linguistic evidences of connection between the earliest Gutians and the Medes, except for the very frequent (and, because of that, misleading) use by Middle Eastern kingdoms of already common geographic and ethnic words to describe new peoples that arrived and were living in the same broad area and had a similar - read, not-civilized-farmer-states-like-us, way of life (a classic case is the Mushki, a term that seems to refer to at least 2 completely different peoples). The Middle Eastern ancient scribes of the kingdoms were not ethnologists nor even historians, so it is not actually rare at all to find them calling different peoples by the same name much like many people afterwards called all West Asian ethnicities "Turks" or "Sarracens", or Chinese ethnicities, including the several minorities, simply "Chinese". Names like "Gutians" often meant little more than "barbarian hordes coming from the same place in the mountains outside the empire".


See this is the problem I have. It is actually not clearly Indo_Aryan substrata. The "clearly" Indo Aryan substrata you are speaking about are basically the names of few deities that some of them are actually not clearly Indo_Aryan to begin with and some other that simply disappeared among Iranic tribes and are today only known among the Indo_Aryans. We know from Avesta that far more Indo_Iranic deities existed before Zoroastrians made it a monotheistic religion. These are basically things that disappeared in documented Iranic but still exist in Indo_Aryan.

And as I mentioned above the "Indo_Aryan" argument is not really clear. Far from it.

Let me give you just one example of an argument used by the "Indo_Aryan" camp. The Deities Mitra and Varuna. But both are actually quite commonly mentioned in Iranic documents and Mithra was among many even the highest Deity.

There are actually two theories and only one scientist for each. Kammenhuber argues for still undivided Indo_Iranian. And Mayrhofer for Indo_Aryan.

Mayrhofer's methodology quite frankly reminds me of David Anthony in the horse, the wheel and the language. Far too simplistic arguments based on small historic knowledge and very thin evidences.
I mean whoever uses Mithra as evidence for the argument of Indo_Aryan can't have allot of knowledge of history or linguistics imo.

Ygorcs
03-04-18, 08:44
As I wrote above, the whole Semitic package already formed in the South Levant by Calcolthic. There is no need for Semites evolving in Iran and turning back to Levant cause, the Levant_Neolithic package includes most ancestry that is shared between all Afro_Asiatic speakers. So when the Berbers left, a whole Iran_Chl package arrived in the South Levant, forming Levant_CHL. And this is where the Semite profile fits in perfectly.

Akkadians did come down from North Mesopotamia that is Factually incorrect. The reason why they are first mentioned in Mesopotamia is because that is the first time they came into contact with other highly advanced cultures there. The Akkadians basically adopted the Sumerian culture.

Let me give you an example. The first time anything Indo_Iranic is mentioned is in Mesopotamia with the Mitanni. That doesn't mean they were formed there.

I didn't say they were formed there in Sumerian Mesopotamia, but that they are attested by Sumerian sources as coming from the north, not from the west or south. Also, according at least to the source linked by IronSide (which is quite credible IMO), the "Proto-Semitic" package is really only complete in the Northern Fertile Crescent between Syria, Iraq and Westernmost Iran (roughly "Kurdistan") in fact, a place that is perhaps not coincidentally the same location where the Sumerians reported the increasingly strong migrations of Akkadians, in a north-to-south sweep. I wonder, though, why you say the Akkadians coming down from North Mesopotamia is factually incorrect. Do you have sources that state that they reached Mesopotamia from the south or any other direction, or you simply presumed that they could only come from the Southern Levant because the "Semitic package" was there (I somehow think it had just enough time to spread to the Northern Levant during the milennia-old Neolithic period).

Also, I didn't say that Semites came from Iran, nor am I talking about the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages (so no need to talk of Berber here), which began as early as 12,000-15,000 years ago, even preceding the Neolithic (the degree of divergence is definitely too big between AA subgroups for their ultimate origin to be in the Neolithic Levant, let alone near the Bronze Age, which is the almost certain date for the existence of Proto-Semitic due to the presence of common words for Early Bronze Age technologies in that proto-language).

Besides, the other Afro-Asiatic branches with the exception of Semitic didn't expand at all with a lot of J1 and CHG/Neo_Iranian accompanying them. That didn't happen, so the process that caused the expansion of Proto-Semitic was certainly very distinct from that of the earlier, much more ancient (Neolithic or even still Mesolithic) divergence of other AA branches.

I think you're misunderstanding some things here. I said that the Semites are most probably IMO the result of an intensive genetic mixing between the local people of the North Levant (Syria, North Iraq), of Neolithic Levant extraction, with incomers from the north or east that were heavy in CHG and/or Neolithic Iran admixtures, who possiby conquered them or at least came to live in massive numbers with them (the spread of J1 and CHG in the Near East in the Bronze Age was huge, so they certainly had a good chunk of it).

So, my position is that the Pre-Proto-Semitic language and culture were native to the Fertile Crescent and were picked up by the foreigners that mixed with the natives and thus changed their genetic makeup and perhaps also gave them some cultural input, but didn't manage to make the natives shift either language or culture. So, the fact that the "Semitic package" was already present in the Neolithic Levant has no bearing at all with my hypothesis, since that is exactly what I also think - only with the caveat that a "pure" South Levantine culture of the Neolithic, without heavy CHG/Iranian influx, would definitely have not spread so much J1-P58 (and even some J2), CHG and Iranian_Chalcolithic almost everywhere where they imposed their language.

When you combine that with the evidences from linguistics (like words for naphtha and ice), apparent Proto-Semitic loanwords into Proto-Indo-European (which was certainly not close to the Southern Levant) and the Sumerian documents, honestly, I think that assuming a southern origin for them is possible, but certainly not probable.

The increasing and intensive mixture of Levantine, Anatolian and Iranian admixtures in the Middle East after the Neolithic was repeatedly demonstrated by the chronological sequence of ancient DNA from that region, in the last few years. And Proto-Semitic as a language that expanded in the Near East is undoubtedly a phenomenon of the Copper Age/Early Bronze Age, exactly when that intensification of migration and ethnic mixing was happening.

Alan
03-04-18, 08:59
I didn't say they were formed there in Sumerian Mesopotamia, but that they are attested by Sumerian sources as coming from the north, not from the west or south. Also, according at least to the source linked by IronSide (which is quite credible IMO), the "Proto-Semitic" package is really only complete in the Northern Fertile Crescent between Syria, Iraq and Westernmost Iran (roughly "Kurdistan") in fact, a place that is perhaps not coincidentally the same location where the Sumerians reported the increasingly strong migrations of Akkadians, in a north-to-south sweep. I wonder, though, why you say the Akkadians coming down from North Mesopotamia is factually incorrect. Do you have sources that state that they reached Mesopotamia from the south or any other direction, or you simply presumed that they could only come from the Southern Levant because the "Semitic package" was there (I somehow think it had just enough time to spread to the Northern Levant during the milennia-old Neolithic period).

Also, I didn't say that Semites came from Iran, nor am I talking about the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages (so no need to talk of Berber here), which began as early as 12,000-15,000 years ago, even preceding the Neolithic (the degree of divergence is definitely too big between AA subgroups for their ultimate origin to be in the Neolithic Levant, let alone near the Bronze Age, which is the almost certain date for the existence of Proto-Semitic due to the presence of common words for Early Bronze Age technologies in that proto-language).

Besides, the other Afro-Asiatic branches with the exception of Semitic didn't expand at all with a lot of J1 and CHG/Neo_Iranian accompanying them. That didn't happen, so the process that caused the expansion of Proto-Semitic was certainly very distinct from that of the earlier, much more ancient (Neolithic or even still Mesolithic) divergence of other AA branches.

I think you're misunderstanding some things here. I said that the Semites are most probably IMO the result of an intensive genetic mixing between the local people of the North Levant (Syria, North Iraq), of Neolithic Levant extraction, with incomers from the north or east that were heavy in CHG and/or Neolithic Iran admixtures, who possiby conquered them or at least came to live in massive numbers with them (the spread of J1 and CHG in the Near East in the Bronze Age was huge, so they certainly had a good chunk of it).

So, my position is that the Pre-Proto-Semitic language and culture were native to the Fertile Crescent and were picked up by the foreigners that mixed with the natives and thus changed their genetic makeup and perhaps also gave them some cultural input, but didn't manage to make the natives shift either language or culture. So, the fact that the "Semitic package" was already present in the Neolithic Levant has no bearing at all with my hypothesis, since that is exactly what I also think - only with the caveat that a "pure" South Levantine culture of the Neolithic, without heavy CHG/Iranian influx, would definitely have not spread so much J1-P58 (and even some J2), CHG and Iranian_Chalcolithic almost everywhere where they imposed their language.

When you combine that with the evidences from linguistics (like words for naphtha and ice), apparent Proto-Semitic loanwords into Proto-Indo-European (which was certainly not close to the Southern Levant) and the Sumerian documents, honestly, I think that assuming a southern origin for them is possible, but certainly not probable.

The increasing and intensive mixture of Levantine, Anatolian and Iranian admixtures in the Middle East after the Neolithic was repeatedly demonstrated by the chronological sequence of ancient DNA from that region, in the last few years. And Proto-Semitic as a language that expanded in the Near East is undoubtedly a phenomenon of the Copper Age/Early Bronze Age, exactly when that intensification of migration and ethnic mixing was happening.

I will list you few reasons why I think Akkadians did not come down from North.

1. There is no sign of anything Semitic during Sumerian period North of them. The only people known are 1. Hurrian like people and the Gutians.
2. Actually Akkadian text themselves attest East Semitic tribes settling from the West into Sumer which formed them.

Historically, it is believed that this linguistic situation came about as speakers of East Semitic languages wandered further east, settling in Mesopotamia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia) during the third millennium BCE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium_BC), as attested by Akkadian texts from this period. By the beginning of the second millennium BCE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_millennium_BC), East Semitic languages, in particular Akkadian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language), had come to dominate the region. They were influenced by the non-Semitic Sumerian language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language) and adopted cuneiform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform) writing.
3. Offshots of Akkadians aka Assyrians calling themselves "conquerers" of Subaru (North Mesopotamia) doesn't sound very local to me if you call yourself a conquerer.
4.No need for Semitic to evolve further East because Iran_N ancestry is already heavily involved in South_Levant_ eneolithic with yDNA J popping up next to typical proto Afro-Asiatic E1b.

So yes you are correct in arguing that some J people came down from the mountains in helping to form the Semites, but these guys actually came down and moved directly into the Levant. What I am trying to explain is you don't need to have Semites evolve or Akkadians come down from the North to explain the Iran_N ancestry in Semites, because it is already there in the South of Levant during late Neolithic.

A. Papadimitriou
03-04-18, 09:23
Imo Early PIE was EEF/ANF related.

Late PIE groups had different amounts of Iran Neolithic related admixture. Proto-Aryans were like early Medes and they expanded from 'West Asia' but they could have been already predominately (~50-50?) Iran N like before the expansion.

Proto-Dravidians were likely Iran N & 'AASI'.

Ygorcs
03-04-18, 09:45
It's not impossible, but it requires some maneuvering. Maneuvering that also happens to require a lack of evidence for this maneuvering aside from what is at this time one Z2103 male. Steppe culture was remarkably continuous from Samara all the way to Srubna, who we know spoke Iranian. So we'd be talking about a small group of males, lacking any characteristics that would identify them with known Indoeuropeans nor leaving any trace of evidence to the question, moving through the Caucuses and quite literally infiltrating a steppe culture, while being absorbed by them, while changing their language to IE, from Uralic as Goga would say? And of course they would have completely decamped from the near east because they were replaced by Caucasian and Hurrian by the earliest records of the regions in question.

You're right about Hittite being really the only thing that really throws a wrench into steppe PIE , but this is an exception, and the nature of the culture does offer an explanation.

I think you're not giving the huge Caucasian, "southern" influence onto the Late Neolithic/Copper Age steppe cultures, not just genetically (as much as 50%, that could never be done by a migration of just a "small group of males"), but also culturally, with the very spread of agriculture and particularly pastoralism in a region that was previously inhabited just by hunter-gatherers. This new finding does not point to a fully formed PIE, ready to be split into many slices of IE daughter families, still in Transcaucasia/Iran, but the more distant, ultimate source of much of the eventual PIE-speaking people in the steppe and quite possibly also of the language itself. Also, that does not mean that most PIE branches weren't in the end derived from the languages spoken by people who derived a large part of their ancestry from "indigenous" steppe (former) hunter gatherers.

Anyway, something really transformative and profound connected the Neolithic Steppe with the Caucasus region and caused the steppe cultures to change significantly, and I can't see any good reason why that couldn't have been done through migration of people as many others that we've seen in the same historic period marked by the expansion of agriculture and animal domestication.

