PDA

View Full Version : Are R1b and R1a ultimately East Asian lineages?



ratchet_fan
19-06-20, 20:25
Is this looking more and more likely? Do we know if the original ANE lineage was actually something like C before a y K2b/P/R ENA group dominated such a group?

I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. But the infighting among R1b and R1a guys always seemed silly especially on certain other forums. Whose more PIE? Who dominated the other? All of that seems silly if the SE Asian origin of K2b/P are true or if Tianyuan is ancestral to Yana to me. I also personally know a few anthrousers who were disgusted by the thought of R1b coming from the Middle East (which we know isn't true) and would rather have their lineage be non West Eurasian and related to Papuans. I'm guessing its the culture of the modern Middle East that nobody wants to be associated with which sadly makes sense.

kmak
19-06-20, 20:29
In my opinion, original language of R1b is Proto-IE, original language of R1a is Para-Proto-IE.

ratchet_fan
21-06-20, 03:00
So if ANE didn't have paternal ENA would we still have IE languages or would we be speaking something different?

MOESAN
21-06-20, 11:13
ANE is NOT East-Asian!
I have no cristal bowl nor hen guts, but I think we could say Y-R1 has been almost exclusively ANE at some stage - I wonder if Y-R passed to North through Steppes from North of South Asia (look at localisation of Y-R2), its farther ancestors come from South-East Asia ( still Y-P ?).

ratchet_fan
21-06-20, 14:07
ANE is NOT East-Asian!
I have no cristal bowl nor hen guts, but I think we could say Y-R1 has been almost exclusively ANE at some stage - I wonder if Y-R passed to North through Steppes from North of South Asia (look at localisation of Y-R2), its farther ancestors come from South-East Asia ( still Y-P ?).

Would K2b and P be East Asian though? I feel like some East Asians (similar to Near Easterners and Mycenaeans) are trying to claim European accomplishments, culture and civilization by exaggerating the importance of K2b/P. That's why I hope they are wrong although that doesn't look likely.

ratchet_fan
22-06-20, 01:51
Is it possible K2b/P originated in a undifferentiated Eurasian population?

Tamakore
22-06-20, 11:19
ANE is NOT East-Asian!

What does that mean? ANE developed around Lake Baikal and after thousands of years ANE expanded from Baikalia both east and west. Lake Baikal is on a similar line of longitude as Vietnam, so if Lake Baikal is not East Asia then neither is Vietnam. Surely a culture that develops in East Asia and remains in East Asia for at least the next five thousand years is by definition an East Asian population and culture.

If you mean that only about one third of the earlier ancestors of ANE were of East Asian origin whilst about two thirds were of West Eurasian origin, that may be true. However, by that reasoning, the current populations of Western Europe are not actually West European because the majority of their ancestry originates in West Asia, the Pontic Steppes, the Caucasus and Siberia.

Philjames100
22-06-20, 12:11
Surely a culture that develops in East Asia and remains in East Asia for at least the next five thousand years is by definition an East Asian population and culture.

Geographically, but not necessarily in terms of their genetic affinity, which is what geneticists mean when they talk about something being west or east eurasian.

kingjohn
22-06-20, 13:43
More central asian than east asian 🤔

Aspurg
22-06-20, 14:27
Is this looking more and more likely? Do we know if the original ANE lineage was actually something like C before a y K2b/P/R ENA group dominated such a group?

I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. But the infighting among R1b and R1a guys always seemed silly especially on certain other forums. Whose more PIE? Who dominated the other? All of that seems silly if the SE Asian origin of K2b/P are true or if Tianyuan is ancestral to Yana to me. I also personally know a few anthrousers who were disgusted by the thought of R1b coming from the Middle East (which we know isn't true) and would rather have their lineage be non West Eurasian and related to Papuans. I'm guessing its the culture of the modern Middle East that nobody wants to be associated with which sadly makes sense.

Indeed R and P are of fully Asian and "non-Caucasoid" origin. Native Americans are also EE in origin, and they are just a sub-group under hg Q. Other Q clades are pro-genitors of Turkic language group. R2 clearly migrated to South Asia.

