41 Tzw. PIE, tzw. Yamnaya, tzw. Afanasievo, czyli dlaczego tu do jasnej cholery nic nie dodaje się, ani nie trzyma kupy, hm? 01

Monty Python – Ukamienowanie (Żywot Briana) PL

STWIERDZAM CO NASTĘPUJE: DO TEJ PORY NIKT NIE ODWAŻYŁ SIĘ NAWET SPRÓBOWAĆ OBALIĆ ALBO NAWET PODWAŻYĆ MOJEGO POMYSŁU O „PÓŁNOCNEJ DRODZE R1A”… I TEGO CO Z TEGO MOŻE WYNIKAĆ…

…więc przechodzę nad tym do porządku dziennego i przestaję już czekać na jakieś nadlatujące kamienie, rzucane ze strony bohatersko milczących „łowców ruskich trolli” lub innych wierzących w „południową drogę R1a”…

Rozumiem, że „wiarygodność dowodów i źródeł” upowszechnionych przez nich, a także moja ich analiza… zwyczajnie „przygniotły ich”, dokładnie tak jak pokazano to na tym powyższym filmie… 🙂 LOL 🙂

Pewno gdybym robił to dłużej, (czyli czekał na jakieś cudowne objawienie, itp)… to czuję że zwyczajnie umarłbym z nudów,.. no chyba żeby Anna M. pierwsza zamęczyłaby mnie swoimi prośbami o upowszechnienie danych o R1a i R1b znalezionych w kulturze Afanasievo, (wywodzącej się ze wschodniej Yamnaya) inaczej zwanej „The Yamna culture (also known as the Pit Grave culture or Ochre Grave culture)”… 😉

Upowszechniłem już te dane co najmniej ze dwa razy (a pewno więcej), ale widzę, że nikt jakoś nie za bardzo rozumie, co z tych danych wynika, a wynika wg mnie bardzo wiele. Rozbiorę więc to teraz na części pierwsze,.. ale najpierw upowszechnię ruchomą animację przedstawiającą rzekomo jak to było z tą Yamnaya i tym, co wyszło z niej, jak i ponownie opublikuję poniższy wpis i co ciekawsze komentarze pod nim. Następnie poskładam to od nowa do kupy… ale to pewno już w drugiej lub następnych częściach tego wpisu…

EastPole said…
@Arzya “you are the victim of propaganda (aka PIE „reconstruction” and sound „laws”)”.

Not only he. There are problems with defining Proto-Indo-European. The most logical definition would be: it is the proto-language which links India and Europe. There is only one language which fits this definition. It is Indo-Slavic, i.e. the language from which Baltic, Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages originated and were spoken in India and Europe. This language correlates well with R1a-Z645 expansion. Germanic tribes didn’t have contacts with Indo-Iranians. They had contacts with Slavs, but Germanic scholars don’t want to admit it.

Listen to what top Germanic scholar Guus Kroonen is saying:

“Slavs were barbarians to Germanic people…You don’t borrow from barbarians, that’s the rule.”

This is why proto-Germanic is based on some BS reconstructions from some BS PIE language which never existed and never was spoken by anybody.
March 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM

http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/r1b-m269-in-afanasievo.html

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

R1b-M269 in Afanasievo

Back in 2015, Allentoft et al. published four Afanasievo genomes that finally confirmed beyond any doubt that the enigmatic Afanasievo people were migrants to the Altai region from Eastern Europe.

However, all four samples came from female remains, which left us wondering about the Y-haplogroup composition of the Afanasievo population. As it turns out, a French study from 2014 found that three Afanasievo individuals belonged to R1b, with two classified as R1b-M269 (see here).

There’s nothing remarkable (???!!! Dawidski nagle zgłupiał, albo nie chce przyznać, że to jest bardzo ważne???!!!) about this, considering that the above mentioned four Afanasievo samples look essentially identical to M269-rich eastern Yamnaya samples from Kalmykia and Samara in terms of genome-wide genetic structure (for instance, see here). But it’s a useful bit of info that has somehow eluded us all until now. Thanks to Kristiina for the find

Citation…

Clémence Hollard. Peuplement du sud de la Sibérie et de l’Altaï à l’âge du Bronze : apport de la paléogénétique. Paléontologie. Université de Strasbourg, 2014. Français. NNT : 2014STRAJ002. tel-01296484

Posted by Davidski at 2:48:00 AM

…..

EastPole said…
Yamnaya was exclusively R1b, now we see the same with Afanasievo – only R1b. This suggests that as early as 3500 BC or earlier there were two distinct groups on the steppe, R1b and R1a dominated, which didn’t mix because probably spoke very different languages, had different religions and cultures.
March 1, 2017 at 3:56 AM

Davidski said…
Yamnaya was exclusively R1b. Might be useful not to get too dogmatic about this, until we see samples from more western Yamnaya sites, especially in what was Dnieper-Donets territory, where Neolithic R1a has already been found.
March 1, 2017 at 4:15 AM

Davidski said…
Both Yamnaya and Afanasievo can’t be the source of EBA type Indian ancestry +R1a. But the sister group to Eastern European Corded Ware is.
March 1, 2017 at 4:16 AM

Davidski said…
Early Baltic Corded Ware looks basically like Yamnaya, so it or some sort of sister group fits the bill in terms of genome-wide formal stats for Steppe_EBA admixture in South Asians. Maykop won’t be the right group in terms of genome-wide DNA or Y-DNA. There won’t be any R1a-M417/Z645 in Maykop.
March 1, 2017 at 4:22 AM

Rob said…
What I think is interesting is that Z93 has been in Altai since Neolithic
March 1, 2017 at 4:24 AM

Davidski said…
@Rob What’s your French like? Because those Z93 in the Altai are from the Late Bronze Age, after Andronovo.
March 1, 2017 at 4:31 AM

Rob said…
@ Dave There were.2 R1a-M417 in Neolithic Lokomotiv (5,5-3,7 ky BP). It was my guess that it could be Z93..
http://bhap.artsrn.ualberta.ca/images/uploads/pdfs/Moussa.et.al.JAS-R.Nov.2016.pdf
March 1, 2017 at 4:50 AM

UWAGA!!!
Y-chromosomal DNA analyzed for four prehistoric cemeteries from Cis-Baikal, Siberia
N.M. Moussa,V.I. Bazaliiskii, O.I. Goriunova, F. Bamforth, A.W. Weber

The Lake Baikal region of Siberia was home to two temporally distinct populations from Early Neolithic, EN
(7500–7000 cal BP) to Late Neolithic-Early Bronze Age, LN-EBA (5570–3725 cal BP). The EN group was separated
from the LN-EBA group by a ~1500-year gap (hiatus), and during this hiatus no human remains have been recovered from the Lake Baikal area. Examination of the paternal lineage through Y-chromosomal polymorphisms is a novel approach to BAP and will facilitate the assessment of the paternal continuities and/or discontinuities within
and between the EN and the LN-EBA groups, and complement the previously examined maternal data. Several new ancient DNA extraction and PCR amplification techniques were optimized to address the technical challenges during sample analysis. Each sample was extracted twice in duplicate on different occasions to authenticate the results. Thirteen Y-chromosomal Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) markers were examined via the SNaPshot multiplex PCR reaction to determine Y-chromosomal haplogroups of males. Results have been obtained from 16 males from the EN cemeteries Lokomotiv and Shamanka II representing haplogroups K, R1a1 and C3, and 20 males from the LN-EBA Ust’-Ida and Kurma XI cemeteries representing haplogroups Q, K and unidentified SNP (L914). For those males belonging to haplogroup Q, further experiments were obtained to examine subhaplogroups of Q, and the results showed that those males belong to sub-haplogroup Q1a3. The paternal Y-chromosome results suggest a discontinuity between the EN and LN-EBA populations. The significance of this research lies on the utility of DNA analysis in making inferences about the pre-historic social structure.

Davidski said…
@Rob There were.2 R1a-M417 in Neolithic Lokomotiv (5,5-3,7 ky BP). It was my guess that it could be Z93. Nah, Z645 didn’t move into Central Europe from Siberia. It came from the Western steppe. Time to start accepting things now, and not encouraging Nirjhar. He won’t thank you in the long run when he flips his lid after the new papers come out.
March 1, 2017 at 5:04 AM

Azarov Dmitry said…
@Davidski Maykop won’t be the right group in terms of genome-wide DNA or Y-DNA. There won’t be any R1a-M417/Z645 in Maykop. You still have time to reconcile yourself to the idea that you were WRONG. There are no chances that Maykop wasn’t a source of R1a-M417/Z645 folks.
March 1, 2017 at 5:12 AM

Rob said…
@ Dave Lol I’m not encouraging anything or anyone. Nor did I imply that Z645 moved from Siberia to Europe. It’s just possible, possible that it was already there in the local late Neolithic
March 1, 2017 at 5:18 AM

Davidski said…
It’s not technically possible. Learn something about the structure and history of R1a-Z645 and R1a-Z282.
March 1, 2017 at 5:25 AM

Nirjhar007 said…
Okay another key thing is now that , as someone just pointed me, how silly of me! : if Afanasevo is R1b like Yamnaya it cannot be the source of Tarim, which was R1a.
March 1, 2017 at 5:50 AM

EastPole said…
Bol’shemysskaya culture is very interesting, it is a HG culture which shows some similarity to Kelteminar culture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshemys_culture
March 1, 2017 at 6:27 AM

Karl_K said…
„if Afanasevo is R1b like Yamnaya it cannot be the source of Tarim, which was R1a.” What does this have to do with anything? Those mummies were from 1800 BC. They could be an offshoot of Corded Ware for all anyone knows.
March 1, 2017 at 6:37 AM

John Smith said…
As a layman, I find it difficult to understand why either R1a or R1b almost always seem to dominate any given archaeological site to the exclusion of the other. Anyone mind explaining what gives? Where is the R1a in Yamnaya? Where is the R1b in Andronovo? If all of these cultures spawned from one mother culture, wouldn’t we see a healthy mix of R1a/R1b in all of them?
March 1, 2017 at 7:50 AM

Nirjhar007 said…
I find fascinating the question then, who were these Afanasievo people?. Interestingly as we know, Xiaohe also had the M Mtdnas . I think BMAC and N India should have good amounts of R1a . It makes sense since CWC , Sintashta, Andronovo, Tarim area , even Srubnaya didn’t have any R1b .R1b is also not important for Indo-Aryan groups . Indo-Aryans require EBA Autosomal structure to have an ‚ancestral pop’ . So Yamnaya, Afana.(Actually Yamnaya was discarded long before) is discarded now along with Sintashta,Andronovo from before. We all know Archaeologically its also not possible for Andronovo to be the source of Indian IEs. Then we see also that Ulug Depe showing Indian like EBA ancestry. Its also hilarious to claim CWC is source of Tocharians! . I think SC Asia have a great chance , with sites like Sarazm , things can be fascinating . Unless we have to imagine that Aryans came from Siberia! like Bal Gangadhar Tilak suggested 😉 , its possible since now we have R1a-M417 from Lake Baikal! .
March 1, 2017 at 8:08 AM

Plains Wanderer said…
@John Smith Perhaps it’s because R1a and R1b belonged to two distinct populations since the LGM and they only mixed in some later groups such as western European IE (Germanic and Italo-Celtic). I find it striking how nearly all R1a since the EBA seems to be linked to or is well correlated with various IE groups or with groups later absorbed into the Turkic expansions. Meanwhile, R1b is associated with several non-IE groups such as Chadic speakers and some other groups in Africa, the Basques, and probably the non-IE Iberians during the Iron Age. There’s also M73 and some older surviving lineages like M335 and PH155 that may not be connected to IE expansions. I think this all hints to R1a being the original lineage of PIE and R1b only mixed into some groups after PIE began expanding.
March 1, 2017 at 8:09 AM

Karl_K said…
@John Smith

There are a few ways that might explain. You can even think about it and you would come up with the most obvious ways yourself. It could be that having a certain Y-haplogroup simply confers a biological advantage. This is extremely unlikely.

