search this blog

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

See also...

The beast among Y-haplogroups

348 comments:

1 – 200 of 348   Newer›   Newest»
Rami said...

Conquest LOL? The IVC was already in decay long before BMAC Indo Iranians were on the scene. The same can be said for the BMAC, this can be inferred from the shrinking citadel walls. Changing weather patterns were the main cause of that. There is no iota of data from S/SC Asia or Iran you need to hold back on your Stormfront like conclusions.

Davidski said...

Yes, the Indo-Iranian expansion into South Asia was a conquest. What else would you call it?

mickeydodds1 said...

Don't worry, David, certain posters in this site will continue to deny, deny, deny, quibble, quibble, quibble - right up to the time when you cease blogging, and this site is no more.

Gökhan said...

The popular subject of last 2 centruies; Tring to be ancestral to Proto Indo-Europeans!!! The other one is tring to be ancestral to Jews. Both links to same door! Genealogic fetishism.

Davidski said...

Thanks for the feedback.

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.


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.

Rob said...

I guess that's possible. It might have happened several times through prehistory ?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Romulus said...

Whats the matter with my comment about the craniometric data? Why did you delete it?

Taymas said...

I think anyone posting an alternative viewpoint should include their testable predictions for Harappa.

I don't have an alternative viewpoint, but I'll record my boring, derivative take on any samples older than 2000BC:

-mix of (neolthic ancestry forming a clade with CHG) and (hunter-gatherer ancestry currently strongest in S Indian tribals)
-no R1a

Coldmountains 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.

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.

Coldmountains said...

Of course it was an invasion/conquest and not just a peaceful migration of some "friendly" pastoralists. Pastoralists /nomads were rarely just peaceful and certainly not Proto-Indo-Iranians which replaced/conquered a lot of other steppe people and after that a lot of sedentary people

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.

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.

aniasi said...

Describing it as an invasion, is ridiculous. The Harappans may have been in decline, but I doubt that with superior numbers and pointy sticks that they would have been overtaken by a sparse number of horsemen from over the mountains. Even in the case of Rome, Late Latin remained dominant, the culture of the majority continued, and Germans came to take control of the Empire because they were frequently allowed in, or were actively recruited to supplement the army. Even then, they were not nomadic pastoralists, but migrating agriculturalists forced off their land by other invaders.

You are correct that conquering nomads to frequently overtake established civilisations, but even in fully declining ones they tend to be fully assimilated. I don't see Frankish, Manchu, or Lombard as Imperial languages after 200 years of dominance.

On the other hand, it is far more likely that the IA's culture and language was spread by the collapse of cities and agriculture. Late Harappan peoples had to hit the road, and moved further east. At the same time, the main survivors in this wilderness were the IA speakers, and they new how to survive. All of a sudden, they become the new honchos as Harappans join the hordes in order to survive.

Grey said...

Prediction - I'm gonna say R1b metal workers again - I don't think there were a lot of them but I wonder if their burials may have been more robust cos wealthy artisans.

Otherwise any of the sensible answers ;)

Fanty said...

@Ryan:

there will of course be WHG with R1a and R1b.

Same as there are EHG that have J...
Or Farmers that had various versions of I.

But it will be a fraction of WHG that have it.

Rami said...

Davidski before going on your gloating parade , you need to learn basic archaeology. The Indo Iranians who land up in Iran/ South Asia are not same ones galavanting in the steppe. These Sintashta people are merging with the much larger Near Eastern like populations in the BMAC.

And peopling is the wrong word. This is not a sparsely populated LBK Europe.It already is peopled, you have millions of people already living in the region by the Bronze Age. No doubt the BMAC Indo Iranians added their own admixture to the population, but it was hardly a population replacement lol.

Davidski said...

@Romulus

Whats the matter with my comment about the craniometric data? Why did you delete it?

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/a-cautionary-tale-from-armenia.html?showComment=1452612488511#c8465349117418038769

You're getting paranoid.

@Ryan,

I knew that WHG was found at least as far east as Hungary when I was formulating my theories.

Davidski said...

Rami,

Blah, Blah, Blah...

Ryan said...

@Davidski - What do you think the general shape/magnitude of the EHG/WHG cline is in the lower Danube/Black Sea region?

Davidski said...

Impossible to say. But keep in mind that there may have been very little admixture between WHG and EHG even if their ranges overlapped for a couple thousand years, because they may have been adapted to different environments.

FrankN said...

Dave: I did a bit of calculation based on your K8 data. I assumed the Poltavka outlier to be a mix of Yamnaya Samara and a "Population X". This makes both sense from a temporal-regional perspective, and as Yamnaya Samara and the remaining Poltavka are more or less identical. [Yamnaya Kalmykia are even a somewhat better fit when it comes to main components, but they include more Afro and SEA noise.]

At 46% Yamnaya Samara - 54% Population X, the latter should look somehow like this (total is 101% due to the noise):
ANE 47.4 - WHG 31.0 - EHG 18.8 - CHG 3.6

And we have for Hungary EBA (I1502), who fits more or less timewise:
ANE 47.1 - WHG 30.9 - EHG 16.1 - CHG 3.3 (plus 2.6% others)

Doesn't look too bad, I'd say.

On Hungary, I had made a time series before which may have been overlooked since I posted it when a new blog entry had already been opened. We have the following trend there (always ANE/WHG/EHG/CHG according to your K8):

LBKT_EN: 95.4/ 00.0/ 00.0/ 04.6
Hung_EN: 89.2/ 06.3/ 01.8/ 00.7
Hung_CA: 76.8/ 13.8/ 01.6/ 03.3
HungEBA: 47.1/ 30.9/ 16.1/ 03.3
HungLBA: 47.8/ 23.2/ 16.2/ 11.2
Hung_IA: ?/?/?/?
Hungary: 29.2/ 24.0/ 13.9/ 27.7

As you see, Hung_EBA is as much an outlier as the Poltavka one: Hardly any CHG, at a time when BB/Unetice were around 22% CHG. Instead, heavily WHG & EHG-loaded (heavier than today, in spite of historic Hunnic/ Magyar influx from Asia). This points at a source for both the Poltavka outlier and Hung_EBA from around the eastern Carpathian foothills, i.e. Moldova/ Western Ukraine. IOW - late CT/ southeastern GAC.

Note also how late CHG arrived in Hungary - a smaller part during the early/middle Bronze Age, but most of it only from the Iron Age onwards. That latter influx can't have come from the Steppe - Skythian_IA, with 31.5% EHG, would have massively driven up EHG in today's Hungarians. We must have had a LBA/IA influx of a East Med type, CHG rich but EHG poor population, which most likely arrived by sea. Greetings to Troy and all those claiming descendence from there - Etrurians, Veneti etc. (Frankish kings, btw, as well).

Romulus said...

@Davidski

Hahaha must have forgot to take my pills today. This blogger format really is bad though.

ACTUAL COMMENT:

I agree with David's post. I put a lot of faith in craniometric study which has proven to be totally accurate for Europe so far, craniometric data for India points to the Steppe.

Ryan said...

HungEBA: 47.1/ 30.9/ 16.1/ 03.3
HungLBA: 47.8/ 23.2/ 16.2/ 11.2

Well that's strange. EHG and CHG should have arrived together with IE speakers, yet we have them arriving independently here? Though I guess the admixing group would have been high enough EHG to be IE too. Could have come from Thrace?

Re: modern Hungarians though, could that sample be from Jászság in Hungary? Modern Ossetians have a lot of CHG, so maybe ancient Alans did too? Probably not as high (52.9% in CHG_K10) given that Ossetians are actually in the Caucasus, but could still be decently high.

Krefter said...

@Davidski,

Alberto is right that Modern Y DNA points toward Iran as the origin of M417. The thing is Modern Y DNA isn't a reliable tool much of the time for discovering distant origins. This is especially true for any migrations coming from the Steppe, because starting with Z93 groups, that region has become a genetically mixed mess. All traces of evidence pointing towards it being an origin of migrations has disappeared. There was a paper published a few days ago about how ancient DNA has contradicted believable theories based on modern DNA.

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.

Dude ManBro said...

The C/T-13910 SNP associated with lactase persistence in Europeans is also present in Central and South Asian populations and correlates nicely with the frequency of R1a-Z93 in those two areas.

This SNP was rare in Steppe pastoralists, but became dominate in LN/EBA Central Europeans. This may be another hint that the peoples that brought R1a-Z93 to Central and South Asia came from further west than the Yamnaya peoples.

Krefter said...

"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"

The only very good evidence M417 is from Steppe or East Europe, is aDNA. Nothing in modern DNA strongly suggests that's where it's from. This is a lesson as to why we need to keep getting more aDNA.

I do agree Z283, L664, and Z93 all being between Samara and Rhine, is because that's where M417 originated. However, it isn't very convincing without aDNA. Most R1a in Europe today are clades that expanded outside of their homeland just as Z93 did. L664 is mostly just found in Scandinavia, so it's found outside of its homeland just as Z93 is. Some M417 clades were so successful that all other M417 died out and this is why we can't find good evidence in modern Y DNA it originated in Corded Ware territory.

You have to admit aDNA and archaeology are what prove M417 is from East Europe not modern Y DNA.

Taymas said...

@Ryan and @FrankN,

Once you drill down to individuals in these Admixture runs, things definitely get interesting. I've noticed large individual variations in CHG/EHG ratio within the following ancient European sample sets:

Bell_Beaker_Czech
Bell_Beaker_Germany
Corded_Ware_Germany
Nordic_BA
Nordic_LN
Unetice_EBA

But then I also noticed large variations within modern populations. I think there's too much noise in any individual's background to read much into. But clearly the LN/BA population turnover got complicated.

Nirjhar007 said...

David and others,
KO1 from Hungary is a pure WHG, and the steppe actually extends into Hungary.
I have seen Ko1 (an outlier of Hungarian Körös Neolithic) , it is pure blue at certain levels and not at others, how can we justify that? Also Motala12 is pure blue at the highest level, although it is Scandinavian HG and not WHG.
The source of Ko1 is this paper: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html
There, Ko1 is very close to other HG, but it has also a remarkable quantity of a green component of EEF.

Anyway, can we accept an autosomal DNA identical in two persons? Components are clearly given as approximations, and they take some similar individuals as reference for a particular lineage. EEF and WHG lineages existed, but it is not possible that they were pure, unless they were completely isolated, which almost never happens?.

Nirjhar007 said...

The only very good evidence M417 is from Steppe or East Europe, is aDNA. Nothing in modern DNA strongly suggests that's where it's from. This is a lesson as to why we need to keep getting more aDNA.
Yes and from Asia, Civilizations such as BMAC,IVC and cultures like Jeitun etc.
It will give the scientific ground to have the debate, all we have now, is some sampling from all around steppes, and people, who are claiming they have ''solved'' population history of most of Eurasia, its nuts.
Rami,
Have you read the works of BB Lal , Gregory Possehli, John M kenoyer etc on Harappan archaeology?, they are the experts on the issue, if you read them, you find how idiotic is, what people here are trying to assert. Although without reading them, people already get that ;).
You can also read the Book The Vedic Harappans by Bhagwan Singh, it s remarkable book with vivid details.

Davidski said...

KO1 forms a very robust clade with Loschbour and La Brana, so if he's mixed, so are the other two in basically the same ways. In other words, KO1 is WHG, even if he's mixed.

And R1a-M417 is firmly rooted in Europe based on both modern and ancient DNA. There's no way around this. It's not an Asian marker.

Nirjhar007 said...

I take your suggestion on KO1, thank you.
There's no way around this.
You mean that they will never be able, to take Samples and process them successfully from Neolithic-Eneolithic Asia ? , i certanly hope you said that, otherwise saying that It's not an Asian marker makes zero sense?.

Gill said...

I think South Asia had a bigger influx from further east on the Steppe

It's one of two possible solutions to address the issue of such high autosomal ANE affinity in the subcontinent accompanying higher than expected East Eurasian admixture.

Either all that East Eurasian is native to India (even though it doesn't fall in with ASI reconstructions) and there is this as-yet-undiscovered high-ANE influx into South Asia which isn't sufficiently captured by CHG and EHG.

Or that ANE came with East Eurasian, like Siberian/Amerindian-type admixture from the Steppe. So something centered in the region of the Karasuk culture extending as a spectrum to the West. Could represent multiple waves with a more western wave (similar to the Poltavka sample) hitting North India.

The latter is pretty much universally supported by every Admixture run. You always get a bunch of European, Caucasian, and Siberian/Amerindian. If you take it all together and look at the proportions, it resembles Bronze Age eastern Steppe populations like Karasuk. It always "averages out" to just north of mid or east-Kazakhstan.

There's also the IBS issue. South Asians share more with Karasuk samples than any other recovered population so far. You can even eyeball it on Gedmatch's archaic DNA tool. Use any South Asian kit, especially the upper castes. The really high European ones show some strong matches with an Andronovo or baSca sample (RISE98, curious) as well, but the several Karasuk samples are far and away the clearest.

Secondly, the very European-like admixture we find centered in north India tapers off drastically across the subcontinent. That is just harder to reconcile with the incredible spread of R1a across the region. You'd expect a bigger footprint. If you look at the Karasuk-like layer (if using Admixture), you'll find a nearly 15-20% average footprint across the entire subcontinent, even in Balochistan where there's virtually no EHG/WHG-type admixture left. As you get to the high-European areas like Haryana, you'll see what seems best described by a mix of Western and Eastern steppe-like admixture. When I tried to run it with only a Karasuk-like layer, it topped out at low to mid-20s for everyone.

