search this blog

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Ancient R1a1 and N1c from western Russia


Below is a table of ancient DNA results from a recent study on uniparental genetic diversity in the Upper Dvina region of western Russia. The oldest sample is that of a ~6,000 year-old hunter-gatherer belonging to Y-haplogroup R1a1 and mtDNA H. Note also the presence of the typically Uralic Y-haplogroup N1c in a couple of the younger samples.


Source: Chekunova et al., The first results of genetic typing of local population and ancient human bones in Upper Dvina region.

See also...

Eastern Europe as a bifurcation hotspot for Y-hg R1

648 comments:

1 – 200 of 648   Newer›   Newest»
Mike Thomas said...

Thanks Mr Srkz for bringing this forward.

Its interesting that N1c was present in SE Baltic region + adjacent as early as M3. Thus it can;t have arrived later, with the "Seima-Turbino phenomenon" as often posited.

Shaikorth said...

Right Mike, I wouldn't have expected N1c that early from Smolensk region. TMRCA of N-L1026 - almost all European and West Siberian N1c1 from Lithuanians to Mansis and Magyars - is currently dated only 4100 years ago, so perhaps it is even younger than that Dvina sample.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N1c1/

Mansis used to live west of Urals in Perm though.

Seima-Turbino phenomenon's Central Asian end in Bronze Age Altai is mainly R1a with some Q, and I didn't really associate that with N1c. But still the Y-chromosomal datings did point towards a more recent spread than this.

Davidski said...

I can't tell from the text which date is the correct one for the first R1a1 sample. I'll go with ~6,000 BP.

Roy King said...

@Davidski,
Yes, the table would suggest around 4000 BCE. Could R1a be then Uralic? This might revive Greenberg's model of Eurasiatic=Uralic+Altaic+IE, approximately.

Mike Thomas said...

Yes, M3.

BTW, Has anyone come up with a compelling reason as to the low level of ANE in southern Europe ? Even the BA Hungarian sample is relatively scant in it - rather bizarre if this was the the "first stop" of the alleged Kurgan invaders ?

Moreover, to this day, it is still not that common in southern Europe, and that's after invasions of hundreds of thousands of northerners during the Roman and Migration period (Germanics, Slavs, Celts). It must have previously been even lower.

The ANE shift thus appears to have been 'northern European affair'. Was it even solely a Bronze Age affair, or something more protracted and complex ? We don;t know since we lack Bronze Age samples outside of Germany.

THis further begs the question, how exactly does this fit with Indo-Europeans ?
I suspect aDNA Greece, Caucasia and (I wish) ancient Hittitia comes back with little "northern ANE".

Nirjhar007 said...

@Roy
;''Yes, the table would suggest around 4000 BCE. Could R1a be then Uralic? This might revive Greenberg's model of Eurasiatic=Uralic+Altaic+IE, approximately.''
Lets not make any judgement too soon aDNA has a large field to cover but yes it seems R1a was there with Uralic speaking groups probably.

Roy King said...

@Nirjhar and Davidski,
Note also that there is R1b1(M343) in Serteysky and Usviatsky n=3 samples.

Roy King said...

These R1b's are in local modern samples, I presume.

Nirjhar007 said...

If isn't then i will be disappointed.

Nirjhar007 said...

Is there any russian here?:)

Davidski said...

The N1c samples might well be Uralic, because it's at about this time that a new wave of Siberian admixture moved into Europe, which is mostly seen today in Finns and north Russians. The R1a1 might represent people who spoke now extinct languages related to Indo-European.

Davidski said...

Yes, the samples with R1b are modern Russians.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
'' The R1a1 might represent people who spoke now extinct languages related to Indo-European.''
I do think they may but i also think they may Uralic also!

Davidski said...

The mtDNA H and H2 are interesting. It does really seem as if northern forager types in Eastern Europe were taking southern women as wives. H2 peaks around the Caucasus today.

Nirjhar007 said...

Yeah they all are H aren't they? but it may show origin in Western Asia Near Eastern Area then migration towards there as that model is more simpler...

Davidski said...

Y-DNA R1 is EHG, mtDNA H is Neolithic farmer.

R1 was associated with mtDNA C and U until EHG were diluted with farmer admixture, and this is also when H showed up with R1.

Everything points to northern men pairing up with southern women.

Btw, H2 was also found in Yamnaya and Unetice remains.

Maju said...

On the Y-DNA side, it seems supportive of strong Uralic-like presence in the Iron Age in that area.

On the mtDNA side it must be underlined that HVS-1 CRS does not allow to discern H2 and it's more likely (by modern parameters) that it actually represents H1 or H*. It's even possible that it could be U*, as it has been demonstrated in other samples (mostly Paleolithic but occasionally also modern). It's truly a pity that the HVS-1 obsolete methodology is still used, particularly in Europe, where it makes impossible to discern the most common haplogroups.

Shaikorth said...

Okay, both the Russian and English version of the paper say that the earliest R1a is 5120 +/- 120 ВР "or the turn of V-IV mil. BC". If the former is a typo it should be 6000 years old, if the latter is a typo it should be from "IV-III mil. BC", and not predate Serteya II and Naumovo R1a and N1c by more than centuries.

The translator has copied the mistake of the author, and I can't say which date is right, but the name of the article collection itself is "Archaeology of lake settlements IV-II mil. BC".

Roy King said...

@Shaikorth,
5210 BP is uncalibrated--through calibration it will be about 4000 cal BC. Not a typo!

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''R1 was associated with mtDNA C and U until EHG were diluted with farmer admixture, and this is also when H showed up with R1.''
Yes but R1 could have come from outside also my bet is from South of Caspian to Near Eastern to Russia we may relate the Uralic Substratum in Balto-Slavic as the effect of the R1a bearing Uralic groups who existed from before IE there in Russian area and there is the other route also which came through East of Caspian Route same as the Jarmo related ones which didn't had Near Eastern Specific dna but Mostly ANE type.
The latter route was used since Mesolithic times....

Shaikorth said...

Roy, that's possible although I can't find where it says the 5120 bp dating was uncalibrated.

postneo said...

@davidski
Or simply these were southern populations altogether whose mtdna got replaced as they moved west..

Perhaps these are the orja slaves who soon outnumbered the uralics

Matt said...

Davidski: Everything points to northern men pairing up with southern women.

David W Anthony in the Horse, Wheel and Language talks a lot about bride price in early IE was probably strongly linked to herd size.

Herds were a store of wealth, and bride price-> herds, so guys with larger herds were more likely to marry.

So I might think a mechanism like:
More forager ancestry > more likely to be a herder > more likely to have large herds > more likely for sons to marry, and daughters less likely to be able to marry.

Might help explain the schizophrenic* state of IE forager / farmer lineages. If you have the two communities mix at about 50:50, and the y-dna side be more likely to meet the bride price, because of more male side wealth for that, while being less desirable brides, because less female side non-bride price wealth, then the mechanism works out.

Or the divide could be between cattle and horse herd size (forager descendants) vs sheep and goat herd size ("Neolithic") if both groups were herders. So long as the bride price is measured in horse and cattle (whatever the northern group invests in raising) and not whatever the southern group invests in raising.

There are parallels to this in East African societies we have in the historical record, and in the steppe.

Forager / herder men would likely have been eager to marry out to incoming women as although they would've been poor in cattle, they likely would've been relatively rich in precious metals, grains / sheep, etc.

Essentially forager / herders were more likely to be able to "buy wives" while having less wealthy (and thus less desirable) wives to "sell".

You might not really need any crazy wife raiding scenarios founding the community then. Although this doesn't mean the language couldn't come from the male side.

* Anthony uses the term schizophrenic to describe the state of horse uniparental dna - few male lineages, many female lineages - it's a pretty reasonable use of the term.

Marnie said...

@Matt
@Grey

"David W Anthony in the Horse, Wheel and Language . . ."

The title of Anthony's book is "The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World"

I doubt that Anthony's Steppe hypothesis has the broad reach that he suggests in his title.

Is David Anthony's book the only reference material on Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeology that you guys have read?

Because if you've read more broadly, it doesn't seem apparent in your comments.

Matt said...

@Marnie Because if you've read more broadly, it doesn't seem apparent in your comments.

It's the only one I've read.

Roy King said...

@Shaikorth,
"Roy, that's possible although I can't find where it says the 5120 bp dating was uncalibrated."

Usually bp dates are assumed to be uncalibrated. Calibrated dates are show as cal BC. This is pretty standard nomenclature in archaeology.

Shaikorth said...

Alright, that's likely the case then.

bellbeakerblogger said...

The oldest site is site VIII of the Serteyskaya culture which should be around 5000BC calendar.

2 individuals are from site 2 pile dwellings,
http://briai.ku.lt/downloads/AB/14/14_047-064_Mazurkevich,_Dolbunova,_Maigrot,_et_al.pdf

Nirjhar007 said...

What about the Mtdna according to you?

bellbeakerblogger said...

More on Serteya Culture:
http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue17/3/2.1.1.html

also the book I referenced the other day ago by Jordan & Zvelebil concerning the dispersal of pottery into this region.
http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2015/02/r1-and-dispersal-of-ceramic-from-far.html


bellbeakerblogger said...

@Nirjhar007
"What about the Mtdna according to you?"


Northern Euphrates.

Nirjhar007 said...

Thx.

bellbeakerblogger said...

@Nirjhar007

Assuming it is indeed "H" based on HVR1.

It's a 50/50 shot that it is. If it is H, then it increases the probability that Serteyskaya originated much further south than is already speculated.

If it is instead U, then this suggests a more Northerly route of ceramic peoples from the North Pontic.

If it is proven to be H, then it seems both R1a/R1b + H spread from the Northern Euphrates/NW Iran beginning in the 6th mil and continuing in success waves over a long period of time.

Nirjhar007 said...

Thank you so much again for that scientific conclusion!:)...

Chad Rohlfsen said...

The northern Euphrates was Neolithic before 9000bce. No basal in EHG...sorry.

Marnie said...

@bellbeakerblogger

Thanks for posting these great papers on the the Serteyskaya culture.


Romulus said...

If this bride price scenario was true then we should see as much mtdna U in R1 areas as mtdna H then. There is no logical explanation for why EHG women would become less populous in relation to EEF women in an EHG patriarchal tribe unless the near eastern women offered some physiological birthing advantage. I find it a highly unlikely scenario that HG tribes would just abandon their women.