It could be that there is a sex-linked dominant reason that confers a biological advantage. So, anything that gives an advantage to a son a father, but disadvantages the daughter of a father. This is possible, for example lactose tolerance could advantage sons over daughters. Both sons and daughters get the advantage as a young child, but later, daughters are disadvantaged when they have their own children, because the children could compete for milk longer.

The most obvious reason is that sometimes cultures develop a culture-linked dominant reason that confers a biological advantage. The most obvious is that anyone in a socially special family can have more children, and then those children gain the same social advantage.

In that case, the females can never gain the same biological advantage as the males, because they have a limited ability to produce children. So, males in certain families have many many more children, and his children inherit the social status, and then his male children are able to have many many more children, and so on.

The fact that you see very few random Y haplogroups, but many mt haplogroups joining in over time means that either the daughters with the special status were not allowed to have sex outside of this special social status group, or that the status was only passed to sons.

Most likely then. There was a special social status group that was passed down through the paternal line and allowed them to have many many more children than the average man could have.

This special social status could be as simple as a requirement to pay a price to someone to have a child, coupled with the ability to inherit wealth from parents. But in pre-genetic testing times, that would require a lot of trust. If it was true, it could be a reason for the spread of certain phenotypic traits that people could use as a marker of parentage.
March 1, 2017 at 8:23 AM

Gioiello said…
@ Plains Wanderer „Meanwhile, R1b is associated with several non-IE groups such as Chadic speakers and some other groups in Africa, the Basques, and probably the non-IE Iberians during the Iron Age. There’s also M73 and some older surviving lineages like M335 and PH155 that may not be connected to IE expansions. I think this all hints to R1a being the original lineage of PIE and R1b only mixed into some groups after PIE began expanding”.

You are mixing too many wrong things: 1) it isn’t true that R1b is linked with Chadic languages, what also Cruciani said: R-V88 comes from Italy and African R-V88 aren’t older than 5000 years, 2) R-M73 is older in Western Europe and Asians descend from two recent haplotypes, one from Turks, but migrated to Central Asia from Samara; 3) R-M335 is overwhelmingly in Central Europe and Italy and is older than R-PH155 found in Central Asia and India, and it has nothing to do with the R-L389+ subclades, and so on.

@ Nirjhar0007 (said James Bond) Are all those white men with blond hair and blue eyes really from India? Anyway these R-M269-L23 were overwhelmingly „Europeans” as Hollard says…
March 1, 2017 at 8:48 AM

EastPole said…
В северомонгольско сагсайской культуре (1400-900г. до н.э., по всей видимости, постандроновская культура) 4 R1a1a1b2-Z93. Translation: In North Mongolian Sagsai culture (1400-900 BC most likely post-Andronovo) 4 R1a1a1b2-Z93.

So Sagsai seems to be a North-Western Mongolian culture derived from Andronovo, a mix of Aryans and early Mongols:


March 1, 2017 at 8:48 AM

Plains Wanderer said…
@Gioiello Note that I did not speculate where R1a and R1b originally came from, just that they were distinct populations. Are you saying that the ancestors of Chadic V88, Turkic M73, and of M335 originally spoke IE languages? Because if not, my point still stands: that R1b might have originally been non-PIE and only certain subclades of R1b such as L21 and U152 adopted and spread IE languages.
March 1, 2017 at 9:04 AM

Gioiello said…
@ Plain Wanderer It is difficult to understand the pathway of the haplogroups, if you add the languages, things become more and more difficult. My theory is that R1b1 (as Villabruna 14000 years ago demonstrates) comes from the Italian Refugium. Certainly, after the Younger Dryas, R-V88, R-L389+, R-L73, R-P297, R-M335 expanded from there. I supposed that also the Indo-European languages, how they could be then, could have been born there, above all whether it will be demonstrated that also R1a-M420 and subclades was there (and possibly I/J). But languages are a complex phenomenon and we haven’t aDNA for that. Let’s demonstrate genetics. After we’ll speak also about languages.
March 1, 2017 at 9:07 AM

John Smith said…
@ Plains and @ Karl_K Perhaps the issue is we only have samples from Kurgans (or do we have others?). It seems PIE society was segregated into three major classes of people: warriors, priests, and artisans (craftsmen, farmers, herders, etc.). This seems to be a theme in almost all IE connected cultures well into the middle ages (until the fall of monarchies). In any case, if we’re only sampling warriors (and finding no priests or serfs), then perhaps this explains the disparity. As Karl mentions, there’s no doubt that the Chief of each tribe was a member of the warrior class, and as a result, he had more breeding opportunities than the other classes (after all women like status, lol). And we know the „throne” was passed to only males of the Warrior King’s lineage, which means we will only find men of his haplogroup buried in Kurgans. That all makes sense. So, I suppose the question is, were’s the priests and serfs? Were they cremated, perhaps? If so, that really throws a wrench into the gears doesn’t it?
March 1, 2017 at 9:53 AM

Gaspar said…
The only way there can be a divide in yamnaya between R1b and R1a is if R1b entered Yamnaya via the south caucasus and R1a could not because north of the caspian sea was still under the ice-belt . It would mean that yamnaya was populated firstly by R1b. It would then mean eastern Europe was firstly populated by R1b before R1a …………and it would also make sense that the barbarian invasions of the Roman empire where heavily R1b over R1a. As for those who still believe R1b or R1a created PIE, you are wrong because it would make no sense for either to go to Anatolia , which is the first linguistic split from PIE at 4000BC before going to Eastern Europe. Clearly PIE was created by many different Hapolgroups living together in the north Caucasus area
March 1, 2017 at 10:12 AM

AWood said…
@Alberto Allentoft et al (2015) already drew the conclusion that the much younger Tarim basin mummies were not sprung from the earliest wave through autosomal analysis. This implies there were at least two movements eastwards. The latter being R1a1, and the earlier being R1b. I’m not certain that R1a1 was even around, or that far east at the time of Afanasievo or even eastern Yamnaya. I guess we need to see more data. R1b has always been the slightly older brother.
March 1, 2017 at 11:00 AM

Atriðr said…
The truth is coming out. EBA in South Asians is closer to Afanasievo than to Andronovo. Andronovo is different from Afanasievo because of Western/Caucasus expansions. Afanasievo is leaning exclusively (for now) R1b. South Asians do not have Andronovo DNA. Ergo, EBA in South Asians did not come from Afanasievo. And R1a did not arrive in South Asia with Yamnayans or Andronovo/Afan.

This leads to at least three options:

1) PIE did not come from R1a or R1b, but J2. @Nirjhar J2 is present is UC Indians.
2) R1a is source of PIE and did not come from Yamnaya, Andronovo, Afanasievo.
3) PIE came from several haplogroups, likely Caucasus area.

There are two potential locations for R1a. And I’m fine with both because they’ve made sense from the very beginning, unlike Yamnaya. @Gioiello is correct – we can determine the genetics independent of languages for now.
One thing certain, R1a does not come from anywhere near Europe. R1a was the invasion that pushed R1b to the oceans of the Atlantic.
March 1, 2017 at 11:01 AM

Blasonario Cremonese said…
@ all the good souls filled with R1a-supremacism

Did you all notice that in Khvalynsk we have R1b1 AND R1a1 in the same area? So, an educated guess is that those two haplogroups lived pretty much together for long time and the divion between cultures merely dominated by only one of those two lineages are only due to the chieftains offsprings. Please Atridr, spare me the comment full of Lord of the rings fantasy about an invasion: R1a seems to be in the East European and steppe area from the Mesolithic (see also the Karelian samples)… so what invasion are you talking about?
March 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM

Blasonario Cremonese said…
@ AWood wrote: „Ahh I get it now, so Afanasievo is no longer a PIE related culture because some posters didn’t like the outcome? I never knew the answers were so easy!” I remember when the first results from Yamna were out: a lot of people was astonished (and I think nearly to cry like babies). After a second (just the time to dry their tears), some of those heroes say that Yamna wasn’t PIE, because R1b can’t be linked with PIE. Good science!
March 1, 2017 at 11:57 AM

Karl_K said…
The fact is that Corded Ware men were almost totally R1a, and yet extremely similar autosomally to R1b dominated Yamnaya. Listen to the autosome. It is at least a million times more informative than Y haplogroups in determining how closely connected two groups are in term of real relationships, in general.
March 1, 2017 at 12:04 PM

EastPole said…
@Arzya “you are the victim of propaganda (aka PIE „reconstruction” and sound „laws”)”.

Not only he. There are problems with defining Proto-Indo-European. The most logical definition would be: it is the proto-language which links India and Europe. There is only one language which fits this definition. It is Indo-Slavic, i.e. the language from which Baltic, Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages originated and were spoken in India and Europe. This language correlates well with R1a-Z645 expansion. Germanic tribes didn’t have contacts with Indo-Iranians. They had contacts with Slavs, but Germanic scholars don’t want to admit it.

Listen to what top Germanic scholar Guus Kroonen is saying:

“Slavs were barbarians to Germanic people…You don’t borrow from barbarians, that’s the rule.”

This is why proto-Germanic is based on some BS reconstructions from some BS PIE language which never existed and never was spoken by anybody.
March 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM

Davidski said…
Khvalynsk had both R1a and R1b and they weren’t mammoth hunters. After Khvalynsk we see certain subclades of R1a and R1b restricted to specific archeological cultures, in other words clans. But this may be misleading to some degree, because most of the burials are those of elites. More sampling of the steppe, steppe-derived cultures, and a wider cross section of each archeological culture will clear up a lot of things, and demonstrate more clearly the expansion of Yamnaya-like populations from the steppe in almost all directions, carrying either R1a, R1b or both.
March 1, 2017 at 1:37 PM

Grey said…
Davidski „Khvalynsk had both R1a and R1b and they weren’t mammoth hunters.” Sure – the mammoth were all gone by then. The point was in response to „The only way there can be a divide in yamnaya between R1b and R1a is if R1b entered Yamnaya via the south caucasus and R1a could not because north of the caspian sea was still under the ice-belt.” i.e. the assumption they had to come from the south rather than they were already there.
March 1, 2017 at 1:53 PM

Ryan said…
@Nirjhar007 – the Tarim mummies are almost all R1a but they lived long before Tocharian is attested. Those mummies likely do have roots in Indo-Iranian groups, but you shouldn’t assume that no other Indo-European groups arrived in the Tarim basin afterwards. In the last 1,500 years the region has gone from Tocharian, to Turkish, and now to Chinese speaking. I don’t think it’s wise to assume that the 2,500 years preceding that were pure statis.

Modern Uighurs are 3-10% R1b and 22-35% R1a. That’s a lot of R1a, but a lot less than the 11/12 with the Tarim mummies. Maybe the sample size means R1b was just missed, but either way there’s clearly been a lot of Y-DNA turnover in the region over the years, and it certainly seems plausible to attribute R1b and Tocharian languages to a late bronze age / early iron age migration. Especially when you consider that when Tocharians appear in the historical record they are surrounded by Indo-Iranian groups on nearly all sides. It’s not unreasonable to posit that they were the interlopers in a previously Indo-Iranian domain.

