Professor Reich on Yamnaya and Population Turnover in Europe

I've more info about Leyla-Tepe but it's in Russian. Not much people write about this, because most folks are ethnocentric and don’t like the fact that Leyla-Tepe is the Urheimat of everything. It's also a very recent discovery. It's possible that the split of Anatolian and Tochars occured not in Leyla-Tepe, but rather around MAYKOP! I've only some links in Russian for you about Leyla-Tepe (Лейлатепинская культура) . http://arxeoloq.az/?p=283 is one of them.

ar31.jpg

2000 BC - 2000 years later a mystery tribe arrived in Iberia and conquered La Bastida http://www.la-bastida.com/LaBastida/
https://www.google.be/search?q=La+B...niv&sa=X&ei=EBDaVK7-IMvzavrSgdgJ&ved=0CDYQsAQ
they had the same burrials
they were warriors and introduced the Iberian Bronze : El Argar culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Argar

it is 2000 year later, very much later, but still before Hittites entered history
so it is still possible this tribe had the same origin
 
IE is 6-6500 years old
it is very likely that anything beyond the R1a-M417 split is IE
it is very likely that anything beyond the R1b-M297 or M-269 split is IE
but 6500 years ago there were allready a lot of subclades for J2a
Ok, but do you really think that J2a stopped evolving 6000 years ago? Of course not. There were already different subclades of R1b, R1a AND J2a 6000 years ago. There're many different types of J2a. J2a is still evolving. The Romans and ancient Greeks had different J2a than the Southwest Asian people. People in the Caucaus have different J2a than the Jews. Subclade of J2a in Caucasus, Kurdistan, Iran, Central Asia, India are different than sublcades outside those regions, etc.
I think that some subclades of J2a1 have something to do with the migration of Indo-European tribes into SouthCentral Asia (BMAC) and Yamnaya. Fact is that there's J2a all over Europe and it came AFTER 6000 BCE. The most ancient J2a they found was not so long time ago, among the Bronze age warrior people in Hungary. And that J2a is from the times when Indo-Europized folks from Yamnaya migrated into Europe...
 
Some new information from Jean Manco:

"Mesolithic samples are similar across Europe. (He means those of which he has samples, which does not include Greece it seems.)

Elsewhere, Krefter has assumed that this included EHG. Reich did not say so. I took it that he was referring to WHG. There would be no point in a different label if EHG was the same as WHG. Reich said that EHG was was 50% X and 50% Y (I wasn't fast enough to note the components, but assume ANE and WHG.) "

Also,
"I did indeed make a mistake. Looking at my notes, what he actually said was that in Yamnaya we see a shift towards ANE, so that from around 3000 BC the Late Neolithic migration samples start to look like modern Europeans. He did not say that Yamnaya were a mixture of ANE and the Near Eastern type population. We did indeed already know from Nick Patterson that Yamnaya was a mix of EHG and something ANE/Near Eastern. http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2015...f-eastern.html

I noted that Reich did not mention the ANE-richness of the Near Eastern type component, but what he did say was perfectly compatible with it. "

That rather confuses the issue for me. On the one hand, he says that the samples started to look like modern Europeans around 3000 BC, which is rather late. On the other hand, he says that he sees a shift toward more ANE as time passes. So, does he mean that the admixture event between the NearEastern/ANE group and the EHG (WHG and ANE) group didn't take place until 3000 BC?

Also, didn't they previously say that the mtDna around Samara started to change around 4000 BC?

That's pretty late, right? Some steppe groups will have already moved to the Balkans and other areas by that time, yes?

Also, Razib Khan has chimed in...
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/there-were-giants-in-the-earth-in-those-days/
 
So were you present at the conference? Or did someone else who was present at the conference clearly state that? Because it definitely doesn't seem clear to me from what Jean Manco posted. I may be mistaken and R1b may in fact be from Yamnaya, but I don't think Manco's posts on the other forum make that clear at all. And in fact we do have two pre-IE Bell Beaker Rib samples. I wonder if Reich's sampling included Iberia Bell Beaker Y DNA samples. I would assume it must have, as otherwise any comments he made about Iberian BB Y DNA would have been made sans data. I had assumed that all the new DNA samples being looked at were from the Samara region.