Marnie said...

@Chad

"The northern Euphrates was Neolithic before 9000bce. No basal in EHG...sorry."

What's your point?

Maju said...

@Romulus: it does not work as you imagine, it's perfectly possible and likely that the population was just (y)N1+(mt)H because of its own founder effects. It's the North, low population densities favor all kind of "bottleneck" effects (more than elsewhere).

@Bellbeakerblogger: One thing that seems to be derived from these results (with reasonable uncertainty because of the late date) is that R1a1 can well be pre-Neolithic and somehow related to a culture like Swiderian→Kunda, which is usually considered somehow related to Solutrean. I'm wondering right now whether this Solutrean-like element may be a clue, imagining that maybe the real common origin of both populations (classical Solutrean in the west and Swiderian in the East) could have a West Asian origin so far unknown to us, providing room for two different migrations to Europe of R1 lineages: R1b-L51 to the West with classical Solutrean and R1a to the Swiderian later on. Just a wild idea that I think deserves some consideration.

spagetiMeatball said...

It's really hard to explain why mtDNA is being replaced by mtDNA H everywhere.

Maybe the mammoth hunter guys were just really caught and assaulted by temperamental middle-eastern women.

spagetiMeatball said...

............ btw I'm not being serious.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

My point is that this..

"If it is proven to be H, then it seems both R1a/R1b + H spread from the Northern Euphrates/NW Iran beginning in the 6th mil and continuing in success waves over a long period of time."

is not possible. These areas were Neolithic long before.. it was already to Turkmenistan by mid 7th M BCE. EHG had no, I repeat, no Near Eastern ancestry. They are not from West Asia at those dates.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

L51 with Solutrean? What? You and your dating are soooo far off, it's not even funny.

Matt said...

@ Romulus, the Yamnaya in the Haak paper have mtdna:

U4 (probably forager), W6 (not known), H13 (probably farmer), T2 (probably farmer), U5 (forager), U5 (forager), W3 (not known), H6 (probably farmer).

(mtdna experts can correct me here if they think there are different population associations)

So it works OK for them, even if you expect relatively even numbers. The forager female lines are still there, just less explosive as they don't really have an economic-reproductive advantage (their brothers get their father's cattle so they can't buy their way into marriages and so don't have any particular reproductive advantage).

The fact that all the mtdna fall into H (cambridge reference sequence) in the paper here is strange to me. I think Maju's comments on that sound right to me, although I have no idea about the details - sounds like an issue with the diagnostic for mtdna one that is not an issue in Haak.

capra internetensis said...

If this *is* H, these guys sure didn't get it by trading brides with Caucasian farmers, or having the biggest herds, or capturing women during mounted raids. They were sedentary, Mesolithic hunters and fishers living in boggy forest land. They didn't have livestock at all when the first guy was around.

Either it's misidentified, or Mesolithic, or they were intermarrying with pioneer farmers in the region (apparently cereal pollen appears in Estonia about this time, and farming had already been introduced to the forest-steppe as well).

If the R1a is M17, which is implied, and the date is accurate, then this really fills in the gap between our R1a1* Karelian forager and our Corded Ware R1a1a1*. A southern origin looks less likely, and a northern forest zone origin more likely.

Marnie said...

The Usvyatsky lake site referenced in this paper is very close to Belarus.

There's quite a bit online about the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Belarus.

It was a complex process and certainly not properly characterized by a dumb paradigm like hunter men or horse mounted steppe pastoralist men taking farmer wives.

Another potential easy to encapsulate National Geographic iconic moment down the tubes.

Romulus said...

Regardless of a steppe nomad wife purchasing dynamic I am still perplexed by the low amounts of mtDNA U in Europe given that it is the original lineage associated with WHG and EHG males and the high frequencies at which those lineages are found in Europe.

None of the literature I have read on population dynamics has touched on what is undenaibly a core factor in population spread, birth rates. In a HG society there would be many unknowable factors relating to survival that would be at play in addition to a woman's ability to produce children. In a sedentary farmer society the ability for any given woman to produce many children would likely be the only limiting factor in her reproductive success. There is of course many examples in ancient literature of women dying in child birth. I imagine that the earliest farmer women experienced high selection pressure for birth rates compared to hunter gatherer women and this physiological advantage played a factor in their rapid spread.

Maju said...

@Chad: with my dating (recalibrated on Underhill's data to match the archaeological evidence for age(CF)=100 Ka BP) you're surely right re. L51/M412 (I get c. 15 Ka BP), however its precursor L23/S141 matches well the LGM date. However this is a hierarchical level shared with West Asia (most plausible origin judging on the frequencies of S141*: the Balcans or Iran). So probably not Solutrean if we have to believe these estimates, however we can still consider early Magdalenian period ages. We are probably missing some clues by not understanding well Balcan/West Asian late UP because, if I'm right, there was a migration c. 19-15 Ka BP from the Balcans (or West Asia) into Western Europe (or something like that). A second such migration (with R1a this time) may have happened in the Epipaleolithic and Swiderian is an interesting cue here.

I insist: just food for thought. Thinking outside the box, at least of your box.

Matt said...

Capra: They were sedentary, Mesolithic hunters and fishers living in boggy forest land. They didn't have livestock at all when the first guy was around.

Either it's misidentified, or Mesolithic, or they were intermarrying with pioneer farmers in the region


Good point. I still think I could be correct about the bride price, but in Yamnaya. Here it seems too early, and I suspect misidentification.

Romulus: Regardless of a steppe nomad wife purchasing dynamic I am still perplexed by the low amounts of mtDNA U in Europe given that it is the original lineage associated with WHG and EHG males and the high frequencies at which those lineages are found in Europe... I imagine that the earliest farmer women experienced high selection pressure for birth rates compared to hunter gatherer women and this physiological advantage played a factor in their rapid spread.

N1, the primary mtdna group associated with LBK, is also low, no? Likewise for many of the other early farmer mtdna groups? Would you favour the same explanation there, if not, seems a bit arbitrary.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

That's outside of about everyone's box. The Thar Desert was dubious at best. Just because 7 of like 258 pieces of stone were similar to Nubian and Arabian pieces doesn't mean AMH were spreading in Eurasia at 95Kya. I don't know of any reputable archaeologist that accepts it as AMH. You need to scale back L51 to no earlier than 5.8Kya.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Excuse me, 6300ybp for L51 and 5800ybp for L11. Those even seem too old.

bellbeakerblogger said...

@Maju

"R1a1 can well be pre-Neolithic and somehow related to a culture like Swiderian→Kunda, which is usually considered somehow related to Solutrean. I'm wondering right now whether this Solutrean-like element may be a clue,"

I'm afraid speculate on the haplogroups of the remaining pressure knappers of Europe. I think the technique mostly died off and was re-introduced from Asia via West Asia. Still, it's curious who these early people were.


Krefter said...

No offense to the authors but they did a horrible job predicting mtDNA. CRS in HV1 doesn't mean a sample has H, none the less H2.

Maju said...

@Chad: it is the Indian "Aterian" and other African-affinity industries but also the Chinese unmistakable (it has a chin!) H. sapiens remains (two already from c. 100 Ka and 90-80 Ka BP), more and more solid dates for the colonization of Australia at least 60 Ka BP, and then anyhow the presence at Jwalapuran before and after Toba catastrophe of H. sapiens (inferred from the African-like tools) and the overly demonstrated persistent presence of H. sapiens in Arabia and Palestine since c. 125 Ka BP. For me there is no doubt that whoever is still thinking in an OoA c. 60 Ka BP is just stubborn and unable to make a serious analysis.

Is it outside everyone's box? Not everyone's probably but even if it is the case, the greater the need to do it, because you can't solve problems efficiently thinking only inside the box: you MUST get out of it, it's a need of effective thought. Constraining your thought to false rules (thinking inside the box) is a mind trap that sabotages effective thought. And in this case the evidence is so overwhelming that I see absolutely no reason to even be cautious: the OoA was c. 125 Ka ago to Arabia/Palestine and c. 100 Ka ago to further Asia. This is coincident with the Abassia pluvial bracket and hence with the "pump effect". There's nothing like that again before the Mousterian Pluvial, which, if anything brought people from Asia back into Africa (UP-LSA connection and Asian genetics in NE Africa).

Krefter said...

How old is the N1c?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

You seriously want to push AO back to over 250kya and K to over 100kya? That just sounds nutty.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Krefter,
The y-tree I'm looking at has..

N1cCTS4308/M2037 * F3094 * Z4845/M2006... 14 SNPs formed 18500 ybp or 40kya in Maju time.

Krefter said...

I think the oldest N1c is middle of 3,000BC. So around 2,500BC. And one R1a1s are 3,500BC and two are 2,500BC.

The 5,500YBP R1a1 puts R1b-L23*, R1b-Z2103, and R1a1 in the steppe 5,000-5,500YBP.

R1 was like THE paternal lineage of pre-historic Russians.

I'm a bit surprised by the old N1c. Obvisouly though the paternal ancestors of Finno-Urgics and IE east Europeans were in the same area, which can help explain autosomal similarities.

postneo said...

@davidski
Bride price scenario is too elaborate. How did people even reach breeding age?

Many pastoral societies developed injunctions against killing their herds for meat. Atleast the successful ones.

Humans cannot digest cecculose but they easily digest weeds like chenopodium that will grow around dung.

Ungulates covert unavailable biomass to nutrition suitable for humans e.g milk and food crops. This is the prime demographic advantage pastoralists would have over foragers. Also differential immunity to diseases like measles.

Arch Hades said...

Could someone please enlighten Lord Hades, I have 2 questions.

1. Is this R1a1 guy the same Hunter-Gatherer as the East European one in the recent Haak/Reich paper?

2. If not is there genome wide data on this new one? Another pure Hunter-Gatherer?

Krefter said...

@Arch,

These are all brand new Y DNA samples. R1a1 and R1b1 seem to have been the main Y DNA haplogroups of Mesolithic Russians(and bronze, Iron, and modern ones).

Mike Thomas said...

@ SpagMeat
"It's really hard to explain why mtDNA is being replaced by mtDNA H everywhere"

Yes we need better models than mass bridal theft ; to drive a point home

@ All

Re M417
It might be that R1 differentiated as it expanded during the LGM; likely from ukraine c/w Swider isn
This would explain the archaic L664 in Europe .

