Just the opposite (R1a, R1b, IE)

[Athiudisc]

why IE being in the steppes had words for:

squirrel
boar
red deer
salmon/trout
bear

All of these live across the steppe, don't they? Wouldn't this be evidence for, rather than against, a steppe origin of IE?

R1b...recorded in Italy just some 2000 years after the R1b formation... and without any steppe track

I think R1b is a bit older, but assuming we're talking about the same sample and a "steppe track," there's some debate about that. Quoting, here:

I've been running a lot of Treemix analyses with the samples from the recent Qiaomei Fu et al. paper. And the impression I'm getting is that the authors missed the elephant in the room, the one with R1b painted on its big butt.

...

- Villabruna is a sister clade of the earlier European Vestonice clade, but with significant input from an AfontovaGora3-related North Eurasian population, perhaps one that was living north of the Black Sea after the Kostenki people went the way of the dodo

- Hence, the R1b lineage carried by Villabruna I9030, the individual in this Treemix series, probably comes from the Eurasian steppe

What sample are we talking about?

Both Sintashta and Andronovo have provided R1a Y-DNA results, and no R1b yet.

But both Yamna and Corded Ware have provided R1b, so...

 

[MOESAN]

Germanic it's already linked to CW, as the extension of such culture includes Slavic and Baltic and such groups are the first to branch with Germanic, so a linguistic drift from a common source is expected; that also goes well with archaeology, as the first agriculturalists were Funnelbeaker with megaliths, but around 2900 BC came CW / Battle Axe culture with metals and kurgans, from such culture derived the Nordic Bronze Age, then the Nordic Iron Age / Jastorf, till appearing the Vikings in the area. Paleogenetics fit well also the case: HG were I2, a Funnelbeaker case was also I2, but then a CW was R1a, in the period of transit between Battle Axe and Bronze Age results were R1a, R1b, I1, as to have in the Nordic Bronze Age two R1b and a I1. As R1b is linked to the west, to western clades and to Bell Beaker, it's difficult to take it as Indoeuropean (but could be an Indoeuropaized BB), the linguistic change to Germanic only can be given for R1a with such data.

For Tocharian it takes very long from the R1a Tarim mummies to the attested Tocharian A and B, but as such languages come from a common Tocharian such old language might be older, and as I don't know of cultural breaks in the region it's to suppose that the carriers of proto-Tocharian were the "mummies".

Theories can be right till they can't dribble more known facts, so let's see how long such idea could go on in my head...

I'm sure of nothing. But I think the relative proximity of Germanic and Slavic concerning words (not their pronounciation at all) is more the result of relative geographical closeness than a genealogic origin. I made the hypothesis CWC could have spoken a proto-satem I-Ean language, without proof it's true. based upon the fact that some strata of I-Ean vaguely satem words exist in Saami's language, according to some specialists. And Y-R1a seems old in Scandinavia, older than a big part of Y-I1. The same people wrote another strata of pre-finnic words existed in Saami finnic, I'm tempted to consider as an Y-I2 heritage (my feminine intuition!). So I don't link too much CWC to proto-germanic at this stage of my meager knowledge. The few Nordic BA people I red about was just a bit less 'mediterranean' (and EEF) than BBs, and more than CWC people. I suppose Jastorf culture is not at all a direct heritage from CWC; I see in it a mix of Funnelbeaker (already a mix where played Long Barrows megalithers and some autochtonous people) + some other I-Ean imput from Bohemia or East Sax surroundings post-CWC (these last non-CWC being rather Y-R1b-U106?). I don't exclude other Y-R1b less numerous, representing a northeastern BBs influence.
concerning BBs and (non)I-Eans, I think the BBs phenomenon is rather badly understood until now, and that Northern BBs (Germany) are maybe almost completely different from the initial BBs of Portugal-South Spain. BBs is an unlevel culturel diffusion with some demic (diverse?) imputs according to times and places. The burying methods seem very diverse, the BBs of Germany and North seeming closer to steppic I-Eans elites ones, at first sight. Spite the recent forwrad steps I still wait for more data...
good night.