Pre-IE Bell Beaker? What evidence do you have of that? "Just 'Cuz"?

Jean Manco is pretty clear stating Reich said Yamnaya was a spread of both R1a and R1b. To make such a bold statement would mean the earlier remains were xR1a, xR1b, and the Yamnaya burials had both R1a and R1b.
 
Oh that guy isn't he R1a ?
LMAO

I would say that "Giants" is not the word I would choose for people whom Razib Khan suspects deliberately "cleared" central and northern Europe of their previous inhabitants.

"In this case I suspect that a better analogy may be the future that Genghis Khan had in mind for Northern China before his adviser Yelü Chucai dissuaded him: the North European plain was cleared out of people and turned over to pastureland. Genghis Khan and his Mongols were convinced of the value of Chinese as tax paying peasants, who could support the Mongol elite with their surplus. I suspect in a pre-state society such considerations were less relevant, as the institutional frameworks which would allow for the smooth absorption of subordinate groups were less elaborated, or even non-existent. "

By that measure, the Nazis who also wanted to clear the North European plain, in this case of Poles, in order to replace them with German farmers, were also "Giants".

I can't speak to Razib Khan's motivations. Probably it was just an unfortunate formulation. However, the problem with this entire field is that many of the enthusiasts, usually men, approach it with an agenda based on their own particular yDna, and their to me inexplicable desire to have it associated with a culture that rose to dominance, even if that rise meant that they wiped out whole other cultures or at least all the males of that culture.

I used to think it was puerile thinking by adolescent or twenty something young men, but even older and one would think wiser people also buy into these kinds of scenarios. So, I suspect that racialist thinking is a substratum to some of these kinds of analyses even in people who don't verbalize that kind of philosophy, that, combined with a serious lack of moral training. If people have been around long enough, which it seems many have not, they would know that those kinds of noxious opinions were openly expressed just a few years ago. It also has a long history in Indo-European studies. The opinions of the original writers for the Journal of Indo-European studies are appallingly racialist. They will be turning over in their graves if it turns out that half of the genetics of these people was Near Eastern. Good.
 
I would say that "Giants" is not the word.......

Angela I love your posts coupled with knowledge and mild and professional demeanor. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed or the sharpest crayon in the pack so any post has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. However I have been around long enough to know the players and their perspectives/slant of competing y male lineages. The post is not alluding to the article you posted. Not long ago I debated a very well known blogger about the Caucasus; which he insisted no by-directional gene flow.He almost made it seem like an impenetrable barrier. Well now we have come full circle imo, so I'll save you the details out of respect for him[over all he is well mannered and quite bright-although he is stubborn at times]; these debates have been going on for years on various boards. Thankfully we have the Maestro at the helm of this important website.

As for giants I agree. However I like the weird and unusual take on history, ultimate science will provide us with answers.[ it was nice also for JeanM to take time from her schedule and relay the comments of Professor of Genetics, David Reich]

Anyway, I always wondered about some of the the accounts below, not scientific and no actual proof anyway interesting

Later historians (e.g. Johannes Aventinus and Johann Hübner) managed to furnish numerous further details, including the assertion by James Anderson in the early 18th century that this Tuiscon was in fact none other than the biblical Ashkenaz, son of Gomer.[5] James Anderson's 1732 tome Royal genealogies reports a significant number of antiquarian or mythographic traditions regarding Askenaz as the first king of ancient Germany, for example the following entry:

Askenaz, or Askanes, called by Aventinus Tuisco the Giant, and by others Tuisto or Tuizo (whom Aventinus makes the 4th son of Noah, and that he was born after the flood, but without authority) was sent by Noah into Europe, after the flood 131 years, with 20 Captains, and made a settlement near the Tanais, on the West coast of the Euxin sea (by some called Asken from him) and there founded the kingdom of the Germans and the Sarmatians... when Askenaz himself was 24 years old, for he lived above 200 years, and reigned 176.
In the vocables of Saxony and Hessia, there are some villages of the name Askenaz, and from him the Jews call the Germans Askenaz, but in the Saxonic and Italian, they are called Tuiscones, from Tuisco his other name. In the 25th year of his reign, he partitioned the kingdom into Toparchies, Tetrarchies, and Governments, and brought colonies from diverse parts to increase it. He built the city Duisburg, made a body of laws in verse, and invented letters, which Kadmos later imitated, for the Greek and High Dutch are alike in many words.The 20 captains or dukes that came with Askenaz are: Sarmata, from whom Sarmatia; Dacus or Danus – Dania or Denmark; Geta from whom the Getae; Gotha from whom the Goths; Tibiscus, people on the river Tibiscus; Mocia - Mysia; Phrygus or Brigus - Phrygia; Thynus - Bithynia; Dalmata - Dalmatia; Jader – Jadera Colonia; Albanus from whom Albania; Zavus – the river Save; Pannus – Pannonia; Salon - the town Sale, Azalus – the Azali; Hister – Istria; Adulas, Dietas, Ibalus – people that of old dwelt between the rivers Oenus and Rhenus; Epirus, from whom Epirus.Askenaz had a brother called Scytha (say the Germans) the father of the Scythians, for which the Germans have of old been called Scythians too (very justly, for they came mostly from old Scythia) and Germany had several ancient names; for that part next to the Euxin was called Scythia, and the country of the Getes, but the parts east of the Vistule or Weyssel were called Sarmatia Europaea, and westward it was called Gallia, Celtica, Allemania, Francia and Teutonia; for old Germany comprehended the greater part of Europe; and those called Gauls were all old Germans; who by ancient authors were called Celts, Gauls and Galatians, which is confirmed by the historians Strabo and Aventinus, and by Alstedius in his Chronology, p. 201 etc. Askenaz, or Tuisco, after his death, was worshipped as the ambassador and interpreter of the gods, and from thence called the first German Mercury, from Tuitseben to interpret.[5]

I can't read Hebrew but this one also looks interesting.
In rabbinic literature, the kingdom of Ashkenaz was first associated with the Scythian region, then later with the Slavic territories,-Kraus. S, 1932, Hashemot 'ashkenaz usefarad, Tarbiz 3:423-435
 
JEan said this. It was the biggest news, and as a result there were like 100s of comments about it.

Perhaps. What I read in that post that Angela linked to was Manco's comment about R1b having less ANE than R1a and the proportions of EEF, WHG and ANE being different among Iberian Bell Beaker than in Germany (she didn't clarify whether he meant among German BB). So I assumed that she was talking about differences between Iberian BB R1b versus CW and/or IE R1a. Especially since Eurogenes has clarified that Reich does have unpublished samples from around Europe, including Iberia. But I haven't had time to read all the posts on that other forum, so perhaps that wasn't what she meant. Am having a busy day, but I will read more on the other forum this evening in to get a better idea of what's been said about it. Like I said before, if there is R1b among Yamnaya, I want subclade details.
 
Pre-IE Bell Beaker? What evidence do you have of that? "Just 'Cuz"?

Jean Manco is pretty clear stating Reich said Yamnaya was a spread of both R1a and R1b. To make such a bold statement would mean the earlier remains were xR1a, xR1b, and the Yamnaya burials had both R1a and R1b.

Certainly pre Bronze Age in Europe. I was talking about the samples from graves 5 and 8 in the Kromsdorf samples from Germany dated to 2600-2500 BC. And Corded Ware samples found so far are partly R1a but no R1b. If we consider CW to be 75% Yamnaya but not necessarily IE, I think we have to consider BB to be not necessarily IE - they were certainly pre Bronze Age. But since Reich apparently has unpublished results from across Europe, apparently including some BB from Iberia, the results should be interesting.
 
Thank you Maciamo.
Do you also have details of Anatolian R1a and R1b subclades?

There is also a little bit of R1a-Z280 in Anatolia that could have come in the Early Bronze Age. Of course the majority of R1a today is Z93, because that was the variety brought by the Mittani, Indo-Iranians, Scythians, Turks and Kurds. What is almost certain is that the Anatolian branch of IE was predominantly R1b-L23. I think the proportion of R1b to R1a would have been closer to 10:1. The Tocharians would have absorbed R1a people in the Volga-Ural region, but the Anatolian descended straight from the R1b-rich tribes from the coastal Pontic steppe.
 
This seems to confirms everything I have theorised over the last six years about the history of R1b.