It a genetic paradox that progenitors of Indo-European language group and Semitic/Afroasiatic language groups, who are historically Western Eurasians, have in fact ultimately East Asian/South East Asian (R) and "Subsaharan" (in a sense of not being Eurasian, ofc not being modern Bantu SSA) African non-Eurasian (E-M35) origin.

ratchet_fan
22-06-20, 15:08
Geographically, but not necessarily in terms of their genetic affinity, which is what geneticists mean when they talk about something being west or east eurasian.

The further back you guy the more East Eurasian these guys are. Tianyuan is K2b and 100% East Eurasian, Yana is P and 28% East Eurasian and Malta is R and about 9% East Eurasian.

ratchet_fan
22-06-20, 15:11
Indeed R and P are of fully Asian and "non-Caucasoid" origin. Native Americans are also EE in origin, and they are just a sub-group under hg Q. Other Q clades are pro-genitors of Turkic language group. R2 clearly migrated to South Asia.

It a genetic paradox that progenitors of Indo-European language group and Semitic/Afroasiatic language groups, who are historically Western Eurasians, have in fact ultimately East Asian/South East Asian (R) and Subsaharan African non-Eurasian (E-M35) origin.

Yea its looking that way. Racial cucking was high back then I guess. Unfortunate but it is what it is. East Asians and Africans are at least paternally pure. Guess the attack on white males we see today has historical precedent.

Kartvelian and Dravidian are probably the most populous and pure West Eurasian language groups (if those are indeed connected to G and H). Who would have thought? There's South Indian tribals with high frequencies of H who are more paternally West Eurasian than all Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans.

Philjames100
22-06-20, 15:44
How many generations is 42,000 years?

ratchet_fan
22-06-20, 15:47
How many generations is 42,000 years?

~1400. I know its way far back and the autosomal ancestry has been diluted by now but its still depressing to think about. Africans are African on the paternal line, East Asians are East Asian on the paternal line while West Eurasians are mostly East Asian and African on the paternal lines with the languages and cultures of actual West Eurasian males killed off. No amount of generations will change that.

Philjames100
22-06-20, 16:29
West Eurasians are mostly East Asian and African on the paternal lines

You mean if you follow your paternal lineage back 42,000 years or so you would eventually get to an East Asian or African man. But obviously he would only be one of your billions (?) of male ancestors.


with the languages and cultures of actual West Eurasian males killed off.

That's a non-sequitur.

ratchet_fan
22-06-20, 16:44
You mean if you follow your paternal lineage back 42,000 years or so you would eventually get to an East Asian or African man. But obviously he would only be one of your billions (?) of male ancestors.



That's a non-sequitur.

True but a large majority of those would descend from that one guy who likely killed the West Eurasian y C guys in the case of K2b/P/R. Africans and East Asians can trace their direct male ancestors to someone of their own race without any West Eurasian input (except Somalis I guess). Either way its kind of depressing. Had that not happened we likely wouldn't be speaking Indo-European languages so the legacy lives on in multiple ways.

I'm not sure about how the second statement doesn't make sense.

Philjames100
22-06-20, 17:08
At this point I'm sure you're trolling.

Aspurg
22-06-20, 17:26
Yea its looking that way. Racial cucking was high back then I guess. Unfortunate but it is what it is. East Asians and Africans are at least paternally pure. Guess the attack on white males we see today has historical precedent.

Kartvelian and Dravidian are probably the most populous and pure West Eurasian language groups (if those are indeed connected to G and H). Who would have thought? There's South Indian tribals with high frequencies of H who are more paternally West Eurasian than all Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans.

Well today exist races as we know them, what makes you think such marked differences existed 30 k, 40 k years ago? Because they didn't. Plus some external appearance traits that are closely associated with races are much younger (skin color etc.).

For example we have Mota E1b1a2, and Bantu dominated E1b1a1 which separated 39200 years ago, Mota had an African autosomal profile but still very different and distant from E1b1a1 dominated Bantus/West-Africans.

These paradoxes prove futility of identifying in some strong way with ancestors through Y-DNA because of completely different evolutionary paths lineages can take in 40 k years.

Aspurg
22-06-20, 17:46
Kartvelian and Dravidian are probably the most populous and pure West Eurasian language groups (if those are indeed connected to G and H). Who would have thought? There's South Indian tribals with high frequencies of H who are more paternally West Eurasian than all Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans.

Not only Kartvelians (G2a1) but also Circassians/NW Caucasian languages (G2a2b2a), the latter are more related to EEF's (just 10600 years). Also Northeast Caucasian languages are likely J-Z1828 originally, distant relatives of J-P58 which spread Semitic languages.

