Prehistory, Anthropology and Genetics
It was announced at the XIV Samara Archeological Conference that R1b P312 was found in Eneolithic Volga-Ural Russia. Published data shows R1a M417 in Eneolithic Ukraine.More ancient DNA is needed. My guess, is both R1a M417 and R1b L23, originated in the same population and this population spoke proto Indo European.
It's a broken phone style rumor, they said something of L51 but it seems to be an error and was just M269. It was archaeologists talking genetics and getting the nomenclature wrong or something like that. Also indoeuropeo.eu, which hailed the "discovery" in Spanish and at my FB notifications' list, says there seems to be a radiocarbon error of some sort and that it could be a much more recent case.Wake me up when something like that is actually PUBLISHED, broken phones are fun but a bit disturbing when you're trying to get focused.
SamuelAt this conference also announced that analyized samples collected from fifth millenium BC khalivinsk culture graves and sampled graves showed an uraliod type antrophology.in russian terminology uraloid means between west and east eurasian antro-type just like ancient norteastern european and ancient west siberian.This mean they were not PIE because PIE classification as substantially caucasoid west eurasian not uraloid.And conclusion that,PIE arrived steppe at late fifth millenium BC most likely otherwise khalyvinsk not showed an uraloid typology.
Uraloid is a very ambiguous anthropometric concept (and not "antropological", which is the science that deals with human culture and behavior, although in a more past-looking way than sociology, which focuses on modern societies and their measure). I'd dare say that the partial epicanthic fold more common towards North and East Europe is an "uraloid" trait, Finnic genetic association repeteadly appears in relation with Indoeuropean genetics it seems to me also, so it's slippery terrain. What do genetics say?
MajuYes you are right ,it is antropometric not antrophology,my great bad :(And about uraloid,it is not genetic but craniometric classification as you saw that in baraba paper.Modern Uralic and İE population not as pure as their ancestors,both of them mixed with old european and their phenotype mostly came from that so origin of uralic epicanthic fold not certain.Remember,PIE phenotype were Iranian looking and PU probably looked like (for their skullshape,not sure about their apparance) khanty-mansi.
We "Uraloid" genetic elements in Eastern Europe since at least the Mesolithic and also in the Neolithic: ANE-affinity can be seen as "Uraloid" (certainly it's something Siberian), mtDNA C can and probably should be interpreted as "Uraloid" and we see it not only in "EHG" Karelia but in "SHG" Ukraine, whatever defines EHG can be seen as partly "Uraloid" (SHG now seems a mixture of EHG+WHG or transition between both and much more extended than expected at first, more dominant in Eastern Europe at the expense of EHG). So, if we judge EHG as "Uraloid", then it was (in the Epipaleolithic-Neolithic period) dominant between Karelia and the North Caucasus along the Volga (and to some extent also in Norway) but not so much in Ukraine and Baltic (SHG). I personally have no problem whatesoever in thinking of EHG as more or less "Uraloid": it clearly has Siberian (ANE) and proto-Uralic (mtDNA C) genetic elements.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-47572018000200206Gabon ba MajuThis is a interesting paper about founding population size of native american(except na-dene and Eskimo)The language of the paper came to me heavy but maybe you better understand,the main idea of paper understandable.
Maju. ISBA 2018 conference abstract. The genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the last 8000 yearsOlalde et al.The Iberian Peninsula, lying on the southwestern corner of Europe, provides an excellent opportunity to assess the final impact of population movements entering the continent from the east and to study prehistoric and historic connections with North Africa. Previous studies have addressed the population history of Iberia using ancient genomes, but the final steps leading to the formation of the modern Iberian gene pool during the last 4000 years remain largely unexplored. Here we report genome-wide data from 153 ancient individuals from Iberia, more than doubling the number of available genomes from this region and providing the most comprehensive genetic transect of any region in the world during the last 8000 years. We find that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers dated to the last centuries before the arrival of farmers showed an increased genetic affinity to central European hunter-gatherers, as compared to earlier individuals. During the third millennium BCE, Iberia received newcomers from south and north. The presence of one individual with a North African origin in central Iberia demonstrates early sporadic contacts across the strait of Gibraltar. Beginning ~2500 BCE, the arrival of individuals with steppe-related ancestry had a rapid and widespread genetic impact, with Bronze Age populations deriving ~40% of their autosomal ancestry and 100% of their Y-chromosomes from these migrants. During the later Iron Age, the first genome-wide data from ancient non-Indo-European speakers showed that they were similar to contemporaneous Indo-European speakers and derived most of their ancestry from the earlier Bronze Age substratum. With the exception of Basques, who remain broadly similar to Iron Age populations, during the last 2500 years Iberian populations were affected by additional gene-flow from the Central/Eastern Mediterranean region, probably associated to the Roman conquest, and from North Africa during the Moorish conquest but also in earlier periods, probably related to the Phoenician-Punic colonization of Southern Iberia.
