Yamnayan decline

Can you find this successful branch of R1a-snp from Ukraine or Sintashta-Arkaim, in modern day Iranian language from Ossetian region?
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Ossetian?iframe=yresults
Or Jaszjsag project?
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Jaszsag/default.aspx?section=yresults

I still don't know which part you disagree with and why - Do you think that Yamnayan DNA continued to thrive/predominate in the Steppe? (If so, what are its thriving yDNA and aDNA branches, and where is it located?) Do you alternatively think the Steppe was evacuated after Yamnaya? Or do you think that R1a lineages and Corded Ware-like autosomal DNA did not increase in the region?

I'm also not sure what your question is getting at - relating the question of Yamnayan decline to the modern day, to the Iranian language and to Ossetia. If you could explain, it might help me understand.

This thread all stems from analysis of ancient Steppe samples, which show (i) a movement away from R1b finds and towards R1a finds, and (ii) a major movement away from Yamnayan autosomal mixes and towards autosomal mixes typical of predominantly R1a-M417 populations.

I'm not saying these changes have remained the same until the current day. Indeed, Z93 has developed substantially since then, and I estimate that its modern lineages coalesce to the Western Caspian and spread out massively - mainly southwards and eastwards - from there. I have not analysed where its populations' autosomal DNA most likely spread since then, nor am I sure we have sufficient data to do so with any confidence.

 
I'll accept it being called a peter-out, rather than a decline. Whether they, their ancestors or a neighbouring people were the substantial influencers of language and culture is still an open question in my view. The genetics is a different matter - it appears that not only the Yamnayan yDNA lineages, but also their typical autosomal mixes, declined or petered out in the Steppe to be replaced predominantly with R1a lineages, autosomal mixes typical of R1a populations and some additional Northern and Siberian DNA.

I see Yamnayan (autosomal) DNA not as dying out per se, but certainly as shrivelling on the Steppe, and as partly regenerating in other regions like the Southern Caucasus and the Eastern Baltic.

When the Yamnaya moved out, following the 4.2 ka "cold snap", others moved in. So?

Yamnaya weren't exclusively R1b, if that was their "core" haplogroup, but were, on the steppes, already admixed with R1a and other haplogroups. R1b does "pile up" in western Europe, so can't be said to have been superseded by later "paternities". The eastern migrations are more complicated, with R1a-dominant Indo-Iranians figuring in the mix. I'd argue that "founder effects" are more likely in central Asia than in western Europe.
 
When the Yamnaya moved out, following the 4.2 ka "cold snap", others moved in. So?
The indications from autosomal data is that this is not what happened. Firstly, Yamnayan populations mixed with others who had moved into their homeland some time before the cold snap, then they became the minority, then they were replaced by entirely different populations.

Yamnaya weren't exclusively R1b, if that was their "core" haplogroup, but were, on the steppes, already admixed with R1a and other haplogroups.
Yes, but I am looking at the typical Yamnayan autosomal mix that links Yamnayan populations in Central Russia, Southern Russia, Ukraine and the Balkans and some Corded Ware populations in the North East. Regardless of yDNA, this autosomal mix ceases to fit subsequent populations to any substantial degree, apart from in the Eastern Baltic.

R1b does "pile up" in western Europe, so can't be said to have been superseded by later "paternities".
I've avoided returning to the subject of western R1b, which I believe predominantly pre-dates what is generally understood as Yamnaya. Instead, I am referring solely to the East, where it appears that Yamnayan DNA withered.

The eastern migrations are more complicated, with R1a-dominant Indo-Iranians figuring in the mix.
I'm not sure I would go with the term Indo-Iranians, which could mislead people into thinking that the underlying population originated in India and Iran, when it had components from both Eastern Europe and Siberia, and also had an early presence in Anatolia and the Middle East.

I'd argue that "founder effects" are more likely in central Asia than in western Europe.
I'm not looking at founder effects, just referencing Silesian's chart, which shows two branches of Z2109 in "Europa" and only one in "Yamnaya".
 