PIE and the IE "package" didn't appear fully formed with Yamna and so on, it was clearly a long process involving a lot of external influences coming mostly from the Caucasus/Caspian region - and in that process there were certainly different stages of the language, different enough to be called different languages (e.g. Old English vs. Modern English).

None of this discredits the "steppe PIE" expansion, which is a much later phenomenon (Bronze Age) and another issue, IMO at least.

Alpenjager
03-04-18, 11:07
I2514

T-M184 (xT1a1, T1a2, T1a3b1, T1a3b2a1) (xT1a derived=ancestral)

Most probably T2, orT1b and less probably T1a3.

-----
-----

I2512

T-M184 (xT1a1, T1a2b)

-----
-----

I1781

T-M184 (xT1a1, T1a2a1, T1a3b2a1)

-----
-----

These T seems to be unrelated to those found in ancient Europe, just like the previously found among the PPNB samples.

Tepe Hissar




I2335




Not clear to be H3. He still could be anything.




----

----




I2927




Confirmed J*




----

----




I2337




Confirmed J*, probably J2a and J2a1h2




----

----




I2923




Confirmed L2




----

----

----

----




BMAC Gonur




I1792




Probably J*




----

----




I1789




Could be P or everything else.




---

---




I2128




Seems to be J*




----

----




I1784




Confirmed J^*, perhaps J1.




----

----




I2087




Confirmed CT, probably P* and R*.




----

----




I7173




0 derived SNPs found yet. Due to low coverage.




----

----




I7101




Probably BT, only 1 derived SNP found due to low coverage.




---

---




I7170




Confirmed CT. Low coverage.




----

----




I6118




0 derived SNPs found yet. Due to low coverage.




----

----




I6122




0 derived SNPs found yet. Due to low coverage




----

----




I6310




0 derived SNPs found yet. Due to low coverage




----

----




I6318




0 derived SNPs found yet. Due to low coverage




----

----




I6120




Confirmed BT. Low coverage.




----

----




I6312




Confirmed CT (xDE, G). low coverage.




----

----




I6127




Confirmed BT. Perhaps J* but low coverage.




----

----




I6117




0 derived SNPs found yet. Due to low coverage




----

----




I6119




Confirmed CT (x DE, C, G, J, L, T1a1, R). low coverage.




----

----




I2085




Confirmed E1b1b1

Silesian
03-04-18, 11:23
Aram points out--



Aram (https://www.blogger.com/profile/05717857095182763668) [email protected]

I had a close look to other Y dna assignments. Not only adna but also modern.
Many of them completly wrong.
Numerous E1a in modern India.
M269 in Iron Gates, Kura Araxes and Mal'ta boy.
I2a2a in BA Turkmenistan
Kotias is J2a1h.. Plain wrong
Deep subclade of E1b1a (Niger Congo) in Iran

Etc etc

The software is wrong doing and it is possible that some of this E1a-s are real R1a.
April 3, 2018 at 1:43 AM

https://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif Aram (https://www.blogger.com/profile/05717857095182763668) said...Alberto

I am not ruling out the possibility that L1a and EHG came to Areni from Turan. But then again why they are ANF shifted and no trace of that WSiberia Hg. Also notice that y dna L1b is purely West Asian y dna. So hard to say.

Anthro

I think L23 level formed in Steppe. But it is possible that M269 split into L23 and Pf7562 occured in West Asia. This is a possibility that we can't rule out.
Pf7562 moved into C/BA Anatolia creating Hittites and others. While L23 expanded from Steppe.

M269 ultimately came to West Asia from EHG side. Either directly either via Central Asia.

Olympus Mons
03-04-18, 13:34
Anthro

I think L23 level formed in Steppe. But it is possible that M269 split into L23 and Pf7562 occured in West Asia. This is a possibility that we can't rule out.
Pf7562 moved into C/BA Anatolia creating Hittites and others. While L23 expanded from Steppe.

M269 ultimately came to West Asia from EHG side. Either directly either via Central Asia.

Aram is still hell bound on making it "come from the steple".
Anyways it looks like is a matter of time before we find M269 near the western/southwestern vicinity of Black sea (romania, Bulgaria....)
But L23 or Pf7562? --- south caucasus.

Olympus Mons
03-04-18, 13:47
@Holderlin
You would love to see where was there horse with south caucasus Shulaveri? Start here.
https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2008_num_34_2_5258

And read some books or papers about them and you always end up finding horse in the fauna reported.

suyindik
03-04-18, 14:14
See below quotes of some sources about the archaeology and anthropology of the Tepe Hissar culture. Could it be that the Ubaid, Uruk, Leyla-Tepe, Maykop, Early-Kura-Araxes(like Areni-1) and Sumerians will have a similar Y-haplogroup structure as seen within the Tepe Hissar results? Could it be that the carriers of the first "Metallurgy"(Varna, Uruk, Leyla-Tepe, Maykop, Early-Kura-Araxes and Sumerians) were the same people and originated within an area between Mesopotamia, Eastern Anatolia and South-Caucasus?

1.
The Chronology of the Third Cultural Period at Tepe Hissar:

There is yet another weapon typical of Hissar III ? and C, the adze-axe, This type of axe probably evolved, as Prof. Gordon Childe has always maintained, from the amalgamation of the Sumerian type tubular shafthole adze and axe, but the region where this took place would appear to have been that of Maikop where all three types are found, and from this centre it spread.

2.
Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: The Early Metal Age:

Metal ornaments occur mainly in burials at Kuro-Araks cemeteries in Elar, Urbnisi, Khizanaant-gora, and others. Long pins with flat, broad, double-spiralled heads are found in the later levels of Kuro-araks settlements. They mark the beginning of a major series of similar ornaments which occur throughout the caucasian cultures of the MBA and LBA. They are also known from Iran, from the Tepe Hissar II period, and in eastern Anatolia, from the so-called Late Chalcolithic levels of the Tepecik settlement which must date to the second half of the fourth millenium BC.

The latest levels of Namazga III may be compared, in terms of their ceramic and terracotta assemblages, via Tepe Hissar IB and IC(in Iran), with Tepe Sialk III/5-7, and via these with Uruk XV-IV.

Only the knives from Kyul-tepe I and Tekhut provide an indication that these forms were later to occupy one of the central places in the production of Transcaucasian metallurgical centres, already linked with the Kuro-Araks culture. Relatively similar forms of tanged knives occur at sites of the Sialk II-III and Hissar I types.

3.
A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL MATERIALS OF THE LATE ENEOLITHIC FROM THE ARENI 1 CAVE:

Results of the intergroup statistical analysis identified close morphological affinities between the Eneolithic skulls from Areni 1 with groups from Tepe Hissar II, Ginchi, Catal Huyuk, Alishar Huyuk and the bearers of the Kuro-Araxes from the Southern Caucasus. As for race and genetics, the Late Eneolithic inhabitants from Areni 1 cave, more probably, originate from the territory of the Middle East.

4.
The Indo-Europeans: Archeological Problems:

The royal tombs at Maikop and Tsarskaja in Kuban, with burials in house graves built of timber or of stone slabs equipped with a fantastic amount of gold, silver, copper, pottery and stone vases, gold figurines of bulls and lions sewn on garments, gold and silver bull figurines adorning canopies, gold beads and rings, gold, silver, turquoise and carnelian beads, as well as copper axes, daggers and spearheads show close relations with northern Iran (Tepe Hissar III) and with the royal tombs of Alaca Huyuk and Horoztepe in northern central Anatolia (Lloyd 1961).

5.
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE CAUCASUS DURING THE EARLYMETAL AGE:

While the pottery found in the first group of kurgans is close to the Kura-Araxesculture, the pottery in the second, and later, group is characterized by the so-called ‘pearl-like’ ornaments. This decoration is typical of the Novosvobodnaya(Tsarskaya) stage of the north Caucasian Maikop culture and Early Bronze Age north-east Iranian sites (Tureng Tepe III C, Shah Tepe III, Tepe Hissar II B, Yarim Tepe);two such sherds were found in the ‘Late Chalcolithic’ levels of Alishar(central Anatolia)

6.
The New Chronology of the Bronze Age Settlement of Tepe Hissar, Iran:

We could not disregard the striking resemblances between ... Early Dynastic Sumer and Hissar IIIC.

7.
Studies in ancient technology. 5:

Hancar considers the Copper Age of Kuban, Egypt and Mesopotamia individual growths on a common base, but connects Kuban with Tureng Tepe and more closely with Tepe Hissar III.

8.
The Southern Caucasus in Prehistory:

Skulls from the time of formation of the Kura-Araxes culture are representative of the Mediterranean type of the Europoid race. In a number of traits they are close to the series of skulls from such sites as Tepe Hissar II-III, Ubaid, and Kish.

bicicleur
03-04-18, 14:16
Extremely unlikely scenarions from the point of view of linguistics. I think you're overestimating the possible survival time of a Common PIE without any significant divergence. If the Bell Beaker-derived languages (I presume Celtic, Lusitanian and Italic, at least, ultimately descend from one of those) hadn't even crossed to Transcaucasia by 5,500 BC, it would certainly have diverged into an extremely divergent language in relation the "steppe-derived" branches like Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (probably derived from a Yamna language more than 2,500 years later), and instead what we clearly see is that they all, without exception, look like closely related from a common source not many thousands of years prior to their first attestations, especially because they share a whole lot of innovations that for example Anatolian IE lacks.

They could have developed or mutually exchanged 1 or 2 of those features, but it's extremely improbable that they would somehow converge to the same point in several different features ranging from phonetics to morphology and syntax.

That's especially true of Mycenaean Greek compared to Indo-Iranian (which most clearly expanded together with Eastern European/North Asian steppe ancestry), since these two branches share so many commonalities that some linguists even proposed that they should be grouped together as an intermediary Graeco-Indo-Iranian language between Late PIE and themselves. Greek has clearly split from Indo-Iranian quite late in historic terms, not as early as before 5,000 BC, and take into consideration that it's most certain that the PIE speakers in the steppe mixed extensively with entirely different peoples and languages, so their language must've evolved significantly in such a scenario of intense migration, cultural shifts and displacement (like medieval English, for example).

The Shulaveri-Shomu that lived in the Balkans most certainly did not speak PIE at all, but an ancestor language of the PIE that eventually developed as one homogeneous and expansive language in the South Caucasus. If Bell Beakers and Mycenaeans came from a branch of Shulaveri-Shomu that had simply stayed in the Balkans while another offshoot came to West Asia, spent centuries there, migrated to the North Caucasus and from there expanded to the open steppes, well, I'm pretty sure that we'd have in fact 2 starkly different but related language families in Europe (e.g. Semitic vs. Berber), and not one common and still reconstructible Proto-Indo-European language. The divergence would've been much more significant, and the typological similarities between these "southern" branches and the "northern" (steppe) branches would be much fewer.

Languages inevitably change, it seems to me quite misleading to talk uniformly of a "PIE" from Shulaveri-Shomu still in the Balkans in e.g. 5,700 BC until the final divergence of PIE after 3,000 BC. No language survives more than 2,500 years without severe divergence (look at Romance languages, they ceased to be just variants of Latin for a mere 1,300-1,400 years).

I don't think (quite the contrary) it's unlikely that Para-Indo-European languages existed elsewhere in Asia and Europe, but THE Proto-Indo-European that really survived into many daughter languages was not much older than the Late Neolithic/Copper Age, so it corresponds much more plausibly with the period when the migration from Transcaucasia to the Steppes happened, not before that. The others, sister languages of PIE, simply died out.

so, in your opinion, Mycenian Greek is also MLBA steppe in origin, and not Anatolian
the same for Armenian?

bicicleur
03-04-18, 14:24
Trojet posted this in another forum:

I looked at the two J2b's from Hajji Firuz (ca. 6000-5700 calBCE). From the reported SNPs, one of them is J2b-M12(L283-) and the other is J2b-M12(M241- M205-)

that would mean they were a dead end as far as their Y-DNA is concerned?

hrvclv
03-04-18, 14:28
It's not impossible, but it requires some maneuvering. Maneuvering that also happens to require a lack of evidence for this maneuvering aside from what is at this time one Z2103 male. Steppe culture was remarkably continuous from Samara all the way to Srubna, who we know spoke Iranian. So we'd be talking about a small group of males, lacking any characteristics that would identify them with known Indoeuropeans nor leaving any trace of evidence to the question, moving through the Caucuses and quite literally infiltrating a steppe culture, while being absorbed by them, while changing their language to IE, from Uralic as Goga would say? And of course they would have completely decamped from the near east because they were replaced by Caucasian and Hurrian by the earliest records of the regions in question.