Dravidians are not native to South India, Dravidians descend from the North, around modern Balochistan, where Dravidian Northern remnant - Brahui is found. H hg is associated with Indian HG's, they aren't original Dravidians. Dravidians predate IE's by a couple of thousands of years, but are incomers too.

ratchet_fan
22-06-20, 17:48
Well today exist races as we know them, what makes you think such marked differences existed 30 k, 40 k years ago? Because they didn't. Plus some external appearance traits that are closely associated with races are much younger (skin color etc.).

For example we have Mota E1b1a2, and Bantu dominated E1b1a1 which separated 39200 years ago, Mota had an African autosomal profile but still very different and distant from E1b1a1 dominated Bantus/West-Africans.

These paradoxes prove futility of identifying in some strong way with ancestors through Y-DNA because of completely different evolutionary paths lineages can take in 40 k years.

I guess. But there was obviously some difference because we could separate ENA from West Eurasian back then and Eurasians from Africans even back then. I'm not sure about phenotype but I would imagine there were differences although not as much as they are today. Either way though Africans and Asians were able to avoid West Eurasian introgression into their paternal gene pool but West Eurasians were not able to do the same to them which is somewhat depressing to me. Actually very depressing.

Deird
22-06-20, 18:38
Yea its looking that way. Racial cucking was high back then I guess. Unfortunate but it is what it is. East Asians and Africans are at least paternally pure.

Insane garbage !! :confused2::confused2:


Kartvelian and Dravidian are probably the most populous and pure West Eurasian language groups (if those are indeed connected to G and H). Who would have thought? There's South Indian tribals with high frequencies of H who are more paternally West Eurasian than all Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans.

Dravidian is the purest group of South Asian population.
If South Indian Tribals have high frequencies of H, then it proves H has nothing to do with Europeans.

ratchet_fan
22-06-20, 19:05
Insane garbage !! :confused2::confused2:



Dravidian is the purest group of South Asian population.
If South Indian Tribals have high frequencies of H, then it proves H has nothing to do with Europeans.

What's insane about it?

Deird
22-06-20, 20:58
What's insane about it?

I agree with another member that you [=rachet_fan] is a troll.

MOESAN
22-06-20, 23:00
Hopala!
I have spread fire everywhere!
- I think ANE under its form is not typically East-Asian in the modern meaning of the term (so drift an mutated recent 'east-asian' components) and I never said ANE was in itself West-Eurasian! I see its formation in Central Asia (so the part of it common among Caucasus and South Central and Northern South Asia pops is not by force from migrations form SIberia; I think that the ANE of "South" is not by force the complete defined ANE of North Asia which has given the paradygm. They only share a good part of it, and the today Siberian and Uralic pops rich in ANE share a good part too, surely with some exclusive parts respectivelty in both groups of pops (North and South). *
- Y-haplo's can be in a tight connexion with global au
tosomes sketches for a time, and after that, go their way, less by drift than by mating of their bearers with females of other pops. But I think that Y-R1 was surely central enough in ANE rich groups for a time,
around the 20000 BC and even a bit before.
- genetic visible traits governing phenotypes can also go their way from the global autosomal sketche. SO, even if come from South-Eastern Asia, some of our current Siberian or European ancestors, having left this supposed region of origin very long ago, had not the today more or less typical 'mongoloid' features, often associated with today 'east-asian' autosomal component(s).
I spoke uniquely of Y-R, R1. For Y-Q, "brother" son of Y-P if I read well, I'm not sure of the road they took to join Eas-Central Asia. I have to read more.
Concerning languages, I will not go into bets and guessings concerning very remote times and Y-haplo's, even if some ties can have existed.

@Tamakore
Geographically speaking, I thought to the today core of ANE; you are partly right saying Baïkal lake is East Asia, it would be better to say: Middle-East Asia. When I wrote my post, I imagined in front of my eyes the very more eastern Behring region, so even Baïkal lake did not seem too eastern to me. That said, if Mal'ta has been found near Baïkal lake, it does not mean the ANE group center of gravity was just there, who knows? And today East-Asia, even North-East Asia, it not the core of ANE sharings, even if we can think ANE rich people passed through there, because Amerindians have a good charge of ANE too.