 

[MOESAN]

Another fact/problem as to denounce the "tale" of Yamnaya as the source of IE is DNA. Authors of "Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe" state that CW people had around 4/5 of their aDNA from a Yamnaya-like population, impliying a "population turnover". Ok, steppes are less peopled right? Let's deliver 1 milion Yamnayans there, let's suppoose that pre-CW (unhabiting 1/4 of Europe) was peopled by 10 milion people... and then CW get's 4/5 of Yamna genes, all right. The Bronze Age result of all it is that half of the DNA was from Yamnaya, but the unique way to get such relation is an event of plannified extermination or that Yamnayans had an extraordinary procreation rate. In fact as to get the half it would be necessary to exterminate 5000000 pre-CW (simple maths, sorry). If we apply procreation rates, it implies that from a milion Yamnayans we might get some 10 milion in few generations as to have such half. Quite extraordinary both events.

The tale reaches the maximal complexity after reading in "Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia" that:

The close affinity we observe between peoples of Corded Ware and
Sintashta cultures (Extended Data Fig. 2a) suggests similar genetic
sources of the two, which contrasts with previous hypotheses placing
the origin of Sintastha in Asia or the Middle East28. Although we
cannot formally test whether the Sintashta derives directly from an
eastward migration of Corded Ware peoples or if they share common
ancestry with an earlier steppe population, the presence of European
Neolithic farmer ancestry in both the Corded Ware and the Sintashta,
combined with the absence of Neolithic farmer ancestry in the earlier
Yamnaya, would suggest the former being more probable (Fig. 2b and
Extended Data Table 1).
...
The Andronovo culture, which arose
in Central Asia during the later Bronze Age (Fig. 1), is genetically
closely related to the Sintashta peoples (Extended Data Fig. 2c), and
clearly distinct from both Yamnaya and Afanasievo (Fig. 3b and
Extended Data Table 1). Therefore, Andronovo represents a temporal
and geographical extension of the Sintashta gene pool.

Both Sintashta and Andronovo have provided R1a Y-DNA results, and no R1b yet.

You have some arguments, but are we sure that the precise Y-R1A and Y-R1B living at these times in the Steppes were SO DIFFERENT concerning AuDNA??? Y-DNA, as said others here and elsewhere and as you know, is a small part of total DNA But I accord you the "Yamnaya origin" of CWC deserves some caution if we rely on male elites. I would rather say both share an heavy common auDNA ascendance picked in Steppes, perhaps close enough of Forest Steppes.
???

 

[berun]

I think that you might check the habitats of the refered animals: salmon of course is not in the steppes / Black Sea

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lox&allowed_in_frame=0

of course this hinders mainstream indoeuropeanists but they have found the magical solution establishing an old meaning of trout...

the bear as said cannot survive in steppes, i supposed it but wiki says clearly:

With the exception of the polar bear, bears are mostly forest species. Some species, particularly the brown bear, may inhabit or seasonally use other areas, such as alpine scrub or tundra.

red deer is not found now in steppes as I thought but in wiki there is a map that time ago (when?) there were, i don't know if such info is from archaeology or some guessing.

the wiki says about the boar that

The main habitats favoured by boars in Europe are deciduous and mixed forests, with the most favourable areas consisting of forest composed of oak and beech enclosing marshes and meadows

as to give then a map that includes steppes, but the common wild boar is a forest animal (they don't eat grass)

squirrels, they have such tail to keep equilibrium in branches and to jump better between trees, by that the prairie dogs (a kind of "steppe squirels") have normal tails; the common squirrels survive with nuts and by that you find them in forests; i have thought about the possibility to survive in riverine forests but i don't know any tree of such ecosystem giving nuts.

For Villabruna R1a and his cluster, the same author says where you quote "...":

Now, it's true that Treemix output can't be used as unambiguous evidence in support of complex models. That's because in the absence of key samples the algorithm can get exceedingly creative in modeling the available data, sometimes to such extremes that the results might seem absurd.