More importantly, this Karasuk-like layer was not favored by Tajiks who have European and Siberian admixture. They had more affinity to Andronovo-type admixture. This is probably because their European admixture was from the Western steppe and the Siberian/East Asian is recent admixture.

The remains in Rakhigarhi might shed some light. If we get autosomal data and there's no sort of Siberian/Amerindian or high-ANE in there, this lends further support to an Eastern Steppe-origin for the bigger wave.

A Karasuk-like layer would account for most of the noise in South Asians leaving an almost 50/50 combo of SE-Asian/Papuan and a little bit of NE-Asian-type depending on proximity to the Himalayas.

So it's possible South Asians would be comprised of the following:

~50-70% CHG-like (of varying origins, getting over 50% in Pakistan)
~20-40% Steppe (with a bare 15-20% Karasuk type layer in everyone, topped by an Andronovo-like layer)
~10-15% ASI (SE-Asian/Papuan)
~variable amount of NE-Asian (getting high in Northeast India)

Gill said...

Correction: 10-30% ASI, maybe more. South Indian upper castes seem to top out in the 20s (this would be just East Eurasian part of ASI, if there's more than that). I haven't tried any tribals.

Nirjhar007 said...

Gill,
I think IVC folks will have good amounts of ANE like admixture.

Ryan said...

"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."

Is EHG the actual product of admixture, or just a midway point in a cline? And if it is a productive of admixture, has anyone checked for linkage disequilibrium? I think whatever the history of structure of R1a is, the origin of IE is pretty much case closed, but it would be interesting to know the timeline of EHG forming.

Also David - what do you make of EHG showing up in Hungary prior to CHG?

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.

Balaji said...

Could you calculate the following D statistics and add Austroasitic, Paniya, Chamar and Kol to your “Smarter Bear Plot”?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQYkJ0bnc0eUk4dWs/view?usp=sharing

Ju_hoan_North MA1 BedouinB Austroasiatic
Ju_hoan_North MA1 BedouinB Paniya
Ju_hoan_North MA1 BedouinB Chamar
Ju_hoan_North MA1 BedouinB Kol

Ju_hoan_North Loschbour BedouinB Austroasiatic
Ju_hoan_North Loschbour BedouinB Paniya
Ju_hoan_North Loschbour BedouinB Chamar
Ju_hoan_North Loschbour BedouinB Kol

This will give the full range of ANI in the Subcontinent going from 17% in Paniya to 85% in Kalash.

Davidski said...

Here you go...

Ju_hoan_North MA1 BedouinB Austroasiatic_Ho 0.0232 7.331 349989
Ju_hoan_North MA1 BedouinB Paniya 0.0237 7.386 353705
Ju_hoan_North MA1 BedouinB Chamar 0.0383 14.213 350236
Ju_hoan_North MA1 BedouinB Kol 0.0404 15.846 350236

Ju_hoan_North Loschbour BedouinB Austroasiatic_Ho -0.0208 -7.54 500343
Ju_hoan_North Loschbour BedouinB Paniya -0.0169 -5.936 506355
Ju_hoan_North Loschbour BedouinB Chamar -0.0036 -1.492 500804
Ju_hoan_North Loschbour BedouinB Kol -0.0005 -0.239 500804

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQQ0hPNXJsWlFieHM/view?usp=sharing

Chad Rohlfsen said...

South Indians are way more than 10-30% ASI. Onge is way higher than people think. I'll post some qpAdms once I have a merged set.

Kurti said...

My predictions some L, T, R1a m17 and J

Kurti said...

"Of course it was an invasion/conquest and not just a peaceful migration of some "friendly" pastoralists. Pastoralists /nomads were rarely just peaceful and certainly not Proto-Indo-Iranians which replaced/conquered a lot of other steppe people and after that a lot of sedentary people"

I have already elaborated under another article why this is not the case. The only Indo European groups who we have some information about their early states are the Tocharians, Medes and Persians and we know about them, that they were simple pastoralists who were in search of new grassland than anything else. Another thing that indicates this, there is as much Indo European specific mt- as ydna. However in India the story looks slightly different. We indeed have allot of Indo European type mtDNA but we have peaks of R1a z94 among some pockets of Indian ethnic groups which speaks for late founder effect. Now where these R1a z94 is a different question archeological seen BMAC, which is part of the Andronovo horizon, makes sense.

Roy King said...

Somewhat unrelated to this posting, it seems that Kurd has indeed found that Kum6 has a large CHG component, an issue that has divided comments on this blog:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6218-A-first-look-at-Kumtepe-6

Slumbery said...

Ryan: "Re: modern Hungarians though, could that sample be from Jászság in Hungary? Modern Ossetians have a lot of CHG, so maybe ancient Alans did too? Probably not as high (52.9% in CHG_K10) given that Ossetians are actually in the Caucasus, but could still be decently high."

I am from there (all of my ancestors lived in a particular Alan-founded village as far as I can trace them. Based on the DODECAD ADMIXTURE runs I made with my data I am perfectly within the variability range of Behar et al. Hungarians.
The Alan community in the Jászság was small, only a handful of villages, all of them in close proximity of Hungarian settlements, basically surrounded by them. Direct neighbourhood with no isolation for 700 years + especially strong mixing with other groups during the Ottoman invasion and after that. A significant autosomal DNA deviation in the direction of the Caucasus would be kind of a miracle.

FrankN said...

@Ryan: "Modern Ossetians have a lot of CHG, so maybe ancient Alans did too?

When it comes to Hungary, I wouldn't focus much on Alans. Most of them joined forces with the Vandals, whose homeland is believed to be Lower Silesia. Hence, the main thrust of Alan migration into Central Europe appears to have been north of the Carpathians.

However, the Avars, which also originate in the West Caucasus, dominated Hungary and the Balkans during most of the Early Medieval. Furthermore, the Goths should have picked up some Caucasian ancestry (but also a lot of EHG) as well. As such I aggree that some of the post-BA CHG entry into Hungary and the Balkans may well stem from the Caucasus. OTOH, the Avar's linguistic impact was rather low, which raises questions on the size of their genetic contribution.

Another issue is that not only the CHG, but also the SWA admix has been increasing after the BA. E.g., in Dave's K8 Hung_LBA has 0,1% SWA, compared to 3,6% with current Hungarians. Current North Caucasian populations range between 7.5% (N. Osset.) and 10.4% (Abkhaz.) SWA. For them alone to bring about the increase in Hungarian SWA admix, their contribution should have been much more substantial than linguistics suggest.

A look at SWA/ CHG admix around Hungary provides the following picture:

Turk Aydin (Aegean) 12.6/ 38.0
Turk_Istanbul 12.0/ 41.3
Turk_Balikesir (Marmara) 11.1/ 38.0
Greek Peleponnese 11.0/ 33.7
Greek Macedonia 10.7/ 36.9
Ital Tuscan 9.6/ 30.0
Tuscany (diff. sample) 8.9/ 30.1
Sardinian 7.3/ 16.4
Kosovar 7.2/ 31.7
Ital Bergamo 6.7/ 27.4
Bulgarian 6.6/ 29.0
Macedonian 6.4/ 31.2
Romanian 5.7/ 31.2
Montenegro 5.4/ 29.9
Serbian 4.9/ 29.9
Seb_Bosnia 4.4/ 29.3
Croat 4.1/ 29.0
Hungarian 3.6/ 27.7
French 3.0/ 25.9
Slovenian 2.6/ 28.6
Slovak 2.4/ 27.2
Czech 1.9/ 27.4
English Kent 1.4/ 25.9
Polish 0.9/ 27.4

This is clearly a SWA spread out of two epicentres, namely (a) the Aegean and (b) Tuscany, both of which also carried a lot of CHG. To judge the extent the Tuscan wave reached Hungary, data from Veneto and Austria would of course be helpful.

In general, this takes us back to the usual conclusions:
1. Things are always going to be more complicated than initially expected, and
2. More aDNA (including BA/IA) is needed.

I confess to have overly simplified things by just focusing on a Mediterranean-based, Etruscan-mediated CHG (plus SWA) expansion during the IA. I believe such expansion took place, but it is most certainly only a part of the story.

Alberto said...

@Roy King

Thanks for the update. Very interesting the admixture run showing the high affinity between Iceman and Kum6, and how this component (separate from EEF and CHG) also has a strong affinity to Sintashta, Srubnaya, Karasuk, Andronovo... To a lesser degree with BA Hungary, and then dilutes in most other modern or ancient populations.

Not sure what it means, but it seems that Sintashta got their ENF from a specific source related to both Kum6 and Iceman. This affinity was confirmed by the stats in the paper already, so it doesn't look like some artifact of admixture. We'll see what we can make of it with more tests.

Gill said...

"South Indians are way more than 10-30% ASI. Onge is way higher than people think. I'll post some qpAdms once I have a merged set."

That would depend on how you define 'ASI'. The East Asian-like part of ASI (which is picked up by SE-Asian/NE-Asian/Papuan in current calculators) would probably peak at less than 40% for most South Indian populations, tribal populations and NE-Indian populations aside. Probably barely 30% at max.

Onge are an East Asian population, they are not a source of West Eurasian ancestry in South India. In this scenario I would refer to only Onge themselves as ASI and not an Onge-Indian mix as ASI (the latter will get you double the numbers since it will contain really old West Eurasian admixture in the subcontinent). While the latter may be true anthropologically speaking, it doesn't help us figure out where that first non-Onge West Eurasian-like Indian admixture came from.

Ariele Iacopo Maggi said...

"Somewhat unrelated to this posting, it seems that Kurd has indeed found that Kum6 has a large CHG component"
Or maybe he found a separate component, btw it would be interesting to see Remedello in those runs.

Rob said...

Alberto / Roy
Interesting
Would be nice to get more confirmation and samples, but it could markedly modify the overall picture- and confirm the "late Neolithic migration" archaeologists and early aDNA papers / abstracts mentioned (Harvella, Unterlander).

Romulus said...

CHG in Kum6 is very interesting because it shows that CHG underwent an expansion completely independent of the Steppe people. Into the Steppe into the Mesolithic and into Anatolia in the Neolithic. Since we see CHG expanding independently of EHG, tracing all CHG in modern Europeans back to the Steppe is false.

Kurti said...

"Or maybe he found a separate component, btw it would be interesting to see Remedello in those runs."

Would be interesting if this new component turns out to be what we called the "Iranian Plateau or Eastern farmers/herders?

Maju said...

Davidski: how does the haplotype fit within the internal tree of R1a-Z93? I bet it belongs to a terminal branch, just as the haplotypes of that area do. Less imaginary maps and more haplotype comparison.

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.

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.

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

Balaji said...

Davdidski,

Thanks for the plot. There is now a clear trend line going along the Indian cline from Austroasiatic_Ho on the lower left to Kalash on the upper right. Brahui and Balochi are above this line because of some Arab ancestry in them. If possible, it will be good to reduce the gap between Paniya and Chamar. From Table S4 of Moorjani et al. Palliyar and Mala with 24% and 34% ANI will do this. If you data for these, could you add them to the plot?

a said...

Maju said...

"Davidski: how does the haplotype fit within the internal tree of R1a-Z93? I bet it belongs to a terminal branch, just as the haplotypes of that area do. Less imaginary maps and more haplotype comparison. "

Maju you are aware of the samples that David used to compare the R1a Poltavka outlier sample ? You know R1b-Z2103 is about 6100-6200+/-Y.B.P.?

a said...

https://www.academia.edu/3836804/An_Indo-Iranian_Symbol_of_Power_in_the_Earliest_Steppe_Kurgans

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)."

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]"

Maju said...

@David: Nobody questions that they were warriors, but warriors precisely don't settle lands: they conquer others and feed off their work. So even less likely that they had any significant genetic impact.

But anyhow my question was objective: what about haplotypes?, what position does this sample occupy in the Z93 haplotype netword?, is it (as I expect) a terminal one, just like modern local R1a is?

@"a": No I'm not aware of either. As for the latter, it's a mere hyper-recentist, biased, estimate: R1a-Z93 should be several millennia older when using properly calibrated estimates. I already criticized Underhill's choice of mutation rate back in the day, because he chose the one that fit his hypothesis and not the one with the best guarantees (calibrated to an ancient specimen, which produces a significantly older date). In that entry I also carefully considered the haplotype network (!!!) to confirm Underhill's model of expansion from West Asia (albeit at an older, Neolithic or Epipaleolithic date) and the presence of ONLY terminal branches at the Volga.

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, ......."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfoepCBAR5Y
@4:11
Ossetians>>> Kakhetian=R1b-L584

a said...


Maju said...
@"a": No I'm not aware of either.........."
He is comparing his R1a sample with a homogeneous-autochthonous 6100YBP. R1b cluster that still exists in the same location/region. The snp mutation is not found in Iran or South of Caucasus.

Rob said...

Maju

What do you mean haplotype network ?
That's when we are unsure of SNPs, and don't have full sequencing etc

Davidski said...

Maju,

How many Neolithic samples have come back R1a? How many ancient West Asian samples have come back R1a?

Why is R1a missing from Neolithic Europe west of the steppe, from Neolithic Anatolia, and from Bronze Age Armenia?

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.

Nirjhar007 said...

