J1 Sarmatians in Beslan

[Tomenable]

But maybe is IE language a few thousands of years older than we think. We're still not 100% sure about the age of that langage.

Yeah, this is also possible.

 

[LeBrok]

Yeah, I do agree on all these point with you!

But maybe is IE language a few thousands of years older than we think. We're still not 100% sure about the age of that langage.

Language could be older easily. However at this point we have no idea who's language it was. R1b hunter gatherers, R1a HGs, Farmers from Caucasus and south of it, or Cucuteni? Likewise we don't know who gave them religion. Their material culture was from many places and local horses from the Steppe. So far most likely it looks that all these elements gathered together in Yamnaya, the Steppe, together with mixing of farmers and HGs genes, giving birth to culture that we know as Indo-European, just before their expansion. Before Yamanya, IEs didn't exist, just parts of their culture, and parts of their genetic material, in surrounding ethnic groups of the region.
I suspect it is on parallel with USA today. Where the Americans are coming from or Brazilians?

 

[Tomenable]

The discovery of ATP3 proves, that R1b-M269 was present both in Iberia and in the Pontic-Caspian steppe at the same time.

I wonder if ATP3 was positive for L51 clade, now prevalent in Western Europe? All Yamnaya samples were negative for L51:

http://s24.postimg.org/be36zsq5h/West_East_Split.png

It seems that L23 split very early on (before 3300 BC) and one branch (L51) went to Iberia, another branch to the steppe.

The idea of the "massive migration from the steppe" of L51 may be wrong. It could be spreading from Iberian Bell Beaker.

Of course ATP3 itself predates Bell Beaker, but - as we know - the oldest Bell Beaker sites are from Iberia.

So if R1b-L51 was present in Iberia already before Beaker, it could be spreading outside of Iberia later on, with Beaker.

 

[Tomenable]

However at this point we have no idea who's language it was. R1b hunter gatherers, R1a HGs, Farmers from Caucasus and south of it

PIE language could develop as a lingua franca used by several groups to communicate, as they merged into a single culture. So basically all groups that you mentioned above could participate in development of PIE language, when they merged culturally into a single community.

All Indo-European languages took their words for several things - such as "wheel" - from the same, common PIE root.

It shows that PIE language was spoken in times when these inventions - including wheels - already existed.

Either early PIE speakers were the ones who invented wheels, or PIE language emerged after the invention of wheels.

 

[LeBrok]

PIE language could develop as a lingua franca used by several groups to communicate, as they merged into a single culture. So basically all groups that you mentioned above could participate in development of PIE language, when they merged culturally into a single community.

Exactly like English language developed in England from few sources. However, judging by complicated grammar, IE language most likely comes from one source, just increasing vocabulary with borrowed words from others around. Foreign languages introduced over new population usually lose complexity. Like Italian compared to Latin, not mentioning English.
I rote about this observation here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26890-Is-complexity-of-grammar-pointing-to-roots-of-a-language?p=383521#post383521

Either early PIE speakers were the ones who invented wheels, or

Could be, or wheels were invented independently in couple of places, like farming. It is not only a wheel but whole technology of a wagon having IE names.

We know that Sumerians used wagons, do we know Sumerian vocabulary about its technology? Question to Taranis, I guess.

PIE language emerged after the invention of wheels.

In this case the word for a wheel would came from old language. If it was invented somewhere else it would have come with its foreign name.

 

[Tomenable]

In this case the word for a wheel would came from old language.

True, but that word would be incorporated to vocabulary of PIE language as a loanword.

So it would be common to all PIE-speakers as well, even if it had older origins.

We know that Sumerians used wagons, do we know Sumerian vocabulary about its technology?

Good question! What was Sumerian word for "wheel" or for "wagon" ???

However, judging by complicated grammar, IE language most likely comes from one source, just increasing vocabulary with borrowed words from others around. Foreign languages introduced over new population usually lose complexity. Like Italian compared to Latin, not mentioning English.

But Italian is not a "language introduced over new population".

