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..

Kliknij, aby uzyskać dostęp 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