MOESAN
22-06-20, 23:01
I know too today North-East-Asia has been genetically modified by SOuth-East Asiaz people going North.

ratchet_fan
22-06-20, 23:16
Hopala!
I have spread fire everywhere!
- I think ANE under its form is not typically East-Asian in the modern meaning of the term (so drift an mutated recent 'east-asian' components) and I never said ANE was in itself West-Eurasian! I see its formation in Central Asia (so the part of it common among Caucasus and South Central and Northern South Asia pops is not by force from migrations form SIberia; I think that the ANE of "South" is not by force the complete defined ANE of North Asia which has given the paradygm. They only share a good part of it, and the today Siberian and Uralic pops rich in ANE share a good part too, surely with some exclusive parts respectivelty in both groups of pops (North and South). *
- Y-haplo's can be in a tight connexion with global au
tosomes sketches for a time, and after that, go their way, less by drift than by mating of their bearers with females of other pops. But I think that Y-R1 was surely central enough in ANE rich groups for a time,
around the 20000 BC and even a bit before.
- genetic visible traits governing phenotypes can also go their way from the global autosomal sketche. SO, even if come from South-Eastern Asia, some of our current Siberian or European ancestors, having left this supposed region of origin very long ago, had not the today more or less typical 'mongoloid' features, often associated with today 'east-asian' autosomal component(s).
I spoke uniquely of Y-R, R1. For Y-Q, "brother" son of Y-P if I read well, I'm not sure of the road they took to join Eas-Central Asia. I have to read more.
Concerning languages, I will not go into bets and guessings concerning very remote times and Y-haplo's, even if some ties can have existed.

@Tamakore
Geographically speaking, I thought to the today core of ANE; you are partly right saying Baïkal lake is East Asia, it would be better to say: Middle-East Asia. When I wrote my post, I imagined in front of my eyes the very more eastern Behring region, so even Baïkal lake did not seem too eastern to me. That said, if Mal'ta has been found near Baïkal lake, it does not mean the ANE group center of gravity was just there, who knows? And today East-Asia, even North-East Asia, it not the core of ANE sharings, even if we can think ANE rich people passed through there, because Amerindians have a good charge of ANE too.

I believe the ANE of Malta was ~91% West Eurasian. Its the things above R that came from SE Asia and killed the West Eurasian males associated with mtdna U in Yana RHS and Malta. It seems whenever West Eurasian came in contact with Africans and East Eurasians the men were killed and the women stolen. Its the entire story of IE and Afro-Asiatic/Semitic.

I believe someone suggested its possible K2b/P originated in a Ust-Ishim/Oase like population that was neither Western or Eastern and that Tianyuan was a dead end but I don't know if that's likely.

Either way its crazy to think IE has its origin in Papuans but I guess it does.

ratchet_fan
22-06-20, 23:17
I know too today North-East-Asia has been genetically modified by SOuth-East Asiaz people going North.

That's not really different races mixing the way yP and the western portion of ANE did. If it was peaceful mixing we should see SE Asian mtdnas in ANE but so far nothing but mtdna U. The above is the equivalent of Arabian Peninsula populations mixing with Levantine ones.

ratchet_fan
23-06-20, 01:26
If the se asian origin of K2b/p is confirmed does this mean Indo-European is ultimately the descendant of something spoken by an East Asian males who might now try to claim European and Middle Eastern civilization to some degree?

kingjohn
23-06-20, 02:18
I believe the ANE of Malta was ~91% West Eurasian. Its the things above R that came from SE Asia and killed the West Eurasian males associated with mtdna U in Yana RHS and Malta. It seems whenever West Eurasian came in contact with Africans and East Eurasians the men were killed and the women stolen. Its the entire story of IE and Afro-Asiatic/Semitic.

I believe someone suggested its possible K2b/P originated in a Ust-Ishim/Oase like population that was neither Western or Eastern and that Tianyuan was a dead end but I don't know if that's likely.

Either way its crazy to think IE has its origin in Papuans but I guess it does.


Nope :wary2:
in the south middle east/ levant it is the other way around j invaded our E land
And reduced our number till the bronze age and even farther
Remember the natufians they were E-z830 :thinking:

ratchet_fan
23-06-20, 02:49
If E represent SSA introgression into a West Eurasian gene pool I wonder what the original lineage of mtdna U people in North Africa was.

kingjohn
23-06-20, 12:05
If E represent SSA introgression into a West Eurasian gene pool I wonder what the original lineage of mtdna U people in North Africa was.

