R1a-Z93 in Yamnaya

The "Gedrosian" or "South Asian" being seen in Steppe is because "South Asians" and "Gedrosians" are largely descended from CHG like people. I don't know why this modern population that happens to be embedded in the computational models is being used in the way it is on these boards.

Than you haven't been following this discussion. For the point of determining how much ancestry an ancient people have contributed to a modern population and see to with which modern populations it shares how much ancestry, it is indeed important to include these modern populations in this discussion. We aren't talking about the Scythian ancestry here you have missed the point. If that was the case we would solely speak of CHG, EHG, EF. But we aren't soleley discussing the Scythian ancestry, we are discussing the ancestry of modern Iranic speakers and their relationship to this Scythian samples. Also it is important and interesting in this case to see, IF we had to explain the ancestry of modern Scythians based on modern populations we would need to use a mixed West_South_Central Asian and East European example, cause Scythians as also seen on PCA plots (and this is not due to projection bias as some "experts" with an agenda would claim, cause obviously the Scythian samples have some ancestry only found in significant frequency in West_Central Asians such as allot more CHG like ancestry, some East Eurasian (depending on the Scythian sample from 0-20%, 10-20% is typical Tajik). Than they have higher frequency of EHG compared to West_Central Asians. At last there is EF which both groups- West_Central Asians as well East Europeans share in similar amount.

Therefore the Scythians appear as they appear and plot as they plot.
 
Thanks for kind answer (too kind maybe?) the ergative nature of Iranic languages was the reason for me they are the result of an acculturation of previously non I-Ean speakers by I-Eans come from elsewhere (so not from Iran surroundings), being the ergative aspect the heritage of a non-I-Ean substrata, at least in my modest mind. Maybe I'm wrong; could you confirm or infirm me the first I-Ean languages were ergative or not? It seems the syntacix proximity of I-E is rather with steppes (Finnic-Ugric) languages than with Caucasic ones... aside, I recommend you to read the paper of Bryant and Patton to make your opinion
I know its naive, nevertheless I always stumbled over this equitations: English One -------------- Farsi yak Shina êk Sanskrit+ éka Finish yksi Mansi akva Hungaria egy
 
@Alan,

In ADMIXTURE based on modern populations, Corded Ware comes out Caucasus+Volga Ural. This is because none of the modern components are representative of Corded Ware. Corded Ware had more CHG than modern Europeans, which is why it scores in West Asian or SC Asian components. The same is true for the Sycthian. The Sycthian being a 50/50 SC Asian+European mix is absolutely impossible. Some SC Asian ancestry is totally possible, but it would be a very small minority.

Show me the ADMIXTURE which models the Sycthian as SC Asian+East European. I gurentee the same will be true for Corded Ware, disproving the 50/50 East European/SC Asian model.
 
The ancient Scythians belonged to the Y-DNA haplogroup R1a1 but their maternal DNA heritage was mixed. For example, Asian-specific mtDNA haplogroups such as F2a and D were detected in ancient Scythian samples. The Scythian males may have interbred with native Siberian women as they colonised or conquered the vast expanse of the Eurasian steppe, which is why their paternal DNA heritage is almost exclusively European. This is similar to what happened in the Soviet era, when ethnic Russians occupied Central Asian countries. In the late 1950s, ethnic Russians accounted for 43% of Kazakhstan's population. A genetic analysis of the Tarim mummies yielded the West Eurasian H, K, T, U7, U5a, U2e, the East Eurasian B, C4, C5, D, G2a, and the Indian M5, which is a 50/50 split. The ancient Scythians would have had more West Eurasian mtDNA components than the Tarim mummies discovered in western China.

Ancient Y-DNA data was finally provided by Keyser et al in 2009. They studied the haplotypes and haplogroups of 26 ancient human specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area in Siberia dated from between the middle of the 2nd millennium BC and the 4th century AD (Scythian and Sarmatian timeframe). Nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R-M17. The authors suggest that their data shows that between Bronze and Iron Ages the constellation of populations known variously as Scythians, Andronovians, etc. were blue- (or green-) eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people who might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization. Moreover, this study found that they were genetically more closely related to modern populations of eastern Europe than those of central and southern Asia.[88] The ubiquity and utter dominance of R1a Y-DNA lineage contrasts markedly with the diversity seen in the mtDNA profiles.
 