3-10% R1b is enough to bring a language too – migrations are a ship of Theseus, and the first Tocharians in the Tarim Basin may already have been ethnically diverse. There are certainly plenty of Indo-Iranian populations with less than 10% R1 of any sort.
March 1, 2017 at 2:00 PM

Arza said…
@EastPole Guus Kroonen is saying:

“Slavs were barbarians to Germanic people…You don’t borrow from barbarians, that’s the rule.” Just one big WTF. I thought they at least keep up appearances. I’m speechless. This must be a quite new rule (Kroonen Law?), because his ancestors didn’t know about it at all.
March 1, 2017 at 2:24 PM

Ryan said…
@Grey – „How convenient. Also, convenient that R1a/R1b split along satem-centum lines with some few exceptions.” It actually makes sense for satem and centum to split that way. Suppose the proto-IE group is mostly R1b, with some R1a and some Q. As the first IE groups expand, each leaves with a different mix of these haplogroups. Because IE society is very patriarchal and due to founder effects, many groups tend to be dominated by one haplogroup – mostly R1b, but a few by R1a as well. These initial departing groups are the ancestors of the centum languages. One group that happens to be dominated by R1a develops satemization. They then undergo a secondary expansion – spreading back across lands previously occupied by their R1b centum cousins, mostly replacing them and their language.
March 1, 2017 at 2:40 PM

capra internetensis said…
@Rob Are you sure it’s M417 at Lokomotiv? My notes say M17.
March 1, 2017 at 2:58 PM

Davidski said…
Definitely M17. Rob doesn’t know the difference between M417 and M17.
March 1, 2017 at 3:06 PM

Atriðr said…
It actually makes sense for satem and centum to split that way. It does but for diametrically opposed reasons that you state in your comment.
March 1, 2017 at 3:11 PM

Rafs said…
„Meanwhile, R1b is associated with several non-IE groups such as Chadic speakers and some other groups in Africa” That’s silly. From the fact that other groups possess R1b you can’t conclude that it isn’t original to IE, too. Proto-IE weren’t born from the ground, with wholly new haplogroups, and no connection to other populations. And R1a appears among Siberians, Mongolians, as well as Turkic and Dravidian speakers.

„the Basques” possess as much steppe admixture as their IE neighbors.

„and probably the non-IE Iberians during the Iron Age.” No evidence of that.

„I think this all hints to R1a being the original lineage of PIE and R1b only mixed into some groups after PIE began expanding.” Are we back in 2005, when there was no ancient DNA around?

Both the more ancient IE groups are almost pure R1b, with no R1a thus far, and R1b is already seen in the steppe among their EHG ancestors. R1b appears in the Yamnaya prior to any geographic expansion beyond their original country. R1a only starts being associated with autosomal steppe admixture later on, with populations – the Corded Ware, the Srubna – that are either later in time or the result of geographical expansion. So, if between R1b and R1a there’s only one haplogroup that is original to IE, it’s R1b, and if R1a is the one that became associated with temporal or geographical expansions.
March 1, 2017 at 8:47 PM

Davidski said…
@Rafs R1a only starts being associated with autosomal steppe admixture later on, with populations – the Corded Ware, the Srubna – that are either later in time or the result of geographical expansion. Khvalynsk has R1a, and it’s seen as Proto-IE. Yamnaya is seen as Late Proto-IE.
March 1, 2017 at 10:57 PM

Aram said…
Mesolithic R1s in East Europe were probably para-pre-PIE speakers. By pre-PIE I mean the language of EHG folks before they admixed with Basal Eurasians. Here it is an example.

„”Proto-Berber shows features that clearly distinguish it from all other branches of Afroasiatic, but modern Berber languages are relatively homogeneous. Whereas the split from the other known Afroasiatic branches was very ancient, on the order of 10000~9000 years ago, according to glottochronological studies,[2] Proto-Berber might be as recent as 3000 years ago.””

And now look at the Berber Y DNA

https://yfull.com/tree/E-M81/
E-M81PF2553/M5311 * CTS8282/Z1194/M5248 * CTS665/PF2482/M5018+147 SNPs formed 14200 ybp, TMRCA 2200 ybp

Basically this mean that Berbers splited from PAA some 12000 years ago and remained isolated somewhere is West Africa. During this long period of isolation their language remained in the AA frames. So why haplogroup E-M35 can keep his language while R1 can’t?
March 1, 2017 at 11:42 PM

Annie Mouse said…
@Raf We have no idea what those prehistoric people spoke. We can guess, but they are only at best educated guesses.

So far as I know the oldest known „Indo European” language is Hittite (Turkey) from around 1500 BCE. None of the older cultures are known to speak Indo European. None. Whatsoever. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind. Nothing.

A few have evidence of untranslatable script that looks a lot like heiroglyphics to me. Vinca (first found in Romania) and supposedly found in France alongside cave paintings looks like the first European script. But we cant translate it. We dont know the language at all.

http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/writingorigin.htm

Even the name „Indo-European” people is pure speculation. Ancient Harappan Indus (indian) has never been translated and it looks nothing like Hittite cuneiform. But it is possible that the written language forms developed separately after the oral language was well established.

The current thinking however is that Indus is not an even an Indo European language but a Dravidian language. Which to me makes sense with Sankrit entering later or being confined to the north. (ducks for cover)

http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-civilization-cracking-the-indus-script-1.18587

So we have Hittite, and no Hittite has ever been genetically tested so we know nothing about their genetic relationships with any other regions. Not that genetics has much to do with language. My best guess is that they were… Turkish.

Which brings me back to my main point. That the connection between language and genetics is loose at best, wildly deceiving at worst.

In terms of regions this language group stretched from east asian Tocharian to Western Europe to Sankrit India. It is now truly global. Indo European as a name never made sense and does not make sense now. We need another name for the language family. TransEurasian, Steppish or something similar.

Equally „Indo-European people” makes no sense genetically except as unreliable evidence for an theory. Languages are not people. As attested by the Caribbean, Phillipines and Central America. Even in Ireland/Britain with the so called Saxon/Celtic divide, that wasn’t.

English became the lingua franca in some areas because the English suck at languages, had a malleable language and were influential traders.

For all we know the „Indo European” languages spread across the Europe in the Greek classical era as a trading language. Languages can change fast, as Chaucer illustrates, along with any number of pidgin languages. (ducks and runs rapidly away as fast as she can).
March 1, 2017 at 11:58 PM

wagg said…
The Xiaohe were indeed R1a (with mostly mtDNA C4 IIRC (which is found in the Altai)) but IIRC, Y-DNA R1b is found in the Tarim basin nowadays, even though I can’t remember the subclade(s), so… calm down with the certitudes, guys.
March 2, 2017 at 1:55 AM

Davidski said…
He’s talking about Andronovo.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2009/05/ancient-siberians-carrying-r1a1-had_24.html
March 2, 2017 at 2:46 AM

UWAGA!!!
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0683-0
Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people
Christine Keyser, Caroline Bouakaze, Eric Crubézy, Valery G. Nikolaev, Daniel Montagnon, Tatiana Reis, Bertrand Ludes

Abstract
To help unravel some of the early Eurasian steppe migration movements, we determined the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial haplotypes and haplogroups of 26 ancient human specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area dated from between the middle of the second millennium BC. to the fourth century AD. In order to go further in the search of the geographic origin and physical traits of these south Siberian specimens, we also typed phenotype-informative single nucleotide polymorphisms. Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe. Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization. To the best of our knowledge, no equivalent molecular analysis has been undertaken so far.

Simon_W said…
@Arza & East Pole
There mere fact that a method centuries ago was misused and wrongly applied by a a handful of biased and obviously silly people doesn’t prove that the whole method is shit. There are enough crackpots misusing maths to prove Einstein was wrong, yet this doesn’t prove maths is BS. Indeed, without PIE reconstruction and regular sound-laws there would be no talk about PIE, or at least not as dead certain as it is now. The method of linguistic archaeology does have some difficulties and problems, and the exact inventory of the PIE vocabulary is controversial in a few points, but this doesn’t mean we have to throw it all into the dustbin.

And besides, if you think that Germanic people in general despise Slavs like the Nazis did decades ago, then you are hopelessly stuck in the past, to say the least. I know many Poles who don’t know Germans in personal still tend to have reservations towards them, but Germans are not the only Germanic people, and afaik Poles have no problems Danes or Scandinavians. And Guus Kroonen seems to be Dutch judging from his name – since when is there a problem between Poles and the Dutch?

As for the name „Indo-European”, that’s merely a convention, it doesn’t mean a lot. In German the IE language family is sometimes called Indogermanisch as well, because it’s a language family that lies between Germanic Icelandic in the west and Indian in the east. But the difference is just in the name, the object of designation is the same.
March 2, 2017 at 12:30 PM

…..

Dodatkowo:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_bronze_age_proto-indo-europeans.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/yamna_culture.shtml

Reklamy

12 thoughts on “41 Tzw. PIE, tzw. Yamnaya, tzw. Afanasievo, czyli dlaczego tu do jasnej cholery nic nie dodaje się, ani nie trzyma kupy, hm? 01

  1. Anna M. tu masz trochę o tym Twoim Sag:

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/european-specific-mtdna-lineages-on-neo.html?showComment=1488357325824#c1945378408411807406

    Kristiina said…
    How come nobody has noticed this! This is huge!
    Peuplement du sud de la Sibérie et de l’Altaï à l’âge du Bronze : apport de la paléogénétique
    https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01296484/

    Afanasievo is R1b-M269, R1b-P297 (Yamnaya line I presume) and Q-M242 (Maf)
    Okunevo is R1b1a2-M269, Q1a3 and N
    Elunino is Q1a3
    Chemurchek is C-M130
    Sagsai is R1a1-Z93, Q1a3a, C-M130 (looks Turkic)
    Munkh-Khairkhan is N

    Therefore, I think that Afanasievo could be Yamnaya Samara IE language, Okunevo a Siberian language, Chemurchek could be Proto-Tungusic, Sagsai Proto-Turkic, Munkh-Khairkan proto-Samoyedic.
    March 1, 2017 at 12:35 AM

    …..

    To na podstawie tego komentarza Dawidski napisał swój artykuł, który zacytowałem w tym wpisie. Upowszechnię dalej cały artykuł z którego pochodzi ta uwaga Kristina’y, jak i co ciekawsze komentarze innych komentujących.

    Lubię to

    • http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/european-specific-mtdna-lineages-on-neo.html?showComment=1488357325824#c1945378408411807406

      Tuesday, February 28, 2017

      European-specific mtDNA lineages on the Neo-Eneolithic Mongol Steppe

      Interesting but not surprising:

      The mitochondrial haplotypes U5a1 and H2a2a were identified from two upper Neolithic or early Eneolithic graves in Bayankhongor Province, Erdenetsogt Township, Shatar Chuluu. This is the earliest documented appearance of western mtDNA haplotypes on the Mongol Steppe, and the farthest east “western” mtDNA haplotypes have been recorded before the Iron Age. This evidence proves that individuals possessing western Eurasian mtDNA lived on the Mongol Steppe, east of the Altai Mountains, before the Bronze Age, and dispels the notion that the Altai Mountains were a significant barrier to gene flow.