I still don't know which part you disagree with and why - Do you think that Yamnayan DNA continued to thrive/predominate in the Steppe? (If so, what are its thriving yDNA and aDNA branches, and where is it located?) Do you alternatively think the Steppe was evacuated after Yamnaya? Or do you think that R1a lineages and Corded Ware-like autosomal DNA did not increase in the region?

I'm also not sure what your question is getting at - relating the question of Yamnayan decline to the modern day, to the Iranian language and to Ossetia. If you could explain, it might help me understand.

This thread all stems from analysis of ancient Steppe samples, which show (i) a movement away from R1b finds and towards R1a finds, and (ii) a major movement away from Yamnayan autosomal mixes and towards autosomal mixes typical of predominantly R1a-M417 populations.

I'm not saying these changes have remained the same until the current day. Indeed, Z93 has developed substantially since then, and I estimate that its modern lineages coalesce to the Western Caspian and spread out massively - mainly southwards and eastwards - from there. I have not analysed where its populations' autosomal DNA most likely spread since then, nor am I sure we have sufficient data to do so with any confidence.


uoUaIfWpmsLDaFtI-Region.png


Do you know the distance between modern day Burzyan Bashkirs who's R1b-Z2103>KMS67 marker can be found 5000YBP+/-in the exact same location; and the fortified settlements of Arkaim-Sintashta culture?
Do you think the majority of male settlers in Arkaim-Sintashta culture belonged to R1a? If so, how do you explain the higher percentage of Yamnaya descendant's in the region [in above sample 33%R1b-Yamnaya derived versus 31%R1a]?
From_Corded_Ware_to_Sintashta.jpg
 
Do you know the distance between modern day Burzyan Bashkirs who's R1b-Z2103>KMS67 marker can be found 5000YBP+/-in the exact same location; and the fortified settlements of Arkaim-Sintashta culture?
Do you think the majority of male settlers in Arkaim-Sintashta culture belonged to R1a? If so, how do you explain the higher percentage of Yamnaya descendant's in the region [in above sample 33%R1b-Yamnaya derived versus 31%R1a]?
I don't see how these questions answer any of the questions I asked you.
Where is the evidence that modern day Baskirs are KMS67 (I only know of one) and that the 5,000 BP sample was KMS67?
The Sintashta samples I've seen have all been R1a, and have no Yamnaya autosomal component, almost entirely matching R1a samples to the West.
I have seen no data to enable a firm assessment of whether these R1b Bashkirs of unidentified subclades are Yamnaya-derived. All I can say is that modern Bashkirs look only about 7 per cent Yamnayan autosomally, so I would presume that at unidentified points between 3,000 BC and now R1b male lineages have thrived relative to the overall populations from which they descended.
 
I'm not looking at founder effects, just referencing Silesian's chart, which shows two branches of Z2109 in "Europa" and only one in "Yamnaya".

You brought up founder effects to explain the prevalence of R1b in western Europe, but seem to be deaf to them in regard to R1a in central and southern Asia. Much lower population density in central Asia made it a much more likely incubator of founder effects (and drift) than in western Europe, which had much higher population densities dating from the neolithic.
 
You brought up founder effects to explain the prevalence of R1b in western Europe, but seem to be deaf to them in regard to R1a in central and southern Asia. Much lower population density in central Asia made it a much more likely incubator of founder effects (and drift) than in western Europe, which had much higher population densities dating from the neolithic.
It's not that I'm deaf to founder effects, just that I wanted to stick to the theme of the thread (Yamnayan decline), rather than getting sidetracked into Yamnayan formation.
I was just saying that if there are 3 branches of a SNP, only one of which was Eastern, this doesn't demonstrate that the Eastern location was necessarily the origin point.
 