Frequency map of R1a-Z2125. This is the branch of Z93, most Sintashta/Andronovo/etc belonged to. It's almost non-existent outside of Central Asia. So, IMO, this does not support the idea Sintashta-descendants migrated to SC Asia and brought Z93.
attachment.php
 
Fire Haired14 said:
It's almost non-existent outside of Central Asia.

The map shows that a large area of India has 10-15 percent frequency of it, and another large area has 7,5-10 percent. I wouldn't call this "almost non-existent" especially considering that India has a population density of over 1000 per 1 square mile.

That said, the original Indo-Aryans were most likely under L657 (equivalent of M780) subclade of R1a.

Z2125 is probably from later Iranic groups which invaded India (just like U106 came to Britain later than L21):

Nowhere in the world outside the Greater Iran have the Iranian People reached prominence as they have in India. The history of Iranic and Indic peoples is very much intertwined. As they both are the descendants of Indo-Iranian people who separated some 5000 years ago. Subsequent Iranian Empires have successively controlled north-west and north India through the history. Starting with the Persian Achaemenid Empire, followed by Bactrian Empire, Parthian Empire, Kushan Empire, Indo-Saka Empire, Indo-Parthian Empire, Hephthalites Empire, Sassanid Empire, etc, etc. This has caused a continuous stream of Iranic people penetrating India and settling in different parts of this land.
 
@Tomenable,

Didn't notice it did have a noticble frequency outside of Central Asia. Still, it goes against the idea Andronovo is the source of L657/
 
The map shows that a large area of India has 10-15 percent frequency of it, and another large area has 7,5-10 percent. I wouldn't call this "almost non-existent" especially considering that India has a population density of over 1000 per 1 square mile.

That said, the original Indo-Aryans were most likely under L657 (equivalent of M780) subclade of R1a.

Z2125 is probably from later Iranic groups which invaded India (just like U106 came to Britain later than L21):

it's all quite complicated
at least 3 R1a tribes invaded India, and probalby more

Vedic invasion
Indo-Scythian invasion
Yuezhi from Bactria

hard to tell which is the exact origing of specific R1a in India
 
Frequency map of R1a-Z2125. This is the branch of Z93, most Sintashta/Andronovo/etc belonged to. It's almost non-existent outside of Central Asia. So, IMO, this does not support the idea Sintashta-descendants migrated to SC Asia and brought Z93.
attachment.php

There have been a lot of steppe transitions since then and steppe transitions seem to have a particularly dramatic impact on the ydna (because it's so flat and refuge-less i guess).

This is possibly hinted at in your map with the surviving lines being mostly in the neighboring mountains.

If you look at a general R1a map

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Haplogroup_R_(Y-DNA).PNG

it looks to me like R1a at one point might have been a large contiguous crescent shape and then had a slice cut through the middle by Turkic/Mongol expansion from north east Asia across and then down into the middle east.
 
Fire Haired14,

L657 could only be a minority lineage in Sintashta, because it is too young to be numerous back then.

Sintashta culture existed in 2100-1800 BC, while TMRCA of L657 was ca. 1600 BC (according to YFull):

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L657/

R1a samples collected so far from Sintashta, Srubna and Andronovo are certainly older than 1600 BC.

=====================

Some dates for you:

TMRCA of L657 according to YFull - 1600 (95% Confidence Interval: 2400-900) BC

Yamnaya - 1 sample of R1a (it is older than 3000 BC)
Poltavka Outlier - 1 sample of R1a (age 2925-2536 BC)
Xiaohe mummies - 11 x R1a (dated to 2558-1940 BC)
Potapovka - 2 samples of R1a (dated to 2469-1900 BC)
Sintashta - 2 samples of R1a (dated to 2298-1896 BC)
Srubnaya - 6 samples of R1a (dated to 1850-1200 BC)
Andronovo - 3 samples of R1a (dated to 1800-1298 BC)

L657 rose to numerical prominence only in a more recent period.

