Bashkirs: What Subclades of R1b Were They?

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.

Of course they did. Who did claim the opposite?
 
According to Maciamo proto-IE R1b folks brought Indo-European languages to Europe.

He doesn't make a distinction between R1a and R1b. According to him all R1* is proto-Indo-Europe. But I don't agree with him on that. Sure, R1a and R1b have the same origin but they do have also a different evolution path.

According to him R1* is proto-IE, but why not the more archaic R* (R1* + R2*) or even hg. P* (Q* + R*)?

R1a and R1b are to old to be both proto-Indo-European at the same time!
 
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.

Indo-centrics just like any other centric people talk nonsense. India might have some other non Indo European R1a clades but the same is also the Case for Central Asia. In fact the diversity of R1a in Central Asia is bigger and even in West Asia. And another indication that R did not evolve in India is, from my knowledge there is no R1* in India. R2a former was called and clustered as R1* but in the recent 2-3 years they renamed it into R2. R2 in my opinion played a good role in Indo Europeans too. Especially among Iranic tribes.

Bringing Indo-Europeans as a whole in relation with one Haplogroup is even wrong in my opinion.
 
Indo-centrics just like any other centric people talk nonsense. India might have some other non Indo European R1a clades but the same is also the Case for Central Asia. In fact the diversity of R1a in Central Asia is bigger and even in West Asia. And another indication that R did not evolve in India is, from my knowledge there is no R1* in India. R2a former was called and clustered as R1* but in the recent 2-3 years they renamed it into R2. R2 in my opinion played a good role in Indo Europeans too. Especially among Iranic tribes.

Bringing Indo-Europeans as a whole in relation with one Haplogroup is even wrong in my opinion.
True. proto-Indo-Europeans were not just R* peoples. That's impossible.

But R2 was known as P1.

"Until a few years ago,M124 was actually defined as the marker characterizing Haplogroup “P1”"

http://www.ethnoancestry.com/index_files/index_data/Haplogroup_R2_Manoukian.pdf

Yes, R* is somewhere from Central Asia, because P* and even Q* are from Northcentral Asia.
 
If proto-Indo-European were from Central Asia (East Russia) they would carry R1a, P*, Q* and other native Central Asian haplogroups with them.

If proto-Indo-European were from West Asia they would carry R1a and J2 (+ maybe some Indo-Europeanised R1b and G2a subclades) with them.

If proto-Indo-European were from Northwest Europe, they would carry I1 and R1b with them.

etc.
 
Last edited:
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

Yes I agree, I just couldn't resist commenting on mentioned oxymoron. :)
 
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.

Hello, sorry I was on vacation for a week but I would like to resume this thread because I really believe that S28 originated in the Bashkir area and I would like to try another attempt at convincing you:

Regarding the date of S28, most studies recognize that the current dating method for more recent mutations are unreliable (for those younger than 20,000 years old). Therefore the "guestimate" of 3500BC for S28 is not sufficient to discard my hypothesis. In addition, given the large amount of S28 holders today, a recent age is less likely.
If R1b is 25,000 years old (Myres et al.), S28 must be older than 3500 yrs old given the frequency of this marker in Europe today.

I believe the key to this problem is in the book: "the horse the wheel and language" by David Anthony. Anthony shows very convincingly that:
1) The PIE developed around 4000BC in the steppes of Ukraine
2) language similarities show that they came from the southern ural region after the Ice Age
3) They later evolved into two groups: a western group and an eastern group.
The western group emigrated up the Danube and Dniester (late centum languages around 3000BC) and the eastern group (satem) emigrated up the dnieper and back east toward the Ural and India

If now you map genetic maps to these patterns, it comes pretty clearly that Western PIE were mostly R1b and Eastern PIE were mostly R1a (as shown also by ancient DNA of Tarim mummies.) Therefore, at a time where Western PIE went up the Danube to found celtic and Italic civilizations, i believe it is highly unlikely that some of these (S28) went back to the Bashkir area. Only r1a went back up to the Ural via a reverse migration up the Volga.

