Mezolithic-Neolithic vs. Chalcolithic-Early Iron Age Y-DNA landscape of Europe

Tomenable said:
Thank you - so Tocharians were not Z93 (!).

This makes Z93 an exclusively (?) Indo-Iranian branch.

What subclade of R1a were the Tocharians?
Click to expand...

I wonder whether their subclade was one of subclades widespread today, or is their subclade largely extinct by now.

Perhaps it is mostly extinct by now (?). But I suppose that it could be downstream of either Z645, Z283 or Z282.

I have made a visualization showing this (and more than this - a simplified tree of R1a; age estimates from YFull):

http://s17.postimg.org/hsnaex6xb/R1a_tree.png

R1a_tree.png


Daco-Thracian is a hypothetical language family that was probably closely related to Balto-Slavic language family:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classification_of_Thracian&redirect=no#Daco-Thracian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_language
 
We don't know what language(s) the Tarim mummies spoke. It could have been ancestral to Tocherian, but no one knows for sure.
 
"No one knows for sure" only because no written texts in Tocharian language from that period exist.

So in the same way "no one knows for sure" if Germanic existed before year 150 AD (earliest runic inscriptions).

Tocharian is the only reasonable option. And those people (Indo-Iranians in the Altai maybe too) were called Yuezhi by Non-IE neighbours. Tocharian must have split from IE continuum and travel to Tarim Basin early on, because it preserved many archaic features:

Tocharian.png


So the Tarim mummies must have been Tocharian-speaking. Anything arriving later on would already be a satem language.

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

Check also this 2009 study by Keyser: http://hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf
 
Germanic is differnt. There are references to it before 0AD. There are no references to Tocherian in 2,000BC. Of course it is likely the Tarim mummies were Tocherians, but there's no prove. That's all I'm saying.
 
Tomenable said:
"No one knows for sure" only because no written texts in Tocharian language from that period exist.

So in the same way "no one knows for sure" if Germanic existed before year 150 AD (earliest runic inscriptions).

Tocharian is the only reasonable option. And those people (Indo-Iranians in the Altai maybe too) were called Yuezhi by Non-IE neighbours. Tocharian must have split from IE continuum and travel to Tarim Basin early on, because it preserved many archaic features:

Tocharian.png


So the Tarim mummies must have been Tocharian-speaking. Anything arriving later on would already be a satem language.

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

Check also this 2009 study by Keyser: http://hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf
Click to expand...

IMO Tochars were R1b, alltough some R1a may have joined them.
These R1a were probably not Z93.
Tocharian is estimated 5500 years old, before Indo-Iranian expansion.
Tocharian writings were found in the western Tarim Basin.
Tarim mummies are all less then 4000 years old, after the Indo-Iranian expansion. They were found in the eastern Tarim Basin.
 
Tocharian probably evolved from the same parent language as Indo-Iranian.

But Proto-Tocharian split from that parent language before satemization.

Let's call that hypothetical language Proto-Indo-Tocharo-Iranian.

IMO Tochars were R1b
Click to expand...

No evidence for this. All 7 out of 7 male mummies were R1a, but not Z93 (see below).

These R1a were probably not Z93.

(...)

Tarim mummies are all less then 4000 years old, after the Indo-Iranian expansion.
Click to expand...

They were tested for M198 (of course it turned out positive) and for Z93 - it turned out negative (!):

Tocharians.png


So Tarim mummies were not Z93, but you insist that they were Indo-Iranic.

Do you know any other example of Indo-Iranians who were R1a but not Z93 ??? :unsure:
 
Tocharian is estimated 5500 years old
Click to expand...

Of course these estimates of language age are only very approximate and there is a large margin of error.

The same applies also to formation and TMRCA age estimates for Y-DNA haplogroups. For example when I checked YFull in late April this year, they had TMRCA of Z645 estimated as 5,000 years ago and formation time of Z283 and Z93 as also 5,000 years ago each. But later in May I checked again, and they changed those estimates to 4,900 and 4,900 and 4,900 years ago respectively. This is of course "the most probable" age, they also have data on "Confidence Interval 95%", and it is always a period of time lasting several centuries. What I mean is that Tocharians (or Tarim mummies if you prefer) were for sure under M198 and most certainly under M417. But they could also be under Z645 - the difference of few centuries between estimates of language age and estimates of haplogroup age is insignficant, and may be due to large margins of errors in both estimates.
 
We can only speculate, but I lean more towards r1b coming first from the East via the Yamna Horizon.
Click to expand...

Corded Ware came to Scandinavia before Bell Beakers, IIRC. So far it seems that CW was all R1a and BB was all R1b. Plus some Non-R1 hg-s, of course. R1b from Yamna horizon probably went along the Caspian Sea to the south-west to Asia Minor. And later from Asia Minor it entered Europe. I think that this southern route for R1b is more probable than assuming that it expanded westward across Ukraine. Rather, it did that across Turkey. Though it is possible that they took both routes - some went along the Black Sea coast in Ukraine, some crossed the Caucasus into Asia Minor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 99601 times.

Back
Top