Hajji Firuz : 6000 - 5700 BC, from there straight into the steppe, some way north, with a culture core in...
Samara : 5500 - 4800, then...
Khvalynsk : 5000 - 4500,
(Sredny Stog, as a hybrid between steppe and Trypolie : 4500 - 3500)
Yamna : 3600 - 2300

Could work. Does anyone know how much CHG, if any, was found in Samara and subsequent cultures?

bicicleur
03-04-18, 14:30
I actually think proto Semitic speakers lived in Iran and Caucasus, while also holding that Levant Neolithic is the ancestral Afro-Asiatic component, some reasons for this:

-haplogroup J1 doesn't appear until the Bronze Age, accompanying the Iran/Caucasus admixture, J1-P58 has a clear association to Semitic speakers.

-a linguistic argument in favor of this is: Proto Semitic; dating and locating it (https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/proto-semitic-dating-and-locating-it/)

-if Semitic speakers originated in the East, is that the origin of Afro-Asiatic ? no, Levant Neolithic ancestry did migrate to Iran and Caucasus, merging with them to become like the Iran Chalcolithic population, I'm not claiming all Iran Chal groups spoke Semitic but certainly a subset of them did, this hypothetical group then back-migrated to the Levant bringing with it CHG ancestry and haplogroup J1.

Semitic is derived from Afroasiatic which was spoken in the Levant, but it didn't exist before the arrival of the bronze age J tribes coming from the Zagros area, it is a case were the conquerors adopted the langauge of the subjected

suyindik
03-04-18, 14:33
I think that most of the A, BT, CT, A0-T, DE data are incorrect and should belong to other haplogroups, i hope they can fix this too. And what do you guys think about the prediction of Leyla-Tepe, Maikop and Early Kura-Araxes(before 3500 BCE) cultures? Could they have the same kind of haplogroups(J, J2a1h2, L2, T, T1a, H3) like in the "Tepe Hissar" which is also the basis of the Ubaid/Uruk/Sumerians? All these cultures are archaeologically and anthropologically proven to be close. Maybe the results will indeed show a migration of Mesopotamia into the South-North Caucasus + Eastern Anatolia?

Angela
03-04-18, 14:40
Would people just stop with this "all the y designations are wrong" in an attempt to invalidate the Z2103 sample finding or find some R1a?

The listed information isn't "wrong". They can't get usable dna at all from some samples. In some cases it's fragmentary. The program spits out what mutations show up. You're supposed to use some judgment about how to interpret it. Now, should they have given some guidance? Maybe, but most of these are obvious once you look at the calls.

As for the lack of R1a in Swat, I'm tired of the goalpost constantly getting moved. Last I heard, the predictions were that the samples would be 75-80% steppe, but now everyone knew this was the wrong place to find it. Please.

Also, anyone who thought that the steppe percentages might be confounded by "pseudo steppe" created by a reservoir of ANE plus Iran Neo and some ANF was a kook worthy of name calling.

Honestly, some of you guys are unbelievable. Just try to be honest with yourselves and other people, and try to be objective.

As to the language issue I'm still not sure, but if it turns out there isn't a problem with the dating of the Z2103 in Iran, and we, for example, find more on the route into the steppe, then I think it is good evidence that the earliest form of the language as well as much of the culture did indeed come from the south Caucasus. I mean, is it likely that male Z2103 carriers would drop their language in favor of the language of whatever women they married on the steppe?

Saetrus
03-04-18, 15:40
Here are the two Y-DNA haplogroups found in Hajji Firuz:
https://i.imgur.com/j5JCJ1I.jpg
Notice anything?

Trojet
03-04-18, 16:16
I looked at the two J2b's from Hajji Firuz (ca. 6000-5700 calBCE). From the reported SNPs, one of them is J2b-M12(L283-) and the other is J2b-M12(M241- M205-)
that would mean they were a dead end as far as their Y-DNA is concerned?

They could still be J2b-M12>Z1825: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M102/
We'll see when they publish the raw data (BAM files).

There was a dead end J2b-M12* found not far from the area, ca. 8000 BC: https://j2-m172.info/2016/07/ancient-zagros-j2b-iran-abdul-hosein-early-neolithic-broushaki-et-al/

Anyways, this is another evidence that the origin of J2b and also J2b2-M241 most probably lies roughly in the same region. J2b2-M241 initially likely expanded as Iran Neolithic marker, with J-M241>Z2432 mostly into South Asia, and J-M241>L283 perhaps to Caucuses > Southern Steppe > Balkans/Europe during the Bronze Age.

Alpenjager
03-04-18, 16:34
I think that most of the A, BT, CT, A0-T, DE data are incorrect and should belong to other haplogroups, i hope they can fix this too. And what do you guys think about the prediction of Leyla-Tepe, Maikop and Early Kura-Araxes(before 3500 BCE) cultures? Could they have the same kind of haplogroups(J, J2a1h2, L2, T, T1a, H3) like in the "Tepe Hissar" which is also the basis of the Ubaid/Uruk/Sumerians? All these cultures are archaeologically and anthropologically proven to be close. Maybe the results will indeed show a migration of Mesopotamia into the South-North Caucasus + Eastern Anatolia?

Forgot H3. One unique derived call in a low coverage sample is not a confirmation of being H3.

Also Forgot T1a. The sample is plain T confirmed but not T1a with 2 dervided calls and 1 ancestral call.

kingjohn
03-04-18, 16:40
those e-z830 in north pakistan
coollllll...................
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swat_District
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Rigvedic_geography.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara_grave_culture


the e1b1b1 individual from BMAC sample can also be e-z830 or e-m78
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria%E2%80%93Margiana_Archaeological_Complex#/media/File:Indo-Iranian_origins.png

bicicleur
03-04-18, 16:53
Would people just stop with this "all the y designations are wrong" in an attempt to invalidate the Z2103 sample finding or find some R1a?

The listed information isn't "wrong". They can't get usable dna at all from some samples. In some cases it's fragmentary. The program spits out what mutations show up. You're supposed to use some judgment about how to interpret it. Now, should they have given some guidance? Maybe, but most of these are obvious once you look at the calls.

As for the lack of R1a in Swat, I'm tired of the goalpost constantly getting moved. Last I heard, the predictions were that the samples would be 75-80% steppe, but now everyone knew this was the wrong place to find it. Please.

Also, anyone who thought that the steppe percentages might be confounded by "pseudo steppe" created by a reservoir of ANE plus Iran Neo and some ANF was a kook worthy of name calling.

Honestly, some of you guys are unbelievable. Just try to be honest with yourselves and other people, and try to be objective.

As to the language issue I'm still not sure, but if it turns out there isn't a problem with the dating of the Z2103 in Iran, and we, for example, find more on the route into the steppe, then I think it is good evidence that the earliest form of the language as well as much of the culture did indeed come from the south Caucasus. I mean, is it likely that male Z2103 carriers would drop their language in favor of the language of whatever women they married on the steppe?

isn't Swat 'Indus periphery' ?

and indeed we have to find a route from Hajji Firuz either to the steppe or to the Anatolian branch before we can take firm conclusions
it is an interesting development though

Promenade
03-04-18, 16:58
Is anyone else considering the possibility the Anatolian farmer ancestry is actually Levant Neolithic or Natufian related? Especially given some of the paternal haplogroups appear to be related to PPNB, but none to EEF?

Angela
03-04-18, 17:21
isn't Swat 'Indus periphery' ?

and indeed we have to find a route from Hajji Firuz either to the steppe or to the Anatolian branch before we can take firm conclusions
it is an interesting development though

They seem to have made up that term, from what I can tell. :)

This particular branch of Indo-European studies never particularly interested me, so I guess I took it for granted that when various people were blogging or posting about how this was going to be "steppe central" they were going not only with good statistical analysis but a good understanding of the archaeology and culture of the area.

Big mistake! Huge! (Sorry, another movie reference-Pretty Woman!) :)

Anyway, I now have done some digging of my own, and it doesn't look very "Indo-European" at all in the early periods. However, as someone has opined somewhere, it would be very weird if it stayed that way for very long.

Then there's the question of where the route does lie. The "steppe" or "steppe related" people didn't get airlifted to the Punjab. There should be some record of their passing.

For now, I'm keeping an open mind, but perhaps leaning a bit to a later entry with a good chunk of it coming from Scythians with less East Asian.

@Trojet,

" J2b2-M241 initially likely expanded as Iran Neolithic marker, with J-M241>Z2432 mostly into South Asia, and J-M241>L283 perhaps to Caucuses > Southern Steppe > Balkans/Europe during the Bronze Age."


Or maybe across Anatolia in the Bronze Age and from there into Southeastern Europe?

@Saetrus

"Notice anything"?

Yes, I notice that both J2 and the upstream clades of R1b moved from east to west. That's the easy part. The question is with whom did various subclades move? Which ones spoke "IE" languages and which didn't?

@Promenade,

"Is anyone else considering the possibility the Anatolian farmer ancestry is actually Levant Neolithic or Natufian related? Especially given some of the paternal haplogroups appear to be related to PPNB, but none to EEF?"

I'd have to go back and check, but to the best of my recollection they mention "ANF" ancestry, but, of course, ANF included Levant Neolithic, as Levant Neolithic included ANF.

A lot of that ancestry entered the area from the west, i.e. Iran.

Alpenjager
03-04-18, 17:28
Is anyone else considering the possibility the Anatolian farmer ancestry is actually Levant Neolithic or Natufian related? Especially given some of the paternal haplogroups appear to be related to PPNB, but none to EEF?

Excluding E1b natufians, all the other PPNB haplogroups are carring Aegean-Anatolian Neolithic Ancestry.

epoch
03-04-18, 17:30
Our Y haplogroup assignments were done using yHaplo by @dpoznik, modified to deal with damage, contamination & missing data in ancient DNA.

https://twitter.com/vagheesh/status/980646170648285185

Angela
03-04-18, 18:02
Some reaction from around the net:

Razib Khan, if you haven't read his piece.
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/03/31/the-maturation-of-the-south-asian-genetic-landscape/

A piece in scroll in:
https://scroll.in/article/874102/aryan-migration-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-study-on-indian-genetics

Some more Indian reaction:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/who-built-the-indus-valley-civilisation/article22261315.ece

Saetrus
03-04-18, 18:25
@Saetrus


Yes, I notice that both J2 and the upstream clades of R1b moved from east to west. That's the easy part. The question is with whom did various subclades move? Which ones spoke "IE" languages and which didn't?

It moved from east to west? Yes, but more importantly both have the exact same pattern of distribution, meaning they were carried by the same people, Indoeuropeans. All Centum languages are related to that expansion.
https://i.imgur.com/5OtNutc.png
We have a founder effect in northern Italy/southern France with R1b-L51 that would later become Bell Beaker, and spread R1b and Centum languages to central/northern Europe. Remedello II and Fontbouisse Culture will have the R1b ancestral to Bell Beaker.

Olympus Mons
03-04-18, 20:00
It moved from east to west? Yes, but more importantly both have the exact same pattern of distribution, meaning they were carried by the same people, Indoeuropeans. All Centum languages are related to that expansion.
https://i.imgur.com/5OtNutc.png
We have a founder effect in northern Italy/southern France with R1b-L51 that would later become Bell Beaker, and spread R1b and Centum languages to central/northern Europe. Remedello II and Fontbouisse Culture will have the R1b ancestral to Bell Beaker.

This map keeps showing up... Does anyone know the source data for it?

halfalp
03-04-18, 20:17
Wow R1b-L151 from 2500 BC in Afghanistan and R1b-M269 from 5500 BC in Kurdistan. Good Luck trying to explain the new pattern for a population movement. How do we know if those R1b are native saying for a long time of period in those region ? Nice paper btw, the E in Central Asia is pretty disconcerting.

Yetos
03-04-18, 20:33
I think that most of the A, BT, CT, A0-T, DE data are incorrect and should belong to other haplogroups, i hope they can fix this too. And what do you guys think about the prediction of Leyla-Tepe, Maikop and Early Kura-Araxes(before 3500 BCE) cultures? Could they have the same kind of haplogroups(J, J2a1h2, L2, T, T1a, H3) like in the "Tepe Hissar" which is also the basis of the Ubaid/Uruk/Sumerians? All these cultures are archaeologically and anthropologically proven to be close. Maybe the results will indeed show a migration of Mesopotamia into the South-North Caucasus + Eastern Anatolia?