But ,R* or R1 must have arrived there from elsewhere earlier, esp if UP sites in EE were Y Hg C; like Kostenki

Also ; this study just proves my point we can't straightforwadly equate Y Hgs with language. Clearly N1c coexisted with R1a from very early period. If anything this region was pre-Uralic or para- Uralic speaking rather than PIE which came from way further South

Romulus said...

@Matt

It was not the large amount of mtDNA H I was trying to explain, but rather the lack of mtDNA U.

Krefter said...

All those samples may be rare U lineages(Not U5, U4, or U2e) not defined by HV1 mutations. All we know is that they all had macro-Eurasian R.

Maju said...

... "formed 18500 ybp or 40kya in Maju time".

Actually, according to Maju it's likely that N1c is from Holocene or very late UP age. N1c1 (M46/Tat) is of about 7.5 Ka BP most likely IMO.

However N is probably much much older, just that I don't manage the full sequence data to estimate how much. Possibly from around the same age of other K2-derived major lineages like O, R and Q, which should all be c. 50 Ka old.

Krefter said...

N1c and R1a1 are the main paternal lineages of modern east Europeans. Both were there well over 4,000 years ago. Yet, today Finno-Urgics are full of N1c and have little R1a1 and Indo Europeans are full of R1a1 and have little N1c. There's a clear linguistic divide. This divide may be very old.

Krefter said...

Maju,

Do you think the idea Kristina has about Finno-Urgics becoming mostly European via exchanging females still makes sense? The skulls of the N1c guys can give a clue on whether they were mostly Siberian or European.

Maju said...

@Krefter and others claiming that "all those samples may be rare U lineages". That's not parsimonious. Even if it is slightly possible with R-CRS (claimed to be H2), it's much less likely that they have missed the identification of the other two H samples with 4-5 mutations away from CRS.

We know for a fact that there was H in Epipaleolithic Karelia and Neolithic Eastern Europe, so it should not be surprising that this population, hanging between both in a conceptual sense, had a lot of (or at least some) H.

Maju said...

"Do you think the idea Kristina has about Finno-Urgics becoming mostly European via exchanging females still makes sense?"

I'm not sure if the idea was Kristiina's or mine, just that we both converged towards it in our conversation.

To me the general idea still makes sense. If these Iron Age people were Uralic (and I would imagine so: north of the main Dvina border, that is documented historically in Latvia) they were anyhow about the southernmost of them, so they were heavily "Europeanized", mostly by female side, as the lineages support.

"The skulls of the N1c guys can give a clue on whether they were mostly Siberian or European".

They could but more reliable would be autosomal DNA. Anyhow I would expect these people to be as genetically European as any modern Estonian, if not more.

Krefter said...

Could the N1c from 2,500BC be from a Uralic man?

Maju said...

@Chad: "You seriously want to push AO back to over 250kya and K to over 100kya?"

How am I supposed to push K, derived from IJK, derived from HIJK, derived from GHIJK, derived from F, derived from CF to 100Ka, when I'm saying that age(CF)=100Ka (approx.) K must necessarily to be more recent?!

Based on the fact that R, Q and O must be c. 50 Ka old, and that I estimate K2 to be slightly post-Toba (and that I count 32 mm between K and present day and 11 mm between K and CF in the full chromosome graph I'm using as reference) I'd say that K is 74-75 Ka old.

It is an interesting and very appropriate time estimate that I had never bothered before right now to consider; there must have been something really big going on around the Toba mega-explosion, on whose aftershock Y-DNA K (particularly K2) and mtDNA N (particularly R) rode quite apparently.

Maju said...

@Krefter: "Could the N1c from 2,500BC be from a Uralic man?"

The three guys of the III mil. BCE dates? It's possible but it's also possible that they were IE with genetic influence from neighboring Uralics. That's pretty much a border area between the two macro-ethnicities before the Middle Ages, I understand.

Mike Thomas said...

Krefter there's no way to tell what language he really spoke

Maju's speculations of prehistoric "macro-identities" supposedly lasting until the Middle Ages miss the point rather than elucidate it.

You need to think in terms complex fluctuating social networks of foraging communities. Eg See the works of Marek Zvelibil

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I don't agree with the dating. But anyway, how do you reconcile that with Neanderthal admixture at 54kya, and being similar across the board in Eurasia? Much later makes more sense.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

To top it off, not a single y sample falls in line with your dating, but does for the one that I use. Until a sample is found that is anything like what you say.. I'm sticking with these dates.

Romulus said...

Finally got a chance to read the paper, this was an interesting portion.

The predominance of mtDNA haplogroup H both in modern
(about 40%) and ancient samples is traditionally interpreted
as marker of appearance on this territory of populations in post
glacial period, i.e. in early Holocene. Recent researches showed
that it was absent in the main part of western-european huntergatherers
of Mesolithic time. he distribution of mt-haplogroup
H was interrupted by the appearance of the irst farmers in early
Neolithic time. Dominancy of mt-haplogroup H in Europe
is dated to the period of middle/late Neolithic — beginning
of the Bronze age. It is supposed that the renewal of accumulation
of mt-haplogroup H is connected with the distribution
of Corded ware culture and Bell beaker culture in Europe
(Brotherton и др. 2013). he existence of mtDNA haplogroup
H can be reliably traced in the forest zone of Eastern Europe —
in Upper Dvina region, basing on the materials of the site
Serteya VIII (border of V-IV mill. BC), which testiies the appearance
of communities-bearers of this marker in post-glacial
period. Modern data shows more diversity than the irst deinitions
of paleomaterials. he existence of groups T1, K, W, J1b,
N1b can be traced, which could have appeared on this territory
with bearers of Linear-band pottery culture traditions at the
earliest or later, at the period which is to be determined.

saman sistani said...

Pardon my ignorance but why is mtDNA H considered West Asian in this context when it's age is over 20kbp? Wouldn't it have had enough time to spread all over Eurasia by the time of these samples.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Here's the tree I've been looking at if anyone is interested.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/

Maju said...

@Chad: I don't know what you mean. Ust-Ishim, for all I know could well have been product of cul-de-sac local secondary admixture with Neanderthals. The 40 Ka old Chinese specimen from Tianyuan was absolutely withing expectations in Neanderthal (and lack of Denisovan-like) admixture.

Anyhow I'm not familiar enough with the Ust-Ishim case to have a clear opinion. I just keep thinking, based on all the other data I do know of, that there was only one major Neanderthal admixture episode probably c. 125-100 Ka ago, at the exit of Africa towards Asia, as per Reich 2010, etc. So the Ust-Ishim case is probably just an inconsequential secondary admixture episode.

Maju said...

Saman: because many commenters are influenced by ideas that deny (even against factual evidence) the presence of mtDNA H in Europe before Neolithic. It's just dogmatism.

Krefter said...

I just realized at the same site where the Mesolithic Karelian Y DNA R1a1 carrier was found, mtDNA H was found. Most thought these Karelians must have got that H from near eastern admixture, but there is none in the Karelian HG with R1a1.

That's very big news. H may not be fully near eastern after all.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Ust-Ishim isn't secondary. He has no more than modern people. Both him and Kostenki point to the same date. If any AMH left Arabia sooner, they likely left no descendants. I really doubt it anyway. Have a look at the y-tree I use. There is not any ancient person that is older than the subclade they belong to. So, this tree is 100% successful for almost 100 ydna samples so far. Go ahead and browse for something that is older than the date provided.

Krefter said...

@Davidski,
"R1 was associated with mtDNA C and U until EHG were diluted with farmer admixture, and this is also when H showed up with R1.

Everything points to northern men pairing up with southern women.

Btw, H2 was also found in Yamnaya and Unetice remains."

I'm very surprised by how successful hunter gatherer Y DNA was after massive near eastern immigration. Y DNA I and C-V20 are very popular in western farmers, and ~40% ENF bronze age steppe people solely have R1a and R1b so far. This can't be random, there's an obvious pattern.

Patriarchal societies can make a big effect on Y DNA over generations. There's plenty examples of this around the world.

I'd like to see sometime in the future how mtDNA C and EHG are connected with modern pops. I don't doubt it, just I want to see more evidence for it.

If it wasn't for ancient Y DNA and the Steppe being intermediate of Z93 and Z282 hotspots I would have supported a somewhat recent west Asian origin of European R1a and R1b. There isn't outstanding evidence in modern diversity it comes from east Europe.

R2 for instance proves there's been R south of the Caucasus for a very long time. We can't dismiss the possibility of west Asia being an early distributor of R1a and R1b.

Maju said...

@Chad: Those SNPS listed at YFull are exactly the same SNPs listed at YSOGG. The age estimates listed should not be correlated in any way but taken from the literature.

Now, let's assume that the collection of age estimates (as "formed") listed there is relatively valid but needs recalibration, as I suggest in all cases, for age(CF)=100 Ka (approx.) That is some 25% more to all ages, what leaves A0-T at a mere 190 Ka ago, just in time for Omo-1, which is the first known Homo sapiens. Said that, I have reasons to think that node is actually older (and hence probably pre-Sapiens) but from the estimates listed at YFull, that's what I can make when recalibrating for age(CF)=100 Ka BP (and not what you claimed - check your maths).

However when I apply the recalibration to other guesstimates like that of P1 it clearly falls short of everything logical, what illustrates that a mere collection of hunched dates from the literature is useless: you need a method and apply that method to the whole tree, preferably with full sequence data, which is available for many haplogroups at the 1000GP, for instance.

I have worked mostly with mtDNA (easier) but when I got my hands on that full sequence tree by T.D. Robb, I couldn't but recalibrate it, producing very interesting results for the well documented haplogroups in the 1000GP database and the nodes upstream of them.

Colin Welling said...

Mike!!!! I finally found it; the paper that explains how ydna diversity can be lost more easily than mtdna diversity regardless of the relative size of the mating pool for men and women.

We now have solid evidence to caution the use of a favorite hobbyist theory which attempts to explain the lack of ydna diversity in a given group. Of course I'm referring to the typical knee jerk reaction to evidence of decreased ydna diversity, which is that "the invading men killed all the local men" or "women only went for the high status guys".

We have both suffered enough from hearing this overly simplified portrait of human phenomena, especially for prehistoric peoples, the ones who are supposedly as simple as the small bits of information we can decipher from their remains...