Actually - it was Latin which was spoken around the whole of the Mediterranean Sea, while Italian is spoken only in Italy.

So we have a decreasing population of speakers in this case.

Of course all Romance languages are descended from Latin, not just Italian. So check the complexity of all of Romance.

 

[Tomenable]

Of course originally Latin was spoken just in Latium, by ethnic Latins - one group of whom lived in Rome:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_(Italic_tribe)

But later on, with the expansion of the Roman Empire, it became widespread around the entire Mediterranean Sea.

And only after the fall of Rome, it started to evolve separately into several Romance languages - all descended from Latin.

As long as the Roman Empire was intact, Latin was one language. There were dialects, but mutually intelligible ones.

After the fall of political structures and the breaking of cultural-economic contacts, divergence into many languages started.

 

[LeBrok]

True, but that word would be incorporated to vocabulary of PIE language as a loanword.

Exactly, so far we can't find this original word in any known language families, to my knowledge. Therefore it looks IE in origin.

But Italian is not a "language introduced over new population".

Actually - it was Latin which was spoken around the whole of the Mediterranean Sea, while Italian is spoken only in Italy.

So we have a decreasing population of speakers in this case.

Of course all Romance languages are descended from Latin, not just Italian. So check the complexity of all of Romance.

What I meant is that Latin is the source language of all Romance languages. Its complexity of grammar is higher than any Romance languages or pig Latin spoken elsewhere during Roman Empire. Latin was also introduced to other tribes of Italian peninsula, therefore they learned Latin as a second language, hence creating simpler Italian language. Well, many varieties of it, till unification as one Italian language in modern times.

 

[LeBrok]

Of course originally Latin was spoken just in Latium, by ethnic Latins - one group of whom lived in Rome:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_(Italic_tribe)

But later on, with the expansion of the Roman Empire, it became widespread around the entire Mediterranean Sea.

And only after the fall of Rome, it started to evolve separately into several Romance languages - all descended from Latin.

As long as the Roman Empire was intact, Latin was one language. There were dialects, but mutually intelligible ones.

After the fall of political structures and the breaking of cultural-economic contacts, divergence into many languages started.

Mind you that the written records of Latin language from Roman Empire are from educated elite who spoke Latin fluently. We don't have records of local "Latin" dialects from conquered nations. Do we know how peasants spoke Latin, or pig Latin, in villages in Iberia, Gallia or today's Northern Italy, or Germanics who invaded Italy? In this time it meant 90% of population.

 

[epoch]

Mind you that the written records of Latin language from Roman Empire are from educated elite who spoke Latin fluently. We don't have records of local "Latin" dialects from conquered nations. Do we know how peasants spoke Latin, or pig Latin, in villages in Iberia, Gallia or today's Northern Italy, or Germanics who invaded Italy? In this time it meant 90% of population.

We have a fairly good idea of Vulgar Latin. From Cicero on hints are given:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin#Sources

 

[Sile]

Exactly like English language developed in England from few sources. However, judging by complicated grammar, IE language most likely comes from one source, just increasing vocabulary with borrowed words from others around. Foreign languages introduced over new population usually lose complexity. Like Italian compared to Latin, not mentioning English.
I rote about this observation here:
[/COLOR]http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26890-Is-complexity-of-grammar-pointing-to-roots-of-a-language?p=383521#post383521



Could be, or wheels were invented independently in couple of places, like farming. It is not only a wheel but whole technology of a wagon having IE names.

We know that Sumerians used wagons, do we know Sumerian vocabulary about its technology? Question to Taranis, I guess.


In this case the word for a wheel would came from old language. If it was invented somewhere else it would have come with its foreign name.