When i spoke
and present connectivity of IE with Summerian vocabulary,
Nobody tried at least to search,
EVERY-body was relaxed, and try to connex the Uralic languages with IE,

BUT THAT IS THE SECRET OF LINGUISTIC,

IF IE HAS SUMMERIAN VOCABULARY,
HOW COME GET IT FROM STEPPE?
How come Slavic have word Gor-anje since not pass from around Summerian lands?

Notice Urals Urartu Sumerian Kur etc etc.
and much much more,

berun
03-04-18, 20:34
Checking Y-DNA there are patterns like Yamna being Z2103 as its eastern expansion of Afanisievo, and from 2000 BC everything is R1a in Central Asia, Sintashta, Andronovo... The Indian subcontinent don't receive R1b/R1a till Alexander the Great... so... Indic languages spread from Central Asia profiting the Greek victories. Just kidding.

A lot of info would be lost if IE coming to India would be incinerated as suggested in another forum, so leaving evidence for local cultural resistencies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cemetery_H_culture

by the way when Indo-Iranians changed kurgans for cremation urns?

Promenade
03-04-18, 20:35
@Angela @Alpenjager

What I am proposing is an eastward movement of Levant Neolithic ancestry or related people (Mesopotamian neolithic?) into the Turan from the fertile crescent region (and later on possibly via Oman) rather than a movement directly from Anatolia of primarily Anatolian neolithic ancestry. We've already seen that there was a large and far reaching movement of Natufian ancestry into both North and East Africa. (Notably without any Anatolian Neolithic admixture. A Levant Neolithic related group is the primary candidate here though and of course would include Anatolian Neolithic.) The PPNB culture straddled the immediate south western periphery of Iran and it's more likely successor groups in this area penetrated into the Turan than a group centered around North-west Anatolia and the Aegean sea. The curious y-dna (CT, T1a, E1b1b) we find in the "Turan" also appears more closely associated with Natufians than it does with the ANF/EEF who probably acquired such haplogroups from Natufians.

As noted before the paper explicitly mentions that they aren't sure which group mediated the ancestry, just that it was a "western near eastern neolithic population." They also comment on the unfortunate absence of Mesopotamian dna, a possible source of this ancestry. Anatolia Neolithic was chosen pragmatically because of the large and high quality samples:

(106) "Following this period, samples from the late Neolithic and Copper Age are shifted away from these Neolithic populations in two directions: towards agriculturalists from Neolithic Anatolia and towards HGs from West Siberia"

"An important caveat is that we do not consider here Levantine agriculturalists who were closely related to those of Anatolia with some uncertainty as the direction of gene flow between Anatolia and the Levant [Laz16]. Relatedly, the distribution of Anatolian/Levantine/Iranian-Neolithic related populations in the ancient Near East is only sparsely known [Cite Laz/Broushaki/Boncuklupaper], with an important lacuna in Mesopotamia. Our results do not imply that the shift related to populations sampled in northwestern Anatolia [Mathieson] implies admixture from that area, but we use this set because of its large sample size and high quality as representatives of Neolithic populations of the western Near East. "

Or does an Anatolian Neolithic origin via Anatolia make more sense in your opinion?

Yetos
03-04-18, 20:43
I actually think proto Semitic speakers lived in Iran and Caucasus, while also holding that Levant Neolithic is the ancestral Afro-Asiatic component, some reasons for this:

-haplogroup J1 doesn't appear until the Bronze Age, accompanying the Iran/Caucasus admixture, J1-P58 has a clear association to Semitic speakers.

-a linguistic argument in favor of this is: Proto Semitic; dating and locating it (https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/proto-semitic-dating-and-locating-it/)

-if Semitic speakers originated in the East, is that the origin of Afro-Asiatic ? no, Levant Neolithic ancestry did migrate to Iran and Caucasus, merging with them to become like the Iran Chalcolithic population, I'm not claiming all Iran Chal groups spoke Semitic but certainly a subset of them did, this hypothetical group then back-migrated to the Levant bringing with it CHG ancestry and haplogroup J1.

Actually
Both Semitic and IE are Caucasian languages.
only difference Semitic passed the Zagros mountains,
probably from Chaldea
IE split at Zagros mountains

IronSide
03-04-18, 20:48
@Promenade

If Levant Neolithic groups penetrated the Zagros mountains, could they have influenced some of the languages there ?

This is a linguistic argument for Afro-Asiatic loanwords in Dravidian and Elamite https://archive.org/stream/ElamABridgeBetweenAncientNearEastAndDravidianIndia 1999/Blaek1999ElamABridgeBetweenAncientNearEastAndDravi dianIndia_djvu.txt

you may have to scroll down a little.

Sile
03-04-18, 20:57
@Angela @Alpenjager
What I am proposing is a westward movement of Levant Neolithic ancestry or related people (Mesopotamian neolithic?) into the Turan from the fertile crescent region (and later on possibly via Oman) rather than a movement directly from Anatolia of primarily Anatolian neolithic ancestry. We've already seen that there was a large and far reaching movement of Natufian ancestry into both North and East Africa. (Notably without any Anatolian Neolithic admixture. A Levant Neolithic related group is the primary candidate here though and of course would include Anatolian Neolithic.) The PPNB culture straddled the immediate south western periphery of Iran and it's more likely successor groups in this area penetrated into the Turan than a group centered around North-west Anatolia and the Aegean sea. The curious y-dna (CT, T1a, E1b1b) we find in the "Turan" also appears more closely associated with Natufians than it does with the ANF/EEF who probably acquired such haplogroups from Natufians.
As noted before the paper explicitly mentions that they aren't sure which group mediated the ancestry, just that it was a "western near eastern neolithic population." They also comment on the unfortunate absence of Mesopotamian dna, a possible source of this ancestry. Anatolia Neolithic was chosen pragmatically because of the large and high quality samples:
(106) "Following this period, samples from the late Neolithic and Copper Age are shifted away from these Neolithic populations in two directions: towards agriculturalists from Neolithic Anatolia and towards HGs from West Siberia"
"An important caveat is that we do not consider here Levantine agriculturalists who were closely related to those of Anatolia with some uncertainty as the direction of gene flow between Anatolia and the Levant [Laz16]. Relatedly, the distribution of Anatolian/Levantine/Iranian-Neolithic related populations in the ancient Near East is only sparsely known [Cite Laz/Broushaki/Boncuklupaper], with an important lacuna in Mesopotamia. Our results do not imply that the shift related to populations sampled in northwestern Anatolia [Mathieson] implies admixture from that area, but we use this set because of its large sample size and high quality as representatives of Neolithic populations of the western Near East. "
Or does an Anatolian Neolithic origin via Anatolia make more sense in your opinion?
According to Viktor Sarianidi the archeologist at gonur-tepe ........the site was first inhabited ~7000BC from Pamir people.........next came Bactrian area people and lastly in the bronze age from migration from eastern anatolia ( lake van, kurdish area ) ...........the area was part of the silk road joining with western siberia
https://www.uam.es/otros/cupauam/pdf/Cupauam39/3902.pdf
Unsure how old Tepe-hissar is but it seems younger than Gonur-tepe since Gonur began ~7000BC by people from the Pamir

Migration of people was not always east to west , but also west to east

Sile
03-04-18, 21:01
Actually
Both Semitic and IE are Caucasian languages.
only difference Semitic passed the Zagros mountains,
probably from Chaldea
IE split at Zagros mountains

Semetic never crossed the zargos mountains unless via invasion ..........we also see this today Persians, turks and kurds are not semetic people

Yetos
03-04-18, 21:04
Semetic never crossed the zargos mountains unless via invasion ..........we also see this today Persians, turks and kurds are not semetic people

yes it did,

how come then moved from Caucasus to South of Zagros.

Sile
03-04-18, 21:09
yes it did,

how come then moved from Caucasus to South of Zagros.

sources please ..........you will find that the people I noted are not referred to as semetic, neither are armenians or yazidis

berun
03-04-18, 21:23
for the Semitic or Levantine debate in the Indian subcontinent it would be wise to consider merchants:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meluhha

Yetos
03-04-18, 21:29
sources please ..........you will find that the people I noted are not referred to as semetic, neither are armenians or yazidis


No need,

from Caucasus to Arabian peninsula,
you must pass the Zagros,
except if you fly!!!!!

Ygorcs
03-04-18, 23:52
(Bicicleur) so, in your opinion, Mycenian Greek is also MLBA steppe in origin, and not Anatolian
the same for Armenian? >>>>
Yes, but heavily diluted MLBA steppe and the Proto-Greek language per se, not just a dialectal offshoot of Late PIE, in my opinion was born already in a heavily EEF-shifted population, very unlike their "ancestral" IE speakers, due to the extensive mixing of a (south)western Steppe population that, in fact, may already have been genetically and culturally influenced by EEF Old European cultures since centuries earlier. In sum, I think Mycenaean Greek, with its quite profound changes even in vocabulary, was the language of a mixed people, brought by a minority of MLBA steppe conquerors to a majority of local EEF Balkanic people (the exact same process seem to have happened in Late Bronze Age Armenia), maybe descending from a branch of Ezero or Cernavoda cultures. They wouldn't have come from the steppes directly, but rather to the North(east) Balkans and only centuries later, already belonging to a different language and culture, migrated southwards to Greece to form Mycenaean Greek and Mycenaean culture. That explains the small but still existing affinity with the MLBA steppe in the Mycenaean samples. But an origin like that of the Anatolian branch? Most unlikely. Their language was MUCH more akin to Indo-Iranian than to Hittite or Luwian.

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 00:04
See this is the problem I have. It is actually not clearly Indo_Aryan substrata. The "clearly" Indo Aryan substrata you are speaking about are basically the names of few deities that some of them are actually not clearly Indo_Aryan to begin with and some other that simply disappeared among Iranic tribes and are today only known among the Indo_Aryans. We know from Avesta that far more Indo_Iranic deities existed before Zoroastrians made it a monotheistic religion. These are basically things that disappeared in documented Iranic but still exist in Indo_Aryan.

And as I mentioned above the "Indo_Aryan" argument is not really clear. Far from it.

Let me give you just one example of an argument used by the "Indo_Aryan" camp. The Deities Mitra and Varuna. But both are actually quite commonly mentioned in Iranic documents and Mithra was among many even the highest Deity.

There are actually two theories and only one scientist for each. Kammenhuber argues for still undivided Indo_Iranian. And Mayrhofer for Indo_Aryan.

Mayrhofer's methodology quite frankly reminds me of David Anthony in the horse, the wheel and the language. Far too simplistic arguments based on small historic knowledge and very thin evidences.
I mean whoever uses Mithra as evidence for the argument of Indo_Aryan can't have allot of knowledge of history or linguistics imo.

Those were not actually the arguments I had read for the Indo-Aryan identification of the Mitanni language, but actually phonetic developments that are specific to Indo-Aryan and not to Indo-Iranian (Mitanni [s] like Indo-Aryan [s] and unlike Iranic [h], Mitanni "aika" like Vedic "eka" < Indo-Aryan "aika", unlike Iranic "aiva"), as well as the fact that by 2,000 BC Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian (proper) would probably already have split into two different languages. However, I absolutely agree that the proposition that it wasn't Indo-Aryan nor Iranic, but still a later dialect of a still undivided Indo-Iranian, starting to develop its own characteristics, also makes sense. Geographically the appearance of Mitanni would also be even more explainable if they were just some of the earliest Iranic tribes migrating west.

Angela
04-04-18, 00:17
We discussed this cultural flow into the steppe from Iran, Majkop and south of the Caucasus back in 2015.

This is with regard specifically to Kurgans:

" Originally Posted by Angela https://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=461895#post461895)This is the paper which proposed that the kurgans were first developed by the Maykop culture via influence from the Uruk expansion. It's from 2012. I don't know if there's anything more recent. http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2...tskhelauri.pdf (http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf)

Maciamo discussed it here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...hlight=kurgans (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28632-More-evidence-that-the-PIE-R1b-people-originated-in-the-Maykop-culture?highlight=kurgans)



This is the abstract of the paper:
"At the end of the 5 and in the 4 millennia B.C. large masses of Uruk migrants had settled in the South, and later in the North Caucasus. Assimilation of cultures of the newcomers and residents, as a result, caused their "explosive" development paving the way to the formation of the Maikop culture in the North Caucasus and the Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus."

The Uruk culture is a Mesopotamian culture from the area of Sumer.
He bases his conclusions largely on the sudden appearance of metal and ceramics artifacts of high quality showing signs of Mesopotamian origin and then Maykop artifacts which derive from them.

The author posits that the impetus for the migration, which he claims was not an elite one but a mass movement of people, while it probably had to do with overpopulation and other factors, was also motivated by the demand of these Mesopotamian cultures for metals.