I trust that you will use it well ;)

http://www.ashg.org/2012meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f120120419.htm

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=11040.msg138640#msg138640

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Why recalibrate to some hypothetical when it works perfectly fine as is? That makes no sense at all. When a sample comes up that is older than what is estimated, then we can talk about it.

bellbeakerblogger said...

I haven't read it yet, new paper.
Polish DNA from the Neolithic

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118316

Nirjhar007 said...

@Guys
Okay Okay Since the major interest as all ways are the Indo-European folks we just have to wait for the appearance and non-appearance of R1a1a1 M-417 in Ancient DNA samples from Central Asia,Balkans,SC Asia, Iran-Armenia,Near East...
There is not much point in discussing the older clades as they are probably too old you know...

Nirjhar007 said...

@bb
OMG
Lets check!!!!

Chad Rohlfsen said...

This tree has A0-T at 151500ypb and A00 with 52snp's above it. I don't see any argument favoring your side when all ancient samples fall under these dates. What you want it to be and what the actual data says, are not the same thing.

Mike Thomas said...

Thanks Colin
Excellent !
Yes Y DNA shows less diversity everywhere , and not just the "patriarchal" IE world
It's time we come up with more intelligent proposals

Nirjhar007 said...

No Y-DNA damn!

Chad Rohlfsen said...

64% mtDNA H in Lengyel!

Krefter said...

@Bell Beaker blogger,
"I haven't read it yet, new paper.
Polish DNA from the Neolithic

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118316"

Nothing we haven't seen before. There aren't enough samples to compare it to Neolithic central Europeans, but all those HGs are typical of Neolithic central Europe. Although U5a was rare it did exist there.

The U5a from Neolithic Poland looks like it's specifically U5a1a'g.

Krefter said...

@Chad,
"64% mtDNA H in Lengyel!"

It's a small sample set. Plus most of the Hs have a shared H haplotypes and are from the same site.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

"The stratigraphy of the relics of the longhouses with which these graves are associated would then suggest that the female from grave 40 is a descendant of the family to which the individual from grave 70 belonged. However, the three graves do not exhibit any common features suggesting that they belong to related individuals (but the absence of such characteristics does not preclude such an option, either"

It may be that only 2 or none of the H5's are related.

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"Has anyone come up with a compelling reason as to the low level of ANE in southern Europe ?"

The Y haplogroups imply more survival in the south.

.

"rather bizarre if this was the the "first stop" of the alleged Kurgan invaders ?"

Not bizarre at all if it's a process of population A pushing B pushing C.

The earliest visible evidence of pressure from nomads might be the consequences of B moving onto C's territory not A moving onto B.

So you might see C collapse due to all the people moving from B and B becoming depopulated but no sign of A at all as they moved into B because they lived in wagons and moved around from camp to camp with their herds leaving no settlements to find - only monuments to their dead chieftains.

.


"THis further begs the question, how exactly does this fit with Indo-Europeans ?"

Warrior elites who practice fighting all day (via hunting all day) are better at it than farmers who don't have time to practice.

Marnie said...

@bellbeakerblogger

Thanks for this paper on the Polish Neolithic.

The paper shows a link between the Danube and the Baltic. Super!

I've long suspected a link between Vinca, the Danube and the Baltic, based on the similarity of symbols, kurgans, pile mounted houses, connection between the Balkans and Baltic R1b L23(xM412), and many cultural similarities.

The pile mounted houses appear at the Serteyskaya site, in a number of sites in Belarus, and also at the Dispilio site.

Given the pile mounted houses, it just doesn't seem all that likely that the connection between the Balkans and Baltic is fully by way of the Steppe.

Anyway, thanks bb for posting this paper showing a link between the Danube and the Baltic. If you run across any others, please post them. I'm very interested in this.

Mike Thomas said...

Thanks grey
But I meant in terms of hard data rather than speculative models based on simplistic assumptions and baseless analogies on the American Wild West

Marnie I know u raised the raised this question earlier

Grey said...

@Krefter

"I'm a bit surprised by the old N1c. Obvisouly though the paternal ancestors of Finno-Urgics and IE east Europeans were in the same area, which can help explain autosomal similarities."

If HG populations mostly map onto bio-geographical regions due to adapting to specific flora and/or flora which map to those regions then I think latitudinal bands of y haplogroups in the far north might be expected.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biogeographical-regions-in-europe-1/map_2-1_biogeographical-regions.eps/image_original

(For example north to south layers related to latitudinal bioregions: N1c -> R1a -> R1b)

Also if the borders were latitudinal then that is potentially a very long north-south border for bride exchange.

Grey said...

@spaghettimeatball

"It's really hard to explain why mtDNA is being replaced by mtDNA H everywhere."

@matt
"N1, the primary mtdna group associated with LBK, is also low, no? Likewise for many of the other early farmer mtdna groups? Would you favour the same explanation there, if not, seems a bit arbitrary."

If mtdna H carried a reproductive advantage that could explain both.

.

@saman sistani
"Pardon my ignorance but why is mtDNA H considered West Asian in this context when it's age is over 20kbp?"

Interesting point actually. *If* mtdna H carried some reproductive advantage then if it got picked up by first farmers from an HG group along the way and then expanded within the first farmers for the same advantage then it's association with the neolithic may be false.

It would be interesting to know where mtdna H first expanded from.

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"But I meant in terms of hard data"

We're using the same (limited) hard data.

There are a bunch of possibilities from that data.

You're denying the possibility of one of those options - the one that would perfectly fit the nature of IE religion and culture - because you don't like it.


Chad Rohlfsen said...

What the hell does this have to do with L23 xM412? I don't recall L23 being linked to these cultures. They're nothing like Bell Beaker burials, in any way. There is no R1b in any LBK or Lengyel remains, to this point. Let's not get carried away.

Grey said...

@Matt
"Might help explain the schizophrenic* state of IE forager / farmer lineages. If you have the two communities mix at about 50:50, and the y-dna side be more likely to meet the bride price, because of more male side wealth for that, while being less desirable brides, because less female side non-bride price wealth, then the mechanism works out."

In terms of the bride price scenario greater *inequality of wealth* on one side of the exchange versus greater equality on the other would skew the ratios.

Example

Population A)
- 10 men have 10 sheep each

Population B)
- 2 men have 50 sheep each
- 8 men have zero

and say the bride price is 11 sheep

.

"You might not really need any crazy wife raiding scenarios founding the community then."

1) 50% of marriages in Kyrgyztan according to wiki at least.

2) Irish Travelers have a tradition called "grabbing". They arrange dances for the teenagers to check each other out and the boys are expected to pick out the girl they like and grab her, drag her out and bundle her into their car.

nb this isn't a sexual thing it's a betrothal thing.

3) If you accept that culture is artificial selection then what male traits would a marriage culture of bride kidnap select for and would those traits increase fitness in a steppe environment?

It makes perfect sense.

4) btw I don't think it founded the community. I think the steppe hunters took a few captives per generation and the farmer autosomal built up over time.

.

@Romulus

"If this bride price scenario was true then we should see as much mtdna U in R1 areas as mtdna H then."

More wealth inequality might explain the disparity if the bride price scenario is correct.

It could also happen if it was the bride exchange scenario i.e. more about building alliances and keeping the peace.

In that case say it was 10% brides exchanged per generation *but* the population ratio between herders and farmers was something like 2:5 so say 200 herder couples to 500 farmer couples. As an exchange the limit would be 10% of the smaller population meaning 20.

20 bride exchanges in a generation would be 10% of the herder mtdna but only 4% of the farmer mtdna.

.

There's a lot of different ways to reach the same result (after the first step was taken).

.

"I find it a highly unlikely scenario that HG tribes would just abandon their women."

The only people saying that are the people misrepresenting the argument.

A realistic process would be the hunters taking a few captives per generation.

.

"There is no logical explanation for why EHG women would become less populous in relation to EEF women in an EHG patriarchal tribe unless the near eastern women offered some physiological birthing advantage."

There is a logical explanation if a few *extra* women were brought in each generation. If the resulting offspring could be fed then this process would result in population growth with the farmer autosomal increasing as a percentage.

Although as it happens I think it is quite possible one of those mtdna haplogroups may have had an advantage.

Grey said...

"one of those mtdna haplogroups may have had an advantage"

I mean a reproductive advantage on top of or instead of the other possible reasons.

capra internetensis said...

Yes, there is evidence that mtDNA haplogroups are under selection, and mtDNA H (among others) has been claimed to have certain biological advantages.

And apparently I missed that 2013 paper that found H in a Mesolithic Karelian. So we have our answer, H is Mesolithic. (Well, some kind of H anyway.) We don't have to find an adventurous farmer's daughter for our bog-dwelling moose hunter in the middle of nowhere.

Krefter said...

Anyone notice the R1a1 indvidual from 4,000BC and the R1a1 individual from 600BC share the HV1 mutation 16256T. This is not exactly a common mutation. This is strange.

Krefter said...

After U5, U4, and U2e being so uniform in Mesolithic central-north Euros, what are the chances 3/3 in this study not having them? I'm not saying the results are false but we all have to admit they're very strange.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I think I've seen that in a U5a2. Could be wrong. I'll check.

Chad Rohlfsen said...


U5a1

16093, 16192, 16256, 16270, 16291


I see a U5a2 on a message board stating they have it also.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It looks like straight U5, U5a, and U5b don't have it. Just U5a1 and 2, to this point.

Krefter said...

16256T is the defining mutation of U5a. But both R1a1 individuals lack 16192T and 16270T, which means they probably don't have U5 or U5a.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Grey

"Could perfectly fit the nature of IE religion and culture - because you don't like it."

I do not not like it grey; in fact who doesn't like a bit of rape and pillage !?
But the problem is , the "kurgan culture" you ; like so many of the other novices here, envisage simply it didn't exist . IEs were not warrior supermen. They too were simple farmers or perhaps more, simple cattle herders . There was no particular advantage they possessed over and above the adaptation they had for their own niche. There was no universal Kurgan religion either

Krefter said...

Mesolithic Central and west Europeans and Scandinavians.
Y DNA: I2a1a1a, I2a1b, I2a1*, other I2a1, I2a2, I1, I2c, and C1a2-V20.