      When exactly western Eurasian steppe people migrated past the Altai to the Mongol Steppe is still not clear, however the identification of western mtDNA haplotypes from the Neolithic Mongol Steppe (this project) suggests that the migration predates the Eneolithic (~2900BCE). These first migrants most likely arrived along with the population from which the Afanasievo archaeological culture arose, or perhaps earlier with the first “western” people migrating onto the Mongol Steppe shortly after domestication of the horse, although no conclusive evidence of horse domestication dating before ~1300BCE has been found on the Mongol Steppe (Svyatko et al 2009; Vigne et al 2011; Taylor et al 2015). It seems more likely that the western migration onto the steppe was following sheep herds, which may have moved onto the Mongol Steppe around 3,300BCE (Lv et al 2015).

      Rogers, Leland Liu, Understanding ancient human population genetics of the eastern Eurasian steppe through mitochondrial DNA analysis: Central Mongolian samples from the Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Mongol Empire periods, Indiana University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2016. 10253175

      See also…

      R1b-M269 in Afanasievo

      101 ancient Eurasian genomes (Allentoft et al. 2015)

      A moment of clarity: PCA of ancient West Eurasia

      Posted by Davidski at 3:40:00 AM

      Lubię to

    • jv said…
      Wouldn’t surprise me if an mtDNA H6 shows up in that area as mtDNA H6 was found in the Andronovo Culture & Okunev Culture.
      February 28, 2017 at 4:32 AM

      Davidski said…
      Early Scythians had Siberian admixture. They weren’t South Asian. http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/the-scythian.html
      February 28, 2017 at 5:23 AM

      postneo said…

      I had commented last year that the supposed skewed sex ratio of yamnaya incursion to europe is an artifact. west Eurasian mtdna had already migrated to the steppe before the yamnaya incursion. So the yamnaya were bringing nothing new on the female side when they moved in to Europe

      February 28, 2017 at 6:03 AM

      postneo said…
      The recent q3 paper shoes proto yamnaya links between caucasus yamnaya south CAspian IVC and Altai. It’s a mountain corridor connected by goats and sheep
      February 28, 2017 at 6:08 AM

      Kristiina said…
      Out of curiosity, I checked the admixture graph in the Allentoft paper. North Indians, Kalash, Yamnaya and Afanasievo do share the greenish component. This component is probably the same as CHG whatever it really means. At a high K level, Afanasievo and Yamnaya also share the turquoise Kalash component. I do not know what this implies but one cannot say that Afanasievo and North India/Pakistan do not share any southern ancestry. Here the question is what is the relationship between ANI and CHG. I know that you, David, are against Iran ancestry in Yamnaya and maintain that it is only Caucasian ancestry.
      February 28, 2017 at 6:14 AM

      ak2014b said…
      mtDNA M doesn’t look all too common in Iran, going by the Derenko et al 2013 paper, which further found no R7. Out of 353 samples, there are 13 instances of M. One of this was in a single Turkic speaking Qashqai, who was M4a. The remaining 12 samples of M are among ethnic Persians, and consist of single instances each of M18a, M2c, M3a1, M42b1b, M4b, M5a2a1a (from Kerman), and 6 persons with M5a2a4 of whom four were from Kerman province. mtDNA M52, found in south Asians of the Himalayan region and in Bronze Age Novosvobodnaya aDNA, is not reported by the above paper as being present in the Iranian population.
      February 28, 2017 at 6:27 AM

      Kristiina said…
      Check Table 2: Bronze Age Mongolia Sequence Data!
      Indian mtDNAs are R7, M31a2 x 2 and M3 x 2. One M is not clear. Moreover, H14 is typical for Dravidians and the most basal haplotype is found there. This means that 5(7) out of 26 samples are Indian. It is c. 20-25%. Seven out of 26 samples are Siberian (A2,A2a1,D,Z,C4b8a(?)). Two are East Asian (M8, B4). Ten are Western Eurasian (N1a1a, K, H2a2a x2, H2a5b2, H5, H, HV0a1 x2)
      February 28, 2017 at 6:54 AM

      Kristiina said…
      This may be the first time that H14 appears in ancient samples anywhere. The distribution is very exciting
      http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/h14_genbank_sequences.htm
      „The haplogroup H14 is uncommon in Europe but found mostly in the Near East and the Caucasus (Richards et al. 2000; Nasidze and Stoneking 2001; Roostalu et al. 2007; Al-Zahery et al. 2011) and so far only two subclades—H14a and H14b have been identified. However, based on new complete sequence analysis we identified an additional subclade, H14c, which has not been reported earlier (Fig. 1a). H14a and H14c lineages were found in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh, whereas a single H14b2 haplotype was reported from Pakistan (GenBank KJ446337).”
      Source: West Eurasian mtDNA lineages in India: an insight into the spread of the Dravidian language and the origins of the caste system

      This what they suggest in the paper above:
      „The autochthonous subhaplogroups—HV14a1 and U1a1a4 uniquely found in contemporary Dravidian speakers share their ancestry primarily with the Near East-Iran populations (Derenko et al. 2013). The coalescence times of HV14a1 and U1a1a4 were estimated to be ~10.5–17.9 kya. The shared ancestry of the Dravidian of South India and Iranian of Near East populations has been shown in the HV14 and U1a1 phylogeny (Fig. 1a) and their time estimates are consistent with the proto-Elamo-Dravidian language diffusion hypothesis which emphasized that the proto-Dravidian language evolved over 15 kya, specifically in western Asia before the beginning of agricultural development ~11 kya. This language was introduced by Neolithic pastoralists, and was thought to be associated with the spread of these west Eurasian-specific mtDNAs to peninsular India (Pagel et al. 2013).”
      February 28, 2017 at 7:07 AM

      John Smith said…
      If Europeans come from the Steppe it is probably from both the paternal and maternal side, neolithic farmers probably have little influence except maybe in South Europe. I read the paper and it seems like Steppe populations had high frequencies of H while at the same time except in Bulgaria and Romania Middle Eastern and Central and West Europeans had little H.
      February 28, 2017 at 10:26 AM

      Grey said…
      @Davidski „Because words related to metallurgy in Indo-European languages are of non-Indo-European
      origin.”
      I’m not a linguist but… if metallurgy 101 is pre-mining and pre-smelting and limited to cold working native metals then what words would you have?

      1) The only native metals you’d have would be gold, silver, tin, copper and maybe meteoric iron but you wouldn’t necessarily have the whole set in every language region.

      So you might expect loan words to travel from the respective source regions i.e. region A might get its word for silver from region B and region B might get its word for gold from region A because each region only had one source each.

      2) If cold hammering soft metals into simple shapes / jewelry was the limit of metallurgy 101 then what words might come from that?

      Who knows but some possibilities might be „ring” : from PIE „to turn, bend”

      http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=ring

      „bead” : from PIE *gwhedh- „to ask, pray.”

      http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=bead

      there are probably other ancient words related to jewelry that i haven’t thought of?

      3) „bead” coming from „pray” echoes a bit with the etymology of iron in Germanic languages (eisen) which apparently comes from PIE „aes” for „holy”

      http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=iron

      also copper in latin was apparently „aes” before it changed to their word for Cyprus (because they got their copper from Cyprus)

      http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=copper

      so i wonder thing is – a people who developed early soft metal jewelry wouldn’t have much of a military advantage but they might be (relatively) very rich
      February 28, 2017 at 10:51 AM

      Grey said…
      „there are probably other ancient words related to jewelry that i haven’t thought of?” just thought of another possible one torque (n.) from PIE *torkw-eyo-, causative of *terkw- „to twist”
      February 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM

      Davidski said…
      @Kristiina Out of curiosity, I checked the admixture graph in the Allentoft paper. I do not know what this implies but one cannot say that Afanasievo and North India/Pakistan do not share any southern ancestry. You’re confusing yourself and others like Jaydeep by misinterpreting the data. This leads to needless friction and arguments over matters that we should have all agreed on a long time ago.

      I’ve already explained that Yamnaya and Afanasievo can’t be modeled as part Kalash or any other South Asian pop with formal statistics. If you don’t believe me, get in touch with Harvard and ask.

      And I’ve also explained that Yamnaya, Afanasievo etc. can’t have ancestry from the South Caspian because they lack South Caspian diagnostic markers that are found in ancient and modern Iranians, like mtDNA U7.

      @Nirjhar I don’t think calling something South Asian without aDNA, is wise. But you are confident bloke. But of course we do have aDNA from South Asia, from Harappa, and if you are aware of the results, then you should know that Bronze Age Europeans can’t be part South Asian.
      February 28, 2017 at 11:42 AM

      Lubię to

      • Matt said…
        The way I’ve come think of it (perhaps wrongly?) is that the ADMIXTURE algorithm has kind of different priorities compared to the formal tests; it’s trying to fit lots of populations at once and on a panel of modern populations it’s looking at lots of drift that has occured separately after the ancient samples we have and which is not captured by the formal statistics.

        This means it will find it optimal to deprioritize relationships which are a faint part of the overall drift in the modern panel (e.g. the „ANE” connection) or limited to particular populations which are infrequent in the panel, like the steppe (HG and pastoralist) populations.

        Some of the components it finds can be real, like the „Teal” population – which was doubted before the CHG paper, but seems more or less real in some form and in unsupervised ADMIXTURE terms is obviously more useful to find than a steppe / EHG / ANE population to explain genetic variation in its populations (since ADMIXTURE seems to always prefers to create it when given a choice). But also I guess it means that it can prioritise finding good proxies for recent populations which have experienced lots of drift, like Native Americans or Kalash, and then has to place these in ancients where they don’t really quite fit, as a compromise. It’s a real minefield.
        February 28, 2017 at 2:14 PM

        Rami said…
        Nobody is denying R1a is a product of Forrest Steppe so you can take comfort your wet dream of Steppe men has not been shattered. Hopefully when time travel is possible you can go back and have 4 steppe men Bukake on you and call it a day. Also clearly the Yamnaya/Afansievo poplulations do have connections with populations in Iran and/or other places . You seem to be stuck on this CHG block because in that bird brain of yours they still qualify as Europeans. Neolithic Iranians live quite close these CHGs and are essentially similar peoples ( ANE + Basal)
        Also there has not been any genome data from South Central/South Asia , so I do not know how u can make conclusions based of pulling statements out of your ass.
        February 28, 2017 at 2:54 PM

        Davidski said…
        I’ve just explained why Bronze Age Eastern Europeans can’t have any significant ancestry from the South Caspian. No one, including you, has provided any plausible argument against what I said. I also explained that ancient DNA from South Central Asia is already available and some people here, including me, are aware of some of the results, which do not support the idea of an migration from South Central Asia to the Eastern European steppe. It seems like a lot of you aren’t interested in what really happened, but in confirming your own fantasies. I don’t understand why.
        February 28, 2017 at 3:04 PM

        Matt said…
        Re: ADMIXTURE, good ADMIXTURE panels will usually tell you more about how populations relate to each other than a given set of fits of ancients with formal stats will. Eurogenes K13 or K15 has more information about how similar the European populations are to each other, and at predicting which modern populations a person is from, than the fits of ancient ancestors using formal stats will. (Likewise the drifted Kalash clusters will tell you some things about their population history compared to other South Asians that are absent from the South Asian fits in Lazaridis et al 2016, and would help you fit whether and unknown person was a Kalash).