Goga was correct.............iranian on the steppes

 

[Angela]

Old Kingdom Egyptian DNA was actually more African that modern Egyptian DNA - see here:

(BTW, it seems that one of Old Kingdom Y-DNA samples was also J-M267, or J1, haplogroup):

"Ancient Egyptians and their DNA": http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2147-Ancient-Egyptians-and-their-DNA

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5383-Saltovo-Mayaki-Results/page5



"Egyptian Ancient Dna from the Old and Middle Kingdoms":

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28925-Egyptian-Ancient-Dna-from-the-Old-and-Middle-Kingdoms

A comment by Maciamo:



Another discussion:

"Egyptian Old Kingdom and New Kingdom Ancient DNA results":

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008622;p=1

This is not from any kind of published paper, is it? Who knows if it's accurate or not? I think we should be careful about relying on unsubstantiated reports or rumors. Not that published studies always get everything right, but at least we can have some confidence that they've been peer reviewed, and there's some transparency in terms of methodology.

Another surprising thing in Genetiker's runs of K=17 admixtures is that Copper and Bronze Age samples from El Portalon cave all have between 2 and 5% of Bushman-and-Pygmy admixture, except the unusual ATP20 which has 0% but 28% of Veddoid, 8% of Negroid and 7.8% of Amerindian) and ATP2 which has a stunning 28% of sub-Saharan African (14% of Bushman-and-Pygmy + 12.47% Western-Negroid + 1.42% Eastern-Negroid) ! The modern Basques are almost 100% European in admixtures, so how do their presumed ancestors show up with such high non-European admixture ?

Some of these samples are of very low quality; I think caution is advised in drawing hard and fast conclusions from them.
Just generally, ancient samples sometimes turn up some SSA. It is not, however, the case that the EEF turn up SSA at levels higher than other ancient samples. In fact, it's sometimes the opposite.Take a look at the results for K7 and K12 for the WHG vs the EEF, for example. The highest SSA is actually consistently in the Ajvide samples, although, as I said, I don't think we should make too much of these kinds of results in such old samples.



I frankly don't understand this discussion about V88. Is the discussion back to trying to make R1b an "African" lineage because so many Chadic speakers carry it? The most likely explanation, and I thought the consensus, is that V88 moved from the Levant down to the coast of North Africa and then south and west. The origin of R1a and R1b is another issue.

My personal feeling is that R1b arose somewhere between the steppe and the Levant, leaving it in position to move in numerous directions. Perhaps that means West Asia, perhaps that means the Eurasian steppe. The same question applies to R1a. Did it arise in the area of Iran or on the Eurasian steppe? It's ancient dna that will lead us closer to the answers.

 

[MOESAN]

@ Sile
just a detail: is not slavic 'kolo' (or 'kola') a cognate of "wheel" same meaning (<<*kwkwlos) ??? and breton 'ahel' , welsh 'echel' doesn't have any link with *aks- ?(or it's a modern loanword? I don't know but Old-irish had 'aksila' I think, for 'axle'); that concerning accuracy of sources provided above.

 

[MOESAN]

Oh, what makes M417 Indo-European and not it's ancestors M17 or even M20?


Why couldn't R1b in Yamnaya be Indo-European or even J2a?

Personally I think that J2a was the most significant hg. among the PIEan speakers. You will find J2a in all Indo-European speaking countries. From England to India…


This topic is about Sarmatians and Alans, those who lived long after PIEans. And Alans belong to very modern Iranid R1a-Z94.

Y-J2a is present among plenty of non I-Ean speakers and rare in Western and Northern and even North-Eastern Europe and its presence there can be explained by more than one event from (late?) Neolithic to Iron and even later - compared to Y-R1a and Y-R1b, no comment... it does not disprove your affirmation about its role in PIE but it shows you don't prove your own affirmation - concerning this very thread, Sarmatians and Alans, close enough, seems for auDNA - if I rely upon the document in this thread - being in an intermediate position between North Near-Eastern, North South-Asia and North Steppes - and we cannot assure they are direct descendants of former PIE speakers; they could very well be acculturated people at least partly, acculturated from where by who? that 's the question! I think the "urheimat" of PIE is not very far from this whole region, but where precisely? North or south Caucasus? or East Caspian?