Mesolithic Russians:
Y DNA: R1a1, R1b1, N1c.

Neolithic central-west Europeans.
Y DNA: G2a, I, T1a, C1a2-V20, F*, H2, E1b-V13.

Mike Thomas said...

Krefty
I imagine that the Balkan Mesolithic were similar to westerners and scandis; they must have been- for the latter dervived from the former.

capra internetensis said...

@Krefter

Don't forget these are all from one small area, and H could have just become really common in that area. H is suspiciously good at that.

Which is not to say the results don't look a little fishy.

(But then, if H is what you'd expect from bad mtDNA results, R1a and N1c are what you'd expect from contaminated Y DNA in Russia. I really hope not.)

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Where are you seeing the mutations? I can't find it.

Mike Thomas said...

Grey
I have to admit I found One of your points interesting - the latitudinal thing . It must related then not to being warriors , or religion, but to selective pressures and ecological focal adaptation

Grey said...

@Krefter

"Neolithic central-west Europeans.
Y DNA: G2a, I, T1a, C1a2-V20, F*, H2, E1b-V13."

Speculating but *if* HG populations originally mostly mapped to bio-regions then that list looks to me like it might be the equivalent of a lot of glacial erratics picked up by an original farmer population along the route of their expansion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_erratic

capra internetensis said...

@Chad

phylotree.org

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

Yes, if flora and fauna map to bio-regions then you might expect HG populations adapted to those flora/fauna to map as well.

In which case going by this modern bio-regions map you might be looking for five: arctic, alpine, boreal, continental and steppe (mixed at the borders).

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biogeographical-regions-in-europe-1/map_2-1_biogeographical-regions.eps/image_original


or, assuming it was colder back then maybe the arctic and boreal bio-regions extended further south and continental didn't extend into EE meaning only four: arctic, alpine, boreal, steppe

with a narrow east/west border with the continental bio-region somewhere around the border of modern Poland and Ukraine.

It would need a map of where the bio-region borders were at the time to see if they fitted but so far google has only coughed up the modern one.

Also one that extended further east and south.

Marnie said...

@Chad

"What the hell does this have to do with L23 xM412? I don't recall L23 being linked to these cultures."

Myres 2010:
http://linearpopulationmodel.blogspot.com/2015/01/r1b-l23xm412.html

"They're nothing like Bell Beaker burials, in any way."

I'm not suggesting they are. From this paper:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118316

that bb just put up tonight, it appears that one of the "glue" cultures between the Danube and Baltic are the Funnel Beaker culture (TRB) and the Brzesc Kujawski Group of the Lengyel culture (BKG).

Dates for BKG in this paper are 4700/4600–4100/4000 BC.

Rather interestingly, Vinča culture dates are 5700-4500 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_culture

"There is no R1b in any LBK or Lengyel remains, to this point. Let's not get carried away.""

The paper says it's a "glue" culture between the Danube and Baltic. That's mostly what I'm interested in.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Yeah, the Balkan chalcolithic stuff spread all over. Not a single R1b though. Myers is outdated stuff. R1b has changed a ton, in the last 5 years.

Mike Thomas said...

Will see , Chad , when we get samples from southeastern Europe

Marnie- what did u think of my comment ?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Do you guys think it will be found in Poland, Baden, Remedello, and Iberian Beaker? Very remote, but possible. It's hard to take it far from such an autosomal source for Bell Beakers. The lack of R1b, pre-German Beaker is pretty glaring, at the moment.

Mike Thomas said...

Chad.
"Do you guys think it will be found in Poland, Baden, Remedello, and Iberian Beaker? Very remote, but possible. It's hard to take it far from such an autosomal source for Bell Beakers. The lack of R1b, pre-German Beaker is pretty glaring, at the moment."

IF you're referring to L-51 ? Then my money is on Northwest Black Sea & Balkan region. How this fits to the otherwise rise of ANE Ive previously suggested is that they are de-coupled processes.

Mike Thomas said...

Thanks Marnie,


I disagree with Anthony for the horse thing, simply becuase there is no evidence for it, and the entire theory appears contrived

But my main question to you was:
"as anyone come up with a compelling reason as to the low level of ANE in southern Europe ? Even the BA Hungarian sample is relatively scant in it - rather bizarre if this was the the "first stop" of the alleged Kurgan invaders ?

Moreover, to this day, it is still not that common in southern Europe, and that's after invasions of hundreds of thousands of northerners during the Roman and Migration period (Germanics, Slavs, Celts). It must have previously been even lower.

The ANE shift thus appears to have been 'northern European affair'. Was it even solely a Bronze Age affair, or something more protracted and complex ? We don;t know since we lack Bronze Age samples outside of Germany.

THis further begs the question, how exactly does this fit with Indo-Europeans ?
I suspect aDNA Greece, Caucasia and (I wish) ancient Hittitia comes back with little "northern ANE"." (from earlier)

Marnie said...

@Mike

Some thoughts on a few of your comments today:

First one:

"Also ; this study just proves my point we can't straightforwadly equate Y Hgs with language. Clearly N1c coexisted with R1a from very early period. If anything this region was pre-Uralic or para- Uralic speaking rather than PIE which came from way further South"

I agree that associating Y Hgs with language is tough going, especially wrt N ydna. We have the Chuvash speaking Chuvashian (Turkic family), the Mari speaking Mari (Uralic family) and Lithuanians speaking an Indo-European language. That's three language families in a confined geographic area for N ydna. Pretty tough going.

Second One:

"But I meant in terms of hard data rather than speculative models based on simplistic assumptions and baseless analogies on the American Wild West "

Well, every once in a while, one of these wacky ideas turns out to be worthwhile, so I don't want to be dismissive. For instance, I read a review of David Anthony's book today. One key idea of his that I think has not been fully appreciated is that the introduction of the horse was mostly a big deal because it allowed pastoralists to extend their range (probably because they used the horses to carry their families belongings). Anyway, regarding the bride stealing of farmer's wives . . . there's a lot already published on the Mesolithic to Neolithic transition in the Baltic and Northern Europe. "Bride stealing" and "Bride price" scenarios, in the face of already very good research, seem rather unsatisfying (to me anyway).

One of the things I don't like about these simplistic scenarios is that it robs people of thinking about the craftsmanship, responsibility, wisdom and hard work that virtually all our ancestors must have had. They mostly weren't supermen and women, but they were careful, hardworking, funny, able and astute, I am sure. Only thinking about warrior supermen really takes away from the subtlety.

Third One:

The latitude thing. It's complicated. Ecozones change with the climate. It's a very complicated topic. I had to look at this for Canada earlier this year and found the book "Human Ecology of the Canadian Prairie Ecozone 11,000 to 300 BP"

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Ecology-Canadian-Prairie-Ecozone/dp/0889772541

After a few chapters, I think it's pretty easy to see how much detailed work it woule take to get an idea of how ecozones in Europe would have transitioned since the Ice Age. For many parts of Europe, I don't think the ecozone evolution since the ice age has been fully worked out. For instance, I know that they still don't fully understand the degree of glaciation in the Balkans.

So, some of my thoughts on your comments today.

I really liked this paper that Davidski put up today, as well as the two papers that bb posted.

Marnie said...

@Mike

"But my main question to you was:
"as anyone come up with a compelling reason as to the low level of ANE in southern Europe ? Even the BA Hungarian sample is relatively scant in it - rather bizarre if this was the the "first stop" of the alleged Kurgan invaders ? "



Well, I've been saying all along that I don't think that R1b is correlated with the ANE component. For instance, there's very little ANE in Sardinia, even though R1b hgs form about 20% of the pop of men there.

So, again, this ANE thing does seem to be somewhat correlated with R1a hgs.

Honestly, I don't know why this would be so.

Marnie said...

Also, I'm still convinced that R1b was a mostly Mediterranean-Anatolia thing up to/during the Mesolithic, which expanded north during the Neolithic.

As to R1a, I'm still not sure.

Mike Thomas said...

I'd have to agree.
I think the ANE in northern peoples like Brits, Norweigans, GErmans, etc was by and large a Mesolithic thing in Northern Europe, augmented by Corded Ware expansion from also in the north(east). At least for Brits, the more proximate source for ANE was Scandinavia and northern EUrope from anytime between the Bronze to pre-modern Period.

Alberto said...

@Mike

I think that we might get an answer to your question about lack of ANE in Southern Europe once David gets access to those genomes and tries to find two varieties of it. The ANE map of Europe might change a bit (especially in SE Europe).

Also population densities may count. Supposing that the population that brought ANE to the British Islands and Iberia was the same one (it had to come from France in both cases), they just had more impact in the British Islands because Iberia was much more populated at that time.

Kristiina said...

”Do you think the idea Kristina has about Finno-Urgics becoming mostly European via exchanging females still makes sense”

I have never said that, as I think that the Uralic languages are languages developed in the area of northwest Russia, including possibly also the area of Finland, so they are fundamentally European languages, although they contain Eastern and Arctic substrate elements via Microblade cultures. As for N1c, it is not necessary the original yDNA of proto-Uralic groups. However, N1c may very well be connected with a kind of Uralo-Indo-European protolanguage. Genetic evidence seems to be piling up. Moreover, it is possible that H is the original mtDNA accompanying yDNA N1c in Europe, although there may be an older connection between N(xN1c) and mtDNA G, for example.
We do not know when N1c became European. However, the older N1c has a more southerly location (Smolensk area) and the younger N1c a more northely location (Pskov), so we could argue that N1c came from the south.

Mike Thomas said...

Thanks Alberto.

Marnie, interesting fact I read today, likely SEE and Anatolia were more connected land-wise during the LGM, when much of the Black Sea and the Dardanelle straits were low- lying land. This then 'flooded' with the easing of the LGM, and release of glacial water, forming the more disconnected landscape of more recent prehistory, from the Mesolithic onward.

Maju said...

@Kristiina: for the record, I mentioned when discussing with Krefter elsewhere that you and I more or less agreed or converged (many months or even years ago) about a model of unequal sized populations, in a south-north gradient, in which the exchange of wives (within a patrilocal model, and caused by mere contact) between them was roughly equal in absolute terms but unequal in proportion. So if the "north" pop., say, Ne=100 exchanged 10 women with the "south" pop. Ne=1000, it got a 10% genetic impact from the south, while the southern ones only got a 1% genetic impact. Cumulatively in the long run, it makes the northern pop. to become almost like the southern one in all but Y-DNA, while the southern pop. is only weakly affected by the exchange.