I know I've been an asshole, Maju. You're an asshole sometimes too. That's life. Because I've been an asshole doesn't make me wrong.
If that last is because I took some time to realize I had comments in the moderation queue, sorry about that but it's Blogger's fault, which has been for a while not sending mails with notifications. It seems it's being solved as we speak but it's been months and it's yet another annoyance I have to deal with when dealing with this blog: automated things not working as they should.I don't recall having any particular grudge with you, Samuel. Disagreements indeed but nothing too big.
Re. Olalde, I think that the correct interpretation is Indoeuropeanization from France/Germany (Celts) and Italy (Romans). This last seems to be strongest in the South, while the former is hard to take apart from what Basques are and ancient Iberians probably were, because the Basque component also appears as "French", yet an older or purer (pre-IE) type of "French".
Gabon ba Maju I came across very attractive works in eurogenes last article,on the comments.But links of works wants pay money and I can not afford it.If you can pay money, I will send you articles,please answer about.
Sure, lots of info, much at a price. Don't get too stressed, write a blog to vent out, share with others about that work.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2018/05/08/science.aar7711.DC1/aar7711_de_Barros_Damgaard_SM.pdfAgur MajuFinally,I found a free link for that work.I think that the results will surprise you,and this work is quite detailed so I liked it,I hope you too.
Thanks again, Mem.So Botai were EHG-like but with "Siberoid" (or "proto-Altaic"?) admixture, but not nearly as intermediate as Okunevo, right?Where does "ANE" ends up after this? They seem to be a distinct branch of the line leading to Botai and Okunevo. Also this "Paleosiberian" line seems to be a distinctive basal branch of the Eurasian population, slightly closer to Yamna (and by extension other West Eurasians, I understand) than to East Asians but only slightly so. Hence, I tentativley adventure that 50.000 years ago, there was a settlement of Central Asia at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, and that such population remained rather isolated in the region until the Indoeuropean and Altaic expansions of the Metal Ages, and that is "ANE" (which was foundationally fundamental for Native Americans). However they were not wholly isolated and thus they aided producing distinct populations like EHG (which we know now it dominated through the Volga basin, Finland and Norway but not in most of Eastern Europe, which is characterized as SHG instead, i.e. intermediate between EHG and WHG but rather the latter). So where do Uralics (or proto-Uralics to be precise) stand here? Clearly the Central Asian ANE-like paleopopulation is older than the Uralic migration, which only happened in the Late UP and Mesolithic, but it's not easy to differentiate them in autosomal analyses.I wish I could understand all this a bit better. Is there any HAPLOID DNA in the paper? I can't find it and it could be extremely informative considering the depth of the timelines involved.
OK, I see now at fig. S24: lots of Q1 and N1, and even one instance of R1b of the Teleuts type. This seems to roughly fit with my notions re. Paleoamericans and Proto-Uralics respectively, although I would need to parse the data more carefully. Re. R1b I'm totally getting lost with the constant changes in nomenclature, so no judgments, but it's interesting there were branches of it in Central Asia already in the Chalcolithic, seemingly unrelated to Yamna. Are they close to Western European R1b? I can't discern with the data presented without SNP markers.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316754211_Genetic_Perspective_on_Language_Replacement_in_SiberiaAgur MajuThe title of the article summarizes the topic.In fact, siberia has been in a genetic mystery for a long time but now some secrets appeared.Good readings.NOTE:I do not believe that turkic languages have spread from elite dominance.This idea arises from the inability to overcome old false views.I think haplogroups that response of spread turkic languages are some sub-branches of Y DNA N and R,but which sub-branches is I not sure.