David,
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.
LOL, ritual? hahahahahahahahahahahah, good lord XD.
About fortified settlements archaeologist RS Bisht has shown that the Harappans were likely involved in fort-based warfare also quite like what we see on the steppes. So again this hints the southern influence once again.
How many Neolithic samples have come back R1a? How many ancient West Asian samples have come back R1a?
In simple sense , the Asian samples we have so far, i don't think there were many, who thought there will be any R1a among them :) .
Kurti,
Would be interesting if this new component turns out to be what we called the "Iranian Plateau or Eastern farmers/herders?.
Anything is possible,and by the first look really interesting, but we have to wait for more confirmation, we have to see also, if other genome bloggers also get similar results :) .


Maju said...

@"a": Sorry, I did not understand well your question earlier. D. is comparing autosomal DNA, not Y-DNA. While there *might* be a relation, this is not at all straightforward. In fact he says that Poltavka has a rather Western *autosomal* affiliation and it is a fact that Z93 does not exist (nor seemingly has ever existed) further West than the Volga. So I don't understand, let alone share, your logic.

Also I don't understand why you mention R1b here.

@Rob: Exactly. Underhill does describe some sub-haplogroups under Z93 but not everything is sufficiently clear with those categories only, so it is necessary to look at the haplotype network, which is in his supplementary material. In that data it becomes evident that Central Asian, Altaian and very especially Volga Z93 haplotypes are derived, not ancestral. In the case of Volga it is absolutely terminal branches only: there is no reasonable doubt of any kind.

@Davidski: I don't see how your questions are relevant, as we would need Neolithic samples from Pakistan, not from Europe, to clarify this issue further. In any case you are not going to get a thousand or even a hundred relevant aDNA samples, as can be done with modern DNA, so the information that aDNA provides, especially for the Y-DNA side of the puzzle, is bound to be a complement and not the main source of information, at least that's the case today.

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.

Nirjhar007 said...

Maju,
we would need Neolithic samples from Pakistan, not from Europe, to clarify this issue further.
We are having them from India, also Mesolithic-Neolithic Iran, BTW what are your expectations from the Iranian samples?.

Nirjhar007 said...

David ,
Calm down, do a bit of breathing exercise .

Maju said...

@Krefter: I can't find the marker Z2121 (sic) in YSOGG but I imagine that it is a quite derived Z93 sub-haplogroup, right? Maybe you meant Z2124, which corresponds to the R1a1a1b2a2 haplogroup?

"No one has done analysis of the Poltvka Outlier. All we know is that he had R1a1a1b2a-Z94".

So it's already NOT ancestral Z93 for sure... but a derived branch within (my) expectations.

"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".

M417 is a transitional marker between R1a1 and the regional haplogroups. It's admittedly confusing, probably because the expansion took place largely under this marker. Modernly R1a1-M417* seems to be found only in Northern Europe and Turkey (per Underhill) and it's unclear how these two minor M417* are related to the two big downstream haplogroups. It's clear that there was M417* in Europe and that it was present in Corded Ware but it is not clear it has any relation whatsoever to Z93, which could (and should) be derived from Asian M417 instead.

"Modern Y DNA isn't always reliable. Especially when a lineage expanded in a short time period like R1b-L11/R1a-M417"...

Maybe. I reckon that M417 is confusing but not just for me, for all. The question is that we don't have any ancient Y-DNA from the regions that are relevant like South Asia, so drawing too many conclusions only on (Eastern) European Y-DNA is not any more reliable, in fact it is quite irrational. IF we had a sizable ancient Y-DNA sample with proper representation of all involved regions, then it'd be another story. But we don't.

"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".

Over 50% of two people? Joking but only so much: here's almost no R1b-P312 so far East. Said that we don't know enough of the sub-structure of P312 in France and Germany, so maybe there's more S116* around. I would not be surprised at all because, honestly, I don't think it makes any sense that Basques, let alone Irish, have the greatest frequencies of this paragroup. The problem is that we don't know enough about France (and other areas, in this case also Germany).

Maju said...

"there's Z93* in Poland"

Really? I'm intrigued... particularly about its position in the haplotype structure, of course (there's also Z93* in Altai and the Volga but it is clearly derived, it just has not been assigned to a proper subhaplogroup yet).

"I'm guessing you're sharing the same drinking tap as poor Nirjhar"...

Hardly possible. AFAIK Nirjhar lives in India. I don't. We also don't agree too often and I think we do not agree on this issue either: he seems to believe that IEs expanded from South or West Asia, I think they did from the steppe, just that their genetic impact is negligible in South Asia and that South Asian R1a is in fact Elamo-Dravidian.

So different taps definitely.

Maju said...

"what are your expectations from the Iranian samples?"

I prefer not to have any strong expectations, particularly for such a complex Y-DNA pool landscape as that of Iran. What it seems to me from other discussions is that Iranians are largely conservative (low ANE) in the autosomal aspect, so maybe they are also conservative in the Y-DNA pool. We'll see.

Kurti said...

David said

"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."

Mr charming as always lol. I sometimes honestly have my doubts in your reading comprehensions. But well let's give it another try. Try to read my comment probably and than tell me in which part of it I told that Indo_Aryans reached India as simple peacefull pastoralist. In fact I lined out that India seems to be a special case here. Most Indo Europeans however did search for new lands to live their pastoralist livestyle. Also I don't know how inner conflicts inside cultural groups are a prove of military goals in major expansions.


If you would just try half as hard in providing evidences as throwing insults around the discussion wouldn't go for so long.

So I ask you who or what did the Tocharians intended to "conquer" when they reached the desert of West China? So all the Medes and Persians wanted when they "migrated" for the Iranian Plateau was to rule, instead of search for pastoralist land, but somehow ended up under the oppression of the Assyrians? Also in usual manner you simply ignore the other arguments which seem uncomfortable for the taste. You have around ~30% (allot of it U2)of Indo European specific mtDNA in all of India which obviously did not evolve there.


Once again before you fail to read this properly I am not saying or denying that the Indo European people were warlike people. I am just saying that "conquer" does not seem to be the likely and main moving reason for these early Indo Europeans to expand. It was not the reason for any ancient people to be honest. No one left his home taking a journey to an unknown land thousands of miles away. People only took these risks when they felt the need to survive.

You can freak out but you can't change my opinion Dave. But if you insist on "Indo Europeans spred all via military conquest" theory. Than please provide us the evidences of any group that did spred by this way. I am not talking about tribal violance among the cultural groups themselves.

Davidski said...

@Maju

It's clear that there was M417* in Europe and that it was present in Corded Ware but it is not clear it has any relation whatsoever to Z93, which could (and should) be derived from Asian M417 instead.

It's very difficult for me to take you seriously when you say things like this.

Z93 has been recovered from Andronovo, Potapovka, Poltavka, Srubnaya and Sintashta remains. Their genomes are all very similar to those of Corded Ware from Germany. They all cluster together among modern and other ancient Europeans.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_KPhGMQ7dKQ/VpRSw7OIiRI/AAAAAAAAD5U/Gz2pdiN1KBw/s1600/Poltavka_outlier_I0432_PCA.png

And yet, here you are claiming, presumably with a straight face, that the Z93 in the Srubnaya and other related remains should be derived from Asian M417 and not Corded Ware or proto-Corded Ware M417?

It's beyond stupid.

Nirjhar007 said...

Ok Maju, I understand , The samples are from this site :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huto_and_Kamarband_Caves
Seeing their Geographical location, can you provide any specific prediction regarding Hg's ?.

Maju said...

"Z93 has been recovered from Andronovo, Potapovka, Poltavka, Srubnaya and Sintashta remains."

All them in the area where Z93 exists today (Samara or Central Asia). What's so surprising about them? In the Neolithic origin model they should be there as well.

So inconclusive at best.

"And yet, here you are claiming, presumably with a straight face, that the Z93 in the Srubnaya and other related remains should be derived from Asian M417 and not Corded Ware or proto-Corded Ware M417?"

Straight face for sure: I'm serious and you know that. But feel free to laugh if that makes you feel better.

I can't know with 100% certainty which is the exact intermediate origin between R1a1 and Z93 but what I know with reasonable certainty is that Z93:

a) Has a very specific distribution in Asia and Samara (only area in Europe)
b) Appears to have a very clear South-to-North pattern of expansion
c) Krefter says (I take his word, I don't know the details) that the ancient Z93 seem all to be derived, not ancestral, what fits with the previous points

If Z93, as it seems, expanded from South to North, from Iran and even (in the case of one subclade) from South Asia, then it is implausible that European M417 is its ancestor, the West Asian M417 is more likely to be it. Parsimony obliges but parsimony is not proof, just the most plausible conclusion until that key evidence arrives.

There is a slim chance that European M417 made its way back to Iran before producing the Z93 founder effect. But in all honesty, I find it most unlikely, as all the ingredients: R1a, R1a1, Ra1a1-M417 and the very root of Z93 are all present in West Asia. Europe is not needed therefore.

Also your steppe model does not fit the hypothesis in which European M417 would have made its way back to Iran before expanding northwards as Z93. Your steppe hypothesis does not seem to make sense no matter how we look at the problem: it will never fit with the South-to-North pattern of expansion of Z93, with the terminal or highly derived position of its steppe sublineages (haplotypes).

Somehow you have to face this problem.

Maju said...

@Nirjhar: It's a very remote area. I would much more have preferred aDNA from the Zagros, Elam or Balochistan, really. Based on modern Y-DNA frequencies in Mazandaran, the greatest likelihood is that they are J2 or G (together they make almost half the local pool). If you expect R1a you'll be disappointed most likely. R1a is not that frequent in Iran (~15%); it's quite distributed but still there are many areas with low or even no R1a. What it is is extremely basally diverse, as are other haplogroups in that area (not just Iran but also Caucasus and Kurdistan particularly and the wider West Asia in general).

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.

Davidski said...

Balaji,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQYzlQWDRPZ0lELW8/view?usp=sharing

Balaji said...

Davidski,

Thanks for extending the plot and filling it in. Brahui and Balochi stand out even more clearly a little above the Indian cline.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ David

Are you accessing the Kumtepe genome right now?

Davidski said...

rk,

I'll look at it when Sergey uploads it.

Rami said...

No these are not sweet Pastoralists. The steppe was a very violent place because of little resources and the fact these people did NOT know how to farm , as they were constantly on the move. But when they moved into the BMAC they are encountering way larger populations , urban oasis cities and irrigation farming the dynamics change a lot. The need to hack each other to death for food does not seem attractive when it can be grown on a large scale. Sarianidi does not find any charred building remains in Gonur Depe, so this is hardly a Norman conquest or Fall of Rome you romanticize it to be. You find Indo Iranian in particular Indo Aryan religious altars deep within city walls. So obviously there is a cultural fusion going on. BMAC and Sintashta pottery styles are found together.

Nirjhar007 said...

Maju,
Thanks again for your suggestions.Though i think there will be either R1a or R1b :).

Davidski said...

Hey Nirjhar, I see you've built a bit of a rapport with that Korean dude who's putting out the Rakhigarhi paper by stalking him in the comments at his blog. lolz

Sir, it is truly great to see that there is growing awareness towards this crucial study related to Indian and also Indo-European history! I think with time more and more people will start to understand the importance the study has.

http://shinpaleopathology.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/report-about-rakhigarhi-study-by.html

You should pay another visit and ask him when the paper is coming out.

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

Nirjhar007 said...

Rami and Coldmountains,
Your perceptions are childish and results of not studying the matter deeply, i don't blame you, i was like you some years back. But you must read more and get more data. Its always easy to go with simplistic models, but that not make them scientific.

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?

Nirjhar007 said...

David,
But the rapport i have made with you , is far more deep and long lasting :D, and another factor is that i can't irritate him so much, as much as i can do to you ;).

Nirjhar007 said...

George,
So this is your conclusion after reading Rigveda ? , whose translation you read?. I'm really interested to know.

George Okromchedlishvili said...

Russian one in case you're interested. More importantly everything from their vocabulary to the material culture points to this. They weren't city building nerds.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ David

Thanks, we need some formals for this one.

Nirjhar007 said...

George,
Oh i see , but who is the translator?.
No man, you are not right, haven't you heard the term ''Swastika City''??, i think people who are interested from your country, in these kind of topics, know that term very well.

Kristiina said...

Krefter, the area where Finno-Ugric speaking peoples traditionally lived is unfortunately completely unsampled for ancient DNA, so we do not know what kind of genetic changes happened in that area! Today, Finno-Ugric groups carry high amount of ANE and Yamnaya compared to IE groups. So, it looks like if there ever was a replacement, there was a shift from EHG to Yamnaya, and around the Baltic Sea from EHG to WHG, and in Siberia from EHG to Siberian. However, Finno-Ugric EHG probably contained ENA, e.g., at K=3, the Karelian hunter-gatherer is 75% Western Eurasian and 25% East Eurasian.
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf

George Okromchedlishvili said...

It's been retranslated from German in XX century. Not sure who the German translator was though.

Regardless of this there are many common/similar words in Russian and Hindi. It's quite clear that they haven't been brought by Indians or West Asians.

George Okromchedlishvili said...

Apologies. I meant Sanskrit of course.

Nirjhar007 said...

Kristiina,
Some say That Sintashta was bilingual, do you agree?.

Nirjhar007 said...