Do you remember this? All I told Krefter was that we had this nice discussion some time a go and that we were in agreement that, with the necessary extra complexity of real things, explained the "europeanization" of Uralic peoples via female lines without need to resort to mass kidnappings or any other problematic explanation.

I said that when you look at the issue shallowly it may appear complicated to explain but when you look at it with the right conceptual tools, namely the model described above it resolves into something very simple and natural.

He probably should have said "the Maju model" because all I said about you is that we discussed this in the past and agreed that it looked like a plausible and extremely parsimonious model. I don't remember who proposed it anyhow, just that we both discussed the model in a constructive and convergent online exchange.

Matt said...

Grey: 1) 50% of marriages in Kyrgyztan according to wiki at least.

2) Irish Travelers have a tradition called "grabbing". They arrange dances for the teenagers to check each other out and the boys are expected to pick out the girl they like and grab her, drag her out and bundle her into their car.


This stuff all exists in its own cultural context, and is a within culture phenomenon, not between two different cultures. Particularly in Kyrgyz this is done by men who cannot afford bride price, probably to women of poor status whose families can't afford to assert themselves.

There's no guarantee this could reproduce at all in early IE. Mind, I don't think R1 building up as a main male lineage through this means slowly (more horses, more of this phenom) is totally crazy in the way that a community being founded by a "raid" of foragers on farmers is.

If we accept higher forager y-dna contribution relative to neolithic mtdna (and yes, it isn't proven that R1 was never present in the Near East like migrants that contributed to Russia, esp as it is present in at least one Neolithic Spanish farmer out of our sample) then working through a long term economic advantage, I would prefer to more sensationalist ideas where violent events are seen as the norm rather than relatively rarer, if there is no particular specially strong evidence to prefer one or the other.

Grey: If mtdna H carried a reproductive advantage that could explain both.
Although as it happens I think it is quite possible one of those mtdna haplogroups may have had an advantage.

It's within the realm of the possible; it's also within the realm of the possible R1a and R1b had a selective advantage; it's special pleading to try and explain mtdna H (or its various subtypes) one way and the spread of the R1a and R1b groups another way without particularly very strong evidence.

Maju said...

@Bellbeakerblogger: the Kuyavian mtDNA is very interesting because there's a people with a "hyper-modern" mtDNA pool (7/11 H, some T2b, some HV0/V and some U5a). And those were Danubians, just like the oversampled Elbe populations but with a quite different genetic pool. It's the only modern/hyper-modern strictly Neolithic (pre-Chalcolithic) pool, along with Paternabidea (Navarre) and probably Neolithic Portugal.

Maju said...

@Chad: "Myers is outdated stuff. R1b has changed a ton, in the last 5 years".

Sadly enough that is not true. AFAIK there has been no major R1b studies (very especially none on European R1b-L51 and subclades) since around 2010. With minor changes what we knew in 2010 is what we know now.

Jaska said...

Few points about N1c and Uralic:
1. New linguistic datings show that Proto-Uralic only spread from Volga-Kama area at 2nd mill. BC.
2. Even by distribution the westernmost N1c1 branch (VL29 > L550) precedes the spread of Uralic languages, because L550 has at least 4 descendants: 1 Spanish, 2 Scandinavian, and 1 Baltic. Uralic language was not spoken in the areas where there groups were born.

To sum up: the first spread to the west by N1c1 is not connected to the Uralic languages but rather to some Palaeo-European language.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Maju, thats not limited to R1b. Hardly anything large scale and more detailed has arisen for any of the major European clades for years.

@ Jaska

How are you so sure of your definite places and dates ?

Jaska said...

Kristiina:
"I have never said that, as I think that the Uralic languages are languages developed in the area of northwest Russia, including possibly also the area of Finland, so they are fundamentally European languages,"

Here I must strongly disagree. You ignore all the arguments of historical linguistics. Proto-Uralic couldn't have been anywhere near Finland.

Kristiina:
"N1c may very well be connected with a kind of Uralo-Indo-European protolanguage. Genetic evidence seems to be piling up."

Here you seem to be piling up empty on empty. :) First, Indo-Uralic protolanguage finds no support in critical linguistics. Second, genetics even theoretically couldn't testify anything on linguistic matters. Genetic results could only match or not match linguistic results.

Jaska said...

Mike, I can only suggest that you read about the linguistic methods and results concerning dating and locating the original area. My contribution to the Uralic homeland is here in Finnish:
http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf

Jaska said...

And to be more certain, here are listed all the prehistoric languages, which were spoken in Finland BEFORE Finnish language:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Kielet_Suomessa_kautta_aikain.pdf

I should translate in English, if I only found an inspiration... :)

Nirjhar007 said...

@Jaska
where was Uralic around 2500 BC?

Mike Thomas said...

Thanks Jaska for your links

Ill have a read of them.

I can already say, however:

* I agree with your critique of Indo-Uralic.
* I agree with the lack of clear concordance of supposed genetic evidence for langauge
* I agree that Uralic probably came into existence from wherever, later than 4th Millenium or the appearance of N1c.
* That it likely came from East, if you follow the branchings
* Im not sure, however, we can guess what was spoken in Finland before Finnic, apart from possibly Saami or para-Saami languages.

Shaikorth said...

Jaska, this N1c is ~4500 years old.

The L1026 MRCA of both the "eastern" and "western" N1c clades VL29 and Z1936 is dated around 4100 years old
http://www.yfull.com/tree/N/, so this N most likely is not ancestral to modern L550 and CTS9976 clades to the exclusion of Z1936.

Jaska said...

Mike:
"Im not sure, however, we can guess what was spoken in Finland before Finnic, apart from possibly Saami or para-Saami languages."

Mike, the substrate studies have gone forward during the 21st century. It is even possible to reconstruct word elements with meanings, based on the recurring elements in place names:
http://www.academia.edu/4811770/An_Essay_on_Substrate_Studies_and_the_Origin_of_Saami

Nirjhar007:
"where was Uralic around 2500 BC?"

It was still spoken in a narrow area around the Great Volga Bend (and Lower Kama). It had already established contacts with Early Proto-Aryan and Northwest Indo-European.
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf

Nirjhar007 said...

Thanks Jaska i know that article very well! but again what is called proto-Aryan is not proto-Aryan but simply Vedic or Indic type and for vowels see this-http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/07/indo-european-linguistics-indo-iranian.html

Kristiina said...

Jaska, I have read what you write, and I do not necessarily disagree with you, but it is true that I am interested in substrates in modern languages and I believe in a kind of an areal continuum through at least lexicon and some details of grammar. I am particularly interested in what makes the daughter languages so different compared to each other.

Unlike you may think, I am quite open to different possibilities. I usually write that something is possible or may (even) be true. In my opinion, that is a way to broaden the horizon, while many of you write that the homearea is this or that or the ydna of a particular language is this or that (such as R1a1 is Indo-European and I1 is Germanic) or that the Uralic or Indo-European archaeological culture is this or that. I am not so sure about anything.

When I provocatively said that genetic evidence is piling up, I wanted to pay attention to the circumstances that R1a1 was not detected where it should have been but instead in the north and N1c and R1a1 were detected side by side in the same area, although we do not know if they would have been found in the same group or separate groups due to the lack of samples in the same group. Of course, it is possible that these N1c and R1a1 spoke an extinct proto-European language and IE and Uralic were spoken further in the east, but, Jaska, is your idea that proto-Indo-European was spoken in Upper Dvina region and Uralic east of it in Volga-Kama area?

capra internetensis said...

@Matt

There is actually considerable evidence that mtDNA haplogroups are selected for. Gene association studies are notoriously subject to confounding factors, and I'm not sure the older studies have held up, but previous research has associated mtDNA H with increased survival of sepsis, response to exercise, and more efficient metabolism.

Of course it is also possible that R1b and R1a were selected for. In fact there is evidence that Hg I makes you more vulnerable to AIDS and coronary artery disease, probably via a more general link to inflammation and immune function.

However, I don't think natural selection in itself would account for the star-like expansions of these lineages that we see, except maybe in extreme cases like giving resistance to a massive epidemic or some such. I think you'd still need a significant expansion, but it could be of a minority population, with the Y hgs of the minority gradually increasing in frequency in the population afterward, rather than large-scale replacement at the time of the expansion, or via establishment of a permanent elite class.

In any case we should definitely not ignore the possible role of natural selection.

John Smith said...

We still need ancient y-dna from outside of Europe but now it seems possible that most R1b might come from the Volga river and most R1a from the Dvina river. R1b and R1a are both associated with the undo-European languages even though they split around 25kya, when indo european languages are at the most 10-15kya.The reason for this is that they were in the similar area for thousands of years and therefore spoke similar languages, even though they had sharp divisions .

John Smith said...

Northern Dvina not western

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It has Maju. Those maps don't match up anymore. We have DF27, DF99, DF100, etc., etc. It's not the same. Those maps aren't reliable for half of that.

capra internetensis said...

@Nirjhar

How would *g'hol(H) > *sern'a be Vedic? Or *kekro > *kekra?



capra internetensis said...

@John Smith

I think it would be better not to say that R1b and R1a are associated with Indo-European, but that R1b-L23 and R1a-M417 are. Since those subclades are very much younger, the overall distributions of R1a and R1b do not need to be particularly closely related. And they don't need to have spoken related languages prior to the Indo-European expansion either, or even to have been terribly close together geographically.

Nirjhar007 said...

Hi Capra,
Sanskrit has Kentum-Satem sibilants and A>O AND A>e are seen in every IE Languages contrary to the common notion original vowel structure had AIU.

capra internetensis said...

@Nirjhar

I wasn't talking about the vowels, but the consonants. But as I said in the other thread, I doubt you actually know enough about the subject to have an opinion on it. You just parrot whatever suits your prejudices - and present it as fact, which is really annoying. But go ahead and prove me wrong.

And why are you are taking someone's speculation about the PIE vowel system as fact? You do realize there are many, many hypotheses about PIE phonology, most of them better supported than the one you are quoting?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Estonian biocentre high coverage Y chromosome sequences and Turkic data

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02/estonian-biocentre-high-coverage-y.html

Jaska said...