And today L657 is undoubtedly the most numerous of all subclades of R1a-Z93.

So its expansion from a few men to a few hundred million men was impressive.
 
R1a in Eastern Europe is very monotonous, mostly from 1 very recent source. Very young and recent subclades, which indicate a very recent migration and bottleneck/'elite dominance'.






While R1a in NorthWest Asian modern population is much more diverse and much more older than elsewhere in the world.




http://kurdishdna.blogspot.nl/2014/03/underhill-et-al-2014.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=24667786




" CONCLUSION

Our phylogeographic data lead us to conclude that the initial episodes of R1a-M420 diversification occurred in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey, and we estimate that diversification downstream of M417/Page7 occurred ~5800 years ago. This suggests the possibility that R1a lineages accompanied demic expansions initiated during the Copper, Bronze, and Iron ages, partially replacing previous Y-chromosome strata, an interpretation consistent with albeit limited ancient DNA evidence.
"

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/full/ejhg201450a.html


Anatolian_hypothesis.jpg
 
It could be a shocker if Copper Age Botai herders had some EEF.

1. botai people reconstruction
20041213hocomposite_450.jpg


2. comb ceramic :
The oldest ones have been discovered from the remains of Liao civilization(BC 6200 - 5400 BC), so the Urheimat is assumed to beLiao region and spread afterward to North Europe through Siberia and to Korean peniusla. This is possibly related to Uralic migration and spread ofhaprogroup N (Y-DNA).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_Ceramic


- Liao region: just above the North Korea

Liaorivermap.png



3. Problem is 7,000 years ago EEF ( lots of right burial types) might migrate from Germany to Korea

2203FC365420DDC132A2B0


- EEF pottery in Korea
252A9A3A5420E07D1E4B84


--> altai area (especially Astana)locates in the middle of comb ceramic zone, hence, they might have EEF

AND

tileshop.fcgi
oct.2013: Using HSV-1 genome phylogenetics to track past human migrations.
 
Thanks for the docs, Lebrok: a bit apart of this very thread, I think the reconsitution (if concerning the profile crania photo) is not very reliable; too broad skull, I think, and a female look not confirmed by the original profile; I would have been pleased if I could have a picture taken in front;
in more than one reconstruction I already noticed the lack of muscular relief of the jaws, what diminish the live supposed breadth of jaws.
Today Kazakhs (apart the ancient Russians colons) are heavily influenced by diverse 'east-asian' types, when the profile provided here doesn't seem confirming an heavy 'east-asian' imput. I know a profile is not sufficient to judge... the surveys I red stated the first 'east-asian' visible physical influences in Kazakhstan began at Iron Age only and I don't think it has been falsified.
All the way all these reconstructions are bets concerning forms of mouth, eyelids, eyebrows, fleshy part of nose and so on!
allways pleased when I can see a good crania picture (everybody has its own deviances! Some preferred playmates of Playboy...
As for the Botai culture I have to intervene. When people here don't believe Turkic anthropologists, as they seem to be racist and lying, we could at least believe Italian linguists and Russian chemists.

http://www.continuitas.org/news.html
[SIZE=+2]PCP SCIENTIFIC NEWS [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Edited by Mario Alinei, Xaverio Ballester, Francesco Benozzo[/SIZE]
07/12/2009