 

[MOESAN]

@Angela




Another surprising thing in Genetiker's runs of K=17 admixtures is that Copper and Bronze Age samples from El Portalon cave all have between 2 and 5% of Bushman-and-Pygmy admixture, except the unusual ATP20 which has 0% but 28% of Veddoid, 8% of Negroid and 7.8% of Amerindian) and ATP2 which has a stunning 28% of sub-Saharan African (14% of Bushman-and-Pygmy + 12.47% Western-Negroid + 1.42% Eastern-Negroid) ! The modern Basques are almost 100% European in admixtures, so how do their presumed ancestors show up with such high non-European admixture ?



Some of these samples are of very low quality; I think caution is advised in drawing hard and fast conclusions from them.
Just generally, ancient samples sometimes turn up some SSA. It is not, however, the case that the EEF turn up SSA at levels higher than other ancient samples. In fact, it's sometimes the opposite.Take a look at the results for K7 and K12 for the WHG vs the EEF, for example. The highest SSA is actually consistently in the Ajvide samples, although, as I said, I don't think we should make too much of these kinds of results in such old samples.

my answer to Angela's answer!
Genetiker has hos own conception for auDNA poolings and his analysis about this old Chalcolithic and Bronze Age spanish samples is partly made inaccurate for the low coverage of DNA; but ATP2 has a not so bad coverage and its results for DIVERSE and consequent amount of SSA DNA doesn't seem to me being not reliable at first sight: so a man - or his gran'father and Cy - having mated with African DNA rich people? not impossible for some prospectors (pioneers)...
that said OK for other SSA DNA among very old samples: under 3%: noise for the most or - why not? - archaic auDNA (I've as other European have): even if we can be cautious about ancient DNA, all the very ancient (40000 to 20000 BC) samples show a big diversity, and african and and amerindian and oceanian auDNA: is that only a mistake???

 

[Maciamo]

Here are the complete Y-DNA and mtDNA results of the Alan and Sarmatian samples tested in this study.

 

[Angela]

@Angela




Another surprising thing in Genetiker's runs of K=17 admixtures is that Copper and Bronze Age samples from El Portalon cave all have between 2 and 5% of Bushman-and-Pygmy admixture, except the unusual ATP20 which has 0% but 28% of Veddoid, 8% of Negroid and 7.8% of Amerindian) and ATP2 which has a stunning 28% of sub-Saharan African (14% of Bushman-and-Pygmy + 12.47% Western-Negroid + 1.42% Eastern-Negroid) ! The modern Basques are almost 100% European in admixtures, so how do their presumed ancestors show up with such high non-European admixture ?



Some of these samples are of very low quality; I think caution is advised in drawing hard and fast conclusions from them.
Just generally, ancient samples sometimes turn up some SSA. It is not, however, the case that the EEF turn up SSA at levels higher than other ancient samples. In fact, it's sometimes the opposite.Take a look at the results for K7 and K12 for the WHG vs the EEF, for example. The highest SSA is actually consistently in the Ajvide samples, although, as I said, I don't think we should make too much of these kinds of results in such old samples.

my answer to Angela's answer!
Genetiker has hos own conception for auDNA poolings and his analysis about this old Chalcolithic and Bronze Age spanish samples is partly made inaccurate for the low coverage of DNA; but ATP2 has a not so bad coverage and its results for DIVERSE and consequent amount of SSA DNA doesn't seem to me being not reliable at first sight: so a man - or his gran'father and Cy - having mated with African DNA rich people? not impossible for some prospectors (pioneers)...
that said OK for other SSA DNA among very old samples: under 3%: noise for the most or - why not? - archaic auDNA (I've as other European have): even if we can be cautious about ancient DNA, all the very ancient (40000 to 20000 BC) samples show a big diversity, and african and and amerindian and oceanian auDNA: is that only a mistake???

You're right, ATP2 has better coverage. It's certainly possible that this was a case of recent admixture. Every sample has to be looked at individually. I was mainly just expressing my sense that when we're dealing with ancient samples the calculators sometimes have difficulty assigning alleles to the available "modern" groups.

