Bashkirs: What Subclades of R1b Were They?

elghund

Banned
Messages
167
Reaction score
27
Points
28
Ethnic group
Appalachian American
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b1b2a1a
mtDNA haplogroup
J1c1
Looking at the charts here, I see Bashkirs were 47% R1b. Is there any info on what subclades of R1b they were?
 
A mix of R1b1b1 (M73), R1b1b2 (M269) and R1b1b2a (L23) based on the R1b study by Myres et al.

Lobov et al. (in Russian only) has the haplogroup distribution for the Bashkirs in 8 locations. R1b-M73 ranges from 0% to 55%. R1b-M269 ranges from 0% to 84%. The sample sizes are small for each group, so it may not be representative.
 
Last edited:
Bashkirs are mostly L23 with some M73 and U152.

That comes as a surprise... can you cite a source for this find of U152 amongs the Bashkirs? It would be pretty unexpected to find U152 as far east as the Volga region.
 
That comes as a surprise... can you cite a source for this find of U152 amongs the Bashkirs? It would be pretty unexpected to find U152 as far east as the Volga region.

Unfortunately the paper from which I have taken this information is in Russian. As far as I know the presence of U152 in Bashkirs is due to some recent migration ~ 200-300 ago. U152 was found mainly in Bashkirs from the Perm region (up to 80% of all the population).
 
Break down for R1b subclades in Bashkirs

n* M73 M269(xL23) L23(xM412) U152

South-East Baskkirs 329 77 8 106 2

West Bashkirs 54 0 0 0 0

South Bashkirs 79 0 2 9 1

North Bashkirs 70 1 0 2 50

Southe-West Baskkirs 51 1 0 0 0

Total 586 79 10 126 53

* number of sample Bashkirs
 
Very interesting, thanks for sharing the details. Unfortunately the sample size is fairly low (except for the Southeastern Bashkirs). I agree however that the interpretation of a fairly recent migration (for U152 in the northern Bashkirs) is the most likely expalanation.
 
In my opinion, the Bashkirs R1b descend directly from the Bronze-age Proto-Indo-Europeans. The only place where both M73 and M269 are both common is around the Caucasus and Anatolia. Based on my theory of the PIE moving to the Pontic steppes in the Neolithic, the first steppe invaders would have belonged to both M73 and M269, although the latter would have been much more dominant. It is possible that all the subclades as far as S116 and even S28/U152 developed in the steppes before migrating to Europe. The Bashkirs could represent the last leftovers from these PIE R1b, who would later been overwhelmed by neighbouring R1a from further north and east.
 
That comes as a surprise... can you cite a source for this find of U152 amongs the Bashkirs? It would be pretty unexpected to find U152 as far east as the Volga region.

Taranis,
Myres et al clearly showed that S28 is represented among the Bashkirs. In fact in her sample from Bashkortostan, Russia, 70% of the men tested positive for S28.
It seems that S28 appeared in that region around 10000BC, just before the migration down the Volga to Ukraine; so we are talking here about the ancestors of the PIE.

I also found a series of articles showing that the caves of that area were inhabited from 14000 to 10000 years ago.

My assumption is that R1b appeared in northern Pakistan just under the tundra line during the ice age. (Myres et al also showed r1b in that region).
After the ice age, most r1b moved north to Bashkortostan, while a few moved west toward the middle east.
 
Taranis,
Myres et al clearly showed that S28 is represented among the Bashkirs. In fact in her sample from Bashkortostan, Russia, 70% of the men tested positive for S28.
It seems that S28 appeared in that region around 10000BC, just before the migration down the Volga to Ukraine; so we are talking here about the ancestors of the PIE.

I also found a series of articles showing that the caves of that area were inhabited from 14000 to 10000 years ago.

My assumption is that R1b appeared in northern Pakistan just under the tundra line during the ice age. (Myres et al also showed r1b in that region).
After the ice age, most r1b moved north to Bashkortostan, while a few moved west toward the middle east.

Sorry Bertrand, but this scenario that you present is completely impossible. The date of 10,000BC that you give is is far in excess of the generally estimated age of S28 (~3,500 YBP). You also have to consider the general distribution of S28 (France, southern Central Europe, Italy), from which the Bashkirs are a clear outlyer. I do however agree with Maciamo that the Bashkirs in general and the other R1b lineages from the sample excluding S28 are probably old.
 
In my opinion, the Bashkirs R1b descend directly from the Bronze-age Proto-Indo-Europeans. The only place where both M73 and M269 are both common is around the Caucasus and Anatolia. Based on my theory of the PIE moving to the Pontic steppes in the Neolithic, the first steppe invaders would have belonged to both M73 and M269, although the latter would have been much more dominant. It is possible that all the subclades as far as S116 and even S28/U152 developed in the steppes before migrating to Europe. The Bashkirs could represent the last leftovers from these PIE R1b, who would later been overwhelmed by neighbouring R1a from further north and east.
Bashkist are Turkic people. They do look like northern Turkic people and they do speak a Turkic language.