It could represent basal eurasian :thinking:

ratchet_fan
23-06-20, 13:44
It could represent basal eurasian :thinking:

Isn't that wishful thinking like saying K2b could represent Crown Eurasian? I think Mota and Tianyuan would disprove those no? I'm not sure though.

kingjohn
23-06-20, 13:50
So in your book
The real caucasiod haplogroups
Are: H,G,J,I ?

ratchet_fan
23-06-20, 15:28
So in your book
The real caucasiod haplogroups
Are: H,G,J,I ?

That would make sense. I would add some subclades of C. Also maybe L and T. BUt it looks like E is from SSA men and K2b/P/R/Q is from East Asian men although like you said its possible E is from Basal Eurasian and maybe K2b/P/R/Q is from an Ust-Ishim like population that is not Caucasoid or East Asian.

I can't figure out if K2b is from Tianyuan (so NE asian population) or from SE Asia where the majority of K2b/P diversity is.

Guess the Asian nationalists ended dup being right after all lol.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/kostenki14-morphologically-caucasoid.html

kingjohn
24-06-20, 22:20
also interesting is that E is related
To the paleo- mongolid y haplogroup D🤔
I know many water flow through the river since than
But still to me it is cool 🤔😎

Ygorcs
25-06-20, 15:40
R1b and R1a are most probably linked originally to ANE populations, which got formed so early (certainly before 34,000 years ago, because the recent Mongolian aDNA sample with that dating already had signals of an ANE-like admixture), splitting from the early West Eurasian group (~75%) and mixing (~25%) with some very early East Eurasian (no distinctly East Asian cluster is likely to have already formed by then), that I think could be rightfully considered a branch of its own. It probably split to evolve on its own only a few thousands of years after WE and EE lineages diverged from each other.

Now I really want to know how K2b and the probable origin of P* in Southeast Asia (or maybe South Asia?) fit into this, considering that both Q* and R* (which I think are linked to mainly ANE populations) were born after the ANE cluster was already formed (or at least consolidating). I'm also unsure if it arrived in North Asia with mostly WE or EE males, because Q* and R* were probably in Central Asia before that.

ratchet_fan
26-06-20, 00:25
R1b and R1a are most probably linked originally to ANE populations, which got formed so early (certainly before 34,000 years ago, because the recent Mongolian aDNA sample with that dating already had signals of an ANE-like admixture), splitting from the early West Eurasian group (~75%) and mixing (~25%) with some very early East Eurasian (no distinctly East Asian cluster is likely to have already formed by then), that I think could be rightfully considered a branch of its own. It probably split to evolve on its own only a few thousands of years after WE and EE lineages diverged from each other.

Now I really want to know how K2b and the probable origin of P* in Southeast Asia (or maybe South Asia?) fit into this, considering that both Q* and R* (which I think are linked to mainly ANE populations) were born after the ANE cluster was already formed (or at least consolidating). I'm also unsure if it arrived in North Asia with mostly WE or EE males, because Q* and R* were probably in Central Asia before that.

Wasn't there a distinctivley East Asian cluster as represented by Tianyuan prior to that?

I'm not sure if K2b was born in Southeast or South Asia. The most basal P is from the Andaman Islands but I doubt it was born there. There's danger in using modern diversity. To me its more likely it was born in a North Eurasian population. Its just not known whether than North Eurasian population was Tianyuan like or something like Ust-Ishim. I'd guess the former but given yfull overestimates ages and TMRCA by 10-15% its pretty possible it was born before the West-East Eurasian split.

Also I'd be curious if these guys are ancestral to each other (Tianyuan (K2b)->Yana(P)->Malta(R)). Are these dead branches or side branches or do they tell a story?

Also I have no idea if there was Q or R in Central Asia. Do you think the earliest people to settle Central Asia were mostly ANE like? What about the Tarim Basin?

Also if ANE formed before the formation of Q/R that gives credence to my theory that the original ANE guys were some form of C that were killed by East Eurasian or Crown Eurasian K2b/P guys. I wonder if they found refuge in India due to the onslaught. Kosenteki-14 is y C1b as are most people in India who carry y C. was the migration north to south or south to north?

kingjohn
26-06-20, 01:29
C is also very common in
Australian natives 😉
Maybe C is the earliest branch
To left africa probably by southern route🤔

Ygorcs
26-06-20, 02:22
Wasn't there a distinctivley East Asian cluster as represented by Tianyuan prior to that?