        But the K components do not necessarily imply real ancestors. ADMIXTURE (and PCA) are designed to fit relatedness between their samples to a lower dimension space / set of variables and only find ancestral populations, when they do, as a co-incidence of that

        Re: CHG vs Iran, haven’t we’ve been through this before recently with Jaydeep (and he is at least a polite and rational person to speak with)? There are fairly good reasons to prefer a combination of Anatolian/Levant Farmer/CHG (Caucasus Neolithic) over Iran_Chalcolithic, or any populations further towards South Central Asia. It seems a bit hypocritical for someone to accuse Davidski of having an irrational preference for Caucasus Neolithic populations, while they themselves have an even more irrational and more unsupported preference for Iranian and South Central Asian Neolithic populations, just because in their mind it’s closer to India.
        February 28, 2017 at 3:13 PM

        Samuel Andrews said…
        @bmdriver, There’s absolutely no evidence of South Asian or SouthCentral Asian or whatever migration to Europe. None. Ancient DNA traces European’s origins to Meso/Neo Europe, Near East, and Caucasus. That’s fact not opinion. Even if there is ancestry from Iran, Iran isn’t India.
        The only racist here is you. You’re a freak dude. You’re full of hate. You need to talk to someone about your hate for white people, it’s unhealthy. Please understand I don’t think European imperialism can be justified. White people thought aren’t an evil race. A handful of nations in Europe had the needed talents to create powerful imperial nations. Big deal. Other non-Euro nations joined the imperialism trend later; Japan, Turkey, United States, Russia. Imperialism had more to do with hardcore human wants and needs; money, dominance over rivals, power. than it did with a belief in racial superiority.
        February 28, 2017 at 3:24 PM

        Taymas said…
        Why are a handful of South Asia-centered mtdna samples from millenia too late (bc at this point we already have centuries of writing in divergent IE daughters) being treated as a such a big deal? This is a millenium after the steppe hypothesis would place interchange between IE and BMAC and centuries after Indo-Aryans were showing up as far as Syria. We can also go back about this far in west Asian (Cimmerians, Scythians) and east Asian (Wusun, Yuezhi) writing illustrating that steppe groups were pushing each other around over huge distances, they were already centuries into full equestrian nomadism. Finally R7 and M31 tend eastern in India, at least according to wiki. Given that we also have East Asian mtdna at this time/place, not clear they even came by the same route as the M3 or H14. Seems to me this result is interesting, but the interpretation is very unclear yet, and not relevant at all to the first IE expansion. What am I missing? I can’t access the full paper right now, seems to be down. Finally, if such weak evidence is being used to sling Nazi accusations, what should we call Out of India proponents given the complete lack of any unequivocal South Asian ancestry northwest of the IAMC? I really resent anyone getting called a Nazi unless they’re advocating for industrialized murder of identity groups.
        February 28, 2017 at 3:39 PM

        Kristiina said…
        @David ”By and large, Bronze Age Eastern Europeans do not show the haplogroups and subclades that we’d expect to see if a significant portion of their ancestry came from the South Caspian just before the Bronze Age.”

        Why Proto-IE or any IE language should have been spoken in Bronze Age Mongolia or even in Afanasievo? On the basis of linguistic analysis, many elements of proto-IE point to Caucasus.

        @Matt There are fairly good reasons to prefer a combination of Anatolian/Levant Farmer/CHG (Caucasus Neolithic) over Iran_Chalcolithic, or any populations further towards South Central Asia.

        This again is an indication that these early Mongolian nomads did not speak an IE language.

        @Ryukendo So I think there is still some evidence that the contribution is from latter steppic groups with substantial EEF ancestry, though this can only be conclusively solved with S Asian aDNA.

        @ Ryukendo So some time after the initial IE incursions into the Steppe, a large amount of mtDNA, and presumably some Y-DNA and autosomal ancestry, from SC and West Asia introgressed deeply north.

        Andronovo samples are dated 1800-1400 BC, 1400-800 BC and 800-100 AD. Andronovo samples in Allentoft paper have EEF/Anatolia Neolitichic. Andronovo mtDNA (incl. U4, U2e, and T1, T4 in the oldest period) is indeed different from this Mongolian mtDNA. A good case can be made that Andronovoans spoke an IE language, but IMO ancient Mongolians did not and I also doubt that Afanasievo spoke an IE language. I make my ”judgment” when we get Afanasievo yDNA. Neolithic mtDNA from the Lake Baikal showed us that the original mtDNA in the Baikal area was Siberian and not Western Eurasian.

        February 28, 2017 at 11:05 PM

        Davidski said…

        @Kristiina Afanasievo is identical to Yamnaya and Poltavka.(…)

        February 28, 2017 at 11:11 PM

        Ryan said…
        @Kristiina – I don’t think anyone is suggesting Proto-IE here, just a daughter language – either Iranian or Tocharian in extraction. Who else do you think Afanasievo would be? The oldest accounts we have for the Tarim and Turpan basins have Indo-European groups living there, and likely living there for quite a while according those accounts and the remains and material goods (ie jade) left behind. The area where the samples were taken from is closer to the Turpan basin than it is to Lake Baikal. There’s a pretty reasonable narrative here of Indo-European nomads migrating to the steppe, and then slowly being marginalized and pushed out by the people living in more forested/mountainous areas – namely the Xiongnu. And the Xiongnu knew this based on their high-status graves only being made in the steppe/mountain areas, and never the steppe.
        March 1, 2017 at 12:19 AM

        Kristiina said…

        How come nobody has noticed this! This is huge!
        Peuplement du sud de la Sibérie et de l’Altaï à l’âge du Bronze : apport de la paléogénétique
        https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01296484/

        Afanasievo is R1b-M269, R1b-P297 (Yamnaya line I presume) and Q-M242 (Maf)
        Okunevo is R1b1a2-M269, Q1a3 and N
        Elunino is Q1a3
        Chemurchek is C-M130
        Sagsai is R1a1-Z93, Q1a3a, C-M130 (looks Turkic)
        Munkh-Khairkhan is N

        Therefore, I think that Afanasievo could be Yamnaya Samara IE language, Okunevo a Siberian language, Chemurchek could be Proto-Tungusic, Sagsai Proto-Turkic, Munkh-Khairkan proto-Samoyedic.

        March 1, 2017 at 12:35 AM

        Lubię to

      • Shaikorth said…
        Proto-Tungusic homeland is considered by recent studies to be in Manchuria.
        http://www.marumaru.eu/Martine_Robbeets/Publications_files/Robbeets2014_review%20Malchukov%20%26%20Whaley.pdf
        Making associations based on very low resolution Y-DNA isn’t going to produce solid results. Afanasievo being linguistically grouped with Yamnaya is plausible but there were always factors other than Y-DNA linking them.
        March 1, 2017 at 12:56 AM

        Ryukendo K said…
        @ Kristiina Thanks for this paper! I have to say though, all of their results come from a rather small area around the Altai mountains at the corner where Kazakhstan, Russia, China and Mongolia meet, and its unlikely that so many languages could have their urheimats thickly clustered around a single area. Also interesting that the site 1 at bolshemysskaya North of Mongolia should return R1b-P297 at the 4th millenium BC, makes you wonder if a continuum of R1b existed in Siberia far to the east.
        March 1, 2017 at 1:13 AM

        Rob said…
        @ Kristiina You gem. Really interesting, even if its lower throughput. The Y haplogroup information alone is invaluable, and it can be correlated with what we already know from GW data, which was missing some Y DNA markers. In terms of overall numbers:

        Afansievo: R1b-M269 x 2, R1b – P297 x 1, Q – M242
        Okunevo: R1b- M269 x 1, No x 3, Q1a3 x 2
        Sagsai: R1a – Z93 x 4, Q1a3 x 3, C – M130 x1.

        I’ve not listed a couple of others. What does this suggest about where R1a & R1b came from? R1b has been missing so far from all Altaic Meso-Neolithic samples to date, but appears in the Bronze Age. All 4 R1a, otherwise always a minority in the Altai, seems to be Z-93. And the interesting thing is, they were likely there already in the Neolithic.
        March 1, 2017 at 1:29 AM

        Kristiina said…
        @Ryukendo “I have to say though, all of their results come from a rather small area around the Altai mountains at the corner where Kazakhstan, Russia, China and Mongolia meet, and its unlikely that so many languages could have their urheimats thickly clustered around a single area.”

        Look at this map of the indigenous North American languages. Look at the amount of languages on the West Coast for example.

        The Afanasievo “Yamnaya Samara” language was probably the first western language in the area and it seems to have covered quite a large area. Okunevo is a later culture located north of Altai on the Yenisei River in the Krasnoyarsk area. Chemurchek is equally old and located in the Mongolian part of Altai. Elunino is also from the same period but it is located northwest of Altai on the Ob River. The distance from Barnaul on Ob to Tsenkher in Eastern Altai is 1200 km. The distance from Tsenkher in Eastern Altai to Krasnoyarsk is about the same. Therefore, these three cultures all have their own area of settlement. In general, I think that many cultures spread along the rivers and a similar language was spoken along the same river.

        Sagsai and Munkh-Khairkhan are from 1400-900 and 1700-1400 respectively, i.e. one thousand years later. We know that today Altai is Turkic-speaking, so I find this connection between Sagsai and Turkic very plausible taking into account their yDNA. Today yDNA N in Altai speaks Turkic and I made the presumption that Kurgan N in Altai (if it turns out to be N1b) spoke previously Eastern Uralic language (related to Ob-Ugric and Samoyed branches) but turned to Turkic spakears.
        March 1, 2017 at 2:54 AM

        Azarov Dmitry said…
        @Kristiina
        Afanasievo is R1b-M269, R1b-P297 (Yamnaya line I presume) and Q-M242 (Maf)
        Okunevo is R1b1a2-M269, Q1a3 and N
        Elunino is Q1a3
        Chemurchek is C-M130
        Sagsai is R1a1-Z93, Q1a3a, C-M130 (looks Turkic)
        Munkh-Khairkhan is N

        And once again we have no traces of relic subclades of R1a(R1a-SRY10831.2*) in aDNA from the Eurasian Steppe and influx of exclusively R1a-Z93 subclades in the Bronze Age. Present distribution of relic subclades of R1a (Iran – Eastern Anatolia) and absence of relic subclades of R1a in aDNA from the Eurasian Steppe are absolutely inconsistent with claims that R1a folks came from steppe.

        March 1, 2017 at 3:16 AM

        jv said…
        postneo said… I had commented last year that the supposed skewed sex ratio of yamnaya incursion to europe is an artifact. west Eurasian mtdna had already migrated to the steppe before the yamnaya incursion. So the yamnaya were bringing nothing new on the female side when they moved in to Europe…

        Not true. Just pointing this little bit of mtDNA info into the comment arena. Specific clades of mtDNA H, like mtDNA H6, came in to Europe with the Yamnaya(Catacomb) Culture migrations. This lineage was not found in Central/Northern Europe Neolithic Cultures and is associated with Corded Ware Culture (Espersedt Germany approx. 2400 BCE)

        March 1, 2017 at 5:50 AM

        Lubię to

  2. Tu inna ciekawostka…

    UWAGA!!! Być może R1b na terenie Polski może być powiązane z Sarmatami!!!

    http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=42083&view=findpost&p=1639307

    Domen 7/04/2017, 15:10
    Co do R1b to np. mój subklad L617 jest stosunkowo częsty na Wyspach Brytyjskich i w Iberii, oraz w Polsce i na Litwie. Natomiast praktycznie wcale nie występuje on w Niemczech, we Francji, ani w Skandynawii. Zrobiłem mapę miejsc urodzenia najstarszych znanych przodków wszystkich nosicieli mojego subkladu jakich znalazłem.

    Na temat specyficznie polskich subkladów R1b pisałem tutaj:

    http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=144062&st=465&p=1600506&#entry1600506

    Natomiast wschodnioeuropejski jest m.in. subklad R1b-Z2103>Y5587 „Eastern European Type”.