I don't think that R1b is PIE.
 
Bashkist are Turkic people. They do look like northern Turkic people and they do speak a Turkic language.

I don't think that R1b is PIE.

Turkish people speak a Turkic language too, but only a small percentage of their haplogroup is truly Turkic. Read this please. R1b in the Volga was probably there long before Turkic speakers arrived, but were absorbed, like any other haplogroups in other Turkic-speaking regions outside Northeast Asia.
 
Turkish people speak a Turkic language too, but only a small percentage of their haplogroup is truly Turkic. Read this please. R1b in the Volga was probably there long before Turkic speakers arrived, but were absorbed, like any other haplogroups in other Turkic-speaking regions outside Northeast Asia.
To many non-Indo-European speakers belong to R1b! Turkic speakers in Russia, Semitic speaking Assyrians in West Asia. African population in Africa etc. I don't understand why you do still think that R1b is proto-IE. There's absolutely no proof for it. And no renowned scientists supports this idea. R1b is more archaic and has nothing to do with IE folks in particular.
 
To many non-Indo-European speakers belong to R1b! Turkic speakers in Russia, Semitic speaking Assyrians in West Asia. African population in Africa etc. I don't understand why you do still think that R1b is proto-IE. There's absoutely no proof for it. And no renowned scientists supports this idea. R1b is more archaic and has nothing to do with IE folks in particular.

The same can be said about J2 and R1a Too many non Indo-European Semites share J2, too many non Indo European Indians share R1a.
 
The same can be said about J2 and R1a Too many non Indo-European Semites share J2, too many non Indo European Indians share R1a.
? Everybody knows that Indo-European (Aryans) invaded India. Indic people ARE Indo-European speakers! And it's a well known fact that Indo-Europeans have been living in the Mesopotamia for thousands years. You can only find R1a very frequent among the only non-Indo-Europeans the Turkic speaking people. But we all know that these Turkic speakers assimilated many Indo-European speaking Iranic races.
There's no R1a in Africa...
 
? Everybody knows that Indo-European (Aryans) invaded India. Indic people ARE Indo-European speakers! And it's a well known fact that Indo-Europeans have been living in the Mesopotamia for thousands years. You can only find R1a very frequent among the only non-Indo-Europeans the Turkic speaking people. But we all know that these Turkic speakers assimilated many Indo-European speaking Iranic races.
There's no R1a in Africa...

Many of the R1a among the non Indo European Indians is older than the lineage brought by Indo Europeans. The same in Central Asia. Not every R1a has to do with Indo Europeans.

If you explain every R1a among non Indo European people with influence of Indo Europeans, than we can also explain the distribution of R1b among non Indo Europeans exactly the same way. R1b among Assyrians for example is most probably due influence of Armenians. It almost seems like todays Assyrians are Assyrified Armenians. Genetically they are almost not distinguishable. R1b found in Africa is the product of back migration from West Eurasia.
 
too many non Indo European Indians share R1a.
Didn't you contradict yourself? I always thought that Indians are contained in Indo part in "Indo-European" name.
 
Many of the R1a among the non Indo European Indians is older than the lineage brought by Indo Europeans. The same in Central Asia. Not every R1a has to do with Indo Europeans.

If you explain every R1a among non Indo European people with influence of Indo Europeans, than we can also explain the distribution of R1b among non Indo Europeans exactly the same way. R1b among Assyrians for example is most probably due influence of Armenians. It almost seems like todays Assyrians are Assyrified Armenians. Genetically they are almost not distinguishable. R1b found in Africa is the product of back migration from West Eurasia.
OK. You're right.
R1a and R1b are much older than the whole proto-IE language! But I do truly believe that spreaders of this language carried also R1a with them. And I'm not sure about R1b. It's possible that IE language in Europe is due to J2a and R1a folks. That these folks introduced IE languages to native Europeans when they migrated into Europe. But the original Indo-European are assimilated nowadays by the natives of Europe.

Indians are Indo-Europeans. All Indian R1a subclades are Indo-European! Many Indian-centric folks believe that proto-IE are from India! They hate and don't support the Aryan invasion into India theory.

Armenians do speak an IE language and theoretically they're Indo-Europeans, but they are actually descendants of non-Indo-European Urartu.
 
Didn't you contradict yourself? I always thought that Indians are contained in Indo part in "Indo-European" name.

India is made up of two linguistic groups.
1. Indo-European speakers
2. non Indo-European speakers.

with non Indo-European Indians, I mean the Indians who do not belong into the linguistic Indo-European family
 

This thread has been viewed 57887 times.

Back
Top