"
4. ENEOLITHIC AND HORSE DOMESTICATION. A study by A.K. Outram, N.A.Stear, R. Bendrey, S. Olsen, A. Kasparov, V. Zaibert, N. Thorpe, R.P. Evershed ("Science" 323, 2009, pp. 1332-1335) definitively confirms that horse domestication first took place in northern Kazakhstan, in the framework of the Eneolithic Botai culture, dating to about 3500 B.C.E. Analysis of organic residues also reveals milking of mares. See, on the same subject, "Trail of Mare's Milk Leads to First Tamed Horses", in Science 322, 2008, p. 368.
A comment by M.A.: Surprisingly, the authors still refer to works of Anthony, Mallory and Piggot, according to which "domestication of horse is associated with the spread of Indo-European languages and culture". Modern archaeology (beginning with Renfrew) has demolished this theory. Moreover, overwhelming linguistic evidence, among which most important is the spread of exclusively Turkic loanword related to horse terminology in all languages of Eastern Europe, both Indo-European and Uralic, shows that horse domestication is a fundamental Turkic innovation. It is no accident that the Botai culture is a khazak culture, belonging to the Turkic-speaking area, and not to the IE-, or Uralic-speaking one! Myths and dogmas are hard to die! (M.A.)"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm
[SIZE=+1]Anatole A. Klyosov [/SIZE]Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, vol. 3, No. 1, 2010"The Türkic-speaking bearers of Asian R1b haplotypes and their descendants largely remained in Asia, the rest had moved to the Caucasus, the Middle East, ancient Europe. 5,700-5,100 years ago in the North Kazakhstan they established the Botai archeological culture, and according to the latest data, about 5,500 years ago horse was domesticated there (Archaeology, Jan-Feb 2010). In addition to the Botai settlement dated 3,700-3,100 BC (it certainly was the haplogroup R1b, since the carriers of the R1a1 appeared in those regions only 1500-2000 years later). A summer camp dated 1,200-900 BC, i.e. 3,200-2,900 years ago, was found there. However, these were much more recent times, and the camp might have been established by the Andronovans, “Indo-European” R1a1, after a departure of a part of their tribe to India. They could also be the Türkic-speaking R1b1. The archaeologists, naturally, did not get into such distinctions. They simply noted that the camp belonged to the Bronze Age."
 
the question is not whether the Botaï domesticated the horse, the question is to what extent did they domesticate the horse and for what purpose
and where they the first?
the Botaï swithced all of a sudden from HG to horse herding without any other antecedents
David Anthony suggests the Botaï learned about horse herding from the Afanasievo people, moving from the Volga area to the Altaï

conc Turkic loanwords in horse terminology, what exact words are we talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhs

The Kazakhs are descendants of the Turkic and medieval Mongol tribes – Argyns, Dughlats, Naimans, Jalairs, Khazars, Qarluqs; and of theKipchaks and Cumans,[23][24] and other tribes such as the Huns, and ancient Iranian nomads like the Sarmatians, Saka and Scythians from East Europe populated the territory between Siberia and the Black Sea and remained in Central Asia and Eastern Europe when the nomadic groups started to invade and conquer the area between the 5th and 13th centuries AD.
 
It is no accident that the Botai culture is a khazak culture,belonging to the Turkic-speaking area, and not to the IE-, or Uralic-speaking one! Myths and dogmas are hard to die! (M.A.)"

I don't mind if Botai spoke some form of proto-proto-Turkic language. As well they could. I just don't understand why you want to create a new dogma, making Botai a Turkic Culture?!!! We have no idea what language they spoke, or if it was even remotely Turkic or not. They certainly had different beliefs, different way of life, traditions, clothing, songs, etc, etc. Nothing to do with Turkic of any known Turkic culture, or even proto-Turkic of 2000 years ago. Just because they resided in are of Kazakhstan they didn't need to speak the same language. On same grounds we could proclaim that Anatolians spoke Turkic language because Turkey occupies same geographical location. We know the statement is false, and this logic has no merits.



http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm
[SIZE=+1]Anatole A. Klyosov ...[/SIZE], and according to the latest data, about 5,500 years ago horse was domesticated there (Archaeology, Jan-Feb 2010). In addition to the Botai settlement dated 3,700-3,100 BC (it certainly was the haplogroup R1b, .........since the carriers of the R1a1 appeared in those regions only 1500-2000 years later).
Perhaps so, but this is one speculation after another. Why don't we wait for genetic anthropology to catch up.
Another issue is, how important is to brag about possible R1b in Botai? Is this something to be proud of?
 