    Jest też subklad łączony ostatnio z Sarmatami (ponieważ znaleziono go w kopalnym DNA Sarmatów).

    Obecnie sarmacki subklad R1b występuje w Polsce (np. znam gościa z Górnego Śląska, rdzennego „lokalsa”, który jest nosicielem właśnie tego sarmackiego subkladu – niedawno opublikowano DNA Sarmatów z epoki żelaza w pracy Unterlander 2017 i jeden należał do tego subkladu R1b):

    http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ironagedna.shtml

    R1b-Y21707 – http://i.imgur.com/0fc3h1L.png

    Ten post był edytowany przez Domen: 7/04/2017, 16:03

    Lubię to

  3. Czesc, widziałam wczoraj twój nowy wpis. Dzięki. Nie musiałeś dedykować i tak wiedziałabym, że to dla mnie. I zwróciłam uwage na komentarz Kristiiny. Bo zdaje się potwierdzać moje przypuszczenia.
    „Afanasievo is R1b-M269, R1b-P297 (Yamnaya line I presume) and Q-M242 (Maf)
    Sagsai is R1a1-Z93, Q1a3a, C-M130 (looks Turkic)”
    Nadal jesteś pewien ich wspólnego języka?
    Sagsai – Ölgii – Mongolia
    P.S. Trochę mi się porobiło, wiec nie wiem kiedy dam rade to ogarnąć. Na razie zajmuje mnie warszawska chirurgia.

    Lubię to

    • „Nadal jesteś pewien ich wspólnego języka?” A gdzie ja napisałem, że jestem pewnien ich wspólnego języka? Jestem pewien, że Z93 nie zmutowało 1000 lat później nad Wisłą, jak powtarzałem wcześniej, po min. „łowcach ruskich trolli” , że tak musiało być… 🙂

      Przeczytaj wpis nr 42… i ciekawe co po tym powiesz… Myślę, ze na naszych oczach dokonuje się „Wielka Zmiana”, jeśli chodzi o Yamnaya, itp…

      Nie pokalecz siebie lub innych w tej „Farsiafce”… 🙂

      Lubię to

  4. Tu coś niecoś o młodszym (wtedy kiedy publikowano ten wpis jeszcze najstarszym) Z93… Wszystko zmienia się dlatego źródła trzeba czytać na bieżąco o ile można…

    https://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/the-poltavka-outlier.html

    Monday, January 11, 2016

    The Poltavka outlier

    Anyone who still thinks that Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a originated in South Asia should burn this map into their brains. It’ll come in useful over the next few years as we learn from ancient DNA about the conquest of the Indian subcontinent, and indeed much of Asia, by pastoralists from the western Russian and Ukrainian steppes.

    X marks the spot of the burial site of Poltavka sample I0432 from the Mathieson et al. 2015 dataset. This individual belongs to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-Z93(Z94+), which today accounts for well over 90% of the R1a lineages in Asia and peaks in frequency at over 60% in the northern parts of South Asia.

    Moreover, the dating of his burial site, 2925-2536 calBCE, suggests that he lived not long after the Z93 and Z94 mutations came into existence. That’s because Z93 doesn’t appear to be much older than 5,000 years based on full Y-chromosome sequence data (see here and here, including the comments).

    So I0432 could well turn out to be a crucial piece in the puzzle of the peopling of South Asia.

    Interestingly, this individual was flagged as an outlier in the Poltavka sample set by Mathieson et al., hence his other moniker: the Poltavka outlier. However, this wasn’t because of any ancestry from South or even Central Asia. In fact, it was because he was too western.

    Principal Component Analyses (PCA) featuring a wide range of present-day and ancient samples from Europe and Asia, like the one below, show that Poltavka outlier clusters further west than most Corded Ware individuals from Germany. Right click and open in a new tab to view full size.

    In the past, using qpAdm, I modeled Poltavka outlier as 63.7% Yamnaya Samara and 36.3% German Middle Neolithic. This is probably not very far from the truth, but qpAdm offers a supervised mixture test in which the results are heavily reliant on the choice of outgroups, so I thought I’d revisit the issue with TreeMix, which allows an unsupervised analysis.

    In a dataset including seven relatively high coverage Copper Age (CA), Early Bronze Age and Middle Neolithic (MN) European genomes, TreeMix picked out Poltavka outlier as the most likely sample to be admixed, showing a mixture edge of 33% from the base of the branch leading to the Iberian MN individual to that of Poltavka outlier.

    This outcome is very similar to my qpAdm model, but it suggests an even more western source of admixture in Poltavka outlier. Could this admixture actually be from Iberia? I wouldn’t discount this possibility, considering the presence of Bell Beaker communities, possibly of Atlantic or even Iberian origin, as far east as present-day Poland. Indeed, according to Cassidy et al. 2015, German Beakers show high affinity to MN and CA Iberians (see page 51 in the supp info here).

    I double checked my TreeMix result with D-stats, and yep, when placed in a clade with Poltavka or Samara Yamnaya, Poltavka outlier shows the strongest signal of admixture from the Iberia MN individual.

    At the same time, however, the signal from the Early Neolithic (EN) Iberian fails to reach significance (Z=<3), which suggests that, in fact, TreeMix and D-stats might be seeing the Iberia MN sample as the most attractive mixture source due to her high level of Western European hunter-gatherer (WHG) ancestry, which Poltavka outlier also has plenty of, rather than anything specific to Iberia.

    In any case, it’s clear enough that Poltavka outlier was the result of mixture between Yamnaya-related western steppe pastoralists and the descendants of Middle Neolithic Europeans with a high ratio of WHG ancestry. Where this admixture actually took place and which archaeological cultures were involved will have to be resolved with further sampling of ancient remains from Central and Eastern Europe.

    However, it’s already impossible to place the origin of Poltavka outlier anywhere in Asia, which suggests that both Z93 and Z94 are also from well inside the generally accepted borders of Europe.

    This obviously has implications for the origins of the Indo-Iranians, because the widespread presence of these mutations in Asia gels very nicely with the idea, and indeed academic consensus, that Indo-Iranian languages expanded rapidly from the Eurasian steppe into Asia during the Bronze Age.

    Considering that Poltavka outlier came from a Kurgan burial, and was therefore an individual of some social standing, he might be the direct ancestor of many millions of present-day Asians. If so, this won’t be very difficult to prove in the near future as ancient DNA research revs up a few notches.

    On a related note, apparently there’s a paper on the way with ancient DNA results from Rakhigarhi, a Harappan site in Haryana, northern India (see here). As far as I know, the results will include Y-chromosome haplogroups of three males, but I don’t think we’ll see any decent genome-wide data at this stage. However, hopefully I’m wrong and the paper will come out with full ancient genomes.

    Feel free to post your predictions in the comments. I’m tentatively expecting a couple of instances of J2 and maybe an L or H. Razib made basically the same prediction recently so I’m not being original. What I do know is that we won’t see any R1a-Z93. The only way that might happen is if, say, someone coughed or sneezed on the Harappan remains.

    Data source and reference…

    Mathieson et al., Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians, Nature, 528, 499–503 (24 December 2015), doi:10.1038/nature16152

    Posted by Davidski at 8:09:00 PM

    Rob said…
    It’s a shame people turn what is a fascinating question about a linguistic phenomenon dispersed through various prehistoric group into perceived relativity to modern or near-modern social phenomena. The two should be divorced.
    There is little doubt that major transformations occurred in central Asia between 20000 BC and 1600 BC. These coincide with the appearance of the Sintashta and Andronovo sites further north. That during periods of shift and population decline (eg in the Indu valley), new groups can gain dominance. Looking at the ancient Z93 samples we have, and the phylogeny of Z282, it looks to be from EE/ Russia. However, factoring confidence intervals of fully-sequenced modern samples, Z645 could be as old as 6, 600 Y BP (4, 600 BC).
    On the other hand, there are predictions that central Asian groups in the Copper Age lacked or had little ASI, which would bring them close to the admixture seen in Yamnaya, perhaps much closer than Kotias. If so, these people appear to have had a major demographic impact throughout Eurasia.
    January 11, 2016 at 11:37 PM

    Davidski said…
    There won’t be anything all that interesting in ancient Central Asia, at least not in the context of the Indo-European expansions. Mostly just extinct ghost populations.
    January 11, 2016 at 11:45 PM

    Alberto said…
    David, I basically agree with you analysis. I’ve always stated that R1a-Z93 (and even more this Z94 sample from Poltavka) is the strongest evidence we have of any migration from Europe to South Asia. The autosomal and archaeological evidence is, on the other hand, dubious (for example, no matter what qpAdm says, I think that modeling the Kalash as 70% Sinthashta is way off. Anything between 0% and 10% looks more likely to me).

    But I also fully subscribe what Rob said above. All of it. This matter is nothing personal that affects modern people. It’s a fascinating historical event, nothing more. It already happened, whatever happened. 4000 years ago. It won’t change the present; it already did.

    But also about the complete lack of S-C Asian ancient DNA. We need those (BMAC and earlier especially) to really know what and how it happened. I’m one of those who thinks that R1a has an Asian origin (and here I’m not going against the mainstream, just check Wikipedia, or Underhill et al, or any objective opinion). So while Z93 (if indeed age estimates are correct, which is another big if), looks to have appeared in the steppe first, M417 might not. So with Z93 we could be seeing a back migration of R1a people to their homeland (you know, like the IE legend of the hero who goes to far away lands and after completing some tasks he returns back home 🙂

    The Rakhigarhi samples will be very interesting, especially if we do get autosomal data. I’ve already stated that I expect mostly continuity with modern population (to a reasonable degree, they’re 4500 years apart): a lot of ANI and some unknown amount of ASI (or nothing at all?). For haplogroups, J2 certainly looks likely, but I wouldn’t rule out others present today (R1 and R2 included).BTW, what’s your take on R2? Do you think it’s native to Eastern Europe too?
    January 12, 2016 at 2:12 AM

    Davidski said…
    Well you don’t sound very convincing pointing to Underhill or Wikipedia as sources about R1a. My view is that R2 will be found in ancient Central Asian remains. But it’s not a widespread lineage today, and it probably never was, because it doesn’t appear to be associated with any major expansions. So it’s very unlikely that the populations that carried it in prehistoric times had any major autosomal impact on present-day Eurasians.
    January 12, 2016 at 2:31 AM

    Ryan said…
    Some of those ghost populations may have made interesting contributions. BMAC? Have you tried running Treemix with various HG populations? If an excess of HG ancestry is what makes this guy an outlier, it would be good to know where exactly that ancestry seems to be coming from. WHG ancestry would be no less strange than Iberian Neolithic DNA really.
    January 12, 2016 at 2:39 AM

    Davidski said…
    WHG ancestry would be no less strange than Iberian Neolithic DNA really. Why’s that? KO1 from Hungary is a pure WHG, and the steppe actually extends into Hungary.
    January 12, 2016 at 2:45 AM

    oldmountains said…
    As Z93 carrier i am just amused by this people who still think Z93 is from Iran or South Asia . Seriously it is pathetic to deny the steppe origin of it. Anyways there are still many mysteries about Proto-Indo-Iranians and Z93.
    January 12, 2016 at 9:26 AM

    Ryan said…
    @Davidski – That’s a good point. So perhaps an origin around the mouth of the Danube? If WHG extended that far east though, I wouldn’t be surprised if they could have had R1b among them too, which would put a wrench in some of your views about the main clades of R1b being exclusive to PIE.
    January 12, 2016 at 9:27 AM