Interestingly, he proposes two routes for the migration, one of which is from eastern Anatolia toward the northwest future center of Maykop, and one from Iran toward the northeast Caucasus.

He then reviews the position held by some that although there was Uruk influence flowing north, there was then a reverse movement south bringing with it the "kurgan" type of burial.

However, he maintains that, " At present the situation has changed drastically. On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15, 82] that burial mounds of the ancient pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites."

I don't know if this duel over dating has continued. I don't know if it matters, really. The custom grew out of the increasing social stratification which arose from the possession first of agricultural surplus, and then of metals, both of which took place in Mesopotamia (and in Neolithic southeast Europe). The mound burials arose in this context and under this influence from Maikop."

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31383-Indo-European-package?highlight=kurgans

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 00:45
I think that most of the A, BT, CT, A0-T, DE data are incorrect and should belong to other haplogroups, i hope they can fix this too. And what do you guys think about the prediction of Leyla-Tepe, Maikop and Early Kura-Araxes(before 3500 BCE) cultures? Could they have the same kind of haplogroups(J, J2a1h2, L2, T, T1a, H3) like in the "Tepe Hissar" which is also the basis of the Ubaid/Uruk/Sumerians? All these cultures are archaeologically and anthropologically proven to be close. Maybe the results will indeed show a migration of Mesopotamia into the South-North Caucasus + Eastern Anatolia? Archaeologically and economically, the direction seems to have been exactly the opposite: irrigation agriculture and some other aspects of the farming economy and material culture in the unquestionably Sumerian Uruk period seem to have clear similarities with the former Samarra culture from Northern Mesopotamian. Besides, before ~5,500 BC there was virtually no intensive agriculture in Southern Mesopotamia (Sumer), so AFAIK to most archaeologists the direction of the Mesopotamian spread of farming and migrations (that eventually, when writing appears, we see that were related to Sumerians) seems to have been from north to south, from North Iraq to South Iraq. In my opinion, exactly the same process formed the Proto-Semitic peoples, with J1/J2 people from the north (Caucasus/Armenian Highlands/West Iran) merging with the natives of the Levant and, unlike the former [proto-]Sumerians, adopting the local language while also changing their genetic and cultural makeup.

Lenab
04-04-18, 00:54
Archaeologically and economically, the direction seems to have been exactly the opposite: irrigation agriculture and some other aspects of the farming economy and material culture in the unquestionably Sumerian Uruk period seem to have clear similarities with the former Samarra culture from Northern Mesopotamian. Besides, before ~5,500 BC there was virtually no intensive agriculture in Southern Mesopotamia (Sumer), so AFAIK to most archaeologists the direction of the Mesopotamian spread of farming and migrations (that eventually, when writing appears, we see that were related to Sumerians) seems to have been from north to south, from North Iraq to South Iraq. In my opinion, exactly the same process formed the Proto-Semitic peoples, with J1/J2 people from the north (Caucasus/Armenian Highlands/West Iran) merging with the natives of the Levant and, unlike the former [proto-]Sumerians, adopting the local language while also changing their genetic and cultural makeup.
North Iran not West Iran. The Levant term is outdated please rename it Greco Anatolia respectfully.

Also, the Alpine races came from the Near East to the Mediterranean coastline and even outer Germania this was due to Neolithic migration also. Just goes to show how hybrid people are. Also don't get confused with haplogroups J2 is Fertile Cresent Anatolia J1 is usually Semite.

Silesian
04-04-18, 01:05
We discussed this cultural flow into the steppe from Iran, Majkop and south of the Caucasus back in 2015.

This is with regard specifically to Kurgans:

" Originally Posted by Angelahttps://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=461895#post461895)This is the paper which proposed that the kurgans were first developed by the Maykop culture via influence from the Uruk expansion. It's from 2012. I don't know if there's anything more recent. http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2...tskhelauri.pdf (http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf)

Maciamo discussed it here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...hlight=kurgans (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28632-More-evidence-that-the-PIE-R1b-people-originated-in-the-Maykop-culture?highlight=kurgans)


As for the African R1b, it is all V88, the same as in Egypt and the Levant, so it is highly unlikely that this R1b migration to Africa had anything to do with Indo-Europeans or Maykop. It is more probably an offshoot of Late Paleolithic/Mesolithic Middle Eastern hunter-gatherers or even Neolithic Levantines that split in various directions and ended up in various parts of Africa.
I thought R1b-V88 originates from Europe, no?

Lenab
04-04-18, 01:10
sources please ..........you will find that the people I noted are not referred to as semetic, neither are armenians or yazidis
I agree with this neither were native Anatolian.Hittites. When Europeans evolved as a race they went through the Fertile Cresent and the Steppes they did not skip through Central Asia Caucasus or Western Anatolia that i'd love to see unless they had wings! They did skip over Arabia though. Anyway Arabics from the Gulf have quite a significant SSA admixture.

Yetos
04-04-18, 01:18
(Bicicleur) so, in your opinion, Mycenian Greek is also MLBA steppe in origin, and not Anatolian
the same for Armenian? >>>>
Yes, but heavily diluted MLBA steppe and the Proto-Greek language per se, not just a dialectal offshoot of Late PIE, in my opinion was born already in a heavily EEF-shifted population, very unlike their "ancestral" IE speakers, due to the extensive mixing of a (south)western Steppe population that, in fact, may already have been genetically and culturally influenced by EEF Old European cultures since centuries earlier. In sum, I think Mycenaean Greek, with its quite profound changes even in vocabulary, was the language of a mixed people, brought by a minority of MLBA steppe conquerors to a majority of local EEF Balkanic people (the exact same process seem to have happened in Late Bronze Age Armenia), maybe descending from a branch of Ezero or Cernavoda cultures. They wouldn't have come from the steppes directly, but rather to the North(east) Balkans and only centuries later, already belonging to a different language and culture, migrated southwards to Greece to form Mycenaean Greek and Mycenaean culture. That explains the small but still existing affinity with the MLBA steppe in the Mycenaean samples. But an origin like that of the Anatolian branch? Most unlikely. Their language was MUCH more akin to Indo-Iranian than to Hittite or Luwian.

at 1928 archaiologists believed it was the Dorian descent,
from Chetina-Vucedol down to Peloponese,

before few years, it was the Mycenean descent.

That theory is very strong to Academics of Greece,
yet always seemed problematic,

watching the map of true Mycenean sites,
it seems difficult from North, rather came from minor Asia dirrect

while the ones who possibly came from above Black sea might be the Greko-Brygians
Yet the above is not a proven theory,

you see we have 2 archaiological evedences,
one from Vucedol
one from Arzawwa-Asuwa
and 2 not connected areas.

Proto-Greek 2500-3000 BC
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Proto_Greek_Area_reconstruction.png/300px-Proto_Greek_Area_reconstruction.png


Mycenean world.

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~klio/maps/gr/bronze/bronzeage.jpg

Mycenean core
https://mallav.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/mykene-1400-100-eaa.png?w=624



Greece is behind the IE theory search,
When Georgiev at 1981 already spoted and found proto-Greek
IE theory was major denied from many 'scholars' just for political and nationalistc reasons, or stupid thinking,
a problem that always existed everywhere, but in Balkans still remain,
we Needed to reach 1990's if remember 1994 when University of Epirus Ioannina started to hire a Greek specialist philologist in IE,
and make a search,
Today there are people who still deny the IE,
But search is done and teached in all Greek Universities, and very fast.


to end,
the 3 major Linguistic theories

1 Greaco-Phrygian with Brygian as outer Thracian
2 Greaco-Aryan it is a wide theory and know her,
3 Greaco-Armenian proved at around 2004-2011 by my favourite Linguists, Green and Atkinson, (Green Atkinson and Underhill is the last attested Linguistic map)

So Connectivity of Mycenean with Armenian is also established not only by geneticks,
but from Linguistic also,

and the problem to finalize that theory is Thracian and Duridanov,
cause if the Thracian word Muca is also Mucenae and Armenian, then we have solve the problem, and Lower Thracian is also to that Group.
but if is not, then Thracian goes tottaly to Yamnaa's and Balt-Slav-Germanic linguistic group.

Mycenean is a trully deep IE culture, not only language,
with very low, almost non existing, Not only Asian steppe, but also Euro-Asian, (notice almost, so not to be missunderstood)
a Trully S Caucasian.

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 01:21
I will list you few reasons why I think Akkadians did not come down from North.


1. There is no sign of anything Semitic during Sumerian period North of them. The only people known are 1. Hurrian like people and the Gutians.
2. Actually Akkadian text themselves attest East Semitic tribes settling from the West into Sumer which formed them.

3. Offshots of Akkadians aka Assyrians calling themselves "conquerers" of Subaru (North Mesopotamia) doesn't sound very local to me if you call yourself a conquerer.
4.No need for Semitic to evolve further East because Iran_N ancestry is already heavily involved in South_Levant_ eneolithic with yDNA J popping up next to typical proto Afro-Asiatic E1b.

So yes you are correct in arguing that some J people came down from the mountains in helping to form the Semites, but these guys actually came down and moved directly into the Levant. What I am trying to explain is you don't need to have Semites evolve or Akkadians come down from the North to explain the Iran_N ancestry in Semites, because it is already there in the South of Levant during late Neolithic.


Well, ultimately we seem to think more or less the same thing, that is, the same "architecture" of the formation of the Proto-Semitic people, only with some 600 or 700 kilometers of difference apart from each posited homeland. But I still have to say why I think the most likely scenario is that the earliest Proto-Semitic expansion came from the north/northwest of the Levant, almost bordering on Anatolia (yes, I concede that other Semitic-speaking areas may well have existed, but they weren't the main source of the Semitic-speaking Bronze Age expansion). There are several reasons for that, which I'll point out below:

1) The three other non-Akkadian kingdoms and ethnicities that are first attested in documents lived in the north, not in the South Levant: Eblaites in Northwestern Syria, Martu/Amurru in Central/Eastern Syria, the Assyrians referred as people originating in their main city of Assur, Northern Mesopotamia.

2) The Akkadians first gained political relevance with Sargon expanding their power from the Sumerian city of Kish, which was, coincidentally or not, one of the northernmost of the relevant Sumerian cities.

3) Before their wide expansion, Hurrians lived north of Mesopotamia and Levant, in the Armenian Highlands/Southeastern Anatolia, not in the place I'm talking of as a possible homeland of Proto-Semitic speakers. As for the Gutians, they were mountain tribes from the Zagros Mountains, not north nor northwest of Sumer, but actually northeast of it in the Zagros Mountains. None of those two peoples seem to have been indigenous to the region we are discussing here, which is the present north of Syria and Iraq near the upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates.

4) The location of Akkad, supposed to have been the capital of the Akkadians and their main city when they became a powerful ethnicity in Mesopotamia, wasn't found yet, but it is generally assumed to have been located near the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates, probably near modern Baghdad, so Akkad was north of the vast majority of the Sumerian city-states, and it is from the area just north of the "core" Sumer that the Akkadian expansion came. Not west, south or east.

5) The location where the 1st full Semitic inscriptions appear was not an Akkadian-speaking city, but one with a dialect more similar to Eblaite, and it was in Mari, which was located in central-eastern Syria next to the border with North Iraq.

6) Assyrians were not exactly the Proto-Semitic people, there is actually a ~1,750 years gap between the start of the divergence of Proto-Semitic and the beginning of the Old Assyrian Empire. Assyrians were not even Akkkadians, but a later offshoot from them, and in fact it is at least very interesting to point out that the main Assyrian city, Assur (founded as early as 2,500 BC), was unquestionably in North Mesopotamia. When Assyrians conquered Subaru, they certainly wouldn't feel attached to a land where their ancestors many centuries earlier may have come from, or they may have just referred thmselves as "conquerors" because they were just one, more successful, among many groups in that same region. They really seem to have come from much more restricted and humbler roots (and not in Southern Mesopotamia or Southern Levant, at all). Anyway, Assyrians weren't the "primordial peoples" there any longer. People don't call "homeland" the lands where some (because by then Semitic had completely merged with Sumerians) of their ancestors migrated from long ago, in ancient, pre-literate times they most probably didn't even register the ultimate origins of their people and just forgot them, especially after such intensive cultural changes. That would be like expecting the English to still remember that much of their ancestry derives from Germany/Denmark and thus consider those places their true "homeland", and not foreign land.

7) What would "anything Semitic" be like (or not be like), in fact? Most sources I have read state unambiguously that Akkadians originally "lived to the north of Sumerians", and that in fact matches up with their earliest historic appearances quite well, as I said above. There are actually several archaeological sites in Northern Levant/Mesopotamia that are unquestionably Semitic, very ancient (before 2,500 BC, some even as early as 2,900 BC). Since most of them are in central to north Syria, they clearly point to an origin and expansion from the lands just north and northwest of Sumer proper.