I don't like to discuss about unsure data, sorry.

But both Yamna and Corded Ware have provided R1b, so...

I was talking about Sintashta and Andronovo, about the two R1b individuals in CW could come from BB neighbours, and what is to take from all it is how is that Yamnaya changed 80% of CW aDNA without delivering any Y-DNA (or two doubious cases), and in it's eastward expansion the result for Yamnaya's Y-DNA is worse as is lacking; some red alarms appear here and there... can you see it?

 

[berun]

MOESAN; the case for satem-like woords in Saami could be the result of contacts with Iranic/Scythian peoples neighboring Uralics, i think there are some papers about it. For the case of diversity in BB... you are right to denounce it, but in the Rhine there was a cultural mix with CW (that even reached Iberia in a backward route)



For aDNA surely they must share a good bit as they were neighbours by centuries, but from a linguistic perspective, the Y-DNA is the DNA bit that could give more info about eventual or massive migrations and hypotetical language spreads.

 

[Athiudisc]

I think that you might check the habitats of the refered animals

Ok.

salmon of course is not in the steppes / Black Sea

Of course not.

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

the bear as said cannot survive in steppes, i supposed it but wiki says clearly

Does it?

In Central Asia, human disturbances are minimal as this area has a harsher environment and is more sparsely populated. In this part of the world, bears may be found in steppe, alpine meadows and even desert edge.

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

So, yes. Steppe bears. If you look at the distribution map, there's clear overlap in Eurasian brown bear habitation range and the northeastern Pontic steppe.

red deer is not found now in steppes as I thought but in wiki there is a map that time ago (when?) there were, i don't know if such info is from archaeology or some guessing.

I don't think the current lack of an animal in the steppe means it never lived there. As for why it's thought they lived there, I believe it's to do with archeological evidence, namely Bug-Dniester materials from the Neolithic. I can't swear it, though, and it's always possible they obtained red deer meat/tools from somewhere else.

the wiki says about the boar that

"Steppe animals include wild boar..."

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

squirrels, they have such tail to keep equilibrium in branches and to jump better between trees, by that the prairie dogs (a kind of "steppe squirels") have normal tails; the common squirrels survive with nuts and by that you find them in forests; i have thought about the possibility to survive in riverine forests but i don't know any tree of such ecosystem giving nuts.

Red squirrels rather obviously live along the northern edge of the Pontic steppe. Why wouldn't steppe-dwellers know of them? That's like saying if there's an IE word for "tree," IE couldn't have come from the steppe...

I don't like to discuss about unsure data, sorry.

Ok.

I was talking about Sintashta and Andronovo, about the two R1b individuals in CW could come from BB neighbours, and what is to take from all it is how is that Yamnaya changed 80% of CW aDNA without delivering any Y-DNA (or two doubious cases), and in it's eastward expansion the result for Yamnaya's Y-DNA is worse as is lacking; some red alarms appear here and there... can you see it?

I see what you're saying, I simply disagree. The only reason I can see for calling CW R1b "dubious" is that your premise is that CW shouldn't have R1b because R1b wasn't IE, despite R1b in Yamna (I doubt those were introduced by BB, for more reasons than simple timing conflicts).

I'm sure one of us will be proven right at some point. Or maybe we're both wrong, somehow. etrified:

 

[Rethel]

If IE culture started in Yamnaya 6kya, it is obvious that not all the R1b and R1a subclades were IEs.

It depends how you define indoeuropeanness.

Even Yamna (which is exaggerated as a "only true
IE") didn't was alone and didnt come from nowhere.

 

[berun]

In fact the Black Sea Salmon is a trout, but if it dwells also in sea i can accept that the salmon proff is dribbled here. For the bear, wikipedia is a good starting point, but not a good place, the statement that brown bears live in steppes is taken from the Lonely Planet book for Russia... if you can provide a better source it would inprove the case that bears can survive in deserts of grass. Yamnaya people knew by sure trees as there are river-trees, but the extension of such culture is not to think easily that they would be acquired with squirels or bears, as they never would have seen other than in the extreme north of their domain, but the other Yamnayans, even if knowing their exstence, would know bear as a kind of big hairy dog and squirels as a kind of tree-mouse or something like that, but that would not explain how in the IE daughter languages the words for such animals were inherited by the same animals.