    Fanty said…
    „If WHG extended that far east” The highest amount of WHG autosomal DNA is in the Baltic states. Also generally „WHG” anchestry is the highest, generally in the NorthEAST of Europe. Including Russia. The highest amount of the Y-DNA connected to WHG is in the Balkan and the UKRAINE, aswell as in all Slavic nations (Czechia, Poland, Russia etc… all relatively high in it) in general. A single Yamna guy had a „WHG” Y-DNA (Though we actually found farmers (In Hungary) with that Y-DNA already). I am pretty sure WHGs lived in what is now Baltic countries and Poland and I personaly even imagine the west of the Ukraine beeing WHG, rather than WHG terretory aswell.
    January 12, 2016 at 10:44 AM

    Ryan said…
    „If WHG extended that far east” Fanty – I’m saying WHG as opposed to EHG or SHG. If the WHG/EHG distinction is false, then again, that calls into question any talk of R1b being exclusive to PIE, as that may just be a more eastern-distributed WHG marker rather than exclusive to EHG.
    January 12, 2016 at 11:24 AM

    Davidski said…
    Alberto is right that Modern Y DNA points toward Iran as the origin of M417. No, he’s wrong. He doesn’t understand the structure of R1a, and I guess neither do you. It’s a simple argument: all of the main clades of R1a-M417 are found in Europe, and don’t need massive samples to be found there. Asia is dominated by Z93 and missing L664. Europe is also the home of EHG, which is associated with R1. EHG is not native to any part of Asia except maybe Western Siberia. It’s time to to move on now. A lot of people are treading water hoping to see things that are already impossible. It’s a waste of time and energy.
    January 12, 2016 at 4:06 PM

    Davidski said…
    EHG doesn’t appear to be the product of recent mixture. At this stage, it looks more like ancient pre-East Asian North Eurasians were part of a cline from Bichon in the west to MA1 in the east. And I don’t think it can be said with certainty that EHG was in Hungary before CHG. I think it’s more likely that steppe populations close to East Central Europe had very low levels of CHG initially, and Bronze Age Hungarians received most of their eastern admixture from this population.
    January 13, 2016 at 12:23 AM

    Davidski said…
    Abashevo, Potapovka and Sintashta people weren’t peaceful pastoralists looking for new grasslands. They were highly militaristic groups that fought battles resulting in mass graves of young combatants, buried their important dead with loads of military gear, built sophisticated fortifications, and practiced somewhat bizarre and perhaps violent rituals, which involved cutting off the heads of people and replacing them with horse heads. These are the people who carried early lineages of R1a-Z93 on the steppe. So we are to believe now that when they got to India they became peaceful pastoralists? Please kindly pull your head out of your ass Kurti.
    January 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM

    Davidski said…
    Maju, You know what, you might be right. All of the ancient R1a in Eastern Europe is probably from South Asia. The Eastern hunter-gatherers, Khvalynsk people, and the Bronze Age steppe nomads carrying R1a were all fresh migrants from South Asia. And obviously Indo-European languages spread in the opposite direction with pigeon post and stuff.
    January 13, 2016 at 5:38 PM

    Rob said…
    @ Davidski „They were highly militaristic groups that fought battles resulting in mass graves of young combatants, buried their important dead with loads of military gear, built sophisticated fortifications, and practiced somewhat bizarre and perhaps violent rituals, which involved cutting off the heads of people and replacing them with horse heads.”

    That’s certainly true. Even if one adds that part of this display is symbolic, there ‚s little point denying that they were a militarized caste, even if their primary occupation was (apparently low-level) metalwork. The only question which remains is whether the data from Sintastha can be extrapolated to all central Eurasia & beyond. But I imagine if they were to wish to invade other lands, these hardy folk working in mines their whole lives, with chariots, good metal weapons, would be tough to defend against
    January 13, 2016 at 5:58 PM

    a said…
    https://www.academia.edu/3836804/An_Indo-Iranian_Symbol_of_Power_in_the_Earliest_Steppe_Kurgans
    An Indo-Iranian Symbol of Power in the Earliest Steppe Kurgans
    P. Kuznetsov
    January 13, 2016 at 6:27 PM

    a said…
    „Madhu, and the related terms mad (मद, مد) and madira (मदिरा, مدِرا), also mean alcohol.[1][2] These words are all derived from the Sanskrit language, and are Indo-European cognates of the English mead, Greek μέθυ, Avestan madu, Persian may,[3] Latvian and Lithuanian medus, German Met and Old Church Slavonic ] мєдъ (medŭ).”
    January 13, 2016 at 6:31 PM

    a said…
    „The English word „wine” comes from the Proto-Germanic *winam, an early borrowing from the Latin vinum, „wine” or „(grape) vine”, itself derived from the Proto-Indo-European stem *win-o- (cf. Armenian: գինի, gini; Ancient Greek: οἶνος oinos; Aeolic Greek: ϝοῖνος woinos; Hittite: wiyana; Lycian: oino).[31][32][33]”

    „The Georgian word goes back to Proto-Kartvelian *ɣwino-,[42] which is generally believed to be a borrowing from Proto-Indo-European.[42][43][44][45][46][47] Another hypothesis is that the lexeme was borrowed from Proto-Armenian *ɣʷeinyo-,……………..[48][49][50]”
    January 13, 2016 at 6:35 PM

    a said…
    „The Ossetians or Ossetes (Ossetian: ир, ирæттæ, ir, irættæ; дигорæ, дигорæнттæ, digoræ, digorænttæ) are an Iranian ethnic group of the Caucasus Mountains, indigenous to the region known as Ossetia.[12][13][14] They speak Ossetic, an Iranian language of the Eastern branch of the Indo-European languages family, …….”


    @4:11 Ossetians>>> Kakhetian=R1b-L584
    January 13, 2016 at 6:42 PM

    Krefter said…
    @Davidski,Sure, you’re right about R1a-M417, militaristic aspect Bronze age Z93-groups, etc, but cut down on the „Z93 conquest of South Asia”. You’re writing about South Asian genetics as an excuse to say „We East Europeans conquered you, and graciously after killing your men planted our R1a seed into your region.” That’s probably for the most part true, but don’t exaggerate to degrade or upgrade anyone.

    @Maju,You’re asking a legitimate question. So far 100% of Ancient Steppe R1a-Z93 has turned out R1a1a1b2a2-Z2121. Even two Samartians and a Sycthian had R1a1a1b2a2-Z2121. No one has done analysis of the Poltvka Outlier. All we know is that he had R1a1a1b2a-Z94.

    Anyways, Maju the loads of M417* in Corded Ware, and examples of L664 and Z284 in Corded Ware, confirm to me M417 originated in East Europe with Corded Ware/Sintashta-types. Every modern M417 basal clade and even extinct basal M417 clades have been recorded in Corded Ware/his brothers further East.

    Modern Y DNA isn’t always reliable. Especially when a lineage expanded in a short time period like R1b-L11/R1a-M417 did and when their homeland(„Steppe”, Ukraine-Russia, mostly around Black Sea) has faced several replacement events since 2500 BC(proto-Indo Iranians, Finno-Urgics, Turks, Slavs).

    BTW, over 50% of R1b-P312 in East Europe(Russia, BeloRussia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary) is R1b-P312(xL21, U152). Chances are they aren’t DF27 either. IMO, they are P312 bread crumbs tracing back to P312’s birthplace near the Black Sea.
    January 13, 2016 at 7:42 PM

    Davidski said…
    It is a fact that Z93 does not exist (nor seemingly has ever existed) further West than the Volga. Very funny, but there’s Z93* in Poland. It’s likely that we’ll soon see very basal and very relevant Z93 in ancient remains from Ukraine. I’m guessing you’re sharing the same drinking tap as poor Nirjhar, because you both sound just as crazy. Must be something in that water.
    January 13, 2016 at 8:19 PM

    Davidski said…
    Somehow you have to face this problem. There’s no problem. There’s just you with your insane religious-like faith.
    Z93 obviously spread from north to south. The spread of Z93 into Asia fits the Kurgan expansion model. There was not a single case of Z93 recorded in Eastern hunter-gatherers, Khvalynsk or Yamnaya from the Volga region. The first case of it there is with the Poltavka outlier. So your crappy theory that Z93 is native to the Volga region since the Neolithic looks about as plausible as your crappy theory that it’s native to Asia.
    January 13, 2016 at 10:49 PM

    Coldmountains said…
    @Rami Do you live in some parallel universe? Just read Rig veda where Indra is praised as destroyer of forts(cities). There is almost nothing in archaic rig veda which points to a sedentary, urban and peaceful society of early Aryans. They were not really less violent than mongols or turks later but they were more succesful in replacing the local languages and to some extent local Y-DNA and autosomsal dna. The Dasa of Rig veda are actually the proto-Urban BMAC people and it seems that they were frequently at war with this people
    January 14, 2016 at 3:40 AM

    George Okromchedlishvili said…
    Indo-Aryans were savage, illiterate, blood thirsty nomads that hailed in warfare. Pretty much the European version of Turks. Why’s this so hard to accept?
    January 14, 2016 at 3:49 AM

    Lubię to

    • Davidski said…
      @Romulus Sredny Stog was Indo-Europeanized by Males from the Balkan Neolithic. You’re not making any sense. There’s plenty of linguistic and genetic evidence now that early European farmers weren’t Indo-Europeans. Substrate words related to farming in modern European languages originate from around the Aegean and are clearly non-Indo-European.
      http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/linguistics-archeology-and-genetics-l-g.html
      January 16, 2016 at 4:10 PM

      Davidski said…
      Let me know when the first major paper comes out supporting it. It’ll be interesting to see how they explain that all of the Y-DNA in early Kurgan graves is EHG derived.
      January 16, 2016 at 6:20 PM

      Arch Hades said…
      That „Meditteranean” component in Sredny Stog is CHG and comes from the Caucasus , it’s not ENF. There’s no ENF in the steppe until the CWC expands out east much later in time.
      January 16, 2016 at 7:06 PM

      Davidski said…
      Can’t see Tripolje as anything but EEF, possibly with a high level of WHG admix. Tripolje mixed with Sredny Stog on the western edge of the steppe in Ukraine. Caucasus-derived groups probably mixed with Sredny Stog near the Sea of Azov. So it’ likely that Sredny Stog had EEF admixture in the west, and CHG admixture in the east. Poltavka outlier may actually pre-date the formation of Corded Ware, and might be a hint of what we’ll soon see from remains on the Ukrainian steppes. In other words, EHG/CHG/EEF/WHG mixed groups with loads of R1a.
      January 16, 2016 at 7:37 PM

      Davidski said…
      Romulus, I don’t know whether Mal’ta boy was brachycephalic or not, but most of the EHG skulls I’ve seen don’t look brachycephalic. And it was EHG that carried R1a, not Mal’ta boy, who may have belonged to an offshoot of ANE and R that didn’t leave any modern descendants. Your theories are weak and stupid.
      January 16, 2016 at 10:31 PM

      Davidski said…
      the idea that skull shape can change based on diet is a hoax, if eat a lot of rice am I going to start looking Chinese? get real. Straw man argument. Head shape can change from generation to generation, not within someone’s lifetime you complete moron. Can you prove these are hoaxes?

      Brachycephalization and debrachycephalization in Bulgaria during 20th century

      http://press.mu-varna.bg/ojs/index.php/ssm/article/view/830

      The phenomenon of debrachycephalization in Jena school children

      http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/10027042
      January 16, 2016 at 11:06 PM

      Davidski said…
      Eskimos are dolichocephalic? Hahaha going to need a source on that. Man, you’re really dumb.