As per the analysis of the recent Mongolian aDNA sample from 34 kya (Salkhit Valley), the Yana (which is the main ancestral source to ANE) had some shared ancestry with the Salkhit sample in a complex pattern of gene flow (probably bidirectional), but there was no such connection between Yana and Tianyuan. Tianyuan also had more Denisovan ancestry than Salkhit and the latter on its turn had more Denisovan ancestry than Yana. So I guess that means Tianyuan was fully East Eurasian, Salkhit had some West Eurasian ancestry but mostly East Eurasian, and Yana was instead mostly West Eurasian but with some East Eurasian.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.03.131995v1.full.pdf

IIRC the particular WE+EE admixture in Yana is supposed to have occurred around ~40 kya, so it must not have postdated the WE/EE split by that long a time, because IIRC the latter is supposed to have occurred around ~45-50 kya or so.


I'm not sure if K2b was born in Southeast or South Asia. The most basal P is from the Andaman Islands but I doubt it was born there. There's danger in using modern diversity. To me its more likely it was born in a North Eurasian population. Its just not known whether than North Eurasian population was Tianyuan like or something like Ust-Ishim. I'd guess the former but given yfull overestimates ages and TMRCA by 10-15% its pretty possible it was born before the West-East Eurasian split.

Yes, you're right, it's just a hypothesis, but modern diversity, even if you also consider density of basal clades, can be very deceiving given that some areas were a lot more subjected to profound and even successive demographic changes over the millennia.


Also I'd be curious if these guys are ancestral to each other (Tianyuan (K2b)->Yana(P)->Malta(R)). Are these dead branches or side branches or do they tell a story?

I didn't know Tianyuan belonged to K2b. Was that confirmed?


Also I have no idea if there was Q or R in Central Asia. Do you think the earliest people to settle Central Asia were mostly ANE like? What about the Tarim Basin?

I'm not sure if the earliest people to settle Central Asia were mostly ANE, but before the Neolithic that's certain. If I had to guess I'd bet they had their own genetic structure in Paleolithic times along a cline between whatever antecedent to AASI existed in South Asia and ANE (north-south axis) and between Common West Eurasian and that pre-AASI and Andamanese-like populations (west-east axis). I don't think East Asian "proper" (not East Eurasian more generally) ancestry was very frequent in Central Asia (at least South-Central Asia/Turan) since the earliest period of settlement, but who knows? This is all speculation.


Also if ANE formed before the formation of Q/R that gives credence to my theory that the original ANE guys were some form of C that were killed by East Eurasian or Crown Eurasian K2b/P guys. I wonder if they found refuge in India due to the onslaught. Kosenteki-14 is y C1b as are most people in India who carry y C. was the migration north to south or south to north?

Interesting hypothesis, I hadn't thought about that hypothesis... but if that happened then the EE contribution was very heavily sex-biased.

ratchet_fan
26-06-20, 02:29
Its just a hypothesis that is was sex-biased but I could be wrong. I had based a lot of that on Tianyuan being ancestral to Yana but if there is no real relationship I might have to reconsider that. Tianyuan might just be a dead end. Also like I said with yfull underestimating 10-15% its possible K2b was born in a Oase like population (Oase was K2a). But that would make me wonder where the East Eurasian related Salkhit admixture in Yana came from. Maybe bridge exchange between the two populations. In that case we should expect eastern Mtdnas in Yana and Western ones in Sallhit which hasn't;t happened so far granted the sample size is small.

I would also question if Yana is ancestral to Malta and if Malta is actually ancestral to modern R. It could be those were heavily admixed dead ends too like Tianyuan might have been. The real action could have been further west.

Tamakore
26-06-20, 05:29
When considering the origins of R1b, R1a and PIE, it seems to me that paleogenetics, archaeology and historical linguistics can be combined to paint a plausible picture of East Asian (or Central East Asian) origins.

Archaeologists have identified the Mal'ta-Buret' culture, with it's distinctive "Venus figurines", located near Lake Baikal with a time horizon of 24-15 kya. The subsequent (and related) Afontova Gora culture has a time horizon of 21-12 kya.