As for the Botai culture I have to intervene. When people here don't believe Turkic anthropologists, as they seem to be racist and lying, we could at least believe Italian linguists and Russian chemists.

http://www.continuitas.org/news.html
[SIZE=+2]PCP SCIENTIFIC NEWS [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Edited by Mario Alinei, Xaverio Ballester, Francesco Benozzo[/SIZE]
07/12/2009

"
4. ENEOLITHIC AND HORSE DOMESTICATION. A study by A.K. Outram, N.A.Stear, R. Bendrey, S. Olsen, A. Kasparov, V. Zaibert, N. Thorpe, R.P. Evershed ("Science" 323, 2009, pp. 1332-1335) definitively confirms that horse domestication first took place in northern Kazakhstan, in the framework of the Eneolithic Botai culture, dating to about 3500 B.C.E. Analysis of organic residues also reveals milking of mares. See, on the same subject, "Trail of Mare's Milk Leads to First Tamed Horses", in Science 322, 2008, p. 368.
A comment by M.A.: Surprisingly, the authors still refer to works of Anthony, Mallory and Piggot, according to which "domestication of horse is associated with the spread of Indo-European languages and culture". Modern archaeology (beginning with Renfrew) has demolished this theory. Moreover, overwhelming linguistic evidence, among which most important is the spread of exclusively Turkic loanword related to horse terminology in all languages of Eastern Europe, both Indo-European and Uralic, shows that horse domestication is a fundamental Turkic innovation. It is no accident that the Botai culture is a khazak culture, belonging to the Turkic-speaking area, and not to the IE-, or Uralic-speaking one! Myths and dogmas are hard to die! (M.A.)"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm
[SIZE=+1]Anatole A. Klyosov [/SIZE]Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, vol. 3, No. 1, 2010"The Türkic-speaking bearers of Asian R1b haplotypes and their descendants largely remained in Asia, the rest had moved to the Caucasus, the Middle East, ancient Europe. 5,700-5,100 years ago in the North Kazakhstan they established the Botai archeological culture, and according to the latest data, about 5,500 years ago horse was domesticated there (Archaeology, Jan-Feb 2010). In addition to the Botai settlement dated 3,700-3,100 BC (it certainly was the haplogroup R1b, since the carriers of the R1a1 appeared in those regions only 1500-2000 years later). A summer camp dated 1,200-900 BC, i.e. 3,200-2,900 years ago, was found there. However, these were much more recent times, and the camp might have been established by the Andronovans, “Indo-European” R1a1, after a departure of a part of their tribe to India. They could also be the Türkic-speaking R1b1. The archaeologists, naturally, did not get into such distinctions. They simply noted that the camp belonged to the Bronze Age."


1- Why did you put my post as if you were answering it when your own post has nothing to do with it (my own post concerned reconstruction upon skeletons remnants, without any opinion concerning other things.
2- Personally I 've nothing systematic against national categories of scientists or posters.
3- Mario Alinei supported cocerning I-E in Occident some thesis which seems to me very unreliable, even if this man has some linguistic credit among some people.
4- Turkic tribes in Botai? I have not made my opinion yet. But a Y-R1b original group for them seems to me an adventurous bet at this stage of our knowledge.
5- to come back to language, I would be pleased to have some precise and nearly complete serious survey about the (so called?) I-E and uralic east-european terms for the horses world. What does not say I see a problem in the fact that Turkic people would have domesticated horses before others: it's not a competition bewteen us and by the fact steppic Turks were surely good rider...
 
Please, show me all these Turkic horse training and riding loan words in all IE languages. I would love to see them.

I imagine they're exclusive to regions that fell under very very very recent Turkic expansion of the middle ages, or relatively recent hunnic expansions if we agree that Huns were Turkic and not Iranic. I think most sane academics agree that the Huns were the late classical West's first contact with Turkic speaking peoples.
 

This thread has been viewed 99139 times.

Back
Top