Regardless of this there are many common/similar words in Russian and Hindi.
They belong to the same satem branch, they also share the same y-dna, surely they were unified once! but that's a different question.
BTW if its from German, then i suspect its KF Geldner's ?, I have read his, i do have it and in his translation, there is ZERO data which may suggest what you concluded about the Aryans.
But since its a double translation, i suspect it lost the credibility that Geldner's had.
The Aryans were Farming people who had the importance of cattle,goats etc also, much of what is now in today's rural India.

Coldmountains said...

@Nirjhar

There are still millions of Indo-Iranians, which are nomads or pastoralists. Kuchi Pashtuns for example. The warlike patriarchal and tribal culture/mentality is close to that of earliest Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans. Today this mentality is creating many problems in Afghanistan and one reason why the country is backwards but 3500 years ago people with this kind of warlike, aggressive and patriarchal mentality and with chariots were a threat for any major civilization and militarily very powerful.

Kristiina said...

Nirjhar, my opinion depends on the grounds for that claim, of which I am not aware of. I cannot say anything if I do not see the basis of this claim. However, Chelyabinsk Oblast is outside the typical Finno-Ugric range, if that is what you mean with the other language of Sintashta. If there was bilinguism, the other language could be a kind of Proto-Turkic, for example if that Indo-Aryan language came from further West such as from Ukraina or if it came, as you prefer, from Southern Central Asia.

I know that you believe that Indo-Aryan came from Iran to India, and therefore as Finno-Ugric languages historically had to be found near Indo-Aryan, they had to be in Central Asia.

Maju said...

@David: no need to jump to my throat with outlandish accusations of "irrational faith". I have no faith but the data and this data is of two types: modern and ancient. The modern data is brutally clear about a S→N direction of the spread of Z93, the ancient one does not contradict it in the slightest - it cannot confirm it because we lack of southern data altogether but the northern datapoints are derived and fit also in the geography with the expectations of the "South-to-North Neolithic" model of expansion.

Just insisting won't make you right: you need to address all this and you also need to be a bit less certain of your claims, more willing to look at the data without bias.

Nirjhar007 said...

Coldmountains,
Do know that Ancestors of Pashtuns are referred in Rigveda? and do you know how they were depicted ?.
Indo-iranian is a large family, but if we seek the Truth about Aryans, we must take study their literature first.

Nirjhar007 said...

Kristiina,
Its there for example, from wiki :
There is however linguistic evidence of a list of common vocabulary between Finno-Ugric and Indo-Iranian languages. While its origin as a creole of different tribes in the Ural region may make it inaccurate to ascribe the Sintashta culture exclusively to Indo-Iranian ethnicity, interpreting this culture as a blend of two cultures with two distinct languages is a reasonable hypothesis based on the evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture
No it's not essential for F-U folks to be In Central Asia, if we consider there were migrations of Indo-Iranians from Southern Areas to the Urals.

Coldmountains said...

@Maju

Just lol. Modern DNA is almost irrelevant here and neither proves or disproves anything. Either you ignore or don't know that all steppe Z93 is genetically more european and more "western" than older steppe Y-DNA. There are zero archaeological, genetic and even linguistic evidences for a Neolithic migration from Central Asia into East Europe. Iran is not even rich in R1a and is totally irrelevant. I even don't know why so many are obsessed with linking R1a and R1b with Iran. Central Asia would at least make a bit sense because ancient Central Asia was certainly in some way linked with Paleolithic Siberians. Anyways just explain me how Finno-Ugrians got archaic Indo-Aryan(not Iranic) and Proto-Indo-Iranian loanwords?

Coldmountains said...

@Nirjhar

Yes as Parsu warriors and please don't tell me that they were depicted as city-building hippie nerds which loved everyone and lived in total harmony with mother nature. Seriously sometimes I have the feeling that you are just here foe trolling?

George Okromchedlishvili said...

Given the big relevance of the whole Hindutva ideology for many Indians I find it unsurprising that some try to deny the rather evident reality.

When I mentioned large similarity between Sanskrit and Russian I meant precisely that the ancestors of Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs have separated not so long ago (in historical terms). We have zero evidence of Neolithic migration from South into Eastern Europe during last 4 thousand years. However, there is a clear signal of North-Eastern European admixture in Central and Southern Asia.

Case is pretty clear here.

Nirjhar007 said...

Coldmountains,
I think you misunderstood me, I said IndoIranian is a large family or in some regards Aryan is not = Indo-Iranian , they have many groups now as the did in pre-history, Aryans were among those groups.
Now, since you mentioned Pashtuns, i made suggestion for look in Rigveda itself, there is a depiction of them and that is not ''Parsu warriors'' and its negative.
About city builders, they ''did built'' fortified sophisticated structures like Sintashta and Arkaim, and if we read Rigveda ( 2000-1500 BC) , we find they knew cities quite well, they also knew about oceans and seafaring , you can read Griffith's translation for that, it freely available.

Coldmountains said...

@Nirjhat

The ethnonym Pashtun is derived from Parsu and except of Parsu I don't see any other people in Rig Veda which can be directly linked with modern Pastuns. Lol Arkaim is not a city and not even something similar to a city. It was just a fortified place to protect people and goods from hostile tribes and nothing more.

Nirjhar007 said...

George,
I'm not Hindutva, if i'm, then you are racist ;).
About Balto-Slav and Indo-iranian, yes, they were once united. But, we can't specify the age of the unification and how long ago they separated from each other , can we?, we can only make predictions.
About the E Europe to S Asia migration, its non-existent, in case of data at least.
And by data i mean Archaeology and Textual, about Genetics we need the aDNA data from SC Asia first.

Nirjhar007 said...

Cold,
By city , Arkaim can be considered as a mini version of it, a version which was created for economic purpose. Certainly not a work of Hillybilly Nomads i guess?.
And moreover, their structures are based on Structures of BMAC ...

Coldmountains said...

@Nirjhar

Pakhtas of rigveda are at least etymologically not linked to modern Pashtuns.

"Although the name Afghan has been recorded much earlier than Paṧtō, the latter is undoubtedly the original, native name. The earlier, common derivation from Herodotus’ tribal name Páktues is phonetically untenable. Neither Greek u nor kt could possibly render the sounds of the Iranic name of the 5th century B.C. The ū of Paҳt’ūn (masc. plur. Paxtān’ə) “a member of the Paštūn nation” would at that time have been -a(n)- and xt probably something like *rs(t). The modern “hard” pronunciation of ҳt as xt is restricted to the northeastern dialects and evidently of recent origin, as shown inter alia by the orthography. Indo-Aryan Paṭhān must have been adopted from Paṧtō *Paṧtan-."


"(3) The most plausible derivation of Paҳt’o, as already suggested by Markwart (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran, Göttingen and Leipzig, 1896-1905, II, p. 177; cf. Morg[enstierne]4, par. 40b), is from *Parsuwā, and of Paҳt’ūn from *Parswāna-, with the basic stem *Parsū-; cf. Skt. (Pāṇini) Parśu- “a (northwestern) warrior tribe.” Tedesco, in a letter, compares Pārsa- (from a vṛddhi from *Pārswa-). We know how certain tribal names can spread over widely separated regions; cf., e.g., Veneti and Saxons (Morg.4,5)."

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Coldmountains

Not to be facetious or anything, but we shouldn't over-exaggerate the similarity of IE society to any present-day society, in Europe, Afghanistan or elsewhere... Many kurgan tombs, in the Potapovka sites for example, buried high-status females, with bowed legs indicating extensive horse-riding, and all the battle regalia associated with war. The percentage reaches 20% of all the total in the scythian and samartian kurgans in the Don and Volga. Just this fact alone tells us a great deal about their attitude toward 'female honour', whether it needed protection from 'strange men' and the gazes of non-kin, and so on and so forth...

Nirjhar007 said...

Heinrich Zimmer connects them with a tribe already mentioned by Herodotus (Pactyans), and with Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[5][6] The Greek historian Herodotus mentioned a people called Pactyan living on the eastern frontier of the Achaemenid Arachosia Satrapy as early as the 1st millennium BCE.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakthas#Rigved_Pakthas
Pakth> Pasht>Pashtun> paThan (Retroflex) , easy as 123...

Nirjhar007 said...

and please , don't cite etymology where Greek Sources are referred and technically taken into account, its nonsense.
They Made Chandragupta as Sandrocottus, Patliputra as Palibothra etc etc :P....

Nirjhar007 said...

and Parsu are apparently Related, to obvious Persians...

Coldmountains said...

@ Ryukendo

Just because they were patriarchal they don't automatically were against burying women in kurgans and allowing them to fight. Actually among Pashtun nomads women generally had more rights than among sedentary Pashtuns. There were also famous Pashtun females which lead rebellions (Malalai of Maiwand). In pre-Islamic times polyandry was even quite common in Afghanistan and Tajikistan and East Iranics just stopped with that after they converted to Islam. Pre-Islamic Pashtuns practiced likely also polyandry. They were always patriarchal of course but you are right it is more complicated and some traditions especially among Iranics were rather untypical for patriarchal people.

Nirjhar007 said...

Read the reference i gave, its not probable what you referred, the one suggested by me is more logical and easy to derive. Just like connecting Parsu with Persians..

Kristiina said...

@Nirjhar No it's not essential for F-U folks to be In Central Asia, if we consider there were migrations of Indo-Iranians from Southern Areas to the Urals.

I do not have any D statistics, but there is not any South Asian component in Russians, Finno-Ugrics or even Chuvash in the admixture run to which I referred to in my earlier post. There is no South Asian mtDNA in the Urals, and Finno-Ugric R1a1 is mostly western (M458 and M558) and the small amount of R1a-Z93 could easily be adscribed e.g. to Turkic contacts of Maris.

Coldmountains said...

@Nirjhar

Lol no, I am pashtun/russian so don't try me to educate me about my people. The -sh pronunciation (common in the south) is older than the hard -kh pronunciation (common in the north). Everyone knows that who has some basic knowledge of Pashto . I already posted why it is impossible that Pashtun is derived from Pakhta. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is in the north and was Indo-Aryan for the most time. Proto-Pashtuns are from the south where pronunciation is most archaic and conservative today.

Kristiina said...

Nirjhar,FYI
R Vepsans Karelians Maris Udmurts Komi Permyaks South Komis Chuvash Tatars
L664 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
R-Z282 25,1% 16,4% 5,9% 3,7% 18,3% 0% 0% 4,5%
R-M458 15,4% 13,6% 0% 0% 16,7% 3,8% 0% 4,5%
R-M558 15,4% 10% 23,5%11,1% 0% 1,9% 11,1% 15,2%
R-Z284 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
R-Z93 0% 0% 2% 1,9% 1,7% 0% 1,9% 13,6%

R-M417 (L664 North Western Europe), R-Z282 (Russia-Ukraina), R-M458 (West Slavs), R-M558 (Slavs), R-Z284 (Scandinavians), R-Z93 (Centra Asia), R-Z95 (Central-Asia)

Only 2% of Mari R1a1 is Z93 and even Turkic speaking Chuvash have only 1.9% of Z93. Therefore, there hardly is any Sintashta Z93 in Finno-Ugrics, which means that the lexical similarities between Indo-Aryan and Finno-Ugric languages are not due to the flow of this putative Indo-Aryan yDNA to Finno-Ugrics.

Nirjhar007 said...

Coldmountains,
But the sh can easily develop from Pak-> Pash.
The aspiration can be a regional derivation , hence Pakh.

Nirjhar007 said...

Kristiina,
I am not saying that there will be Indo-Iranian Y-DNA among F-U folks, just that vocabulary of IIr origin that they have, can be easily resulted from the migrations originating around SC Asia. The Indo-iranians came around Urals , most likely for the metal sources, had contact with them and gave loanwords.. But that don't mean they will have Genetic impact.
The suggestion that Sintashta had also F-U speakers may suggest that, it was a meeting point, where, F-U folks also came there ''from their original abode'', which was somewhere far as you mention?.

Romulus said...

Hodson believed that the earliest occupants of India were probably of the "Negrito race", followed by the "proto-Australoids". Later, an early stock probably of the Mediterranean race, came to India and mingled with the proto-Australoids. He believed that these people spoke an agglutinative language from which the present Austroasiatic languages are derived. They had a rudimentary knowledge of agriculture, building stone monuments, and primitive navigation. This migration was followed by an immigration of more civilised Mediterraneans from the Persian Gulf (ultimately from eastern Europe). These people had the knowledge of the metals, but not of iron. They were followed by later waves of immigrants who developed the Indus valley civilization. All these immigrants were of the dolichocephalic type, but the Indus valley people had a mixed brachycephalic element coming from the Anatolian plateau, in the form of the Armenoid branch of the Alpine race. These people probably spoke the Dravidian languages. Later, a brachycephalic race speaking perhaps an Indo-European language of the "Pisacha or Dardic family", migrated to India from the Iranian plateau and the Pamirs. During about 1500 B.C., the Indo-Aryans migrated into Northern India.

Nirjhar007 said...

Coldmountains,
I'm re-thinking about the Paktha-Pashtun relation , i will try to put my conclusions after digging more :).

Ryan said...

@Slumbery, @FrankN - Good points. I guess that points to an Aegean origin. Probably Thrace?

@Davidski - "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."

Well, obviously with just 1 sample we can't say a huge amount, but it's definitely what your K10 run is suggesting.

If what you suggest is true, then that would mean that EBA Hungarians received most of their eastern admixture from a non-IE steppe population, since all veritably IE groups have significant levels of CHG. Would you agree? A stillborn sister of IE perhaps.