I believe it is much more likely that S28 appeared before the emergence of the PIE, at the time when this group came down the Volga on its way to Western Ukranian steppes.
 
There are facts which back up Maciamo's theory of IE expansion, and facts which don't. I think Anthony's (and not only Anthony's!) notion that the IE speech originated in the Eurasian steppes has become practically unassailable. The Anatolian theory is moribund to kaput. It's not just that the linguists have not accepted the Gamkrelidze-Ivanov hypothesis (and never will IMHO-- there's just too much that doesn't work), but also that archaeology militates against it. The unresolved issue (which will remain until plausible aYDNA is recovered sufficiently) is the interplay of R1a, R1b, and other haplogroups in the process of IE expansion. As to minor specifics: Maikop was an important culture on its own, and a significant intermediary to the steppes, but Maikop was not an "imperial" culture. It transmitted certain artifacts (perhaps: the wheel issue is yet unclear). It did not dominate the steppes in any visible way. The route of Maikop cultural influence was actually westward and northwestward (through the Crimea, where pre-Kemi-Oba and Kemi-Oba are offshoots, and of course Lower Mykhajlivka). Usatov(o) which Anthony and others see (possibly erroneously) as ancestral to the Germanic populations) was a successor culture to Lower Mykhajlivka in some important ways. The big mystery here is its fate. Which is bound up with the fate of Cucuteni-Trypilia (Usatov is the result of prior close contacts between Lo. Mykh. and Trypilia, including very significant exogamies. The key mysteries here are : (1) what happened to the Trypilian masses? (2) How did the Globular Amphorae culture (which Gimbutas already saw as close in many ways to Kemi-Oba and Lower Mykhajlivka) emerge and develop. And (3) what was the process of their Indo-Europeanization? Including the further relation of Corded Ware and Beaker. (3) is perhaps most easily visible in the overwhelming push of the steppe populations westward and south westward. Lower Mykhajlivka is swamped and absorbed by the Repin people as Yamna unfolds, and the same fate is shared by Usatov. IF (a big if) the Maikop and related complexes were primarily R1b, that would be the time that this group became a carrier of the IE speech. (As did R1b elements which participated in the emergence of Globular Amphorae and Corded Ware). The fate of particular groups (or combinations) of R1a, R1b et al. needs to be reanalyzed. All we know at the moment is the current situation and the likely starting situation (though the latter is much less certain). Everything in between is open for discussion and discovery.
 
Hello, sorry I was on vacation for a week but I would like to resume this thread because I really believe that S28 originated in the Bashkir area and I would like to try another attempt at convincing you:

Regarding the date of S28, most studies recognize that the current dating method for more recent mutations are unreliable (for those younger than 20,000 years old). Therefore the "guestimate" of 3500BC for S28 is not sufficient to discard my hypothesis. In addition, given the large amount of S28 holders today, a recent age is less likely.
If R1b is 25,000 years old (Myres et al.), S28 must be older than 3500 yrs old given the frequency of this marker in Europe today.

I believe the key to this problem is in the book: "the horse the wheel and language" by David Anthony. Anthony shows very convincingly that:
1) The PIE developed around 4000BC in the steppes of Ukraine
2) language similarities show that they came from the southern ural region after the Ice Age
3) They later evolved into two groups: a western group and an eastern group.
The western group emigrated up the Danube and Dniester (late centum languages around 3000BC) and the eastern group (satem) emigrated up the dnieper and back east toward the Ural and India

If now you map genetic maps to these patterns, it comes pretty clearly that Western PIE were mostly R1b and Eastern PIE were mostly R1a (as shown also by ancient DNA of Tarim mummies.) Therefore, at a time where Western PIE went up the Danube to found celtic and Italic civilizations, i believe it is highly unlikely that some of these (S28) went back to the Bashkir area. Only r1a went back up to the Ural via a reverse migration up the Volga.

I believe it is much more likely that S28 appeared before the emergence of the PIE, at the time when this group came down the Volga on its way to Western Ukranian steppes.