Nirjhar007:
"Thanks Jaska i know that article very well! but again what is called proto-Aryan is not proto-Aryan but simply Vedic or Indic type and for vowels see this"

Well, if *e and *o have been preserved distinguished from *a in all around the IE family except in Aryan, then there really is no other realistic option than that these vowels have merged in Aryan, right?

Kristiina:
"but, Jaska, is your idea that proto-Indo-European was spoken in Upper Dvina region and Uralic east of it in Volga-Kama area?"

At 2500 BC? Yes, I would say that at least Northwest Indo-European was spoken very close to Serteya II site, if not at it. Proto-Uralic was spoken farther to the east, and because of the Palaeo-European substrate loanwords in West Uralic, we know that there was no Uralic-related languages even in the Upper Volga area.

capra internetensis said...

@Jaska

No, see, there were vowel-colouring palatals (and labio-palatals) in PIE which turned following a > e, contrasting with the non-vowel-colouring palato-velars, but which have merged with the regular velars in all non-Indo-Iranian branches. But they still exist in Indic, except they aren't vowel colouring there.

Because that's more realistic than a vowel merger.

Yes that is really what Nirjhar thinks.

Alberto said...

@Jaska

"because of the Palaeo-European substrate loanwords in West Uralic, we know that there was no Uralic-related languages even in the Upper Volga area."

Do these West Uralic languages include Karelian, Estonian, Finnish...? And if so, would it imply that before Uralic speakers arrived to Karelia, no Indo-European language was spoken there, but rather a Paleo-European one?

Mike Thomas said...

Chad that paper will prob be headed by Christina Tamberts, whose team recently did the high coverage modern balkan data

Davidski said...

The high coverage Y-DNA data might be from this upcoming paper...

Batini, C, P Hallast, D Zadik, et al. submitted. Large-scale recent expansion of European patrilineages shown by population resequencing. Nature Comms.

Roy King said...

@Davidski
I think you're right--it's from Estonia Biocentre.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Maju

Made an interesting comment on his page re: R1b in haaks data:

"As far as I can discern from the paper the R1b found in Neolithic Aragon, exactly like the R1b found in Samara is R1b* (M343). Unless you know something I do not, it is not ancestral to anything, but a parallel branch to the rest that just happens to be rare enough that does not have a name (private lineages).

Some DNA aficionados confuse the "asterisk" paragroups with "ancestral" or "underived". That is simply a misunderstanding caused by their own ignorance. Please do not heed to such claims unless they are well documented."

Anyone care to confirm / retort this interpretation ?

Marnie said...

@Kristiina
@Jaska

Thank you both for your thoughtful comments. Both of your comments are very interesting.

I notice that there has been a recent effort to look at Proto-Indo-European from the perspective of semantics. In particular, I've seen some recent papers looking at the dative subject construction in languages like Old Norse-Icelandic, Old Lithuanian, and Ancient Greek, for example.

I'm wondering if you could fill us in on this discussion with respect to early Indo-European languages spoken in the Baltic, Scandinavia and Northwest Russia.

Krefter said...

I agree with Maju's interpretation if that means much to you.

It's a very simple situation and doesn't take much knowledge. If R1b1a-P297 existed 7,000-8,000YBP neither the R1b in Russia or Spain is ancestral to much if any modern R1b.

They are uncles of most modern R1b not fathers. R1b itself being found there leaves room for the possibility that R1b1a-P297, R1b1a2-M269, etc. were in those regions just in bad luck we sampled their brothers instead.

Other ancient DNA evidence supports a East Euro(EHG-heavy) origin of R1b-L11 IMO. M269 may be from west Asia, but L51 is (prob.)from east Europe(EHG-heavy.

Colin Welling said...

@krefter

They are uncles of most modern R1b not fathers. R1b itself being found there leaves room for the possibility that R1b1a-P297, R1b1a2-M269, etc. were in those regions just in bad luck we sampled their brothers instead.

Thats true of any ancient ydna you find. Its extremely unlikely to find the exact lineage that eventually leads to the next mutation on the list. They all had uncles and brothers which is why we are mostly only going to find them. Finding your direct ancestor is like finding a needle in the haystack. The question with ancient ydna has always been how close is this "uncle" in time and space to your direct ancestor, who must have existed. Its up to you to decide whats reasonable.

Marnie said...

@Mike

"I think the ANE in northern peoples like Brits, Norweigans, GErmans, etc was by and large a Mesolithic thing in Northern Europe, augmented by Corded Ware expansion from also in the north(east)."

The UK was connected to Denmark, Germany and the Baltic until the end of the Mesolithic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg1SpWjrQGc

Archaeologically speaking, it's recently been shown that there is a beautiful Hamburgian in Scotland during the Late UP at about 12,000BC.

http://www.biggararchaeology.org.uk/pdf_reports/018-023-HowburnFarm.pdf

Don't know if this is where some of the ANE in the UK comes from, but it could be so.

The Hamburgians were reindeer hunters. Given that some ANE appears in Motala12 (Scandinavia), it's not improbable at all that some of the ANE in the UK preceeds the Bronze age, and even the Neolithic.

Later on, there are many historical references that indicate that Scotland hung onto her Norwegian and Danish links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret,_Maid_of_Norway

That ANE in the UK is probably only a little bit invading Vikings.

:)

Chad Rohlfsen said...

If there was ANE in the Hamburgian group, it would be in Neolithic Germans and TRB.

Colin Welling said...

@marnie

Well, I've been saying all along that I don't think that R1b is correlated with the ANE component. For instance, there's very little ANE in Sardinia, even though R1b hgs form about 20% of the pop of men there.

Review the concept of correlation. What you say does not negate a correlation in any way.

Scottish > Enlish > French.
(North Spanish + BASQUE) > Spanish > Sardinians

When add in a dimension of time its inescapably obvious that r1b is correlated to ANE in metal age europe.

Alberto said...

@Krefter

I don't know enough to have an opinion about it, but I think that you mean a different thing that what Maju is saying.

Maju says that the lineages of these individuals are not ancestral to modern lineages, which seems to contradict what's written in the paper (page 44).

And you say that the individuals (not the lineages) are not ancestral to modern lineages because already more modern lineages existed at the same time as these individuals, so they obviously couldn't descend from them.

Or did I misunderstand?

Colin Welling said...

@mike

I think the ANE in northern peoples like Brits, Norweigans, GErmans, etc was by and large a Mesolithic thing in Northern Europe, augmented by Corded Ware expansion from also in the north(east). At least for Brits, the more proximate source for ANE was Scandinavia and northern EUrope from anytime between the Bronze to pre-modern Period.

The ratio of WHG to EHG is too high in Motala for that to be the main source of EHG. So its not possible.

We also know that steppe derived groups carrying r1b overturned much the population of brittian.

Marnie said...

@Chad

"Neolithic Germans and TRB."

Not necessarily so if TRB and Neolithic people mostly displaced the authors of the Hamburgian.

The Harburgians were reindeer hunters, and it's perfectly plausible that they moved further north as reindeer went extinct in Germany.

Marnie said...

@Mike Thomas

"Marnie, interesting fact I read today, likely SEE and Anatolia were more connected land-wise during the LGM, when much of the Black Sea and the Dardanelle straits were low- lying land. This then 'flooded' with the easing of the LGM, and release of glacial water, forming the more disconnected landscape of more recent prehistory, from the Mesolithic onward."

Yeah, there are many papers in the last ten years showing that Asia Minor was connected to the Balkans both at the Dardanelles end and the Istanbul end.

The Sea of Marmara was a lake, about half its current size, about 9000 years ago.

The separation of Asia Minor and the Balkans happened about 8,500 years ago.

Before he died, I was able to talk with my husband's great uncle Achelaus who lived most of his live in Salonika. One of the things that impressed me was his world view, very much an old Orthodox view, symbolized by this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-headed_eagle#mediaviewer/File:Byzantine_Eagle.svg

The ancients tried to hold Constantinople because this represented for them, a center of both the East and the West.

So it took a very long time after the flooding of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus, about 7000 years, to give up on the idea of a unified Europe and Asia Minor.

Colin Welling said...

@Jaska

Could you give me your opinion on how PIE formed? For some context...

David thinks PIE descended, in some cladistic sense, from a common ancestor of PIE and Uralic (northern men as he calls them).

I don't think thats possible. Intuitively I would not think that the formation of PIE is anything like the formation of say Celtic or Slavic, which is clearly derive from ancestral languages and hence why we talk about the PIE tree. But can this hypothetic tree be extended beyond PIE as David suggests? For starters I know that PIE was supposedly influenced by something Uralic like AND something Kartvelian like, so there had to be non "proto IE Uralic" influence. To what extent, I don't know. Secondly, and more importantly, I imagine PIE developing with the yamnaya or pre yamnaya as a result of a mixture of languages from different parts of the steppe all coalescing in a short amount of time along with major linguistic invention to accommodate the high mobility and exposure to people on the steppes.

Mike Thomas said...

@ COlin

"The ratio of WHG to EHG is too high in Motala for that to be the main source of EHG. So its not possible.

We also know that steppe derived groups carrying r1b overturned much the population of brittian."

Sorry, can you clarify the first sentence ?

Mike Thomas said...

@ Jaska

I had actually already read some of your work, notably your paper on "Uralic evidence for PIE homeland"

I have a couple of issues with it, although who am I to argue with a Uralicist and native speaker of Uralic, esp one who trained with Prof Janhunen (?!), but nevertheless:

* You speak of a "Uralic anchor' as is if this historical fact. In reality, there is no anchor. We appear to be hypothesizing on hypotheses.

* Ie we are making presumptions as to where IE was and where FU was in ~ 2500 BC, as you point out the Corded Ware region for NW IE and Volga-Kama for FU. But what do we really know ? Like you said for genetic evidence, we don;t really know what language was spoken by the Corded Ware culture, if indeed a single language at all. TO assume they spoke IE must require us to invoke circular arguementation.

* In any case, 2500 BC is at the upper limit of IE, IMO. Ie just when it was beginning to spread through Europe.