The only reason I can see for calling CW R1b "dubious" is that your premise is that CW shouldn't have R1b because R1b wasn't IE, despite R1b in Yamna

It's a biased perspective, you give and OK to R1b in CW as you track such culture to Yamnaya; i'm also biased thinking in CW / IE / R1a, because then such R1b in the frontier might be alocton (as they can be), but for the zero point is more easy to have neighbours in CW than Yamnayans from 2000 km.

I'm sure one of us will be proven right at some point. Or maybe we're both wrong, somehow.

Usualy is something in the middle or even an unheard reality, but the good in this science is that it is providing new info very quick.

 

[berun]

I was not aware about Anadoli Klyosov's views but i'm happy that I'm not the unique to see red alarms:

https://translate.google.com/transl...u/2016/04/r1a-migration-2/&edit-text=&act=url

web:
http://www.anatole-klyosov.com/
http://pereformat.ru/klyosov/

 

[Athiudisc]

Klyosov is very fond of theories that nearly everyone else rejects, like his idea that Out of Africa is completely backwards.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

 

[Tomenable]

Wrong thread. Deleted.

 

[MOESAN]

MOESAN; the case for satem-like woords in Saami could be the result of contacts with Iranic/Scythian peoples neighboring Uralics, i think there are some papers about it. For the case of diversity in BB... you are right to denounce it, but in the Rhine there was a cultural mix with CW (that even reached Iberia in a backward route)

View attachment 7732

For aDNA surely they must share a good bit as they were neighbours by centuries, but from a linguistic perspective, the Y-DNA is the DNA bit that could give more info about eventual or massive migrations and hypotetical language spreads.

language: what I wrote is based upon 2 abstracts made by non-linguist scholars, it was rather "reports" or "citations" so without element to discuss them. If I remember well, Alex. Shtrunov spoke about a non-I-E language AS SUBSTRATUM in Finnic of Finland (?) in a text about the Y-I1 and Y-I2a2 present in North Russia East Moskow.
And the the other abstract spoke of 2 SUBSTRATA languages in Finnic of Saami, an I-E one satemlike and a non-I-E one, akin to some kind of proto-Basque.
So: substrata, not loanwords, if they are not wrong 'uneasy to decide, even with data, it's their job) - and we don't know WHERE/WHEN the Saami picked their substrata? when coming through Finland or when they entered in touch with predecessors in Scandinavia? It can change my and your arguments.

auDNA: a lot of first Y-R1a and R1b caould share big amounts of auDNA if they are the ones who stayed a long times around the Steppes: ancient common Y-R1 DNA plus: reinforced common DNA or shared new DNA taken among gemales during their history, f they crossed the same lands at some stage.

 

[berun]

Klyosov is very fond of theories that nearly everyone else rejects, like his idea that Out of Africa is completely backwards.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

The little point here is that science is not a democracy where reality adapts to polling, so I try to prevent the attitude of school youngsters to follow a lider in exchange of security (the same behaviour is seen in many scientists following their favourite "gurus" in exchange of scientific security, or even by fear by their incomes or their degrees). Facts are facts instead what people might think or prefer. What I say is that is so bad a call for authority than a call for majority.

 

[Athiudisc]

I'm sure you didn't mean that to come across as quite so insulting, so I'll proceed on that basis.

No, science isn't a democracy, but in the same vein, nor is it a proper venue for fan fiction. When Klyosov says "R1b founded Sumer," I want evidence that supports such a conclusion. The fact that there doesn't seem to be any isn't indicative of scientific populism or immature behavior amongst, well, anyone. It's just an appraisal of the available information.