      „The typical Greenland Eskimo cranium is large and dolichocephalic.”

      https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mwVZAVC4OnUC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=Eskimos+dolichocephalic+cranial&source=bl&ots=3_lt_ybPSe&sig=2D6ahQ-iN2ymts_gmxnGrI9goFQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWl4rfpLDKAhWH3KYKHcB0A8QQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=Eskimos%20dolichocephalic%20cranial&f=false
      January 16, 2016 at 11:09 PM

      Davidski said…
      Ainus are dolichocephalic, and so were paleo-Aleuts. I’m sure I could find more examples within the so called Mongoloid family that I’m not aware of yet. And yes, Ainus are East Asian, and so were the Jomon.

      https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25753365.pdf

      https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1bGNFNDfw4AC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=paleo-Aleuts+dolichocephalic&source=bl&ots=YDGsIl7CSZ&sig=rX3j1qfbVH6iQQjgwTm_RWx33FY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhp6bjrrDKAhWj2aYKHT1hCD0Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=paleo-Aleuts%20dolichocephalic&f=false

      So you’ve failed to prove that Mal’ta boy was brachycephalic, or that it’s even relevant, considering my examples of dolichocephalic East Asian/ANE populations like Eskimos and Aleuts. Also, there’s no evidence that Bell Beakers were by and large brachycephalic. All we know is that some were, and this was a big deal in the past. It’s no longer a big deal.

      https://www.academia.edu/11765209/LEMERCIER_O.2015-_European_Bell_Beakers_Phenomenon_Data_Problems_and_Prospects_Talk_in_Harvard_Medical_School_Department_of_Genetics_ReichLab_Boston_MA_USA_March_23_2015
      January 17, 2016 at 12:00 AM

      Rob said…
      * RE: Samara , Khvalynsk and „Kurgans” „Sredny-Stog II I agree that it has low meaning because there’s a wild variety of cultures or subcultures partaking of the layer. What is clear and relevant is that it included the earliest kurgans in the area and that it was an almost necessary stepping stone for developments further West such as Baalberge and Cernavoda”

      That’s not quite correct, because you’re just lumping together everything into one category. We need to sub-classify different types of Kurgans, and treatment of body position. Somewhat different conclusiosn come to the fore. True, low mounds and stone cairns can be found as early as Late Neolithic/ early Eneolithic areas of southern Russia and Ukraine. But there is no proof that the began in the Samara culture specifically, rather they were spread across the area, incl post-Mariupol areas of Azov, Dneper, Donets, etc. In fact, „It has been noted that the earliest “symbolic period” in the development of steppe monumental architectureis limited to a steppe zone between the Northern Caucasus and the Balkan-Carpathians (Rassamakin 2002,p. 60-63). The emergence of these constructions is infuenced by external impulses. The first one is connected to the development of the Balkan-Carpathian metallurgical province (Chernykh et al. 1991) and the shaping of an exchange system of prestige goods. The second one is connected to the new Pre-Maikop cultural system (settlements of Svobodnoe, Meshoko, etc.) of the Northern Caucasus. The steppe populations represented by elite burials were involved in this exchange network of prestige goods (Rassamakin 1999, p. 97-112). The emergence of individual burials with prestigious grave goods and the appearance of ritual constructions in the steppe zone between the Northern Caucasus and the Carpathian-Danube region resulted from the development of a new economic and social “world system”. They illustrate the response of a certain stratum of the early pastoral population to its first contacts with early agricultural societies. This process resulted in changes in the spiritual life of the steppe population (initially elite groups only?) and the development of a new funerary tradition.”

      So Samara, Volga, etc, was peripheral to all this, as the aDNA evidence (if you’ve been keeping up) confirms.

      (2) there is then a kurganles period on the steppe (were you aware?). 4200 – 3800 BC, burials on the steppe are only in flat pits. Probably related to the demise of the CBMP to which the steppe chiefs relied on.

      (3) When they re-appear again (3800 BC), under the Kurgans were 4 different positions: 1 – extended supine position (with straight legs); 2 – supine with legs
      flexed in various ways including sessile and disarticulated orientations, characteristic of flat cemeteries; 3 – flexed position on the side, with one arm bent and the other extended, or with both arms extended toward the knees; 4 – strongly flexed position on the side with bent arms and hands in front of the face

      (4) By the Yamnaya period (33/3000 BC), there is a homogenization of burial treatment. Again, the major formative influences on the rites are from CT and Majkop.

      What we see, after a careful, up to date analysis, is actually a very different picture to what you describe. It appears that the steppe was constantly subject to influences, if not movements from its agricultural surrounds. True, sometime c. 3000 BC these steppe groups might then have ‚refluxed’ back out. But that remains to be proven. In fact, I very much doubt it. By 2500 BC, Yamnaya was collapsing, and the succeeding Catacomb culture was restricted to the Dnieperian heartlands. Perhaps a stray L51 group fled westward to gain a foothold in BB territory, to ‚suddenly explode’ in dominance of western Europe (as the current narrative espoused by most genealogy enthusiasts would go).
      January 17, 2016 at 7:18 PM

      Rob said…
      @ Maju „Yamna is succeeded by Poltavka in its core area of the Volga. There seems to be surprising continuity in this core area: Khvalynsk → Yamna → Poltavka → Srubna (arguably proto-Cimmerians) and Sintashta→Andronovo (proto-Indo-Iranians). ”

      Maju, do you call a whole-scale replacement of Yamnaya R1b- Z2013 to Srubnaya R1a -Z93 „continuity” ?
      January 18, 2016 at 2:50 AM

      Davidski said…
      Y-chromosomes of ruling elites, which is what the people buried in the Kurgans arguably were, may have changed when ruling clans were deposed by other local clans. But in the case of the shift from Yamnaya/Poltavka to Srubnaya, it’s not just a change in Y-chromosomes. The Srubnaya people were a new, genetically more western population in the Volga area, which probably already arrived during the Poltavka period, because Poltavka outlier was of the same genetic type as Srubnaya. They probably came from the western part or edge of the steppe or forest steppe, bringing with them R1a-Z93 and admixture from Middle Neolithic European farmers who lived west of the steppe. I don’t think Maju has looked into this. He doesn’t seem to be aware of it.
      January 18, 2016 at 3:00 AM

      Rob said…
      Maju, I referenced you the paper twice and it seemed like you were refusing to accept the details. Im not trying to slant a particular view, but sharing minutii. Thus to earn pedagogism, one needs to show receptism. I suggest a good starting point is „The Eneolithic of the Black Sea steppe. Dynamics of Cultural Development 4500 – 2300 BC, by Rassamakin. Just look it up on google or Academia.edu, or else ‚ll happily email it to you. Yes, I think he’s new classification scheme is good, and after all, he is centred in Ukraine and is best familar with the material. he also covers the more eastern continuum – Repin, Khvalynsk, etc.

      And no, Im not suggesting kurgan culture started from CT. Quite the contrary, im painting a picture of different funerary rituals which varied with time and space. Some of which were directly and or indirectly influenced by exchange with CT, some with Majkop, whilst others still go back to more archaic ‚native’ steppe forms. What we have by 3300 BC is a number of variant kurgan cultures. Some (like Cernavoda, Usatavo) appear to have been balkano-Danubian groups adapting to steppic type burials and pastorlaism. By 3000 BC, it all homogenizes into „classic Yamnaya”. Was this simply a cultural phenomenon, or was it because one specific subgroup grew to dominance over others ? We don;t yet know, but aDNA will help. So we need aDNA from al lthese Yamnaya-esque groups west of the Don- Black Sea yamnaya, Majkop-Yamnaya, balkan Yamnaya, Hungarian Yamnaya 🙂 Of course, we know DOn-Volga Yamnaya was almost wholly Z2103 clan.
      January 18, 2016 at 5:25 AM

      Lubię to

  5. Anna M… Potwierdzam, że źle odczytałem dane z tej tabelki, bo te R1a Z93 TO NIE JEST AFANASIEWO, TYLKO SAGSAI, czyli TO NIE PRAWDA, ŻE R1a Z93 POCHODZI ZE WSCHODNIEJ YAMNAYA!!!

    Bardzo dziękuję Ci, na długotrwałe zwracani mi uwagi na to, BO TO TY MIAŁAŚ RACJĘ, a ja myliłem się!!! Zwyczajnie sądziłem, że Sagsai to tylko nazwa miejsca, skąd pobrano próbki!!! SZACUNEK!!! 🙂

    Nie zmienia to jednak faktu, że tzw. Scytowie i Sarmaci to potomkowie Pra-Słowian, jak np. Karelczyk, późno zmieszani z tubylczymi ludami z okolic Załtaju, którzy około 3000 lat temu z Syberii dotarli na stepy nadczarnomorskie,.. patrz:

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/the-scythian.html

    Lubię to

  6. http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/pit-grave-yamnaya-kurgans-are-as-old-as.html

    Tuesday, December 9, 2014

    Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) kurgans are as old as Maykop kurgans

    Many people believe that Maykop kurgans of the North Caucasus are older than those of the Eastern European steppe, and thus ancestral to them. I’ve seen this claim made in the comments section of this blog and elsewhere, and regularly cited as evidence for a more southerly Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland than the steppe. But this appears to be false:

    Abstract: We studied the chronology and periodization of the Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) culture at the Volga and Ural interfluve. Establishing the chronology of the Pit-Grave culture by archaeological methods is difficult due to the lack of artifacts in the burials. Therefore, we excavated 3 kurgan groups in the Orenburg region of Russia during the last decade. Eighteen kurgans of the Pit-Grave culture were studied using archaeological and paleopedological methods and radiocarbon dating. The funeral complexes studied were divided into 3 stages. A variety of carbon-containing materials from the same complexes were dated by different laboratories to increase the accuracy of the obtained dates. In addition, from the excavations of the last years some monuments of the Repino stage, the earliest period of the Pit-Grave culture, were dated using ceramics. Together with archaeological and paleopedological data, 14C dating helped to clarify and, in general, to confirm the 3-stage periodization of the Pit-Grave culture in the Volga-Ural interfluve: the early (Repino) stage, 4000–3300 BC; the advanced (classical) stage, 3300–2600 BC, which is divided into substages A and B at 3300–2900 and 2900–2600 BC, respectively; and the late (Poltavkinsky) stage, 2600–2300 BC.

    Thus, on the basis of 14C dating, the chronological limits of the early (Repino) stage of the Pit-Grave culture in the Volga-Ural region are approximately between 4000 and 3300 cal BC. This is ~500 yr older than previously thought (Chernykh and Orlovskaya 2004). At this stage, the Pit-Grave culture developed synchronously with the early stage of the Maikop culture in the northern Caucasus, according to the archaeological evidence and the calibrated 14C dates obtained for the early stage of the Maikop culture (Korenevsky 2004).

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQZS1KQllwWU85Rzg/view

    Citation…

    Nina Morgunova, Olga Khokhlova, Chronology and Periodization of the Pit-Grave Culture in the Area Between the Volga and Ural Rivers Based on 14C Dating and Paleopedological Research, Radiocarbon, Vol 55, No 2–3 (2013), DOI: 10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16087

    Posted by Davidski at 3:18:00 AM

    Lubię to

Skomentuj

Wprowadź swoje dane lub kliknij jedną z tych ikon, aby się zalogować:

Logo WordPress.com

Komentujesz korzystając z konta WordPress.com. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Zdjęcie z Twittera

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Twitter. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Facebook photo

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Facebook. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Google+ photo

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Google+. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Connecting to %s