Data suggests a decline or collapse of Yamnayan populations in the Central Steppe during the late third millennium BC, and its replacement by (for want of a better expression) Indo-Aryan types, approximately as below:
Samara 3,000 BC -100% Yamnayan
to Poltavka 2,400 BC - 60% Yamnayan
to Potapovka 2,200 BC - 30% Yamnayan
to Sintashta 2,000 BC - 1% Yamnayan

Does anyone have any data or other information/suggestions about this?

Do the results remain the same if you use Srubnaya instead of Sintashta? The bulk of Sintashta was in present-day Kazakhstan east of Caspian sea, not exactly the "focal point" of Yamnaya. Is there any difference as to the Yamnaya affinity between Srubnaya and Sintashta?

Also, from a linguistic point of view, it is interesting to consider that some linguists in the past suggested that it was possible that Cimmerian might have been a sort of middle-ground branch between Daco-Thracian and Indo-Iranian. Furthermore, Hellenic, Armenian, Phrygian and others also seem to have shared many common innovations and are considered by some to be among the last to Split and evolve in complete independence from the "core" dialect continuum of PIE. Almost all of those language families were historically Balkanic (or arguably so, in the case of Armenian), except for Indo-Iranian (which also has many parallels to Balto-Slavic - an interesting position, considering it's also assumed to have shared some close relationship with pre-Greek and pre-Armenian, perhaps when it was still expanding back onto the steppes).

Therefore, isn't it possible that there was a massive southward displacement of the direct successors to Yamnaya (Potapovka/Catacomb), colonizing new lands in the Balkans and maybe also parts of the Caucasus, and therefore avoiding the increasing pressure of the mostly CWC-derived Sintashta/Srubnaya/Andronovo? Proto-Greek was probably spoken around 2500-2000 B.C. and probably arrived in Greece just a few centuries later, possibly not reaching Greece directly from the steppes. Could the Balkans have become the new homeland of the steppe Yamnaya people (their cultural and genetic heirs)?
 
If Sarmatians and Scythians were eastern tribes, as many believe, I wonder why they would have named the western rivers as the near ones and the eastern rivers as the far ones. The suggestion from etymology is perhaps that the originators of these names lived near to the westernmost of these rivers - the Danube?.

Not that their ancestors also came from the east, but it is very probable that the names of those rivers were taken from Scythian tribes (Sarmatians came a bit later) that were already well established in the westernmost part of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in close contact with the other peoples who really lent those hydronyms to us. It's unlikely they all still had a sense of belonging to just one ethnic community and having the same origin after centuries of expansion in heavily tribal and patriarcal societies without much complex, long distance political organization. They could well have derived from eastern tribes (in turn derived from an eastward movement of western people i.e. pre-Sintashta and pre-Srubnaya ancestral tribes), but those that named those rivers as "the near ones" and "the far ones" were the ones that were to become firmly established in the westernmost part of the steppe - and the way the peoples to their east named those rivers went simply unknown to us, because they had next to no direct and regular influence on the peoples outside the steppes in Eastern Europe. We shouldn't assume those people spoke a uniform dialect and named their rivers or landscapes in the same way just because they might've been linguistically and genetically similar.
 
It is said that Danubius was the Thracian and Ister the Celtic name of this river; but it seems most probable that DAN is the same word which is found in Eridanus, Rhodanus, Tanais, and the more modern names of Don, Dnieper, and Dniester, and signifies water. Adelung says that Dan-ubius means the "upper water," and Dan-ister "the lower water," and in the later Roman period it was common to apply the name of Danubius to the upper course of the river, and the name of Ister to the lower course. According to Klaproth the word "don" signifying water is still retained in the language of the Ossetes in Caucasus who are a remnant of the Alans of the middle ages.

https://books.google.com/books?id=G...page&q=dniester "dan-ister" -"isteri"&f=false

Note also the significance of "Danaus" in Greek mythology, who lent his name as the patronym of the Danai or Danaans (or Argives), a term that Homer used to refer to the Greeks generally, although they dislocated his origination to another major river, the Nile. Belus, king of Egypt, a son of Poseidon, sired twin sons, Egyptus, who became King of Egypt, and Danaus, who became king of first Libya, then Argos. The Indo-European root, bel-, means "strong" and is likely the root of bellicose (ME), bellicus/bellum (L). (Note the significance of the "divine twins" in Roman and Celtic mythology.) Note also that Danae, daughter of Acrisias, King of Argos, was the mother of the hero Perseus (sired by Zeus), the slayer of the Gorgon Medusa and purported founder of the city of Mycenae. See The New Century Classical Handbook: https://amzn.to/2O3MdXR.
 