I do think that in most cases Turkic has expanded via elite dominance, no doubt, although in the less densely populated areas like Kazakhstan and generally Central Asia, there was indeed also a good deal of replacement. We can see that in the archaeogenetic and modern genetic data, I understand. In any case by the time they arrived to Anatolia (Turkey) and the Caucasus (Azerbaijan) they were already very diluted, as we can see in the placement of ancient Anatolian Turks in the other paper (notice they show no Paleosiberian affinity but rather modern Central Asian one) and they still got even much more thinly diluted after conquest, to the point that there is almost no trace of them nowadays.An even more dramatic example of elite domination and "migration without migrants" is the Hungarian case: the Magyars speak a language close to Western Siberian Khanty and Mansi, yet their genetic relation is exactly zero, ther can hardly be two more distinct populations without going beyond Western-Central Eurasia: Magyars are typically European, even a tad more westerner than their Central European neighbors, Khanty and Mansi are typically Siberian. We also see that in Southern Asia apparently with Indoeuropean languages and in general anywhere where "migrations" happened from the Bronze Age onwards: Southern Slavs, Arabs in Africa, even Indoeuropeans in Western Europe to a large extent.
MajuWe disagree on many issues about the Turkic people,and in a way, this is a good thing, as a result, questioning is the characteristic of powerful minds.You're still trying to relate the Turks with the Mongols and tungus,because of the Altaic legend.I'm attaching your emphasis to the Kazakhistan to high level of Y-DNA C-in the Kazakh.The Kazakhs came to the present lands in 15.century from Kyrgyzstan.During this migration,they assimilated the Mongols previously found in Central Asia and later melted in the Kazakhs from the Mongols who came to Central Asia.That's why the kazakhs contain a high level of Y DNA C.the author of the article based on the reason I mentioned this situation of kazakhs.in the same way as in the case of tuva.İn addition,the Turks do not carry their spesific y-DNA C , the carrier has taken this haplogroup relatively recently.moreover,y DNA C in the Mongols and Tungus is separated from each other about 10,000 years ago.These two are not related to each other,how can the Turkics be related to Mongol-tungus.And about r1b,you're right,yamna,okunevo and avars carry the same haplotype,R1b1a2,but botai's haplotype is different from them, r1b1a1.If you read the article carefully, you will see that botai and yamnaya are different.
MajuThanks for replies.in fact there are a lot of things I would like to talk to you about this article but first I answer the question about R1bhttps://www.pinterest.com/pin/39547302955301789/This is a simplified table of R1b,botai subclade is R1b1a1 and yamnaya and other european subclades are R1b1a2,so botai subclade not close to any european R1b,and this subclade mainly found in Turkic people(especially altay-sayan region,tatars and baskirts, maybe other Turkic people also have that).A proof of the western Siberian origin of the Turkic people, but I can not say for certain unless it comes to the examples from the barabba steppe.(And my other older post still not seem.İt is strange to comment on the old reply before the new reply comes)
Can't see it. I logged in with my FB account, removed all JS protection, addblocker, tracker-blocker... and still can't see it. Pinterest seems a very difficult place to navigate, really.Anyway, my doubt was because in fig. S25 the tree is for all R, so relatively "close" within that macro-haplogroup tree but indeed the "French" clade is another haplogroup and, if anything more closely related to Yamnaya, Okunevo and modern Avars."A proof of the western Siberian origin of the Turkic people"...I would not say so, only for Siberian peoples that have been turkified, as it is clearly the case for Altai peoples. To my eyes the Turkics originated in Mongolia, were still numerously very important there in the time of Genghis Khan: his first genocide, still in modern Mongolia was against Tatars very especifically (Tatars = Turkics), killing all adult men of that ethnicity and forcibly absorbing all women and children, in a quite gruesome historical episode.Prior to the Huns, the Indoeuropean (ultimately Scythian) and Turkic interaction seems to have existed mostly in the Iron Age but it seems largely restricted to female migration (free or forced, can't say) in both directions. The real Turkic expansion happened with the Huns, which were in a way a precursor to Genghis' Mongol expansion and also somewhat heir of Indoeuropean steppe expansion. After the massive Hunnic expansion, whose apogee was surely with Attila, the Turkic groups split into many smaller polities, the most important of which were Gökturks and briefly Old Bulgaria, and in some cases at least were ethnolinguistically absorbed by their associates, notably the case of Western Bulgars, leading to historical and modern Slavic Bulgaria (Slavs were almost certainly associated to Western Hunnic/Turkic expansion and benefited from it). The Barabba dataset, which is only mtDNA, does not talk of Turkics specifically but rather of Altaics and among Altaics the group more clearly associated to Siberia proper are the Tungusic, with modern Siberian Turks showing Tungusic genetic affinity rather than with Steppe Altaics of which Turks are the main group (Mongols would be the other one but they may have originated rather towards Siberia and the Taiga, near Lake Baikal). So my interpretation is that the Barabba archaeogenetic anomaly (if not a fluke) and the Seima-Turbino phenomenon were Tungusic more likely. But anyhow it was probably something Altaic, just not in any way clearly or even likely Turkic, not yet. Also Siberians come in many flavors: Paleosiberians seem less Turkic-like and more Yeniseian-like, maybe Siberian-Uralic like but not Altaic, on the other hand modern Siberians do indeed generally look more East Asian and that's almost certainly because they have been influenced by Turkic and other Altaic migrations.