Also, Corded Ware samples are all 3-10 times richer in CHG than that EBA Hungarian.

Coldmountains said...

@Kristina

Interestingly Uralic languages have the term "orya" = slave. It seems that despite of adopting many words from their Indo-Iranian neighbors the relationship between both peoples was often quite hostile. I think we can compare it to later Slavic -Turkic contacts which were often also quite hostile and despite of the long presence of Turks in Far East Europe there is hardly any Turkic Y-DNA and autosomal DNA among locals there .

Rob said...

@ Ryan

"If what you suggest is true, then that would mean that EBA Hungarians received most of their eastern admixture from a non-IE steppe population, since all veritably IE groups have significant levels of CHG. Would you agree? A stillborn sister of IE perhaps."

Fascinating
That must mean Mycenean was also a "still born" language (whatever that means).

@ Cold Mountains

Sorry, but I find many of your assertions rather forced, and treatment of the subject matter as simplistically black and white, and monolithic (for example relations between FU and IA in the forest steppe zone).

Coldmountains said...

@Rob

I could not care less and try to find some counter-evidences instead of making useless comments. I never posted that FUs and Indo-Iranians were always at war with each other. Of course they had also peaceful relations . Slavs and Turks had for example also many peaceful relations and traded much with each other and the same was probably true for FUs and Indo-Iranians. My point was just that Indo-Iranians could not penetrate the Finno-Ugrian Y-DNA genpool because either Finno-Ugrians successfully defended themselves from Indo-Iranians or because FUs and Indo-Iranians had very different social structures. Anyways there must be a reason why Uralic languages have "orya" for slave and I think the reason for that are some kind of hostility between FUs and Indo-Iranians.

Ryan said...

@Rob - What I mean by still born is that it was a branch that died very early and left no descendants. Presumably it would have been related to IE, but not part of IE itself.

I don't think the same can be said for Mycenaean though? At least not as an EHG group.

Rob said...

@ Cold Mountains

“I could not care less and try to find some counter-evidences instead of making useless comments. I never posted that FUs and Indo-Iranians were always at war with each other. Of course they had also peaceful relations . Slavs and Turks had for example also many peaceful relations and traded much with each other and the same was probably true for FUs and Indo-Iranians. My point was just that Indo-Iranians could not penetrate the Finno-Ugrian Y-DNA genpool because either Finno-Ugrians successfully defended themselves from Indo-Iranians or because FUs and Indo-Iranians had very different social structures. Anyways there must be a reason why Uralic languages have "orya" for slave and I think the reason for that are some kind of hostility between FUs and Indo-Iranians.”

Your analysis is rather simplistic, and does not really encapsulate the true nature & complexity of interaction between FU and IA groups – presumably in the Forest-steppe. My ‘counter-evidences” (FYI, the plural of evidence is “evidence”) is that you don’t really appear to be very well informed about the Bronze Age of Eurasia. You also appear to treat the Vedas as a historical text, rather than what it really is – a collection of religious hymns, and prima facie assume that sections pertaining to conflicts are to be generalized to all areas of central Asia and the central Eurasian steppe. Moreover, you assume that references to seizing of forts can be connected to specific regions further west – eg Gonur in BMAC. This is sloppy scholarship, if you can even call it that.

Furthermore, you treat “FUs” and “IAs” as coherent, collective bodies, or primordial nations. That is not the level at which society was organized in 2000 BC, or 1500 BC. The evidence from Sintashta, for example, reveals a multitude of independent household clusters, each focussed around a fortified central place. The proliferation of such forts, the presence of weapons, and predominance of men in burials paints a picture of mutually antagonistic groups of relatively small-scale units. The warfare engaged appears to have been internally directed, that is, amongst themselves (presumably to control their crafts, water, best ores and trade routes), and not against your hypothetical F-U ‘other’. Moreover, they appear to be very much directed to metallurgical production, so are special groups of metallurgical craft clans, and cannot be deemed to represent the entire Indo-Ayran language group. Indeed, any scholar with half a mind would appreciate the dangers of seeking to adduce a one-answer fits all, garden of Eden type theory from one specific locale (although it abounds in the blogosphere).
We actually do not know the exact nature of interaction between IA and FU. For all we know, if the FUs occupied the forest zone, and traded their furs for metal products (eg), then what specific tensions would there be ? Nor – as Kristiina has pointed out- do we actually know what the forest belt looked like genetically. We don’t know how it evolved from the Mesolithic to now, so you’re conclusions about gene flow are not based on any solid evidence. Whilst we can certainly imagine that different Y lineages prevailed in the forest zone and peri-Taiga region, I don’t think it has much to do with successfully ‘defending themselves against IA group”.

I dare say, many of your comments don’t betray much nuance or deep understanding. They rather appear as superficial throw-away remarks parroted from cheap blogs. Ultimately, the certainly don’t reveal a deep insight into the true nature of BA Eurasian society, but are rather more reflective of your own preconceived aspirations .

Coldmountains said...

@Rob


Whatever...You sounds ridiculous and i should ignore your baseless personal attacks. Many people dont like to hear that and romanticize the past but the past and especially the Neolithic/Bronze Age steppe was dirty, violent and dangerous place. You can try to ignore that and claim that everything was just about trade and elite recruitment but this is also too simple and less naive than claiming that all social interactions were violent. There is a naive tendency among many modern historians to deny any kind of invasions/conquests and to call it "migrations" or just elite recruitment.
Ancient dna already various times disproved that and has shown that in Europe and in large parts of Central/South Asia violent warlike tribes replaced a lot of the male lineages and this happened very quickly so that violence was certainly involved in that. Not very different from Spanish colonization of South America and modern natives there carry today also a lot of european y-dna even when they are still having a native identity.


The Rig veda was created long after Indo-Aryans arrived in South Asia but the society shown in early rig veda was illiterate and for modern standards "primitive" . People living in forts were their enemies(dasa) and their main gods were praised as destroyer of forts. They robbed sedentary tribes to get agricultural goods from them but they also practiced some primitive agriculture. Indra the god of war and soma was their main god . There is no other intepretation for it and you can ignore the reality as much as you want but it does not change the facts Many scholars like Asko Parpola and witzel are also saying this and interpreting it so.

Rami said...

@ Coldmountains No I dont live in a parallel universe , I live in a logical one. Using the Rig Veda is not a very sound book to reference, as much of it is philosophical in nature. In Sanskrit one word can have 10 meanings. Unless your a Sanskrit scholar, who knows the language in and out, a much better understanding would be garnered, even then much of Rig Ved can be misconstrued in many ways. By the time it is translated into English or any other language , its original context and meaning can be quite watered down.
I hold Sariniadi's work in high esteem because there is visible archaeological evidence for it not a poetic or romanticized one. FYI the same region went through a Turkification process before the Khwarzemshah and in parts of Iran was not a violent one. With the complete destruction of the Khwarzemshah by the Mongol Hordes, cities like Merv(not too far from Gonur Depe) were burned to the ground and much the population was wiped out and repopulated with Mongol tribes. That is a called a conquest.

Coldmountains said...

@Rob

Quite funny that you are attacking me but not Nirjhar for his most ridiculous theories . You sound like one of this whiny liberal historians interpreting history from a biased "political-correct" worldview.

Coldmountains said...

@Rami

Ok of course it was nothing like Nazis imagined it and neither was it a racial war. I am also quite sure that early Indo-Iranians not even cared about pigmentation and phenotypes. Neither i think that they were mercilessn killling machines which wanted to exterminate the local population. They wanted to get power,grasslands/cattle, women and valuable goods and if they could get it by trade they prefered trade but if violence was more useful for getting that they had no problem to use violence and to steal/rob. Also let not forget that Indo-iranian tribes were frequently at war with each other and i would even say that wars between Indo-Iranians were much more frequent than wars between Indo-Iranians and non-Indo-Iranians. The relationship between BMAC and Indo-iranians was quite complicated and neither just peaceful or just violent. I believe that Indo-Iranians were very attracted by the high-developed BMAC culture because it offered a lot of opportunities for them .The first Indo-Iranians which arrived in BMAC were probably just traders, mercenaries or even just slaves. But stories about the luxuries and fertile lands of BMAC attracted other Indo-Iranians to move south and to get this either by trade or by war. They arrived probably in small numbers and not as huge army so destroying cities like mongols did it later was rather difficult for them. For a long time they also lived outside of the urban areas and prefered a pastoralist lifestyle. I also think that they looked down on the sedentary urban populations at first but later with increased urbanization they themselves became sedentary and city-builiding.

imam-din said...

I have a question people are saying here that indo-aryans got dominance over south asian society because they were metal workers and had "nomadic superior lifestyle". But the problem is that in pakistani villages in punjab , the metal workers are considered a low caste whereas nomadic people are considered outcastes even lower than lower castes. The higher castes are always farmers and landholders. Can someone explain to me how come the superior metal workers and nomadic tribes turned into low castes and outcastes of the social fabric in pakistani punjab villages, the situation is also the same in almost all provinces of pakistan including pathan/pakhtun inhabited KPK province or Baloch inhabited Balochistan, it is always landholder/Farmer that enjoys the most superior status in the social setups. The situation seems to be same for thousands of years.

Even in pashtun society too nomadic ghilzais have lower social status than sedentary durrani pashtuns as I was told by my afghan pashtun friend who is from jalalabad.

All this fits well with CHG genetics being the most dominant in the region since these societies have always valued agriculture and farming from the earliest documented times. Being nomadic is considered a curse word in most of south asian societies and people who follow such lifestyle (there are plenty of them) are considered the lowest strata of society.

Rami said...

@ Nirjar, your being childish actually.
Pashtuns are mainly a cultural fusion resulting from the Eastern Iranian Wave 1500-2000 years ago, not the Bronze age. Their main seat of power was in Sistan (from Saka).

@Coldmountains . Pashtuns today don't really have anything to do with Steppe besides having genetic admixture . They are culturally Near Eastern (even more so because of our Islamic faith) with a South Asian flavor/influence. Thats interesting your half Russian/ half Pashtun. They are as polar opposite as can be . I am a Ghilzai Pashtun from the Hotak tribe so I can attest to that. I assume your much closer to your Russian side. Most tribal Pashtuns, esp in the Janub, have an utter disdain for Russians especially after the Soviet invasion of 79.

a said...

Maju said...

@"a": Sorry, I did not understand well your question earlier. D. is comparing autosomal DNA, not Y-DNA. While there *might* be a relation, this is not at all straightforward. In fact he says that Poltavka has a rather Western *autosomal* affiliation and it is a fact that Z93 does not exist (nor seemingly has ever existed) further West than the Volga. So I don't understand, let alone share, your logic.

Also I don't understand why you mention R1b here. "

These are some of the cutting edge snp's within our project. They are not even listed on http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2108/

The R1a sample is being compared with
R1b-Io231 Ekaterinovka[svp3]2910-2875B..C.
Pathan R1b>>SK2087 is on the same branch/line as Z2109+[6100YBP+/-} as R1b-I0231>>KMS-75;
http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_02_11_30_2015.png

post#13
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3965-R1b-Z2109*-R1b-gt-M269-gt-L23-gt-Z2103-gt-Z2106-gt-Z2109*-%28CTS7822-Z2110-%29/page2

This shows that both R1a branch & R1b branches moved from North to South.

postneo said...

@cold mountains
the rig veda seems to be some 4th hand random quotes for you. The pakhtas are clearly mentioned as a tribe in the rig veda. The parsu are different. Dasa are often the good guys in the rig veda. E.g. the pre-eminent king and good guy of the rig veda is sudAsa or good DAsa.

@davidski
violent horse head ritual?

Do you know anything about the supposed symbolism of the horse head..It is associated with vedic recitation.. why? ... no one understands. The motif is repeated in an unrelated form in the puranas where a horse headed demon is spilling vedic secrets by reciting them and is killed by a horned fish. As for the guy whose head is replaced, In a different tale his flesh is licked clean by a divine cow ! He is called "yoghurt limbed" .... He willingly donates his skeleton to be fashioned into a weapon for indra. etc.... a similar motif in puranas .. the weapon now is sea foam. In greek myth this is a weapon made of siniew.

Can you make sense of this ? I don't see what these bizarre tales have to do with violence/non violence/ militarism

Coldmountains said...

@Postneo

I did not wrote that Pakhtas are not mentioned in Rig veda. They are mentioned in rig veda but Pakhta is not related to Pashtun and Pashtun is derived from Parsu/Parwawa. So whatever Pakhtas were in the end there is untill yet no hard evidences for a connection with modern day Pashtuns. Simialr sounding names prove nothing if they are linguistically not related like in this case.

@Rami

My Ghilzai ancestors and relatives were/are irreligious and spent much time in Russia. Also they fought on the russian side. I know very well that most of Afghan/Pashtun culture is Near Eastern today and how important is islam but i personally dislike islam and everything related to it. My point was just that even today similar archaic, tribal and primitive lifestyles like among earliest Indo-iranians are existing in the Indo-Iranian speaking world

postneo said...

Lol did you not read my post??? Pakhta of rigveda have nothing to do with Pashtuns. Pashtun is from Parsu and etymologically close related to "Persian"

your post does not prove anything. One can equally argue that pashtun does not derive from either parsu or pakhta ... its a single word association after all. One can also easily say pakhtun is more archaic perhaps a centum version of the name not preserved in later literature. There are are no rules here... unless you provide proof (historic inscriptions literary proof from the full region showing the sudden birth of one ethnonym never seen before).

imam-din said...