Paleogenetics has identified the ANE genetic signature of these cultures, and shown that ANE expanded across Eurasia and the Americas over the following thousands of years.

Twenty years ago, before ANE had been identified, the linguist Greenberg suggested that "the Eurasiatic-Amerind family represents a relatively recent expansion (circa 15 kya) into territory opened up by the melting of the Arctic ice cap." Greenberg's proposed Eurasiatic macro family included Indo-European, Uralic, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Eskimo-Aleut and Chukchi-Kamchatkan. His proposed expansion of Eurasiatic-Amerind parallels the expansion of ANE ancestry.

What I would like to know is, why were the early ANE (Mal'ta-Buret') people apparently so successful? In the unpromising environment of Central Siberia in the depths of the last Ice Age they thrived and expanded whilst some other populations were huddling in refugia. Siberian winters are cold enough now, imagine how cold they were 20,000 years ago during the LGM. Did they devise techniques for hunting mammoths and reindeer that were just better than anybody else's, allowing their population to grow and migrate? The degree of ANE ancestry in many populations today suggests that they did grow faster than most other hunter-gatherer populations of their day.

aleph
26-06-20, 15:22
When considering the origins of R1b, R1a and PIE, it seems to me that paleogenetics, archaeology and historical linguistics can be combined to paint a plausible picture of East Asian (or Central East Asian) origins.

Archaeologists have identified the Mal'ta-Buret' culture, with it's distinctive "Venus figurines", located near Lake Baikal with a time horizon of 24-15 kya. The subsequent (and related) Afontova Gora culture has a time horizon of 21-12 kya.

Paleogenetics has identified the ANE genetic signature of these cultures, and shown that ANE expanded across Eurasia and the Americas over the following thousands of years.

Twenty years ago, before ANE had been identified, the linguist Greenberg suggested that "the Eurasiatic-Amerind family represents a relatively recent expansion (circa 15 kya) into territory opened up by the melting of the Arctic ice cap." Greenberg's proposed Eurasiatic macro family included Indo-European, Uralic, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Eskimo-Aleut and Chukchi-Kamchatkan. His proposed expansion of Eurasiatic-Amerind parallels the expansion of ANE ancestry.

What I would like to know is, why were the early ANE (Mal'ta-Buret') people apparently so successful? In the unpromising environment of Central Siberia in the depths of the last Ice Age they thrived and expanded whilst some other populations were huddling in refugia. Siberian winters are cold enough now, imagine how cold they were 20,000 years ago during the LGM. Did they devise techniques for hunting mammoths and reindeer that were just better than anybody else's, allowing their population to grow and migrate? The degree of ANE ancestry in many populations today suggests that they did grow faster than most other hunter-gatherer populations of their day.

Probably just happened to be in the right place at the right time- in the refugias while untold groups died out outside of those zones.

ratchet_fan
26-06-20, 18:33
Probably just happened to be in the right place at the right time- in the refugias while untold groups died out outside of those zones.

I think we need to figure out the whole geographic picture. we know west eurasians were as far east as Kosenteki-14. And near Yana since Yan was modeled with Western ancestry reaching 72%. But Hat about in between? What about east of Yana? What was the southern border? Is there any evidence these people were y C or is my theory off? If they weren't y C what was their original lineage if not K2b? Like I said before the real action could have been happening more in the west. Does archaeology tell us of a migration from the Yana RHS area to European Russia?


Tianyuan is not a good fit for the eastern ancestry in Yana . It is Salkhit. I'd like to see if there were other uniparental makers in Yana that would tell us what happened.

Like I said In addition is there a chain of ancestry from Tianyuan to Yana to Malta? are these just side lineages that were dead ends?

ratchet_fan
29-06-20, 17:15
Ancient DNA from SE Asia, India, Central Asia and North Eurasia would resolve this. Something in the 40-50K yep time frame.

MOESAN
30-06-20, 18:31
That's not really different races mixing the way yP and the western portion of ANE did. If it was peaceful mixing we should see SE Asian mtdnas in ANE but so far nothing but mtdna U. The above is the equivalent of Arabian Peninsula populations mixing with Levantine ones.

You have a funny way to look at things. no offense.
Here you misunderstood this very answer. My point was that TODAY N-E Asians pop's are the results of these crossings. Not by the time ancestors of Amerindians got their way across Behring Strait.

