Proto-Indo-Europeans were the Highlanders, who lived near the sea.

Bahadir said:
2. Anthony writes that carriers of proto-tocharian language migrated from the Pontic-Caspian steppe region in the Western Altai (Afanasievo culture) 5300-4800 years ago.
Given the preliminary data on afanasievo mans that "two of three afanasievo man and one okunevo man were R1b1 (M269), and one afanasyievo man - R1b, and the date on many afanasievo: calibers. 3000-2600 BC," does not remain doubts, that carriers of proto-tocharian were R1b-M269 (probably R1b-L23).
That "Tocharian problem" is a weak point of the hypothesis that proto-indo-europeans were R1a. Put forward different versions, for example, about the early (pre-Aryan) migration of carriers subclades R1a-Z93 to the Altai. However, they have not been confirmed.
Click to expand...

Xiaohe mummies (they are associated with Proto-Tocharians) are not only R1a, but also not Z93:

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

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15/comments#2168698

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Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belonging to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data) which is mainly found in Asians.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.
Click to expand...
 
the Tocharians are R1a1 R-SRY1532.2
[h=3][/h]
 
Alan said:
the Tocharians are R1a1 R-SRY1532.2
Click to expand...

not an opposition, just a question:
are we sure we have genuine Tokharians DNA? I'm not surre but it seems to me the DNA we have was the DNA of ancient population of the Tarim Bassin (2000BC?) or surroundings, surely I-Ean speakers, but without proof they were THE Tokharians (maybe they were already Indo-Iranians???
need more details
 
No doubt there was a heavy change of environment from the end of the last ice age. I am thinking that elder proto-aryan and proto-asian populations must have thrived in nomadic culture and agriculture from living near and by rising lakes in eurasian steppe lands and mountain ranges where snow have been melting into lakes and rivers. Floodings covered areas that formerly have been land and populated areas, like the Doggerbank (today North Sea), the today Ocean areas just around India, parts of North and South America, parts of today's Black Sea, parts of today's Mediterranean and Red sea, and the today sea Straits between Australia, Polynesia and southeast Asia. Most probably the Aral sea and the Caspian sea in "Eurasia" were dry land more or less, if we go back farther in time, with the iceborder very close. With the widespread floods from melting ice, there must have been a forced movement of people into mountainy areas such as the Altai, but also New cultures near new lakes and rivers. An example in Scandinavia is how the Baltic sea region formerly was a cold lake that went into a sea as the lake received water from the Atlantic at the end of the ice age. This would increase temperature in the region and increasing the sea life, giving rise to growth of agriculture, fishing and towns. But also, people must have lived partially across ice sheets before this. The esquimau/eskimo/inuit people of Greenland, Canada have at the bigger picture eastern asian ancestry and close genetic proximity with siberian asians and east asians. These groups also have facial features and general body features (short legs and light bodies) that would be naturally practical in areas that had ice covered land. Narrow eyes is a benefit for a life near and over snow and ice as it lets in smaller parts of sunrays reflected by snow. Logically there were to some degree old civilizations in the areas of today's Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Russia. These ancient eurasian clans spread into various branches ,travelling in all directions. Most North and east European lineages origin from these cultures, that can at large be separated from the earlier out-of-africa tribes that gave rise to tamils, andamans, ainu and aboriginal australians.
 
It is one point to consider, that the age of the proto-sumerian culture must have been older than 4000 years. There is then the modern dispute about the finding outside Japan of the Younaguni pyramid under water, where there is obviously a sign of human old civilization. As it is under water ,it must have been a somewhat developed culture in the area already at the time of before Sumer, due to what geological science know about the time of the melting of the last ice age. So if we talk about ancient civilizations of Eurasia and Asia, it must have existed even before the traditionally suggested theories. This also opens up to a potential old civilization of towns and culture, in areas like old Altai region, old Southern Russia and old China.
 
BaltoHeritageNorway said:
It is one point to consider, that the age of the proto-sumerian culture must have been older than 4000 years. There is then the modern dispute about the finding outside Japan of the Younaguni pyramid under water, where there is obviously a sign of human old civilization. As it is under water ,it must have been a somewhat developed culture in the area already at the time of before Sumer, due to what geological science know about the time of the melting of the last ice age. So if we talk about ancient civilizations of Eurasia and Asia, it must have existed even before the traditionally suggested theories. This also opens up to a potential old civilization of towns and culture, in areas like old Altai region, old Southern Russia and old China.
Click to expand...

Proto Sumerians existed as far back as 5000 BC. The Sumerian civilization (what we understand under civilization in modern view) started to form roughly 4000 BC.

Culture is not equivalent to a civilization. cultures in the Region existed even further back, like Halaf, Samara, Leila Tepe, Göbekli Tepe etc. These were cultures but not everyone would agree on them being civilizations.
 
Taranis said:
You should be aware that it is called "Afro-Asiatic" languages for a reason, because Semitic languages were (with the sole exception of Ethiosemitic) located geographically in Western Asia. The idea of a Proto-Afroasiatic homeland in East Africa is ridiculous if you consider that three branches of Afroasiatic (Berber, Egyptian and Semitic) border on the Mediterranean. The Chadic peoples must have originated in the vicinity of the Mediterranean, originally, since they're close with the Berber languages: there's also a strong genetic evidence for this, as you may know the Chadic (and adjacent non-Afroasiatic) peoples have high percentages of Y-haplogroup R1b, more specifically the subclade V88, which appears to be tied with the expansion of the Afroasiatic languages:
Click to expand...
There is no R1b1c-V88 and no R1b1* among Moroccan Berbers.
But there is 4-6% G(G2a?) and 1.5-10.5% E1b1b1a among Moroccan Berbers
 
cattel said:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.ru/2015/05/the-origins-of-proto-indo-european.html

The paper: https://www.academia.edu/10261406/T...casian_Substrate_Hypothesis_revised_May_2015_
Click to expand...