R1b came from the Near East, crossed the Caucasus to the Pontic Steppe, then spread westward to the rest of Europe. The Bell Beaker period saw the progressive invasion of R1b people in what was originally a non-R1b culture, hence the higher ANE in German BB samples than in Iberian ones (proof that R1b came countercurrent to the original diffusion of the Bell Beaker culture from Iberia to central Europe).


If the BB that arrived in Iberia were only or mostly males who took local wives the ANE of their offspring would be lower.

edit1: I think the source region for R1b will be a region with extensive copper deposits.

More generally I this will be the general pattern over the metal ages with the sources of cultural innovation shifting to those regions with the requisite metal deposits first copper deposits, then arsenic copper or copper and tin and then finally iron.

edit2:
I think Razib's point about giants i.e. physical size, is likely to be relevant.
 
Perhaps. What I read in that post that Angela linked to was Manco's comment about R1b having less ANE than R1a and the proportions of EEF, WHG and ANE being different among Iberian Bell Beaker than in Germany (she didn't clarify whether he meant among German BB). So I assumed that she was talking about differences between Iberian BB R1b versus CW and/or IE R1a. Especially since Eurogenes has clarified that Reich does have unpublished samples from around Europe, including Iberia. But I haven't had time to read all the posts on that other forum, so perhaps that wasn't what she meant. Am having a busy day, but I will read more on the other forum this evening in to get a better idea of what's been said about it. Like I said before, if there is R1b among Yamnaya, I want subclade details.

She said it. I'm, not a liar, geez!!
 
Indeed, he does, and Jean Manco as well. I have thought it rather shabby that those who disagreed with her have so often been disrespectful. It continues even today as she is being cross examined and found wanting apparently for not having a photographic memory. Totally boorish and uncivilized behavior...

Just because she went to the lecture, doesn't mean we have to spoil her.

For whatever reasons she took hours to tell key info, like EHG was 50/50 x/y(WHG/ANE?) and that Reich said R1a and R1b are from Yamna. If you think she's somehow justified to make 100s of people online to wait for hours and hours and waste their days reloading their screen, there's problem. She took the conservative skeptical scientific mindset too far. She can at least make guesses based on her memory.
 
There is also a little bit of R1a-Z280 in Anatolia that could have come in the Early Bronze Age. Of course the majority of R1a today is Z93, because that was the variety brought by the Mittani, Indo-Iranians, Scythians, Turks and Kurds. What is almost certain is that the Anatolian branch of IE was predominantly R1b-L23. I think the proportion of R1b to R1a would have been closer to 10:1. The Tocharians would have absorbed R1a people in the Volga-Ural region, but the Anatolian descended straight from the R1b-rich tribes from the coastal Pontic steppe.

If Anatolians really entered the Balkans 6000 years ago, we have to find out how they succeeded to conquer Anatolia and come into history 2000 years later.
David Anthony also mentions Usatovo in control of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people and trading with people near the Volga and with the Aegean Sea (glass beads) till 5000 years ago.
That is when Troy was founded, probably by another rival Anatolian tribe. They must have blocked the trade between Usatovo and the Aegean Sea.
It is this kind of power play, dominating other indogenous tribes and competing with other tribes to dominate trade routes that must have made Hittites dominate the Hattians.
Through their trading skills and their connections, they were probably the first with horses and charriots in the Anatolian area. They also may have been the ones that brought the bronze age into the Aegean.
 
She said it. I'm, not a liar, geez!!

I never said you were a liar. I said I hadn't personally found that comment, just something in her initial post that I thought could be misinterpreted. However, I've now waded through that long thread and she did indeed say that Reich said Yamnaya brought R1b to Europe, but I think that's a bit vague. Did he mean the Samara samples included R1b or was he making assumptions based on something he found elsewhere? And what subclades were involved? I'm no longer expecting the paper to provide definitive results. I'm sure it will shed some light, but only if people don't jump to too many conclusions on the basis of too little data.
 
If Anatolians really entered the Balkans 6000 years ago, we have to find out how they succeeded to conquer Anatolia and come into history 2000 years later.
David Anthony also mentions Usatovo in control of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people and trading with people near the Volga and with the Aegean Sea (glass beads) till 5000 years ago.
That is when Troy was founded, probably by another rival Anatolian tribe. They must have blocked the trade between Usatovo and the Aegean Sea.
It is this kind of power play, dominating other indogenous tribes and competing with other tribes to dominate trade routes that must have made Hittites dominate the Hattians.
Through their trading skills and their connections, they were probably the first with horses and charriots in the Anatolian area. They also may have been the ones that brought the bronze age into the Aegean.