I think there might be a clue in the fact that, contrary to the assertion that was made, many EEF samples show less SSA in many calculators than do the European hunter gatherers. This might be because the EEF samples still cluster within modern European populations (i.e.the Sardinians) and very close to other southern European populations. The European hunter-gatherers, on the other hand, are outside the range of modern genetic variation, and the calculators may have more difficulty with those alleles because of that. After all, some of those H/G samples aren't all that much older than the EEF ones in central Europe, for example.

These are just some musings, though...You may be right and it's a function of the age of the samples and "unblended" archaic SSA. We'll see how more ancient dna and perhaps better methodology illuminates this in the future. I'll be very interested to see what signals are picked up in the ancient Anatolian samples of the upcoming Lazaridis paper. They might be different to some degree from the majority of the European farmers.

 

[MOESAN]

This maps are pure speculation. How can you draw an genetic map before the Iron Age?

They found some 'East Eurasian' / Mongloid haplogroups among the Scythians, like mtDNA F2a and mtDNA D.

THis map I think is based upon metric phenotypes analysis - but it seems correct concerning the LITTLE aDNA we have for these regions, as a whole - except in Altai and Ienissei regions, the 'east-asian' (N and S) aDNA seems almost completely absent before Iron Age - and Scythians were firstly known about the 700/600 BC, what is Iron Age, I think... I avow I'm a bit amazed and made admirative by rhe Tomenable capacity to accumulate documentation: no sleeping??? LOL

 

[Alan]

Additional informations brought up by the User Arame

Also a person with the nickname Fire on the Russian molgen claims that he has viewed the STRs of Alanian and Sarmatians samples. In he's opinion they look like Iranian and West Indian. Also he thinks that the J1 doesn't look like Caucasian Z1828. But of course it is just a speculation on STRs.
They hope they will have more SNPs for better classification.

Sounds very much like the Sarmatian and Alan show close similarities to modern Indo_Iranic groups. That doesn't mean they are are identical. But possibly they had more of the Gedrosia component. Also the J1 sample doesn't seem to be the sort we find in modern Caucasian groups but of the type found in modern Indo-Iranians. Possibly some sort of J1b?
That pretty much confirms that the J1 is not something they took up in the North Caucasus/Steppes but rather brought with them.


Also another thing I catched up

I do not yet have data on SNP Z2124 Alan
We know that part of Alan Z94 and Z95 plus plus
The only full sovpadenets Alan negative on the Z2123
and has the SNIP
Z94 Plus
And these negative
CTS3605-, L657-, F2997-, F1345- CTS8448-, CTS6-, CTS3412-, Z2123-,



Alan and Sarmatians on the STR markers of the western India and from the western border of Iran

Could this be another indiciation in favor of Herodotus story of Sarmatian-Alan origin from Media?

 

[Alan]

Additional informations brought up by the User Arame

Also a person with the nickname Fire on the Russian molgen claims that he has viewed the STRs of Alanian and Sarmatians samples. In he's opinion they look like Iranian and West Indian. Also he thinks that the J1 doesn't look like Caucasian Z1828. But of course it is just a speculation on STRs.
They hope they will have more SNPs for better classification.

Sounds very much like the Sarmatian and Alan show close similarities to modern Iranic groups. That doesn't mean they are are identical. But possibly they had more of the Gedrosia component. Also the J1 sample doesn't seem to be the sort we find in modern Caucasian groups but of the type found in modern Iranic people. Possibly some sort of J1b?
That pretty much confirms that the J1 is not something they took up in the North Caucasus/Steppes but rather brought with them.


Also another thing I catched up

I do not yet have data on SNP Z2124 Alan
We know that part of Alan Z94 and Z95 plus plus
The only full sovpadenets Alan negative on the Z2123
and has the SNIP
Z94 Plus
And these negative
CTS3605-, L657-, F2997-, F1345- CTS8448-, CTS6-, CTS3412-, Z2123-,



Alan and Sarmatians on the STR markers of the south-western India and from the western border of Iran

Could this be another indiciation in favor of Herodotus story of Sarmatian-Alan origin from Media?