@cold mountains

Pakhtas according to Rigveda lived where the Krumu river (kurram river) flows, that is exactly the area of modern kurram agency in pakistan, and last time I checked the people living there call themselves "Pukhtun" not much different from Pakhtas dwelling near krumu (kurram) river. A pakistani pathan friend of mine from Dir area says that Pukhtun are a different people than Pashtuns of southern afghanistan. Pukhtuns/Pathans proper according to him live from Dir/Swat areas down to Wazristan and pashto speakers living south or west of Waziristan are of different variety. This also makes quite sense as the autosomal genetics of Pukhtuns/Pathans from Kurram agency, peshawar and Swat is quite distinct from Afghan pashtuns (ghilzais, durranis) from southern afghanitan.

Nirjhar007 said...

Coldmountains,
Read the book of Singh i mentioned, you are sounding ridiculous, as i said , its very easy to go with simplistic models, you need to go deep in details, at least sometimes by reading the works of people who have worked on the matter.
If you do that you will find how good the AIT really is,For example, Bhagwan Singh has shown that in a very effective manner.
And if don't find the book or don't want to read it, you can at least read the works of this man-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._B._Lal#Works
About The Etymology, i am thinking and i will give you my final answer soon.

Coldmountains said...

@iman-din & post so

Pashtuns emerged somewhere close to Zhob (southeastern historical Afghanistan/northern Baluchistan in my opinion and not more in the north. Also it is even possible that Pashtuns not even lived in Afghanistan during vedic times and arrived a bit later there. I am still not sure when Proto-Pashtuns arrived exactly in Afghanistan but I think Pashtun presence is quite old. Pakhta of rig Veda lived in an area which was for the most time Indo-Aryan anyways and Pashtuns there have a significant local Indo-Aryan/dardic genetic substrate so they are much more south Asian shifted than Afghan Pashtuns but also less admixed with Persians. Pashtun and Pakhtun are exact the same people just different tribes in some cases. Pashtun is the conservative pronunciation and Pakhtun a more innovative.

Again this quote is from iranicaonline:

"The most plausible derivation of Paҳt’o, as already suggested by Markwart (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran, Göttingen and Leipzig, 1896-1905, II, p. 177; cf. Morg[enstierne]4, par. 40b), is from *Parsuwā, and of Paҳt’ūn from *Parswāna-, with the basic stem *Parsū-; cf. Skt. (Pāṇini) Parśu- “a (northwestern) warrior tribe.” Tedesco, in a letter, compares Pārsa- (from a vṛddhi from *Pārswa-)."
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/afghanistan-vi-pasto

Rob said...

@ Cold Mountains

You're making straw man arguements, for I never set anything about 'elite recruitment'. Migrations certainly happened. But one cannot take religious texts hundreds of years after the fact as clear 'evidence'. This is history 101.
And not that is should matter, but I’m not some lefty apologist. I’m quite aware that conflict was common place in the Bronze Age. In fact, conflict occurred throughout the history of humankind (more so in the Neolithic, actually), and animal kind.

That’s not, my point. The point is rather, it did not quite occur as you imagine it to have been – movie styled “battle of civilizations” – as clearly defined oppositional poles. In fact, the evidence clearly shows that the warfare was endemic amongst the Sintashta groups. If you have counter evidence please present it.

Nor am arguing that IA came out of India; or if arrived there, they settled down in a peaceful utopia. But to really get a picture, we need a careful and detailed analysis of the archaeological and genetic evidence from the specific period ( say 2000 – 1000 BC). This leaves many current accounts and perspectives wanting.

Coldmountains said...

@Rob

I exactly wrote here in an earlier post that wars between Indo-Iranian tribes were much more frequent than wars between Indo-Iranians and non-Indo-Iranians. Actually I even think that Dasa of Rig Veda are Iranic speaking tribes living in BMAC lands and not simply some "black" Dravidians like Nazis thought in the past. Nothing in rig Veda points to some racial wars or something similar. Iranics and Indo-Aryans had probably much more hostile relations which each other than with non-Aryans.

capra internetensis said...

Since we are way off topic already, one verse of the Rg Veda refers to the Pakthas being on the losing side of the battle with Sudas, but there are 3 references to Paktha (singular, probably a proper name) being aided by the Asvins and Indra. Anyone know who this guy was? An ancestor figure? Random Joe the Paktha?

Nirjhar007 said...

Capra,
Source please :) .

Rob said...

CM
Fair enough. Sorry if i misunderatood

Nirjhar007 said...

Coldmountains,
The war that you mention between Iranic and Indics, is something we can expect during the climatic situation and political also during that period. It was a time when there was a drastic drought, the Sindhu Civilization was shifting to a more rural mode. Social structures had a severe effect during that time, there was obviously conflicts. But this uplift and friction was between the Indo-iranians themselves of Northern India and Near by regions.
There weren't any migrations from C Asia to India. The Source of this conflicts are from Rigveda itself.
In case of Archaeology there is Cemetery H , a local derivation with some elements from Afghan area, it can indicate some movements of the Iranic or Pakth type of peoples movements as mentioned in The Battele of Ten Kings, although they ended in losing side, they came and created an impression.
But that has nothing to to with Indo-aryans they were already there, they themselves gave us some poems reflecting the situation and surely nothing whatsoever with the steppes.
Moreover, The fact is Sindhu Civilization who invaded the northern areas, for example the Shortugai settlement in Northern Afghanistan and there is also Mundigak in the Helmand region.

Nirjhar007 said...

AND Even in Avesta if you read you find that we have the Airyas as a settled people, living on agriculture and stockbreeding, opposed to the Tuiryas (remained as Turanians in the Iranian tradition), who are nomads (but also bearing Iranian names), exactly the situation that we find in the late Bronze Age and in the Iron Age in Central Asia, with steppe pastoralists in contact with the settled agriculturists of a tradition of millennia of sedentary civilization, well reflected also in the Shahnameh of Firdusi. If the Aryans were the nomads from the steppe, the situation in the Avesta and Firdusi should be completely opposite. Not only, in the hymns of the Avesta (e.g. Yt. 5) the ancient Iranian heroes are often associated with mountains, including the progenitor Yima, who is described as offering a sacrifice on the Hukairya mountain, which is probably in Pamir. Whence came these traditions if they came from the northern flatlands?

Nirjhar007 said...

anyway, the main topic is, what will be the nature of the pre-2000 BC aDNA from Sindhu Civilization, there are many possibilities, we just have to keep waiting. The results, however, have the power to really create a grand change in conception of people, whether they favor Steppe Origin of Indo-Iranians or Deep origins from the Civilizations and cultures of Asia..

capra internetensis said...

@Nirjhar

Rgveda 7.18.7, 8.22.10, 8.49.10, and 10.61.1.

Nirjhar007 said...

in 8.22.10 we have ,
The aids wherewith ye helped Paktha and Adhrigt;, and Babhru severed from his friends,—
With those, O Aśvins, come hither with speed and soon, and heal whatever is diseased.

Ah book 8, Regarded as the westward of the ten, i think this is individual reference, a guy from Paktha ancestry perhaps.
in 8.49.10 we have
10 Preserve us from each fiend who brings the Gods no gift, preserve thou us in deeds of strength:
For we possess in thee the nearest Friend of all, for service of the Gods and weal.

Where is paktha? :) .
in 10.61.1 we have
THE welcome speaker in the storm of battle uttered with might this prayer to win the Aśvins,
When the most liberal God, for Paktha, rescued his parents, and assailed the seven Hotras.

Again as an Individual dude :) also they are late books i.e. composed after the battle .



FrankN said...

@ryan; "I guess that points to an Aegean origin. Probably Thrace?
Thrace is a possibility. However, SWA ancestry in Bulgarians according to Dave's K10 isn't that high, at 6.6% (which is the same level as Itl. Bergamo). I forgot to list one of the largest SWA ancestries in the region, namely Albanians (8.5%). As such, I'd rather go for Illyrians, wherever from they arrived at the Adriatic coast.

Apparently, yDNA E-related ancestry features as SWA in Dave's K10. Since yDNA E hasn't been found in Anat. Neolithic yet, I wonder whether the purported mesolithic entry of yDNA into SEE is really true. Maybe we should rather look at LN/BA (Crete/ Egypt)...

@Rob: "The evidence from Sintashta, for example, reveals a multitude of independent household clusters, each focussed around a fortified central place. (..) The warfare engaged appears to have been internally directed."

Interesting. Do you have a comprehensive source providing further detail?
The pattern is quite reminiscent of the Michelsberg Culture, also agro-pastoralist. The Kapellenberg near Hofheim/Taunus, halfway between Frankfurt and Wiesbaden, is just undergoing extensive excavation. What was thought to be a La Tene hilltop fort proved to be from Michelsberg. A 46 ha "proto-urban" enclosure, partly settled (the extent of the settlement is yet unknown, but it clearly was sizeable), partly used for cattle (market? autumn slaughtering? winter pasture & dairying?). Three stages of fortification: First a palisade (burnt down), than a wood-enforced earth wall (burnt down) finally an even larger earth wall of today (!) up to 4m height, 15m width, encircled by a ditch of 1m depth and 15m width. The terrain is littered with arrowheads, which indicates frequent armed conflict.
The site controls entry from the Rhine into the Lower Main Basin whith its ample salt springs (Glauberg, Bad Nauheim/ Nieder-Mörlen etc.).
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siedlungsgeschichte_Kapellenberg_(Taunus)

The sequence (Chaseen->)Michelsberg->Funnelbeaker->GAC->CW is well evidenced (with of course additional populations joining in each transition; note also that CW apperently used the Kapellenberg only for tumulus burials, not anymore for settlement). As such, a trail of this pattern to Sintashta wouldn't be unexpected, and render archeological support the genetic trail brought forward.
CT, btw, displays a similar agro-pastoralist pattern, with lots of empty space, presumably for cattle herd management, in their "mega-sites". However, it appears less fortificated, possibly also less violent, than Michelsberg.

@rk: Acording to your request, I have added some comments on prehistoric African-South Asian relations at the end of the "spatio-temporal anaöysis" post.

Kristiina said...

Coldmountains, how do you distinguish Turkic yDNA from other yDNA? As I reported above, Turkic-speaking Chuvash have the following R1a1: R-M558 11.1%, R-Z93 1.9%; and other sources report that they have 27.9% N,14% J2, 14% E, 7% I1, 4.7% I2, 2.3% J1, 2.3% R1b. Turkic groups that arrived in Eastern Europe were surely high in R1a1 and had a big variety of haplogroups.

I think that in yfull, I have seen some quite recent haplotypes that are centered in Bulgaria/Turkey that could be of Turkic origin.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ FrankN @ Matt

Thanks! Just saw it, the material is very interesting indeed.

Though Chad's new qpAdm fits for S Indians with just CHG+Onge are very good, so not sure what's going on here. Maybe its simpler than we thought.

Your post on the temporal series in Hungary, as well as Matt's 'fitting' of moderns using ancient ADMIXTURE scores, highlighted the fact that BB, as well as the Hungary BR1, is far more WHG than the prior samples we have can explain... There is some hidden WHG-rich population somewhere, either early W IE, like David said, or Funnelbeaker, like you said; but then this would require us to propose new connections of some kind, hitherto not generally accepted by interpreters of the archaeological record, I presume.

Kristiina said...

Linguistically, Chuvash belong to Oghur branch, and and it is this branch that reached Europe, as other Oghur languages are Khazar, Bulgar and Turkic Avar. If Bulgar yDNA was similar to Chuvash yDNA and both were autosomally steppe like, it is not so easy to quantify Bulgar share in the genetic makeup of Bulgarians.

Coldmountains said...

@Kristiina

I was talking about Slavs which lack basically almost any R1a-Z93 and Q, C and O which can be associated with Turks. Chuvash are Turkic speaking and have Turkic ancestry obvious but Ukrainians or ethnic Russians generally not despite living for the most time close to Turks in the last 1000 years

Coldmountains said...

@Kristiina

Chuvash are very mixed and far away from Proto-Turks. Haplogroups they share with Anatolians or Bulgarians have in my opinion rather a Neolithic or Bronze Age origin and are of West Asian origin. Also autosomal DNA shows also a lack of direct Turkic influences among Slavs and most Uralics . This is not really surprising because Slavs and Turks had very different social structures and often hostile relations. The siberian/east Asian admixture among ethnic Russians is basically all from Uralics or non-Turkic Siberians

Rob said...

@ Frank N

Of course there's a source
"Late Prehistoric Mining, Metallurgy, and Social Organization in North Central Eurasia. B Hanks", in: Social Complexity in Prehistoric Eurasia. (I think I saw a full PDF of the book floating around the ether last year)

What you write about the late Neolithic enclosures in Europe is interesting. As you're probably aware - there was endemic warfare in the LN. by contrast, during the BB and CWC - not a single mass grave has been found (!) It seems, the 3000- 2500 BC period in Europe was one of widespread contacts and harmony (?)