MOESAN
30-06-20, 20:01
I think we have not to project our today views on human phenotypical divisions upon ancient populations, it has been already said.
Even at the genomic level, notions of 'westeurasian' or 'easteurasian' are bad criteria. If we take recent namings of autosomal poles geographically determined, we can subdivise (cut off) the same ancient Human into more than a so called "basic" genetic pop as 'papuan', 'eastasian', 'southasian', 'southwestasian', 'northeast european', 'westafrican' ... as this ancient man could be the result of crossings between very far settled pop's or - joke - occurred in his "future". At some level, the more ancient the people, the more crossbreeded they are!!! Very funny.
This proves only that today distribution of autosomes owes to a bimodal evolution with loss and enrichment of the genome by crossings and mutations + drifts. Even an ancient pop genome taken as a "pure" element will be broken off some time to come. The only sure thing is that our far ancestors shared more genes allover the globe than our current puzzled pop's do (for a while yet).
So what is ANE: is our ANE part from Mal'ta or from an ancestor of Mal'ta, or a cousin??? Who took, who gave?
people move and moved, fast or slowly: is finding an old state of uniparental haplo' in some place the proof this haplo' had THERE its gravity center of life? And its bulk of autosomes? Personally, without any right to decide, I think rather that maybe Y-K2 and Y-P had their geographic poles around NE India, but at those times people moves over long tracks for food (or not) according to ecological niche chosen by them. The "gravity center" itself is not too pertinent, if the way of life was only hunting, the surface of rovering could be very large;
more: the older the haplo' (its form), the more spread we can find him, very often, spite its rarity: hard to base some solid linguistic family theory; languages could evolve quickly when reduced to a bunch of words and forms, I suppose, and maybe it was the case in very old times (I know, I put a lot of "maybe", but it's due to the stage of my knowledge).
not to far ago the uniparental link to language could be broken by conquests, and I think, whatever the period, by a chain of mutations (new SNP's). Hope I am not too confuse. Sure, I don't carry any positive point.

ratchet_fan
30-06-20, 21:11
I'm not sure where our ANE is from. I'm guessing its from Malta like people who mixed with La Brana like people to form EHG who then mixed with CHG to form WSH.

NE India? D you think Y K2 was AASI or ENA like then? or older than ancient split?

PIE is not very old so I doubt there was a constant linguistic chain from SE Asia but I'm not sure. Probably other haplos other than Y R1a/R1b were involved in PIE creation.

Also you are right. The modern distribution of y K2 does not prove this haplo had its center of gravity there. It could have easily been more Northern and rare clades only survived in the south. After all most basal P* is from Andaman islands and I don't think Andaman Islanders contributed to Yana.

bicicleur
01-07-20, 14:33
IMO K2b and P* were born in northern India from were they split.
Many went SE into Sundaland, but PQR - ancestral to Q,R and Yana RHS went NW across the Hindu Kush into Central Asia and Siberia

ratchet_fan
01-07-20, 14:49
IMO K2b and P* were born in northern India from were they split.
Many went SE into Sundaland, but PQR - ancestral to Q,R and Yana RHS went NW across the Hindu Kush into Central Asia and Siberia

How does Tianyuan fit into this? Are you saying there were two different migrations from India to North Eurasia?

K2b*-44-45k ybp
Tianyuan K2b- 39-42 ybp
P*-30k ybp

ratchet_fan
31-07-20, 21:29
I think we need to establish if the chain Tinayuan->Yana->Malta/AG3->WSHG/EHG is valid.

P was already born according to yfull when Tianyuan K2b was born so I doubt he is ancestral imo. Especially if yfull underestimated. Yana is actually a poor fit when trying to model Malta and AG3. So maybe the action was actually in a geographically and genetically more western population.

Does the modern diversity of K2b/P really hold that much weight? Nobody actually thinks SE Asians conquered North Eurasia and wiped out the West Eurasian lineages there do they?

lynxbythetv
08-08-20, 04:18
who was getting cucked and what do you mean by historical precedent.

ratchet_fan
10-08-20, 23:33
who was getting cucked and what do you mean by historical precedent.

The hypothetical West Eurasian counterpart(ydna C) to mtdna U in ANE.

Aaron0700
12-08-20, 17:30
good article