In other words, bucking consensus doesn't hold inherent merit in this endeavor. Merit is found in the process, when applied properly. As you said, facts are facts, not what people might prefer. And thus far, the available information suggests the fact that both R1b and R1a, not exclusively one or the other, were intimately involved in the formation and spread of Indo-European languages across Eurasia.

 

[berun]

Well, another "little" red alarm about the steppe R1b.

In "Ancient genomes link early farmers from Atapuerca in Spain to modern-day Basques" there is stated that:

All modern-day Iberian groups displayed ancestry from early farmers and hunter–gatherers and also showed admixture from North
Africa (Fig. 3A, yellow component) (23) and the Caucasus/Central Asia (Fig. 3A, dark purple component), potentially related
to the observed migration during the Bronze Age [Yamnaya > Corded Ware] (24, 25) or the later Roman Empire ruling of Iberia. Basques (including
French Basques) were an exception; they display ancestry from early farmers and hunter–gatherers, similar to other modern-day
Iberian groups,but little or no admixture from North Africa and the Caucasus/Central Asia (1, 23)

Our data suggest that modern-day Basques traced their genetic ancestry to early Iberian farmers.

A possible interpretation of the role of Basque in this scenario would be that it is a descendent of the
language (or one of the languages) of the early farmers, and some scholars have posited that the Basque language was related
to the pre-Roman language of Sardinia (Paleosardo) (32). The two Southern European population isolates of Sardinians and
Basques were genetically associated with the early farmers of Europe that drove the Neolithic transition (1–3),

The incoming early farmers, who could have spoken a non–Indo-European language, assimilated resident
hunter–gatherers, with this admixed group becoming the ancestors of modern-day Iberian groups. Basques remained relatively
isolated (compared with other Iberian groups) with marked continuity since the Neolithic/Chalcolithic period, but not since
the Mesolithic (contrary to refs. 8, 9, and 26). Later migration into Iberia, possibly during the long reign of the Roman Empire
and the 7th to 13th century period of Moorish rule of the peninsula, led to distinct and additional admixture in all Iberian
groups but the Basque population (23).

There were two possible routes to deliver Neolithic genes to the Basque country: the Atlantic one through Portugal, or the Ebro Valley from the Mediterranean (also Languedoc to reach Aquitania and it's old Basque language). But nowadays Basques have one of the most high percentages in R1b, but the paper shows how they have a very low steppe admixture (that even couldn't come from the steppe but mediated by Rome!). Then such paper is giving more problems to relate R1b with IE, and indirectly, to relate the old R1b found in the steppe with IE.

 

[Athiudisc]

How is that in any way a "red alarm" relating to R1b-M269 and IE languages? Basque R1b has extremely low diversity; its presence in Basques is most likely due to a founder effect that didn't require massive admixture with IE groups.

If anything, it seems to strengthen the case for R1b from the east, as the groups with heavy steppe admixture and R1b all spoke Indo-European languages as well. Basques have less steppe-ancestry and lack an Indo-European language, which would hardly be unexpected if their R1b was from a relatively small group of men that provided their paternal lines without leaving much autosomal evidence after thousands of years.

 

[berun]

That basques are high in R1b, but that does not imply that they are the source population as you understand. They were a kind of genetic refugium.

High steppe admuxture and IE matches better for R1a. Could the R1b speak the same language of their brother after 20 millennia?

The last statement about few men changing basque Y DNA must be applied also to all no IE tribes in Iberia. Your last statement in fact is a gross red alarm.

 

[MOESAN]