Let me say this, I disagree completely with your assessment regarding S28. If S28 really originated in the Pontic-Uralic-Caspian region, we would also expect to find related outgroups of S28 (L21, Z196, M65 - as well as S21) should all be also found in that region, which they are not. Instead, all of these Haplogroups are basically exclusively Western or Central-Western European, and S28 amongst the Bashkirs is clearly an outlier. So unless you assume that R1b is Neolithic or Meso/Paleolithic in age (which has, at this point, been thoroughly debunked), I would argue that the age of 3500 years is not a too far off estimate. Granted, I admit that without a problem it might be older, but no more than 50%.

And regarding the Bashkir S-28, due to the general absence of other S116 subclades in the Bashkirs, the most plausible explanation really is a back migration.

Also, you should be aware that there is no, and never has been a 1:1 association between ethnolinguistic groups and Y-Haplogroups. There are a few cases where we get pretty close to this, but these are the exceptions, rather than the rule.
 
So unless you assume that R1b is Neolithic or Meso/Paleolithic in age (which has, at this point, been thoroughly debunked),
By who? Which scientist rejected that?

Only Maciamo and you like to think that, without providing any evidence.
 
By who? Which scientist rejected that?

Only Maciamo and you like to think that, without providing any evidence.

Neolithic samples from Treilles and Derenburg? Those provide clear examples of the absence of R1b in the Neolithic. No offense Goga, but as far as I can tell, you are the only one who continues to adhere to such an early entry of R1b into Western Europe against all available evidence.
 
Neolithic samples from Treilles and Derenburg? Those provide clear examples of the absence of R1b in the Neolithic. No offense Goga, but as far as I can tell, you are the only one who continues to adhere to such an early entry of R1b into Western Europe against all available evidence.
We're speaking only about two places. What about the the Iberian Peninsula and England?
 
R1b came to Germany much later, with the Bell-Beaker culture. Even after Aryans (R1a & J2a maybe with some non-European R1b subclades etc. Battle Axe warriors) invaded Germanic lands.
 
We're speaking only about two places. What about the the Iberian Peninsula and England?

We don't have any Neolithic samples from there yet, at least not to my current knowledge. However, based on the available evidence (zero samples of R1b from locations which today have ~70% and ~40% R1b, respectively), as well as the dispersal patterns of R1b subclades, I think it is absolutely justified to posit that should we get our hands at DNA from Iberian/British Neolithic sites, these with high likelihood will turn up no R1b.

I mean, after Derenburg, people already made the prediction that any sites in Western Europe would not yield any R1b, either. And yes, what happened, Treilles was also majorly Haplogroup G2a and R1b was completely absent. People made the same predictions about Ötzi's DNA, who also turned out to be G2a. I think what this shows is that these ancient DNA samples are representative enough to give us enough good clues to make reliable predictions about the past there, and it allows us to make good predictions about which Haplogroups we are going to find and which we are not going to find in DNA samples from specific archaeological cultures.
 
Ok, it's very highly possible that you're right! It just very hard for me to believe that Engalnd was R1b free for about 4500 years ago.

I believe that 4500 years ago in Germany there was much more R1a, J2a, I1 etc. and MUCH less R1b!

I think more than 30% I1, more than 30% of R1a, more than 10% J2a, more than 15% G etc...
 
Taranis,

I believe you agree that R1b came from the pontic-caspian steppes; the evidence (linguistic, absence of ancient R1b in Neolitic Europe, etc...) is pretty strong in that direction.

Yet, today, there are very few R1b in Ukraine; the majority of all R1b are in Western Europe. But that does not mean that R1b originated in Western Europe as was wrongly assumed 10 yrs ago.

So i believe that the pre-PIE, before 4000BC were very few in number. In addition it was a nomadic people constantly on the move. Once they started their migration up the Danube, they grew rapidly, perhaps due to a mutation giving them lactose tolerence, and became the majority in Europe.

If S28 appeared 3500 years ago, that means one man carrying the mutation in the whole tribe, at a time when the Yamna culture was already well established in Western Europe, i dont see how that one man could give birth to 25% of all western europeans today.

Statistically, a long period must elapse between the appearance of the market, and that market being noticable on the map.