The Hittites only appear in the historical record 2000 years later, but that doesn't mean that IE Anatolian speakers weren't already in Anatolia before that. In fact, Troy was founded 5000 years ago and was Luwian speaking. It is certain that not all IE Anatolian speakers moved to Anatolia at the same time. Eventhough the Hittites appear c. 2000 BCE, the Phrygians and Armenians only migrated from the Balkans to Anatolia c. 1200 BCE.
 
I'm confused about this paper - there are contradictory opinions about its credibility, for example here:

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=85&p=23613#p23613

David Reich and his associates have published a paper containing a lot of new genetic data from prehistoric Europe. These data utterly refute the Kurgan hypothesis, and yet Reich and his associates are so stupid that they actually think the data support the hypothesis.
 
Tocharians were R1a, but they were not Z93 (instead, they were European R1a) - check:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15

And this is from the comments section (about Tocharians from Xiaohe and their R1a):

Hui Zhou (2014-07-18 16:14) Jilin University

Archaeological and anthropological investigations have helped to formulate two main theories to account for the origin of the populations in the Tarim Basin. The first, so-called “steppe hypothesis”, maintains that the earliest settlers may have been nomadic herders of the Afanasievo culture (ca. 3300-2000 B.C.), a primarily pastoralist culture distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions of the steppe north of the Tarim Basin. The second model, known as the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis”, it maintains that the first settlers were farmers of the Oxus civilization (ca. 2200-1500 B.C.) west of Xinjiang in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan. These contrasting models can be tested using DNA recovered from archaeological bones. Xiaohe cemetery contains the oldest and best-preserved mummies so far discovered in the Tarim Basin, possible those of the earliest people to settle the region. Genetic analysis of these mummies can provide data to elucidate the affinities of the earliest inhabitants.

Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried Hg R1a1 in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M*in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belonging to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data) which is mainly found in Asians. mtDNA Hgs H, K, C4 primarily distributed in northern Eurasians. Though H, K, C4 also presence in modern south Asian, they immigrated into South Asian recently from nearby populations, such as Near East , East Asia and Central Asia, and the frequency is obviously lower than that of northern Eurasian. Furthermore, all of the shared sequences of the Xiaohe haplotypes H and C4 were distributed in northern Eurasians. Haplotype 223-304 in Xiaohe people was shared by Indian. However, these sequences were attributed to HgM25 in India, and in our study it was not HgM25 by scanning the mtDNA code region. Therefore, our DNA results didn't supported Clyde Winters’s opinion but supported the “steppe hypothesis”. Moreover, the culture of Xiaohe is similar with the Afanasievo culture. Afanasievo culture was mainly distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions, and didn’t spread into India. This further maintains the “steppe hypothesis”.

In addition, our data was misunderstand by Clyde Winters. Firstly, the human remains of the Xiaohe site have no relation with the Loulan mummy. The Xiaohe site and Loulan site are two different archaeological sites with 175km distances. Xiaohe site, radiocarbon dated ranging from 4000 to 3500 years before present, was a Bronze Age site, and Loulan site, dated to about 2000 years before present. Secondly, Hgs H and K are the mtDNA haplogroups not the Y chromosome haplogroups in our study. Thirdly, the origin of Xiaohe people in here means tracing the most recently common ancestor, and Africans were remote ancestor of modern people.
 
Tocharians were R1a, but they were not Z93 (instead, they were European R1a) - check:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15

And this is from the comments section (about Tocharians from Xiaohe and their R1a):

Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belonging to R1a1a-Z93 branch

The Y chromosome haplogroup of the seven males were all assigned to haplogroup R1a1a through screening the Y-SNPs at M89, M9, M45, M173 and M198 successively.

Where they tested for Z93 ?
M198 = R1a1a, but there is no mention of any snp further downstream
the mummies are not more than 4000 years old, not older than the Indo-Iranian expansian, and much younger than the Tochars
 

This thread has been viewed 41716 times.

Back
Top