I'm not so sure as some forumers.
Basques showed surprising peculiarities, not total isolation but rather repeated phases of isolation and recent final isolation, (only intuition) I think.
Even if concerned by Neolithic demic introgressions. By instance their mtDNA is not so Neolithic spite some imput, compared ot Chalcolithic (known) people, and their autosomes show constantly curious links with North Europe populations: here we could say it 's due to more WHG conserved in their genomes. Some admicxtures analysis show nevertheless low level of 'west-asian', and when 'caucasian' is broken down into 'caucasus' and 'gedrosia' Basques show more relative % of 'gedrosia' than Iberians even more than British and Scandinavians. In some others, according to scientists and bloggists, they show some 'steppic' influence I'm tempted to link to part of 'gedrosia'. they show also some ANE even if a bit less than Iberians. But ANE I think was born to Southern Europe by 2 ways, a northern one rather from Steppes, a southern one, rather from South Caucasus/Anatolia, whatever the most remote place of origin IF these ANE parts are the same ones.
In fact I'm not sure Basques had NOT have relation with BBs, but my remembrance is bad on the subject.
Spite it was not my first choice, I wonder if as say Maciamo, Y-R1b among Basques is not from a small group of I-Eans males who did not manage to pass their languages to Basques females. Not my firt choice, I repeat because basques are not people to surrender too quickly to adversaries. All the way these Y-R1b seem come from North in Basque country, under its modern forms. I don't bet concerning Y-R1b-L51+L11.

 

[Athiudisc]

High steppe admuxture and IE matches better for R1a.

Not really. Norway, if I remember correctly, has the highest steppe admixture in Europe (of the populations I recall from the recent series of papers), and R1b outweighs R1a, there. Then Lithuania, which has more R1a, then Iceland (twice as much R1b), Scotland (eight times as much R1b)...

Could the R1b speak the same language of their brother after 20 millennia?

IE languages are unlikely to have existed 20,000 years ago.

The last statement about few men changing basque Y DNA must be applied also to all no IE tribes in Iberia.

Which non-IE tribes in Iberia? I don't believe there are any. The Basques don't speak an Indo-European language, but everyone else does, and all Iberians have steppe ancestry.

Your last statement in fact is a gross red alarm.

I think we must be using the term differently. You mentioned the "Ancient genomes link early farmers from Atapuerca in Spain to modern-day Basques" publication as some sort of "red alarm" towards R1b from the east, but in fact, isn't that the paper that provided us with ATP3, an R1b individual who, unlike the non-R1b individuals tested, had very apparent eastern ancestry? That seems like more of a red alarm against your own theory...

 

[berun]

Not really. Norway, if I remember correctly, has the highest steppe admixture in Europe (of the populations I recall from the recent series of papers), and R1b outweighs R1a, there. Then Lithuania, which has more R1a, then Iceland (twice as much R1b), Scotland (eight times as much R1b)...

In "Excavating past population structures by surname-based sampling: the genetic legacy of the Vikings in northwest England" results for Norway were 30/201 R1b and 35/201 R1a. For Iceland it was a medieval Viking colony. Scotland as Norway based much of their economies on herding so that Y-DNA IE herders would impact more there (if you take per example results from Sweden its R1a doubles R1b...); even more Scotland, was settled by Vikings also. For Lithuania it was a farmer country (high density... so more difficult to change Y-DNA) but R1a is high there.

IE languages are unlikely to have existed 20,000 years ago.

Of course, but the question would be to follow the reasoning: other than R1a and R1b brothers were by 20000 years in the same spot of let say 1000000 km2, R1b or R1a must have learned IE from his bro... and we know that the steppe people were already a mixed population... so R1a or R1b must have learned IE.

Which non-IE tribes in Iberia? I don't believe there are any. The Basques don't speak an Indo-European language, but everyone else does, and all Iberians have steppe ancestry.

Of course there are any, but there were; by memory: cerretani, ausetani, indigetani, ilergetani, sedetani, edetani, contestani, bastetani, cessetani, laietani, laketani, ilauragetani... all such tribes used Iberian language (non-IE) inscriptions. Actual steppe ancestry in Spaniards may come from Celts, Romans and European colonizers in the Reconquista.

but in fact, isn't that the paper that provided us with ATP3, an R1b individual who, unlike the non-R1b individuals tested, had very apparent eastern ancestry? That seems like more of a red alarm against your own theory...

can you give the source for such info? take into account that an individual from Calcholithic Iberia from 3500 BC to have steppe ancestry would change absolutely everything about what it is supposed to be such "steppe ancestry"...