8) Proto-Semitic had words that specifically meant snow, ice, bitumen and naphtha, and as we know snow, ice, bitumen and naphtha are more commonly found in the Northern Levant than in the Southern Levant.

In my opinion, the earliest Proto-Semitic speakers may well have from the South Levant, expanded to the North Levant and, generations later, expanded from there to Mesopotamia by following the down course of the Tigris and Euphrates valley, eventually reaching the Sumerian city-states. No doubt about that. But still from the point of view of southern natives of the Near East, like the Sumerians, that was certainly a movement of peoples from the north and northwest, not from just west of them (that would be more or less Israel/Jordan > Sumer, which is not the movement that we see in the historical and archaeological evidences). In my opinion, actually, the Afro-Asiatic language spread to West Asia from the South Levant, right next to Egypt, and there split into some other branches, but that was some milennia before the Proto-Semites that really expanded their language in the Bronze Age. Undoubtedly there were other Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Levant during the Copper Age/Bronze Age, BUT they weren't the speakers of the one Afro-Asiatic language that came to dominate the entire Fertile Crescent. That was Proto-Semitic, certainly not a linguistic isolate, but rather one among several Afro-Asiatic languages, one that expanded much more than the others and absorbed them. And to me the evidences point to the origin of that language in the Northern Levant (Syria/North Iraq), but not THAT north as you seem to be thinking my position is (since you're talking of Hurrians and Gutians).

You said: 4.No need for Semitic to evolve further East because Iran_N ancestry is already heavily involved in South_Levant_ eneolithic with yDNA J popping up next to typical proto Afro-Asiatic E1b.

Hmm, what you say in that point is very interesting, but I hadn't read about those samples already showing significant proportion of J1 (J1-P58, I hope), Iran_N ancestry and CHG affinities still in the Neolithic and as far from their probable "source" as Southern Levant. What I did read only talked about the growth of those genetic markers/admixtures in the Bronze Age, not still in the Neolithic. That's possibly why I can't imagine what Southern Levant had that the Northern Levant didn't have in order for it to be a much more fitting Proto-Semitic Urheimat than Syria/North Iraq. Can you indicate some good source for me to read better about these findings, their location, haplogroup clades, estimated dates and so on?

Silesian
04-04-18, 01:23
Samara Russia--Weather temperatures - snow levels; all the information you need to build a wagon for a snowy type winter climate, when migrating North from sunny Iraq 30+ degree weather with a nice house and a crop of dates and grains to transition into living in wagon in -20-30c temperatures with a nice amount of snow.

http://www.pogodaiklimat.ru/climate/28900.htm

Looking up the Tocharian word for snow I came across this possible word for snow.Although Cheug argued for spit and or snot,
. Cheung (2007) argues that the Sanskrit meaning "to stick, remain; sticky fluid" is secondary (possibly of slang origin) "perhaps from whitish bodily fluids which are compared to snow, notably snot and spit".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/sneyg%CA%B7%CA%B0-

Tocharian:

Tocharian B: śiñcatstse "snowy" < nominalized *śiñce (“snow”) < *snigʷʰēn

<em><em>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EbhD8lEcw4

Lenab
04-04-18, 01:26
Nothing Scythian regrades when someone wants to pay attention I will come back.

Alan
04-04-18, 01:35
Those were not actually the arguments I had read for the Indo-Aryan identification of the Mitanni language, but actually phonetic developments that are specific to Indo-Aryan and not to Indo-Iranian (Mitanni [s] like Indo-Aryan [s] and unlike Iranic [h], Mitanni "aika" like Vedic "eka" < Indo-Aryan "aika", unlike Iranic "aiva"), as well as the fact that by 2,000 BC Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian (proper) would probably already have split into two different languages. However, I absolutely agree that the proposition that it wasn't Indo-Aryan nor Iranic, but still a later dialect of a still undivided Indo-Iranian, starting to develop its own characteristics, also makes sense. Geographically the appearance of Mitanni would also be even more explainable if they were just some of the earliest Iranic tribes migrating west.


See as I wrote above many of these typical "Indo_Aryan" phoenitc developements can be considered as Proto Indo_Iranian. The H loud or today X is actually In Proto Indo_Iranian also S. See as example the H loud in middle iranic for sister that evolved from the S sound.

Proto Indo_Iranic was S too. That is my point.
And about the Eka word. If I am correct this should mean one. You know what? Persian Yak and Kurdish Yek/ek. Indo Aryan substrata in West Iranic or simply a coincidence in developement? Aiva is as far as I know connected to Avesta? (East Iranic) and shouldn't be of allot of importance for the developement in West Iranic tongues.

Things are not as crystal clear as we might thing. Many of these "typical" Indo Aryan loudshifts can be easilly assigned to a language that branched of from proto Indo_Iranian. Neither Iranic nor Indo_Aryan yet. And since Indo_Aryan is more archaic naturally more archaic Indo_Iranian words will appear closer to it. That was my argument above and with the S to H shift you gave me a good example.

Olympus Mons
04-04-18, 01:37
We discussed this cultural flow into the steppe from Iran, Majkop and south of the Caucasus back in 2015.
This is with regard specifically to Kurgans:
" Originally Posted by Angela https://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=461895#post461895)[FONT=Tahoma]This is the paper which proposed that the [COLOR=#417394]kurgans were first developed by the Maykop culture via influence from the Uruk expansion. It's from ....
[/I]https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31383-Indo-European-package?highlight=kurgans
I always said there would be a moment when everybody "knew all along". This is that moment apparently.
What Maciamo, like many others, were saying there , and for years, was establishing of the Maykop as the epicenter of r1b and Pie. So, for many, it became the alternative for steppe and it endure up till today.
Well, maykop is almost 2000 years after the events we NOW are defining as the origin of PIE and R1b dispersal and, if anything, this movents of Uruk and Maykop, in bronze age, are the oposite , IMO, of eneolithic movememt from georgia into north caucasus that now and me for long are saying is the Urhmait of PIe and modern clades of r1b.
URUK and maykop, as actually Ubaid, kicked the r1bs pie speakers out of south caucasus. They had a name. Shulaveri Shomu.
Few remaimed.
No we did not all new along...

Angela
04-04-18, 01:50
We discussed this cultural flow into the steppe from Iran, Majkop and south of the Caucasus back in 2015.

This is with regard specifically to Kurgans:

" Originally Posted by Angelahttps://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=461895#post461895)This is the paper which proposed that the kurgans were first developed by the Maykop culture via influence from the Uruk expansion. It's from 2012. I don't know if there's anything more recent. http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2...tskhelauri.pdf (http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf)

Maciamo discussed it here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...hlight=kurgans (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28632-More-evidence-that-the-PIE-R1b-people-originated-in-the-Maykop-culture?highlight=kurgans)


I thought R1b-V88 originates from Europe, no?

Really? Sour grapes, much? Did you know in 2015, 2014, that R1b V88 was from Europe? If you did, congratulations.

Would it really kill you guys to say congratulations to someone else, or maybe just, yeah, you might have been right? Classy, really classy.

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 02:08
at 1928 archaiologists believed it was the Dorian descent,
from Chetina-Vucedol down to Peloponese,

before few years, it was the Mycenean descent.

That theory is very strong to Academics of Greece,
yet always seemed problematic,

watching the map of true Mycenean sites,
it seems difficult from North, rather came from minor Asia dirrect

while the ones who possibly came from above Black sea might be the Greko-Brygians
Yet the above is not a proven theory,

you see we have 2 archaiological evedences,
one from Vucedol
one from Arzawwa-Asuwa
and 2 not connected areas.

Proto-Greek 2500-3000 BC
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Proto_Greek_Area_reconstruction.png/300px-Proto_Greek_Area_reconstruction.png


Mycenean world.

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~klio/maps/gr/bronze/bronzeage.jpg

Mycenean core
https://mallav.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/mykene-1400-100-eaa.png?w=624



Greece is behind the IE theory search,
When Georgiev at 1981 already spoted and found proto-Greek
IE theory was major denied from many 'scholars' just for political and nationalistc reasons, or stupid thinking,
a problem that always existed everywhere, but in Balkans still remain,
we Needed to reach 1990's if remember 1994 when University of Epirus Ioannina started to hire a Greek specialist philologist in IE,
and make a search,
Today there are people who still deny the IE,
But search is done and teached in all Greek Universities, and very fast.


to end,
the 3 major Linguistic theories

1 Greaco-Phrygian with Brygian as outer Thracian
2 Greaco-Aryan it is a wide theory and know her,
3 Greaco-Armenian proved at around 2004-2011 by my favourite Linguists, Green and Atkinson, (Green Atkinson and Underhill is the last attested Linguistic map)

So Connectivity of Mycenean with Armenian is also established not only by geneticks,
but from Linguistic also,

and the problem to finalize that theory is Thracian and Duridanov,
cause if the Thracian word Muca is also Mucenae and Armenian, then we have solve the problem, and Lower Thracian is also to that Group.
but if is not, then Thracian goes tottaly to Yamnaa's and Balt-Slav-Germanic linguistic group.

Mycenean is a trully deep IE culture, not only language,
with very low, almost non existing, Not only Asian steppe, but also Euro-Asian, (notice almost, so not to be missunderstood)
a Trully S Caucasian.

Excellent comment, Yetos, good food for thought. Thanks.

Silesian
04-04-18, 02:16
Really? Sour grapes, much? Did you know in 2015, 2014, that R1b V88 was from Europe? If you did, congratulations.

Would it really kill you guys to say congratulations to someone else, or maybe just, yeah, you might have been right? Classy, really classy.
Im grateful that Macimo puts time and effort into this website --having a forum for us, to have reasonable debates and encourage different lines of thinking and or ideas.

Silesian
04-04-18, 02:19
I always said there would be a moment when everybody "knew all along".................................................
No we did not all new along...
Well if thats what you want to believe, all along, thats fine with me, as long as you can come up with some answers. Im still waiting for a reply you left hanging with the time frame of those R1b branches.

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 02:21
I always said there would be a moment when everybody "knew all along". This is that moment apparently.
What Maciamo, like many others, were saying there , and for years, was establishing of the Maykop as the epicenter of r1b and Pie. So, for many, it became the alternative for steppe and it endure up till today.
Well, maykop is almost 2000 years after the events we NOW are defining as the origin of PIE and R1b dispersal and, if anything, this movents of Uruk and Maykop, in bronze age, are the oposite , IMO, of eneolithic movememt from georgia into north caucasus that now and me for long are saying is the Urhmait of PIe and modern clades of r1b.
URUK and maykop, as actually Ubaid, kicked the r1bs pie speakers out of south caucasus. They had a name. Shulaveri Shomu.
Few remaimed.
No we did not all new along...

I think you're ignoring the chronology when you say that the urheimat of PIE (PIE, that is, the last common ancestor of all known IE language families) is exactly in Shulaveri Shomu people in the South Caucasus BEFORE as early as 5,500 BC. In terms of linguistic evolution that is so improbable that it is almost impossible. It is one thing to state that the ancestors of the R1b-M269 Indo-European males and probably the ancestral mother language of the PIE "proper" came from that culture when it was still spoken in the 6th milennium BC Neolithic West Asia... but that was most certainly NOT the PIE we all talk about here, that is the ancestor state of the language.

Glottochronological and in fact most other measures to estimate the time of divergence of the IE languages (especially the common vocabulary found in ALL the Indo-European branches, unless somehow all IE speakers were so connected to each other in such a small area that they shared all loanwords and new words that were created along the milennia - hmmm, not likely at all)... everything points to an origin of the Common PIE, just prior to its first divergence, in the Bronze Age and, in the case of the Anatolian branch, at the earliest in the Late Neolithic/Early Copper Age (~4,000 BC). That's more than 1,000 or even 1,500 years after that R1B-Z2103 in Iran and the arguably pre-IE Shulaveri Shomu in South Caucasus.

There was certainly A LOT of linguistic, genetic, cultural change in that gap. The culture that spread IE languages was most certainly NOT Shulaver Shomu even if it had derived from it. Also, there may well have been "other" para-PIE languages in the Neolithic, but THE PIE we all talk about is a language of the Copper Age/Bronze Age, not a language spoken more than 7,500 years ago and which would certainly have diverged even much more intensely than it did if it was the LAST common ancestor of all IE branches.

Think of this as a continuous, unbroken chain (like this one: PIE > Northwest IE > Proto-Germanic > Old English > English), but still we have to establish some common ground, some arbitrary line which in this case is "the last time and place where there was one undifferentiated PIE language", and that was NOT in Shulaveri Shomu even before than 5,000 BC. But, yes, you're probably right that the roots of PIE ultimately come from there or from a neighboring South Caucasian culture.