@ Kristiina

You're observations are correct. The reason is - there was a complex processes of interaction in the forest steppe & soul forest zone in western Eurasia. Uralic, Balto-Slavic and Oghuric tribes all inhabited that zone, and their interaction went beyond mutual antagonism & hostility. Most people are simply unaware of the details, and make passing statement like "Bulgar's made no genetic impact on modern Bulgarians because there's no "Turkic' DNA in them today". But what is "Turkic DNA" ? As your data points show- there isn't ! First of all, Oghuric (the language of Huns, Bulgars and Avars)is a separate entity to Turkic, although undoubtedly related. Secondly, if we were to find aDNA from Bulgars, Magyars, etc directly, we'd find it is very much "west Eurasian". That is because groups like Avars came from the regions of Bactria and Transoxiana, and not Mongolia (GokTurks are a different case). Magyars - as you probably know- had already dwelt around SW Russia for hundreds of years before arriving to the Carpathian plain. People think entire areas were mutually exclusive blocks. This is a misconception- at least as far as the late Iron Age and antiquity goes

Coldmountains said...

@Rob

Seriously start reading my posts. Nowhere I claimed that Slavs and Turks had just hostile relations but I know very well from my Russian background that Russians saw nomadic people like Turks as big threat and that there was a lot of antagonism between East Slavs and Turks. Even today Turks/Tatars are quite negatively viewed by many Russians. Bulgars have obviously no significant altaic admixture and rather got a Slavic input instead of a Turkic. They even don't speak a turkic language so why should they have any significant altaic admixture?

Rob said...

CM

The answer is simple - because Bulgars aren't from the Altai.
Bulgars actually constituted 1/3 of the early Bulgarian population (going by the admittedly rough estimates based on burial features)

Your statements about later Rus and Pecheneg, Oghuz and Mongol relations bares little significance; I'm talking about Oghur groups in late antiquity - which were a different entity and a different set of relations with "sedentary" Slavs and Ungrians

Rob said...

In fact you yourself wrote Oghurs are a different affair- you're correct

Kristiina said...

Rob, yes I agree with you!

Coldmountains, we do not know who proto-Turks were and Bulgarian Bolgars were surely not proto-Turks.

"Slavs which lack basically almost any R1a-Z93 and Q, C and O which can be associated with Turks"

Yes, and even Turkic speaking Chuvash lack all Q, C and O which, according to you, is associated with Turks.

"The siberian/east Asian admixture among ethnic Russians is basically all from Uralics or non-Turkic Siberians"

in principle yes, but on the other hand, most Siberians turned into Uralic-speakers (paleo-Eskimos), Turkic-speakers (Yakuts, Dolgan) or Tungusic speakers (Evens/Evenks/Oroch/Udege).

Coldmountains said...

@Rob

Neither have Bulgarians a lot of Proto-Bulgaric ancestry nor Hungarians a lot of Uralic ancestry. Why is this so hard to accept? Bulgars are just perfectly fitting in the Balkan and have not real more "eastern" ancestry. They got a lot Slavic ancestry and that explains why Slavic languages became the lingua franca in the Bulgarian empire and why Bulgarians adopted it but except of their early elite there is not much "Bulgarian" about them.

Whatever... I doubt that the relations between archaic Slavs/Balto-Slavs and early Oghurs and Nomadic Iranics were much more positive. Sedentary and nomadic people are often very hostile to each other but of course not always and there was always a lot of trade and other interactions between them.

Rob said...

CM

Bulgars constituted 1/3 of 7th century population in Bulgaria. This is a verifiable fact
Moreover, Bulgars weren't "oriental', even if their language is Altaic.
These are simple facts you need to grasp

Nirjhar007 said...

Coldmountains,
ON PAKTH-PASHTUN RELATION
Ok So, I think this a case of excessive linguistic pedantry, however I don't know the history of Pashto as much probably you do.
so I cannot throw detailed linguistic arguments at the moment. The change from kt to sht do sound a bit weak, but also in that page we find this:
(21 ) The transliteration of ṧ and žˊ by x̌ and ǧ veils the most obvious if not the most important, division of Paṧtō dialects. In the southwestern “soft” group they remain sibilants, usually retroflex ṧ and žˊ, but merging in some restricted areas with more palatal š and ž. In the “hard” northwestern dialects they merge completely with xand g. But in an intermediate area, mainly Ḡilzay, we find transitional types, or mixings, e.g., š/ṧ/ҳ/xəja “woman,” špaž/žˊ/ γ̌/g “six.”
So, it seems there was a confusion of š and x (kh).
Anyway, Paktues and Pakhtoon/Pashto are too close in name and region to indicate different tribes.
And in SE Afghanistan, we have the two provinces of Paktia and Paktika, that correspond to the Vedic form of Paktha!.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paktika_Province#History

FrankN said...

@rk: "There is some hidden WHG-rich population somewhere, either early W IE, like David said, or Funnelbeaker, like you said; but then this would require us to propose new connections of some kind, hitherto not generally accepted by interpreters of the archaeological record, I presume."

I don't see much difference between myself, Dave, and the archeological evidence here. Hung_EBA has 17% more WHG, and 14.5% more EHG admix than Hung_CA. Such a population is pretty unlikely to have arrived from the SW or the Adriatic coast. As contemporary Unetice was already strongly CHG-admixed, we can also rule out entry from the north. [The Unetice core area stretched from the Nitra/SK copper mining district via the (tin) Ore Mountains to the salt sooting area around Halle/Saale, which reveals its economic base.}

This leaves an entrance from the east into the Carpathian Basin, i.e. from Western Ukraine/ Moldova/ Bessarabia, as the only plausible option. In fact, archeology (and also pig aDNA as reported above) supports such an entry:
http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/doku.php/kulturen/bronztimpuriu/schneckenberg_english_version
"The Schneckenberg group is furthermore said to spread to the west, like the Glina group, where it superimposes the Coţofeni culture (Machnik 1985). This is supposedly recognizable with the appearance of the central Transylvanian stone crate graves (Roman 1986, 55).(..) According to this chronological classification and according to Schuster, Glina people penetrated into the Burzenland and are hence responsible for the genesis of the Schneckenberg group, whereas Schneckenberg expansions to the south led to the formation of the Năeni group (Schuster 1998, 26f.). Ever since the excavation of the grave from Sânmartin-Ciuc, the Kugelamphoren (globular amphorae) culture is also named in connection with the genesis of the Schneckenberg culture (Székely 2002)."

Admittedly, I am getting a bit lost among all the CA/EBA Romanian/Transcarpathian archeological cultures. In any case, a GAC association (around 2,500 BC) is a/o proposed in the linked paper. :
Gimbutas 1965 sees both the Schneckenberg-Gina-Monteoru complex (3rd mill. BC), and the subsequent Otomani-Wietenberg complex (W. Ukraine to E. Hungary, from ca. 2,200 BC) as "of Kurgan appearance" (link too long, google it).
http://www.academia.edu/979382/THE_BEGINNING_OF_EARLY_BRONZE_AGE_IN_SOUTH-EASTERN_TRANSYLVANIA

Thus, Eastern GAC and possibly also Catacomb Culture may well have been strongly WHG/ EHG, but hardly CHG loaded. The most obvious source of both is the Baltic Sea area. However, strong EHG presence in Eastern Europe might also be envisaged, and is in fact suggested by Yamnaya aDNA. In that case, an originally heavily WHG-loaded GAC would have picked up substantial EHG admix (already present in CT?) during its southeastern expansion. This implies, of course, EHG possibly being far less "eastern" than the name suggests.

@Rob: "by contrast, during the BB and CWC - not a single mass grave has been found (!) It seems, the 3000- 2500 BC period in Europe was one of widespread contacts and harmony (?)"

You have been overlooking this one:
http://www.academia.edu/649220/The_Eulau_Eulogy_Bioarchaeological_Interpretation_of_Lethal_Violence_in_Corded_Ware_Multiple_Burials_from_Saxony-Anhalt_Germany

Rob said...

@ Frank

There are several article around about LN mass violence, but yes, Ive read that one too. But I again highlight the stark contrast during the BB and CWC - when the supposed "Kurgan invasions' took place. So i think we're missing something

Which brings me to the next point- about eastern GAC, etc. This area is vital. Not Khvalysnk. We'll soon find out. And we'll soon find out more about CHG, and what my lie beneath it.

I suspect by the end of 2016, we'll have a clearer - and probably significantly modified - picture of what occurred in Eneolithic/ Copper Age Europe.
As for specific regional sequences - yes they're confusing. But I've collated dozens of papers with the recentmost C14 dates. We can now outline these sequences in eastern and central Europe, 250 years by 250 years, subregion by subregion from 4000 - 2000 BC. I can sharae with you later. BTW thanks for the links about Cotofeni

Maju said...

@Rob: "evidences" does exist and is defined as "plural of evidence": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evidences

@Coldmountains: for whatever is worth I think that the Paktha trail is a good one, etymologically and historico-geographically sound, regardless of whether there may or not be extra complexity to modern Pashtun genesis and whatever other implications.

@"a": Excuse my perplexity but I don't really grasp your argument (not well enough presented, maybe you should try blogging rather than just foruming: you find yourself forced to explain things better, not just for those "in the know"): do you mean that some private lineages obtained in extremely biased commercial DNA collection (only for well-off and personally interested customers, who can never be an unbiased sample) means anything other than mere detection of those novel lineages? I must disagree (again, been there before: always a fiasco). Invest in properly researching West Asia, compare equivalent samples, and then you tell me. That's what Underhill did in the case of R1a.

FrankN said...

@Rob: Re: LN violence in CEU
There is an older (2005), but still informative PhD which has asessed all German EN-CA skeletons for signs of cranial trauma, including trepanations (interpreted as often injury-related, though other medical reasons may of course not be ruled out). It is in German, but I nevertheless link it - at least the diagrams and maps towards the end are reasonably self-explaining:
https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/binary/KYQC5QZRC67H4SV6CLQW33VIQQPMDNB5/full/1.pdf

From the conclusion (my translation):

- Overall, the Neolithic wasn't any more violent than the Mesolithic [Head injury rates: Ertebolle SE 10%, DK 10.6%, Mes. Germany 19.1%, Neol. 5-10%].

- Compared to the Mesolithic, projectile wounds are less frequent. Less hunting may have meant less respective weaponry among the neolithic population. Instead, the Neolithic sees increased baton- and axe-related injury.

- Evidence of violence is especially frequent for the younger FB (i.e. Bernburg), GAC, CWC, and the CA-BA transition (a/o Unetice, Straubing, Ries). The horizons around 3,000 BC and from 2,300 BC onwards are particular centres, and may be assumed as periods of cultural and social change.

- Some authors (e.g. J.Robb for chalcolithic Italy) have postulated that a lack of defensive structures, combined with symbols of male authority, e.g. axes, would correspond with less violence, as agression is sublimated into the symbolic sphere. The German record doesn't support this theory - here, the largest numbers of head injuries stem from periods without substantial fortification, but high presence of axes as grave goods, especially CWC.
[Note that the analysis only parly covers indications of war, many of which, especially as concerns Michelsberg, but also the Bernburg/GAC destruction of Salzmünde, have only become evident recently. Moreover, the summary appears to underplay violence during Michelsberg, which, according to the material in the Annex, was quite substantial (18 cases, compared to 22 for CWC). The study refrains from giving specific violence rates per culture, a/o for methodologic reasons, as many skeletons have been recovered incompletely, often missing heads (e.g. Herxheim), so the grand total cannot be securely established. ]

- However, most of the LN/CA head injuries suffered by males were non-fatal, maybe indicating cultural embedding related to changed male roles. [She seems to point at something like a "duelling culture" here; two BB injuries are broken noses (boxing?).].

- Conversely, the LN also sees some increase in female head injuries, the majority of which were fatal. This could hint at gender-specific differences in executing/ enduring violence. [Tafel 33b, p.338 suggests a particularly high rate of female head injuries for GAC. However, overall numbers (4) are small, and some of the locations are close to the archeologically well established "militarised border" between GAC/Bernburg and Salzmünde - these may actually have been victims of war rather than domestic violence.]

capra internetensis said...

@Nirjhar

Griffith has separated out the Valakhilya hymns so his numbering is out of whack. 8.49 is the first Valakhilya hymn.

Nirjhar007 said...

Capra,
Yeah, and it often create problems :) .
Anyway, MW Suggests :
paktha m. N. of a man protected by the As3vins RV. (%{-thasya@saubharasya}N. of 2 %{sAmans} A1rshBr.) ; pl. N. of a people ib..
Quite accurate!.
Anybody,
A recent study on Arabian DNA has revealed that there is an Iranian/Pakistani component in Arabia, and that UAE in the gulf has even 21% of South Asian DNA, while Iran 24%.
I think 20+% of admixture, if the component is real,then it suggests a mass migration or the remain of an ancient component rather than a few merchants?. I don't say that this admixture reveals an archaic stratum, it can also be a more recent migration from S Asia, directly or through Iran. Its presence on the gulf supports this.
But My question is, which component it can be? they are perhaps talking about a composite kind of component?.
http://www.plosone.org/article/Authors/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0118625

Raheel said...

@imam-din
You are absolutely right about position of metal workers (lohars) and nomadic people in Pak punjab villages. Likely same is the case all over Pakistan. Also other similar professions like carpenters etc have same position.

FrankN said...

On Michelsberg (MC)/ Funnelbeaker (FB)enclosures

The enclosure & satellite pattern is quite typical for both cultures. Enclosures may be quite sizeable - up to 100 ha. For MC, (incomplete) archeological evidence points at some 5-6 hamlets surrounding each enclosure. However, MC and early (nordic) FB houses were mostly build in wattle & daub construction, difficult to identify archeologically.