Well, it would certainly explain the substrate present in I.E. This is the crucial conclusion, yes?

"In a paper published in 1997, Johanna Nichols argued that the earliest Indo-European speech community was located in Central Asia. She proposes that Pre-Proto-Indo-European spread westward across the steppes, eventually arriving on the northeastern shores of the Black Sea. I support this scenario. I would place the Pre-Indo-Europeans in Central Asia at about 7,000 BCE, and I would date their initial arrival in the vicinity of the Black Sea at about 5,000 BCE — this is somewhat earlier than the date Nichols assigns. No doubt, the immigration occurred in waves and took place over an extended period of time. Though it is not known for certain what language or languages were spoken in the area before the arrival of Indo-European-speaking people, it is known that the Pre-Indo-Europeans were not the first inhabitants of the area — several chronologically and geographically distinct cultural complexes have been identified there. This is an extremely critical point. The contact that resulted between these two (or more) linguistic communities is what produced the Indo-European parent language."

Joanna Nichols located the "source" in Bactria/Sogdiana, so he is saying that the "Pre-Indo-Europeans" came from Bactria. Furthermore, he thinks the people who were already present in the Steppe were speaking "northwest Caucasian" languages.

This is rather the opposite of what some people have been hypothesizing based on the genetics, isn't it? In other words, what has been bandied about is that the people on the steppe spoke Pre-Indo-European, and then some sort of "teal" Armenian like people arrived (Btw, when did they become Georgian like? There's been nothing from the academics that changes the best fit statistics has there?), either from south of the Caucasus or from the east or Central Asia, but their men were disposed of, or perhaps the steppe dwellers raided south of the Caucasus for the women and that's how this new element was absorbed. The pre-Indo-European Pontic Caspian steppe dwellers were R1b and perhaps R1a, and the only "teal" lineages that were absorbed were the Near Eastern mtDna lineages.

It seems that now some people are willing to concede that perhaps there were already these ENF heavy peoples living in the North Caucasus, and speaking North Caucasian languages, and they were overcome by Pre-Indo-European speaking people from the north , and their language was imposed on the Caucasian speakers. However, that would mean that the "Central Asian" part of the Indo-European genome was already on the steppe in these North Caucasian speakers.

Perhaps...but Bomhard is saying the dominant language strain came from Bactria. All the twisting and turning isn't going to change what he said. One can disagree with him, of course.

Let's assume, for the moment, that Bomhard is correct. So, what would the people of Bactria at that time period have been like autosomally and in terms of yDna? Is it possible that EHG/ANE and yDNA "R" was spread from northern Eurasia and all the way down to Central Asia? Could some of the "R" people who were in Central Asia have mingled to some extent with more ENF populations and/or ASI elements, creating what appears in calculators as "Gedrosian" like, and only then moved onto the steppe with their language?

That would fit Maciamo's speculations about the movements of R1b, I think. Was R1a more to the north and therefore received this input much later? What would they have been speaking? Would it have been more similar to Uralic, a Uralic that perhaps developed around the Urals?

Might this dovetail with the recent papers on TMRCA's for R1a and R1b? Doesn't R1b seem to have expanded quite a bit earlier than R1a? I suppose that can be explained by the fact that this was the "R" lineage that was in closer proximity to the Neolithic cultures of the Balkans and so adopted farming and pastoralism earlier, but perhaps it's also because there was an expansion in central Asia as well? Any experts on Bactrian archaeology in the hobbyist community?

One thing that I would have to research is the author's comment about these pre-existing North Caucasian speaking groups on the steppe. Does anyone know what they were like specifically?

Is there room for another alternative? If the author is correct about the source and direction of flow of "Pre-Indo-European", is it still possible that the "Northwest Caucasian" elements are a later addition, perhaps from gene flow from south of the Caucasus?

Just for a review of the "Bactrian" hypothesis:

https://books.google.com/books?id=D...Bactrian hypothesis of Joanna Nichols&f=false
 
Robert6 said:
There is no R1b1c-V88 and no R1b1* among Moroccan Berbers.
But there is 4-6% G(G2a?) and 1.5-10.5% E1b1b1a among Moroccan Berbers
Click to expand...

This doesn't have to be a contradiction of what I said, and there's a multitude of possibilities how that could have happened. A founder effect is one obvious possibility.
 
arvistro said:
Lovely languages those Northwest Caucasian. I listened to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grwJWc35US4
Click to expand...

Here is some Kartvelian, the group closest to PIE among Caucasic languages. This might be the reason why Nichols places PIE in the Northwest Caucasus, because it would be located next by to the Kartvelian and Kartvelian is a close cousin of Northwest Caucasic such as Abkhazian and Adyghe/Circassian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un8jvPjonzI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyHuUofdGfA


unfortunately in Turkey they are very endangered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAxSRdudq30
 
LeBrok said:
Interesting. Something one can expect crossing Arabic and Slavic, if it comes to pronunciation.
Click to expand...
PIE had most likely throat tones such as "KH". There are allot of linguists who even propose the existence of guttural sounds still found among some Indo European languages such as Indo_Iranian and Celtic(I think).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 157943 times.

Back
Top