Angela
04-04-18, 02:26
I always said there would be a moment when everybody "knew all along". This is that moment apparently.
What Maciamo, like many others, were saying there , and for years, was establishing of the Maykop as the epicenter of r1b and Pie. So, for many, it became the alternative for steppe and it endure up till today.
Well, maykop is almost 2000 years after the events we NOW are defining as the origin of PIE and R1b dispersal and, if anything, this movents of Uruk and Maykop, in bronze age, are the oposite , IMO, of eneolithic movememt from georgia into north caucasus that now and me for long are saying is the Urhmait of PIe and modern clades of r1b.
URUK and maykop, as actually Ubaid, kicked the r1bs pie speakers out of south caucasus. They had a name. Shulaveri Shomu.
Few remaimed.
No we did not all new along...

Stop talking out of ignorance and sour grapes. (God, it's like a flu epidemic.) It's not our fault if you didn't have the foresight to read threads and posts on this site over the years. Maciamo has been saying that R1b was south of the Caucasus and went into the steppe from there since 2009. Did you even know about population genetics in 2009?

The thread where Alan and I argued that much of the culture of the steppe Indo-Europeans came from south of the Caucasus or Neolithic Old Europe dates to 2015. Did you notice that? Or did you miss it? We were discussing Ivanov and Grigoriev even before that, as was Dienekes, back in 2013 and 2014. I got into arguments about it, saying it was a possibility, back on dna-forums.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30656-Human-Paternal-Lineages-Languages-and-Envrionment-in-the-Caucasus?highlight=Ivanov+Grigoriev
I started the above thread in 2014. (You might want to take a look at my comment number 3 for example.) Where were you posting in 2014?

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/05/stanislav-grigorievs-ancient-indo.html
Dienekes was arguing it in 2013, and because of that subject to what can only be called online bullying. It was disgusting, even if he probably didn't give a damn.

As I said, not my fault, or that of Maciamo, if you only read sites where everybody either hued to the "party" line, or they had to get out.

Now, I wouldn't have said it if you didn't write this rude and delusional post, but the only late comer, wanna be here, buddy, is you.

suyindik
04-04-18, 04:01
Archaeologically and economically, the direction seems to have been exactly the opposite: irrigation agriculture and some other aspects of the farming economy and material culture in the unquestionably Sumerian Uruk period seem to have clear similarities with the former Samarra culture from Northern Mesopotamian. Besides, before ~5,500 BC there was virtually no intensive agriculture in Southern Mesopotamia (Sumer), so AFAIK to most archaeologists the direction of the Mesopotamian spread of farming and migrations (that eventually, when writing appears, we see that were related to Sumerians) seems to have been from north to south, from North Iraq to South Iraq. In my opinion, exactly the same process formed the Proto-Semitic peoples, with J1/J2 people from the north (Caucasus/Armenian Highlands/West Iran) merging with the natives of the Levant and, unlike the former [proto-]Sumerians, adopting the local language while also changing their genetic and cultural makeup.

1. Group A
I think that the main location of the people of the Gobeklitepe, Ubaid, Uruk and Sumer cultures is located in Upper Mesopotamia(South-Eastern Turkey, North Syria and North Iraq). Their haplogroups were G, H, J, L, T.

2. Group B
The main location of the people of the Khvalynsk culture(and earlier hunter gatherers) was the Steppe and Northern Regions(North of the Black Sea). Their haplogroup was R. The haplogroup of hunter gatherer people of Paleolithic Scandinavia and Europe was I. In time these two hunter gatherers mixed.

3. Group C
The main location of the people of the Natufian culture was the Southern Levant Region. Their haplogroup was E.

4. Mixing and Migrations
-During the "Pre-Pottery Neolithic period", Group A mixed with Group C. During the 6th millennium BCE they migrated to Central and Western Europe.

-During the "Chalcolithic/Eneolithic period"(5th millennium BCE) "Group A" migrated into the South and North Caucasus and created(found) the Kurgan type of cultures(Leyla-Tepe, Maykop and Early-Kura-Araxes/Areni). In the same period(and the following periods), "Group A" also migrated to South-Eastern Europe(Bulgaria) and South Central Asia(Turkmenistan, Eastern Iran). In South-Eastern Europe they found the Varna culture(4600-4200 BCE), oldest metallurgy(gold). Group A moved this metallurgy system in later periods to the Leyla-Tepe and Maykop.

-Maybe before the 5th millennium BCE a small part of Group B(R2 and maybe some R1b) already migrated to some parts of the Iran/Caucasus regions(no Kurgans associated with them).

-During the 3th millennium BCE(and the end of the 4th millennium BCE) Group B migrated partly into South and North Caucasus, mixed with Group A, and went back to the Steppe to form the Yamna culture. Now, the people of the Late-Kura-Araxes period are a mix of Group A, B and C.

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 04:37
1. Group A
I think that the main location of the people of the Gobeklitepe, Ubaid, Uruk and Sumer cultures is located in Upper Mesopotamia(South-Eastern Turkey, North Syria and North Iraq). Their haplogroups were G, H, J, L, T.

2. Group B
The main location of the people of the Khvalynsk culture(and earlier hunter gatherers) was the Steppe and Northern Regions(North of the Black Sea). Their haplogroup was R. The haplogroup of hunter gatherer people of Paleolithic Scandinavia and Europe was I. In time these two hunter gatherers mixed.

3. Group C
The main location of the people of the Natufian culture was the Southern Levant Region. Their haplogroup was E.

4. Mixing and Migrations
-During the "Pre-Pottery Neolithic period", Group A mixed with Group C. During the 6th millennium BCE they migrated to Central and Western Europe.

-During the "Chalcolithic/Eneolithic period"(5th millennium BCE) "Group A" migrated into the South and North Caucasus and created(found) the Kurgan type of cultures(Leyla-Tepe, Maykop and Early-Kura-Araxes/Areni). In the same period(and the following periods), "Group A" also migrated to South-Eastern Europe(Bulgaria) and South Central Asia(Turkmenistan, Eastern Iran). In South-Eastern Europe they found the Varna culture(4600-4200 BCE), oldest metallurgy(gold). Group A moved this metallurgy system in later periods to the Leyla-Tepe and Maykop.

-Maybe before the 5th millennium BCE a small part of Group B(R2 and maybe some R1b) already migrated to some parts of the Iran/Caucasus regions(no Kurgans associated with them).

-During the 3th millennium BCE(and the end of the 4th millennium BCE) Group B migrated partly into South and North Caucasus, mixed with Group A, and went back to the Steppe to form the Yamna culture. Now, the people of the Late-Kura-Araxes period are a mix of Group A, B and C.

Your hypothesis is well construed and mostly plausible (I'd disagre on Central European Neolithic being closely related to E1b1b-carrying Natufians, though), but I still somehow think that the cultural and linguistic diversity of the pre-Chalcolithic/Bronze Age world, including the Middle East, was too big to be successfully reduced into just 4 or 5 (originally) homogeneous groups, even if I concede that in the long-term (in the distant past, that is) they may well have derived from a much smaller group of distinct peoples that prevailed over the others. But I'd be really surprised if all those cultures (Leyla-Tepe, Maykop, Kura-Araxes, Sumer etc.) spoke the same language family and came from exactly the same one ancestor culture and mother language. Among other reasons, the languages attested in early writing in the Bronze Age - Hurrian, Hattic, Urartian, Sumerian, etc. -, some of which certainly descended from those important cultures, were definitely very different and not even demonstrably part of the just 1 or 2 language families, but several and most possibly unrelated (at least in a sensible timeframe of 3,000-6,000 years before). I tend to think that that scenario severely underestimates the average linguistic and cultural scenario of a Neolithic region (compare, for example, with the Neolithic-style Mesoamerica or Andes found by the Spaniards when they arrived in the Americas, with its huge linguistic diversity and several language families, most of which only very remotely related to each other).

Ygorcs
04-04-18, 07:33
North Iran not West Iran. The Levant term is outdated please rename it Greco Anatolia respectfully.

Also, the Alpine races came from the Near East to the Mediterranean coastline and even outer Germania this was due to Neolithic migration also. Just goes to show how hybrid people are. Also don't get confused with haplogroups J2 is Fertile Cresent Anatolia J1 is usually Semite.

Greco-Anatolia? WHAT? Do you even know what the Levant region is? Here, Levant means today roughly ISRAEL+PALESTINE+JORDAN+SYRIA. There is nothing particularly Greek nor particularly Anatolian about those countries and that entire region, not now, not in ancient times. If the term Levant is totally fine for all the geneticists that have been publishing all these studies we talk about here, then it's fine for me, too. Also, not all J1 is Semitic, mostly just J1-P58. You sound a bit confused, to be honest.

IronSide
04-04-18, 09:18
I agree with this neither were native Anatolian.Hittites. When Europeans evolved as a race they went through the Fertile Cresent and the Steppes they did not skip through Central Asia Caucasus or Western Anatolia that i'd love to see unless they had wings! They did skip over Arabia though. Anyway Arabics from the Gulf have quite a significant SSA admixture.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eqbcaWl_230/WS25HBmbAcI/AAAAAAAAFqo/g2hmX_IPXEQe6hU9EjTp9Y56uwuB58vrgCLcB/s1600/ncomms15694-f4.jpg

Lenab, you're confused and don't know much, please go through some of the papers mentioned in this thread https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34850-Important-papers-for-newbies-to-Population-Genetics

If Natufians don't really have an SSA or East African HG component as we thought before (f4 stats do not detect them) in their ancestry, then most Near Easterners don't have much, especially Gulf Arabs.

Lenab
04-04-18, 11:17
Greco-Anatolia? WHAT? Do you even know what the Levant region is? Here, Levant means today roughly ISRAEL+PALESTINE+JORDAN+SYRIA. There is nothing particularly Greek nor particularly Anatolian about those countries and that entire region, not now, not in ancient times. If the term Levant is totally fine for all the geneticists that have been publishing all these studies we talk about here, then it's fine for me, too. Also, not all J1 is Semitic, mostly just J1-P58. You sound a bit confused, to be honest.


There is nothing particular Greek or Anatolian about the Levant...Yes there is and in ancient times during the Hellenic period. My Mum is from the Levant according to her haplogroup which is H a actual ancient Greek haplogroup and according to both her autosomal genetics and mine we both have similarities to Greek people and Anatolian people like Armenians in our K36 Eurogenes cal on GED match Therefore West Asians whether they are from the Levant or not are ''Greco Anatolian'' Western Turks and Armenians too that's the very definition of a West Asian a Near Eastern Southern European mix. The Levant is a technicality I didn't say don't use it I said it's technical.

Actually the Philistines and Armenians were the original people of the Levant not Lebanese Syrian Palestinian Jordanians Arabics and the Israelis apart from the Philistines and Canaanites were Jews. So personally I am not buying it, that all the people today in the Levant are the same as ancient times. Even Ramses III tried to push out the Sea people from North Africa.

People in the Levant today are Arab Middle Easterners in Pre Historic times they were Near Easterners Greco Anatolians.
https://i.imgur.com/DYTxx.jpg

That's the map. The Levant is mapped out as Greco Anatolia although I disagree with them mapping out South Italy and Cyprus in the same spectrum. South Italians are Greco Italics the ones with Greek genetics and Cypriots are just Hellenic.

Lenab
04-04-18, 11:19
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eqbcaWl_230/WS25HBmbAcI/AAAAAAAAFqo/g2hmX_IPXEQe6hU9EjTp9Y56uwuB58vrgCLcB/s1600/ncomms15694-f4.jpg

Lenab, you're confused and don't know much, please go through some of the papers mentioned in this thread https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34850-Important-papers-for-newbies-to-Population-Genetics

If Natufians don't really have an SSA or East African HG component as we thought before (f4 stats do not detect them) in their ancestry, then most Near Easterners don't have much, especially Gulf Arabs.
No Near Eastern people do have that it's just not half as much. Gulf Arabs are not Near Easterners Near Eastern people are people of the Levant in pre historic times and Caucasus like Georgians and Armenians etc.

A. Papadimitriou
04-04-18, 13:48
Also, anyone who thought that the steppe percentages might be confounded by "pseudo steppe" created by a reservoir of ANE plus Iran Neo and some ANF was a kook worthy of name calling.



I don't know who said that here but it can be almost correct. Because the authors of the study seem to think that 'Steppe EMBA'-like groups moved south in the 2nd mil. BCE (there are not much ancient data to support that yet). That can be correct, theoretically, but Steppe EMBA includes Iran N & ANF admixture.