* You write ". It would
be very improbable indeed to derive them from more than 2 000 kilometers southwest, behind the Black Sea,
and up to 4 000 years back in time (the Neolithic Anatolian homeland). So much we get from the Uralic
anchor: the Kurgan theory seems to be the only credible one"

I think this is non sequitur. Whilst I agree with chronology, ie that the Neolithic time frame is wrong, there is no a priori reason that PIE did not come from south of the Caucasus, or from the Khwarezm. These geographies still will produce evidence of strong contacts between PIE and Uralic. The fact that FU has far less evidence of contact with Caucasian or Semitic doesn;t prove a steppe homeland, it simply means that those languages did not expand north, whilst PIE did.

"concepts like ‘horse’ and ‘wheel’ (which are also found in Anatolian; see Mallory & Adams 2006: 139, 248)
clearly point to the European origin: the oldest wheels are found in Europe, and the word for ‘wheel’ in
Sumerian and Semitic seems to be an Indo-European loanword "

This is also non sequitur. Just becuase horse was a native PIE term, doesn;t mean that PIE originated in the steppe. In any case, the wheel is first found in Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, which is considered "non-IE' in the traditional models.

* Further from same chapter you claim " that Anatolian is seen as the first entity to split off from the Indo-European unity, prove
that the homeland of Early Proto-Indo-European was in Anatolia – it could equally well have been in
Ukraine, because no branch is stronger than another concerning the location"

True, but this nevertheless doesn;t change the fact that Anatolian is older. Moreover, the steppe was a more likely a receiver of languages constant to flux, as we clearly see in more recent history, than Anatolia - where far more ancient communities would have maintained their independent idiom despite otherwise existing in an environment of intense multiculturalism and multilingualism. Quite simply, the steppe - with its near uniform - Indo-Iranian hydronymy suggests more recent colonization of that region by speakers of Ind-Ary.

Mike Thomas said...

Continued :

*Some of your arguements appear speculative: "Tocharian is generally seen to split off very early from the Indo-European stock, and it is connected to the Afanasyevo Culture"

Yes, that is what the traditional (ie outdated) family tree model suggests. But in reality, Tocharian is not attested until the 6th cc AD. It is stupidity to assume the Tarim basin was linguistically 'frozen in time' for 4000 years, especially given that we know Eurasian regions were subject to constant linguistic flux .

Moreover, the connection of Afansievo culture is absurd. There is nothing distinctly "Tocharian" about it, nor does it derive from yamnaya , given that it is at least as early if not earlier than Yamnaya, and otherwise carries its own unique features. In fact, the Bronze Age Tarim basin shares just as much contacts with the Hindu Kush than the steppe, if no more.



* "The development of the Aryan branch must be located in the Southeast European steppes, south of the Volga-Ural taiga zone (Carpelan & Parpola 2001)."

At least I agree with the last part of that sentence.


Jaska, I think we need to be conservative with what we claim linguistic evidence can tell us. Chronology - yes. Location - very broadly. Nothing in your analysis proves the steppe over the Caucasus or Khwarezm region. In fact, some of the assumptions and deductions in your otherwise great work appear speculative and rooted in "traditional" (IMO) outdated cladistic perspectives of language and cultural-historical reconstructions of archaeological evidence - approaches which are almost unanimoulsy rejected rejected by Anglo-American archaeologists. The sad truth is, those more popularist scholars dealing with the PIE question are either slow, or unwilling, to come to speed with the last half a century of scholarship.

Colin Welling said...

@mike

I just mean that the Motolo sample has much more WHG than EHG. However, thats not true for northwest europeans. So Motolo can't be the main source of EHG in northwest europeans because there EHG/WHG ratio is to high compared to Motolo.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Marnie,
The hunters weren't displaced. They obviously mixed in more during the Middle Neolithic. No ANE.

Marnie said...

@Colin

"So Motolo can't be the main source of EHG in northwest europeans because there EHG/WHG ratio is to high compared to Motolo."

I don't think it is the main source, just possibly a source, and possibly, the start of a long connection with Northern Europe.

There's a chapter in this book about the part of Scotland where the Dunsmores are from. In it, Alexander Laing discusses possible migrations from places like Norway in the Iron Age (as well as other places.)

https://archive.org/details/lindoresabbeyits00edin

Davidski said...

It's Motala not Motolo.

Marnie said...

Chad,

"Marnie,
The hunters weren't displaced. They obviously mixed in more during the Middle Neolithic. No ANE."

Chad, Scotland was connected to Denmark, Germany and the Baltic. That we know from the lithic record until the sea level rose.

Scandinavian Motala DNA (Mesolithic) has some ANE.

That's all I'm saying.

Other than that, you don't know about the Scotland in the Mesolithic or Neolithic. Again, there's no ancient DNA.

So, in fact, you can't reasonably make a statement like "The hunters weren't displaced. They obviously mixed in more during the Middle Neolithic. No ANE."

I'm really not attached to the matter one way or another. I'm just trying to expand the range of consideration beyond the dogmatic narrow dialogue that you keep bullying everyone into believing.

Mike Thomas said...

Colin

Nevertheless ; SHG had some 12% ANE didn't they ? And I stated CWC also contributed to northern europe

Chad Rohlfsen said...

They were already separating by the time ANE was in Sweden. Do you know of Motala like culture in Britain? ANE hadn't reached central Poland by the mid neolithic either. Nothing motala like in Denmark either... It didn't happen.

postneo said...

@jaska
a) IE * bh
eh1-(ye/o-) → U *pexi- ‘to cook’ (Koivulehto 1991)
b) IE *bh
eh1-(ye/o-) → U *peša- ‘to cook’ (Koivulehto 1991)

How is it deduced that these are two temporally separated loan vs a single one with sound shift within uralic? The latter scenario seems more simple ?

As for *kekra. The intial k is significant but the vowel values are not. Many actual pronunciantions in indic dialects are not vowel neutral and sanskrit is an outlier.

Perhaps we could speculate that syrian kikkuli(mittani) is an indo-Aryan name meaning lap master. rendered chakkari in today's idiom as in laps around the field for horses.

Anyway highly speculative at this point.

Davidski said...

In fact, SHG had 15-20% ANE, but they also had 75-80% WHG.

So the ratio of WHG is too high for any meaningful amount of ANE in northern Europe to have come from SHG, because northern Euros couldn't have inherited one without the other.

We don't even need a calculator for this.

Mike Thomas said...

Dave
Where are your current calculations of components in modern euro's ?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Motala is carbon dated to about 5600-6000BCE, AFAIK. After the separation of Britain from the rest of Europe. So, ANE is barely into Sweden by the time Britain was separated. Denmark as well.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Capra
''I wasn't talking about the vowels, but the consonants. But as I said in the other thread, I doubt you actually know enough about the subject to have an opinion on it. You just parrot whatever suits your prejudices - and present it as fact, which is really annoying. But go ahead and prove me wrong.''
What is wrong with you? *sern'a Easily can be derived from SKT/Indic. Svarna ''Gold'' on *kekra yes The K is present but as i said Indic has Kentum-Satem sibliant and there are languages like Bangani in India herself which is nothing but Kentum.

''And why are you are taking someone's speculation about the PIE vowel system as fact? You do realize there are many, many hypotheses about PIE phonology, most of them better supported than the one you are quoting?''
Because that ''someone'' has shown the idiocy of the traditional theory, is that a good reason?.
@Postneo
'' we could speculate that syrian kikkuli(mittani) is an indo-Aryan name meaning lap master. rendered chakkari in today's idiom as in laps around the field for horses.''
Speculative yes BUT quite tenable also, thanks!:)
@Jaska
''Well, if *e and *o have been preserved distinguished from *a in all around the IE family except in Aryan, then there really is no other realistic option than that these vowels have merged in Aryan, right?''
Quite the reverse IE languages evidently show 'A' changing into E and O in various Branches as shown on the Article with other related stuff, Indo-Iranian in fact if we put simply common sense preserved the original system which had the trio of AIU.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Unto a Good Land

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:320190/FULLTEXT01.pdf#page=81

Chad Rohlfsen said...

"Conclusion

The earliest known sites in Finland seem to be somewhat younger than the earliest sites in eastern central Sweden. Thus, neither of Finland, Russia, Poland or the Baltic countries seems to be a possible candidate for the origin of the pioneers in eastern central Sweden. No typical artefacts or exotic raw materials such as Onega slates or chocolate flint are known from early Mesolithic settlements in eastern central Sweden. It’s not until the Neolithic period that we find lithic material in Sweden that originates from eastern sources (see e.g. Halén 1994). Instead, objects in the form of pick axes, barbed points, micro blades and micro blade cores in quartz and in flint (from Scania/Denmark and Kinnekulle) exist in eastern central Sweden. The material culture thus indicates that it is to the south and the west that we should look for the origin of these pioneers."

Couple this with the fact that the Motala bodies were not nicely buried, but placed in a lake, in a pile, with two skulls on steaks. More sampling could reveal that ANE didn't become a permanent presence in Scandinavia before the Pitted Ware culture. Motala is only one site, surrounded by cultures with only links to the south.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Two skulls on 'stakes', excuse me.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Plus, again, those heap of bodies aged 18 mos.-middle aged at Motala, occur at the end of sea rise.

capra internetensis said...

@Nirjhar

That is suvárṇa, literally "good colour". You are proposing an etymology from an entirely different root.

Anyway, there is no point in discussing this with you. Let's get back on topic.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Capra
''That is suvárṇa, literally "good colour". You are proposing an etymology from an entirely different root. ''
And how we know that Suvarna/Swarna didn't provide Uralic *sern'a? give me the technical reason.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

David,
Did you see that Plink 2.0 is coming?

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2015/02/second-generation-plink.html?m=1

Nirjhar007 said...

There is Hari, Hiranyam golden,gold from root *g'hal(H).

Jaska said...

capra internetensis:
“Because that's more realistic than a vowel merger.”

How so? Vowel merger is really a very common phenomenon in the history of the languages of the world. Besides, statistics also support the vowel merger: if *a was original, it should have about equal distribution in the IE lexicon with the other original vowels *i and *u. That is not the case, but instead *a would dominate clearly. The system is statistically in a better balance, if you assume that *o and *e merged into the original *a in Aryan.

Then we have the testimony of Uralic: it is clear that in the older loanword layers there are IE *e and *o – even in Early and Middle Proto-Aryan – and only in the Late Proto-Aryan they have merged into *a. And how we know that those words are older, which have *e and *o? Consonants and other developments show it.
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf

So, the assumption that original *a would have split into *a, *e and *o cannot survive the linguistic evidence.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 648   Newer› Newest»