Do the results remain the same if you use Srubnaya instead of Sintashta? The bulk of Sintashta was in present-day Kazakhstan east of Caspian sea, not exactly the "focal point" of Yamnaya. Is there any difference as to the Yamnaya affinity between Srubnaya and Sintashta?

Also, from a linguistic point of view, it is interesting to consider that some linguists in the past suggested that it was possible that Cimmerian might have been a sort of middle-ground branch between Daco-Thracian and Indo-Iranian. Furthermore, Hellenic, Armenian, Phrygian and others also seem to have shared many common innovations and are considered by some to be among the last to Split and evolve in complete independence from the "core" dialect continuum of PIE. Almost all of those language families were historically Balkanic (or arguably so, in the case of Armenian), except for Indo-Iranian (which also has many parallels to Balto-Slavic - an interesting position, considering it's also assumed to have shared some close relationship with pre-Greek and pre-Armenian, perhaps when it was still expanding back onto the steppes).

Therefore, isn't it possible that there was a massive southward displacement of the direct successors to Yamnaya (Potapovka/Catacomb), colonizing new lands in the Balkans and maybe also parts of the Caucasus, and therefore avoiding the increasing pressure of the mostly CWC-derived Sintashta/Srubnaya/Andronovo? Proto-Greek was probably spoken around 2500-2000 B.C. and probably arrived in Greece just a few centuries later, possibly not reaching Greece directly from the steppes. Could the Balkans have become the new homeland of the steppe Yamnaya people (their cultural and genetic heirs)?
Possibly - there's a lot to think about here! I'm pretty busy, but will check Srubnaya and Bronze Age Greece when I get the time.
 
Do the results remain the same if you use Srubnaya instead of Sintashta? The bulk of Sintashta was in present-day Kazakhstan east of Caspian sea, not exactly the "focal point" of Yamnaya. Is there any difference as to the Yamnaya affinity between Srubnaya and Sintashta?
No, I've checked Srubnaya,and cannot find any good fits with Yamnayan contributions here either.

Therefore, isn't it possible that there was a massive southward displacement of the direct successors to Yamnaya (Potapovka/Catacomb), colonizing new lands in the Balkans and maybe also parts of the Caucasus, and therefore avoiding the increasing pressure of the mostly CWC-derived Sintashta/Srubnaya/Andronovo? Proto-Greek was probably spoken around 2500-2000 B.C. and probably arrived in Greece just a few centuries later, possibly not reaching Greece directly from the steppes. Could the Balkans have become the new homeland of the steppe Yamnaya people (their cultural and genetic heirs)?
Looking at autosomal fits, yes. Late Bronze Age Greece looks most like about 84% indigenous Greek/South Balkans with 16% mixed Southern Steppe Yamnaya/Armenian EBA. Any thoughts on whether the Southern Yamnayan/Armenian EBA contributors would have been minor players or significant influences in the region?
 
I would estimate that Yamnayans were largely displaced by R1a populations during the late 3rd millennium BC, and probably became minor genetic contributors to various peripheral Bronze Age populations in the Eastern Baltic, Greece, Armenia and perhaps East of the Urals.
 
hello bot! Maciamo is not getting enough money from the adds in the forum by less human visits? how is your daily work? just 10 posts a day... and the next day you come as a new registered that will post 10 dumb sentences... well, ok, a human poster less today
 

This thread has been viewed 18963 times.

Back
Top