SPGT can be modeled as Iran N + ANF + WSiberianHG +AASI

Maciamo
04-04-18, 15:18
back from holidays I can check things, simply what you say here is just the contrary that I read here from 2014

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29666-Copper-Bronze-Age-Steppe-people-(PIE)-had-mixed-light-and-dark-pigmentation?highlight=araxes


On a side note, it is highly frustrating that this team of geneticists tested 63 samples from the Yamna and Catacomb and related cultures and did not test any Y-DNA at all ! This could prove once and for all that R1b people spread from the Pontic Steppe and not with Neolithic Near Eastern farmers as so many academic papers have claimed.

I will try to find the discussion had with this issue

Absolutely not! The passage you quoted from me refers to the Balaresque et al. (2010) (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285)paper which claims that R1b-M269 and Indo-Europeans languages spread with Neolithic farmers from Anatolia to the Balkans with cultures such as Starcevo and LBK. That paper has been completely discredited by the finding of R1b-M269 (well mostly Z2103) in Yamna and of R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 in northern Bell Beaker sites and subsequent Bronze Age cultures, but no R1b-M269 in any Neolithic European culture. Read again. I know exactly what I wrote.

Maciamo
04-04-18, 15:25
So does someone have an opinion on Darra.I.Kur_d from northern Afghanistan? The coverage is bad, but I've compared it with the samples in Olalde (2017) and it looks like if the assignment is correct this would be the oldest occurence of typically Western European R1b (L151). That can't be right, no?

The mtdna is H2a, which looks like it is associated with the Bronze Age in Europe.

I don't see any problem with this. Darra i kur is MBA (c. 2650 BCE), about the same period as the German Bell Beaker R1b-P312. The Early Yamna elite burials turned out to be R1b-Z2103, but I have always maintained that elite burials are only representative of the small ruling class (royal lineage), not the whole population. I expect that R1v-L51 and R1b-L151 should be found among Yamna people and all the Yamna offshoots, including in Central Asia.

Maciamo
04-04-18, 15:30
But you were labeling haplogroups 'European' and 'Middle Eastern' based on their modern frequencies and you were associating R1b or R1 in general with blondness. Do you remember that?

I associated R1b with red hair (https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml) and R1a with blondness (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#pigmentation). I am getting tired of people misquoting me.

As for the labelling, what are you referring to? Where and in what context? Which clades was I talking about?

Lenab
04-04-18, 15:39
Absolutely not! The passage you quoted from me refers to the Balaresque et al. (2010) (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285)paper which claims that R1b-M269 and Indo-Europeans languages spread with Neolithic farmers from Anatolia to the Balkans with cultures such as Starcevo and LBK. That paper has been completely discredited by the finding of R1b-M269 (well mostly Z2103) in Yamna and of R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 in northern Bell Beaker sites and subsequent Bronze Age cultures, but no R1b-M269 in any Neolithic European culture. Read again. I know exactly what I wrote.
Absolutely and you get rep for that also.

I1a3_Young
04-04-18, 15:43
Maciamo (and others),

Thank you for putting in so much work on this site even though you might get nitpicked.

This study is very interesting since the early haplo mistakes were cleared up. If the PIE movement began in the area of this sample, I would think they originally had more J2 and picked up more R1b as they moved north. It makes sense that there would have been a R1b gradient in this area if R1b were found to the north at the time.

If there was no R1b to the north, then wouldn't we expect a very high R1b rate (and lack the sample size to verify)?

Maciamo was right when he said certain lines of J2 moved with the IE. How many J samples have been found in the Steppe though? Some G lines probably moved with them too, but hobbyists probably automatically lump all G2a into early farmer movement when some could have come with IE.

A. Papadimitriou
04-04-18, 15:55
I associated R1b with red hair (https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml) and R1a with blondness (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#pigmentation). I am getting tired of people misquoting me.

As for the labelling, what are you referring to? Where and in what context? Which clades was I talking about?

Those pages are edited often. Either way, that isn't correct either because there are ancient blonde individuals with L1a, for example.

You were creating maps with labels like 'Near Eastern Y-DNA', or something. (You had grouped together E1b1b+G2a+J1+J2+T, as far as I remember.)

Concerning, R1b the latest map you have made indicated that you have thought R1b-Z2103 originated North of Caucasus.

Maciamo
04-04-18, 15:57
Maciamo. Lets settle this once and for all. Point me to where you say that!

(it felt pretty lonely this last 3 years talking about Shulaveri, 4900 bc, Mesokho, kuban river, samara river etc.)

I don't really feel like going through each of my 8000+ posts to satisfy your curiosity, but here are a few examples.

From 2012

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27900-The-rise-of-PIEs-in-the-steppes-From-the-Ural-or-from-the-from-the-Caucasus?p=399869&viewfull=1#post399869


This is exactly why I have always placed the migration of R1b from Anatolia to the North Caucasus-Pontic Steppe between 7000 and 5000 BCE. This is what is explained in my R1b history and what has been shown on the R1b migration map (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#R1b) I created in 2008. The Kurgan culture actually starts from 7000 BCE. I don't think it is a coincidence. This corresponds to the arrival of R1b in the steppes, with Neolithic technologies and domesticated animals from the Middle East.

From 2013

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28632-More-evidence-that-the-PIE-R1b-people-originated-in-the-Maykop-culture


The paper brings additional evidence regarding the origins of the Early Bronze Age Maykop culture in Mesopotamia, confirming my theory (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Maykop) that R1b people from the Middle East migrated across the Caucasus and established the Maykop culture, before expanding throughout the Pontic-Caspian Steppes and mixing with the indigenous R1a steppe people.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29350-Origins-of-the-Indo-Europeans-the-Uruk-expansion-and-Cucuteni-Trypillian-culture


It has been suggested that the Chalcolithic Uruk expansion was responsible for the establishment of the advanced Maykop culture in the Northwest Caucasus around 3700 BCE. This hypothesis does not rely only on timing, but also clear cultural affinities and the appearance of woolly sheep in both regions at the same time. Kohl explains that the herding of sheep for wool liberated a lot of fertile land that had until then been used to grow flax for clothing, and that this allowed big surpluses in cereal cultivation, which caused a population boom. That is what may have caused the Uruk expansion.

Unfortunately we do not know what haplogroup those Uruk settlers carried, although I would list G2a, J2, T and R1b among the top candidates. One possibility is that the Uruk contingent that founded Maykop (if indeed it was them) belonged primarily to R1b (at least 80%, through a founder effect) and that they were accompanied by G2a3b1, J2b and T lineages.

From 2016

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33113-teal-CHG-component-in-Yamna-and-Afanasievo-arrived-during-Khvalynsk-period?p=494848&viewfull=1#post494848


This confirms that R1b may have entered the Steppe during the Khvalynsk period, perhaps as an offshoot from the contemporary Leyla Tepe culture in Azerbaijan. It is very clear from these three samples that only the R1b guy is an outsider with Caucasian admixture. This R1b guy also lacks the dark blue WHG admixture, which hints that in the Epipaleolithic R1a and R1b were originally EHG, but while R1a people intermingled with WHG tribes (linked to I2a, and surely that I2a2a-L701 found in Yamna), some R1b tribes had already moved south of the Caucasus, where they mixed with the teal people - indubitably linked to Y-haplogroup J, and probably J2b in this was, as J2b is found at relatively high frequency in the Volga-Ural region.

I did not mention the Shulaveri-Shomu culture back until recently because I didn't know it well. I am still not sure of which culture is the source of the Steppe R1b-L23 and Maykop. It could be Shulaveri-Shomu or Leyla Tepe (although a bit too young) or even Uruk. It might also be from an unnamed culture or another that I don't know about. It's also entirely possible that there were two migrations of R1b across the Caucasus to the Steppe. The first might be from Shulaveri-Shomu to the Caspian Steppe (Khvalynsk) around 5500-5000 BCE, but there might have been a second one later from Uruk to Maykop via Leyla Tepe. This is highly hypothetical, but if that was the case, we could imagine R1b-Z2103 spreading to the eastern Caspian Steppe (Khvalynsk then eastern Yamna), and R1b-L51 coming to Maykop then spread west along the Black Sea shore then the Danube.

Olympus Mons
04-04-18, 16:11
Stop talking out of ignorance and sour grapes. (God, it's like a flu epidemic.) It's not our fault if you didn't have the foresight to read threads and posts on this site over the years. Maciamo has been saying that R1b was south of the Caucasus and went into the steppe from there since 2009. Did you even know about population genetics in 2009?

The thread where Alan and I argued that much of the culture of the steppe Indo-Europeans came from south of the Caucasus or Neolithic Old Europe dates to 2015. Did you notice that? Or did you miss it? We were discussing Ivanov and Grigoriev even before that, as was Dienekes, back in 2013 and 2014. I got into arguments about it, saying it was a possibility, back on dna-forums.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30656-Human-Paternal-Lineages-Languages-and-Envrionment-in-the-Caucasus?highlight=Ivanov+Grigoriev
I started the above thread in 2014. (You might want to take a look at my comment number 3 for example.) Where were you posting in 2014?

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/05/stanislav-grigorievs-ancient-indo.html
Dienekes was arguing it in 2013, and because of that subject to what can only be called online bullying. It was disgusting, even if he probably didn't give a damn.

As I said, not my fault, or that of Maciamo, if you only read sites where everybody either hued to the "party" line, or they had to get out.

Now, I wouldn't have said it if you didn't write this rude and delusional post, but the only late comer, wanna be here, buddy, is you.

Angela. Not really.
I read it all. And today as in 2015 I am saying that all of you that talked about it as south OF THE caucasus didnt really talked about SOUTH CAUCASUS. Let alone between lesser and greater caucasus as I do with Shulaveri.

And being wrong is : whatever the kool aid anyone decides to take today its fine, but all that was pushed by either Maciamo or Deniekes or I guess you at times , was a sort of near eastern region spread into south of zagros, timewise in a 4th milenia flow of people with references to Kura Araxes and with Maykop as the target and ultimate reference of Pie/r1b was wrong...And I am telling you I will be surprised if Maykop isnt in fact the culture with the least of the R1b or PIe for starters. Especially if linked to leilatepe.

All that i had read from those 2014 and 2015 insights was a brewing of a, sort of Uruk movements, with the faint hope even Sumer .or the makes of it, would be R1B. when the truth is the events that matter for the issue at hand predates it all. With more of ubaid period "killing off" South caucasus R1b/Pie then anything else and hapenning at end of 6th milenia. And Yes, Samara- hassuna is not south caucasus Is north Mesopotamia.

..or to be fair even commenters as Kurti pushing to south Caspian and others pushing for other further south places didn't really see it.

So, no. not really. Truth is I was precisely reading you all and thinking how wrong you were that drove me to go to specifics and stating specifics. I even had to ignore all the TMRC dates being throw at my face because it did not fit Shulaveri - L23 4200 bc? Now we have a 5900-5500 bc Z2103? (which i think carbon dating will show 5200 bc).
Show me where anyone else was talking about shulaveri before me? Show me where anyone was targeting 6th milenia? Do you think it was a coincidence Johannes Krauser end of 2016 presentation in Moskow stating 4900bc ( and not 5000bc) after me months on end having a mantra of "4900bc the year the shulaveri got kicked out and went to north caucasus"? Or the way i said it, the year Mentesh tepe fell (burned down).

And let me do another prediction: Reich is saying "Armenia or north western Iran", because he extracted further dna from the Shulaveri individuals, Maygarian et all samples. that had already yield mtdna H15a1a, H2a and I1.

And yes, I think many of you will need to be challenged with this jumping in the bandawgon of "knew all along". And that should be considered fair and even beneficial (and definitly not disrespectful to Maciamo whom I admire) . Because If shulaveri aren't IT, i will not jump into any.

And lets see what exactly you will manage to find rude in this comment of mine, similar to the previous one. -- Especially because calling people ignorant and ill formed, and making ad hominem, is not rude at all.
Yes, classy indeed.

Angela
04-04-18, 17:41
Another interesting and thoughtful piece on the genomics of Indians.

See:
https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2018/04/01/a-brief-note-on-some-new-developments-regarding-the-genomics-of-indians/

Razib Khan's take on what "Aryan" means.

http://www.brownpundits.com/2018/04/04/not-all-aryans-are-indian-though-most-indians-are-part-aryan-and-most-aryan-ancestry-is-in-india/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I have to say that personally I can't wait until no one gives a damn.

On another topic, does anyone know if groups like the Rajputs and Jats are used in these analyses looking for "steppe" ancestry. I always thought they'd have more than Brahmins.