In any case, it seems that in the migration route of r1b and r1a, the bashkir region played an important part, like a border post between western and eastern steppes for a long time.
 
oops! typo; I meant:
"Statistically, a long period must elapse between the appearance of the marker, and that marker being noticable on the map."
 
Taranis,

I believe you agree that R1b came from the pontic-caspian steppes; the evidence (linguistic, absence of ancient R1b in Neolitic Europe, etc...) is pretty strong in that direction.

Yet, today, there are very few R1b in Ukraine; the majority of all R1b are in Western Europe. But that does not mean that R1b originated in Western Europe as was wrongly assumed 10 yrs ago.

So i believe that the pre-PIE, before 4000BC were very few in number. In addition it was a nomadic people constantly on the move. Once they started their migration up the Danube, they grew rapidly, perhaps due to a mutation giving them lactose tolerence, and became the majority in Europe.

If S28 appeared 3500 years ago, that means one man carrying the mutation in the whole tribe, at a time when the Yamna culture was already well established in Western Europe, i dont see how that one man could give birth to 25% of all western europeans today.

Statistically, a long period must elapse between the appearance of the market, and that market being noticable on the map.

In any case, it seems that in the migration route of r1b and r1a, the bashkir region played an important part, like a border post between western and eastern steppes for a long time.

Do the math. If S28 appeared ca. 1500 BCE the descendants could easily have been "on the map" as you say by 500 BCE if not sooner. That's exactly what happened with I2a-Dinaric according to the computations of Nordtvedt and Verenic. [first patriarch of Din-N= ca. 300 BCE; first patriarch of Din-S= ca. 30 BCE. By the 3rd c. CE first evident "Slavic" culture in Eastern Europe (The Kyivan culture). By the 6th c. CE: Slavic explosive expansion.=== Why should your case be any different?
 
Taranis,

I believe you agree that R1b came from the pontic-caspian steppes; the evidence (linguistic, absence of ancient R1b in Neolitic Europe, etc...) is pretty strong in that direction.

Yet, today, there are very few R1b in Ukraine; the majority of all R1b are in Western Europe. But that does not mean that R1b originated in Western Europe as was wrongly assumed 10 yrs ago.

So i believe that the pre-PIE, before 4000BC were very few in number. In addition it was a nomadic people constantly on the move. Once they started their migration up the Danube, they grew rapidly, perhaps due to a mutation giving them lactose tolerence, and became the majority in Europe.

If S28 appeared 3500 years ago, that means one man carrying the mutation in the whole tribe, at a time when the Yamna culture was already well established in Western Europe, i dont see how that one man could give birth to 25% of all western europeans today.

Statistically, a long period must elapse between the appearance of the market, and that market being noticable on the map.

In any case, it seems that in the migration route of r1b and r1a, the bashkir region played an important part, like a border post between western and eastern steppes for a long time.

What do you think could be a more likely TMRCA for S28? Remember to take into account the multiple effect of growth in a non-linear manner. Population growth is hardly ever uniform. Take the white Afrikaner population in South Africa as an example. They descend from a few settlers that arrived between 1652-1700 ... today there are 3-4 million, all pretty much related to one another.
 
Taranis,

Yet, today, there are very few R1b in Ukraine; the majority of all R1b are in Western Europe. But that does not mean that R1b originated in Western Europe as was wrongly assumed 10 yrs ago.

First off, we do not know what R1b frequencies are in Ukraine 6000 years ago. I do not see why we should apply a double standard to R1b near the Pontic-Caspian Steppe vis-a-vis the recent Neolithic finds of G2 and I2 in France and Spain. Both of the latter haplogroups were much more common in Western Europe back then than they are now. I am not saying this is definite, but one can argue the same thing about populations north of the Black Sea during that time too.

In regards to R1b and Bashkirs, R1b can also be found in other groups with Indo-Iranian connections, i.e. the Talysh, Kurds, Hazara, etc. I do not see why R1a or R1b had to travel alone in their migrations.
 

This thread has been viewed 57906 times.

Back
Top