Moreover, a couple of enclosures have only been identified recently. In fact, many enclosures appear to have been "recycled" by later cultures, and have been mistaken for early Germanic/Slavic, or Hallstatt/ La Tene hilltop forts/ settlements; only a deeper dig revealed their enormous age. Such "recycling" has overformed the areal, which makes recovery of MC/ FB settlement traces nearly impossible. Hence, the enclosures have long been held for just "ritual places", "cattle crals", "trade fair and play grounds" or similar. The a/m Kapellenberg near Frankfurt is an exception - "recycling" was relatively light (small La Tene fortification, Roman watchtower), so it presents the opportunity to learn more about enclosure functions.

Long-range trade connections are evidenced by, e.g., finds of Alpine Jadeite, or Chalcedon from Bonn traded down to the Upper Rhine and Neckar valleys. Some sites mirror Roman road stations, e.g. Maastricht-Heerlen-Jülich along the Via Belgica. There is evidence of mutually exclusive supply lines - some Rhinish sites, e.g. imported Baltic flint, other flint from the Lousberg quarry. This indicates heavy competition on markets/ distribution networks. Apparently, from time to time one group tried to violently take another one out of business.

Frequent enclosure "recycling" attests their strategic location: Well defendable, controlling major trade routes, and important raw material sources, respectively. As illustration, here a few examples:

- Heilbronn Schloßberg (Palace Hill), MC, 2 ha, 3,800 BC: Densely settled, metal processing evidence, burnt down around 3,650 BC. Two more enclosures (22 ha, undated, and 13 ha, 4,400-3,800 BC) within the city limits. Industrial salt sooting in Heilbronn (= "salt spring") evidenced from Hallstatt period onwards.

- Soest, MC, 36 ha, 3,900-3,600 BC: Earthworks run parallel to the medieval city wall. Another old salt town. Soest has no clear Germanic/Roman/ Celtic etymology
.
- Glauberg, MC, 8 ha?, 4,000 BC: Resettled latest in the Urnfield period, supra-regional centre during late Hallstatt/ early La Tene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg

- Altenburg/ Niedenstein (NE Hesse), MC, 8 ha?, 4th. mBC: Resettled in the 2nd mill. BC, Hallstatt/ La Tene oppidum.

- Ehrenbürg, Franconia, Pfyn Culture, 3,900 BC: Supra-regional centre during late Hallstatt/ early La Tene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenb%C3%BCrg

- Trelleborg, Zealand, DK; FB, 3,300 BC: Beneath a Medieval Viking fortress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trelleborg_(Slagelse)

- Itzehoe, Schleswig-Holstein, FB, 1 ha: Underneath the Frankish Esesfeld castle, est. 809 AD.

- Potsdam, FB, 3,400 BC: Next to the main Havel ford, the traditional crossing on the route Skane-Rügen-Dresden-Prague. On top sits the City Palace (winter residence of the Prussian Kings), which was built above a medieval Slavic fortress.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269682378_The_Late_Neolithic_Michelsberg_culture_-_Just_ramparts_and_ditches_A_supraregional_comparison_of_agricultural_and_environmental_data

http://www.archaeology.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.138768.1371479475!/menu/standard/file/Poul%20Otto%20Nielsen.pdf

Rob said...

FrankN
Thanks. Very useful

Rob said...

Frank

Is there much evidence of a "population crash" in LN Germany ?
Maybe in the Danube vorland, because central Germany looks vibrant (eg in Muller articles)

Maju said...

@Rob: Look at the graphs in this entry: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/02/neolithic-and-chalcolithic-demographics.html

I don't feel that the term "population crash" applies but there are fluctuations, based on the study discussed there.

Another older study, more generic, does suggest that after the early LBK population peak (coincident with the climatic optimum) there was a sharp decline in Central Europe (Germany, also Poland): http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/06/revisiting-demographics-of-northern-and.html

This peak and decline may have been caused by endogenous and environmental reasons, I suspect, as they maybe were getting an optimal production in a virgin land with an optimal climate but not anymore in an already exploited land (their agricultural techniques were surely quite primitive yet) with a slightly colder climate.

When the decline reaches a minimum is when new cultures show up, notably Michelsberg, and the population grows again but only somewhat, weakly.

In this study Germany seems to recover more seriously only towards the middle-late Chalcolithic, while Poland appears to recover earlier, coincident with Baalberge culture, but then declined again.

a said...

Maju said...

"a": Excuse my perplexity but I don't really grasp your argument .........Invest in properly researching West Asia, compare equivalent samples, and then you tell me. That's what Underhill did in the case of R1a."

I was not even aware it was an argument. I thought I was pointing out some factual snp's for you. Anyways, I can see that you have made up your mind.
For my point, M269-L23-Z2103-Z2106-Z2109-Z2110 are only separated by 200 years[6200-6400YBP+/-] IMO Z2109-Z2110 have not been found in West Asia, and won't be found in West Asia, because all of these mutations derive from Steppe[time will tell]. Otherwise they would have turned up by now in the Anatolian papers. Kum6 is also interesting,close Phokia-Smyrna where R1b samples from modern day Greeks found. http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-69
So if you can show Z2109 and or Z2110 I guess that might strengthen your West Asian quest for ancient R1a and or R1b.

Rob said...

Maju
Thanks !

Maju said...

@"a": I'm always ready to consider a good alternative explanation and consider the details, as long as it based on facts and not molecular-clock-o-logic abracadabra. As far as it affects me, when you say that "M269-L23-Z2103-Z2106-Z2109-Z2110 are only separated by 200 years[6200-6400YBP+/-]" it means nothing unless backed by clear full chromosome sequencing and proper calibration such as age(chimp-Homo split)=10-13 Ma, age(CF)=100 Ka, age(CT)=125 Ka, etc. (or others similarly or even more valid). My usual simplified re-reading, re-calibration, of your claim is that, according to you (and without any study backing that claim), M269-Z2110 are separated by 400 years and dated to c. 12.5 Ka ago. Not that I believe this date either but there is a systematic bias caused by miscalibration and ideological "recentism" and I correct it in a simplified form by doubling all dates, what makes better sense, at least to me.

Molecular-clock-o-logy is abracadabra unless you can back it not just with a very good method but also with a good calibration or several. If your molecular clock method produces that the age of Pan-Homo is less that 8 Ma, then it is unacceptable because it contradicts all known paleonthological data and some related MCH estimates such as the 10-13 Ma I already mentioned. If your MCH method produces a age for the migration out of Africa that is much more recent than the 125-100 Ka bracket, then it's wrong as well, if your MCH results do not fit with ancient specimens systematically, then it is wrong as well. I know that these various calibration methods produce somewhat different results (huge CIs and what-not, another understated problem) but I also know that all them produce much older dates than what you and Y-Full manage (maybe instead of my simplified 12 Ka it is more like 10 Ka but whatever, we're talking about trying to extract science out of hocus pocus, and that is a huge challenge, really).

Notice that I'm not discussing the issue of Z2110 particularly but just using your sentence as example of how much things can go wrong when we found our judgment only on the molecular clock conjecture, and very particular (tendentious, biased, horribly calibrated, never properly explained...) versions of it particularly.

Aram said...

Gokhan

I was preparing to answer You and came across an interesting map from an Indian J dna study

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19157/figures/1

This map is J2 without xM67 and xM47 so without Caucasian European and Near Eastern J2 branches.
Approximatively it is equal to J2-L24. You can see the hotspot in Anatolia. Certainly related to Turkic expansion. What do this mean? This mean that classic Turkish case of elite dominance is not so 'elite dominance' that most people assume. I bet ( based on CHG K10) there was a some 25-30% of population replacement in Anatolia with Turkic invasions. But we underestimate it because we take only ENA as a Turkic marker.

I think the same serious underestimate You made for Pontic Greeks. I think there was a real Greek ancestry there. That's why Greek language persisted there so long. What just we don't know is that what was the real profile of ancient Greeks and how to calculate it's real input.

....

Maju said...

I don't understand, Aram, why you consider J2-L24 (described only as J2a-M410 in the map) as necessary marker of Turkic expansion and not, say of Hittite or whatever other population, historical or prehistorical, really. For all I can see there it can perfectly be a local Neolithic founder effect (for example). It's presence in areas like Italy, Arabia or India does not help to argue for it being Turkic, when it's clearly very low to absent in the steppe, be it eastern, central or western.

Do you per chance have a haplotype network that overrides all these considerations pointing maybe to an origin in Kazakhstan? I bet you do not.

Maju said...

@Aram: actually there's a haplotype network in the supp. materials fig. S2a but is not complete enough for our purpose. However we do see how the few Central Asian haplotypes (Altai Khazak and Afghan) seem clearly derived from Caucasian (Chechen) ones. So most probably your conjecture is not correct.

The study is anyhow very interesting and shows that the spread of J2 seems to follow a curious quasi-symmetric pattern in India and Europe (not perfectly symmetric but certainly with some notable symmetry). This pattern strongly suggests that this expansion should be related to Neolithic because it is the only such symmetric phenomenon in paleohistory, especially with a West Asian centrality.

Rob said...

Maju

The point is that the arriving Turks would have brought distinct set of Y markers which would have made significant impact on the Anatolian genoscape

I don't think STR networks are good enough to these days . They have, at best, 80% prediction of true clades.

Finally, I'm not sure the pattern of J2 expansion is clearly elucidated. Small amounts are seen in Neolithic Southern Europe. Perhaps more arrived in the EBA, combined with secondary expansions. Who knows what happened ..

Slumbery said...

Aram: if anything, that map shows that how much it is not a Turkic marker.

Aram said...

Some clarifications.
The whole J2-L24 is certainly NOT a Turkic marker. That would be absurd.
It has a 13400 ybp TMRCA. His main branch L25 is 9100 year old.
It originated somewhere in Iran and spreaded toward East and North carrying CHG. Either as a hunter gatherer or as a Neolithic farmer or some pastoralist group. Please read the study they discuss that issue.

It has strikingly an Indo-Iranian look and can be considered as IIr marker for those who favour a CHG=PIE theory.

But my point now is not about PIE or Indo-Iranians. My point is that most of the time elite dominance is overestimated because of lack of fine details. The J is the most poor studied haplogroup. So we don't know do there exist any Young branches under that L24>L25 specific to Oghuz Turks or not.

If the majority of Kyrgiz R1a-Z93 is a recent Kyrgyz expansion and not some ancient Iranian substrate how we can be sure the same kind of events didn't happened inside other haplogroups? Btw the same is true for Yakut's N, the same is true for Kazakh Argyn G1. they are very young expansions. Argyn G1 is only 800 years old.

My main comment was placed here. It was directed against 'ghost elite dominance' theories that some propose for Armenians.
I just copy pasted a part here.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.be/2016/01/a-cautionary-tale-from-armenia.html

Aram said...

Maju

@Aram: actually there's a haplotype network in the supp. materials fig. S2a but is not complete enough for our purpose. However we do see how the few Central Asian haplotypes (Altai Khazak and Afghan) seem clearly derived from Caucasian (Chechen) ones. So most probably your conjecture is not correct. ///

Highly improbable. Chechen branches are very young. Between 2600-4000 years.
http://yfull.com/tree/J-Y3640/
This is the map of J2-M67. Chechens are a subclade of M67
http://генофонд.рф/wp-content/uploads/2.32.jpg

M67 is a brother clade of L24. It peaks among Nakh people. But it is also high among Armenians, Eastern Georgians, Kurds ( Kurds are also high in L24 ) and other North Near Eastern groups. Also in Thracia and Tuscany. It sharply drops moving East and is completely absent in India.

My theory is that M67 is partly related to Hurro-Urartians.

Davidski said...

It has strikingly an Indo-Iranian look and can be considered as IIr marker for those who favour a CHG=PIE theory.

No it doesn't. It's missing from the steppe.

And please let's be serious; Indo-European, let alone Indo-Iranian, did not expand during the Neolithic.

Coldmountains said...

@Aram

Not really J2 is actually very low among Pashtuns for example(5%).It may sound a bit harsh but there are no other Indo-Iranian lineages except of Z93 no matter how widespread other haplogroups are among modern Indo-Iranians. R1a-Z93 is still significant among all Indo-Iranians. West Persians and some Kurds have just around 10% of it but this is still significant.

Proto-Indo-Iranians had less CHG than Yamnaya and even less than early German Corded Ware.

Onur said...

@Aram

I was preparing to answer You and came across an interesting map from an Indian J dna study

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19157/figures/1

This map is J2 without xM67 and xM47 so without Caucasian European and Near Eastern J2 branches.
Approximatively it is equal to J2-L24.


Where do you get that? The first map is a J2a map and the second map is a J2b map. No other subclade info is given for those maps in that paper.

You can see the hotspot in Anatolia. Certainly related to Turkic expansion. What do this mean? This mean that classic Turkish case of elite dominance is not so 'elite dominance' that most people assume. I bet ( based on CHG K10) there was a some 25-30% of population replacement in Anatolia with Turkic invasions. But we underestimate it because we take only ENA as a Turkic marker.

If we assumed only the ENA genes as the genetic legacy of the Central Asian migration in Anatolia, the Central Asian element in Anatolian Turks should have been less than 10%. I take into account the non-ENA genes that come from Central Asia too, so my estimations of the Central Asian element in Anatolian Turks are invariably higher than 10%, but how much higher I cannot say with any degree of confidence for now due to the lack of ancient Oghuz/Turkmen and modern or ancient interior Anatolian Greek autosomal data.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 348   Newer› Newest»