And my apologies for missing your other comment. For some reason, probably my low attention span these days, I keep missing comments to approve. I swear it's not at all intentional and I deeply lament it.I would remove the pre-moderation gladly but I have problems with two banned people: one for making absurd comments (to put it mildly) way too often and the other is a true stalker psychopath that seems determined to undermine my job by persistently spamming my blogs.
http://chuvashlar.blogspot.com.tr/2012/10/the-lexicostatistics-and_7.html?m=1The first post is a bit tedious,about the linguistic, but short, it is necessary to understand other posts.http://chuvashlar.blogspot.com.tr/2012/10/back-to-turkic-languages-in-nutshell.html?m=1The second article is trying to find the motherland of PBT peoples and their early spread by linguistic, geography, history and archeology.language of paper is as descriptive and plain as anybody without any knowledge can understand.Even in some places there are satirical expressions.http://chuvashlar.blogspot.com.tr/2012/10/the-internal-classification-migration.html?m=1The third article is the longest among them,examines the migration and formation of turkic peoples using a variety of sciences.The language of the article is the same as the language of the second article.You have said that you are not interested in the language you can not speak, and you can doubt the authenticity of the posts, but do not worry, I am aware of this and I can say that the posts do not contain any serious mistakes.If you have any questions after reading the articles please write comments, I try to answer your questions.
http://adamsfamilydna.com/haplogroup-r1b-r1b1a2a1a1b4f-subclade-l21/Agur MajuI sent a link to a site that contains the family tree of the R1 haplotype.It's not as up-to-date as the Pinterest family tree, but it's pretty much the same.NOTE:this site is a heavy steppist,so don't care about the content of the site,just look at the pictures.
MajuThanks for replies againAnd you are disappointment me because apperantly you did not read the articles those are in my first reply in your blog.But, it is my mistake to share you articles very early, it was difficult to link the articles to any result only with linguistic geography and history without genetic and archaeological infrastructure, you are rightNow I share the articles again, please read all the words and phrases carefully because each one contains important information and I do not want to add copies from articles just like the last time.
Egun ona Maju( I hope I wrote correctly to salute,I do not know Basque so I have used the translation program)Anyway,you haven't written anything to my posts yet.If you're not interested, or if you find "rubbish" please don't ignore it.A small answer is enough.Otherwise,I don't know what you're thinking.
No time, man. I'll do something when I have time. I'm just a humble blogger with a zillion projects and requests and a private life of some sort. You can:a) Start your own blog, I'll be glad to read and publicize it.b) Send me finished short articles (decent quality but no need to overdo it) I can publish as "guest posts". c) Be patient. Some of your suggestions are definitely of my interest and are in my "to do" list. I will comment on them, some day, when I have time, maybe not before summer.BTW, it is "egunon" or "egun on": "good day" and not "the good day" (that extra -a is the equivalent to "the", more precisely the intransitive nominative singular declension).
Allright,Thank you for your response.I wish you success in the projects you've been working on.I will continue to share to you the sensational work I have encountered.Gabon ba.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/16/322347.full.pdfEgun on Maju After a long wait, an important paper was published on the Caucasian genetic history.As you know, some of the steppist argued that the maykop culture was formed by a spread from steppe. The steppist were frustrated again,but they were right about the cultural interaction between the Caucasus and the steppes, which was a long-known thing.As an interesting thing,Eastern Asia and ANE ancestry were found in Bronze Age graves at the steppes near the Caucasus.It appears that the Siberian and Eastern Asian components in the Caucasus are long before of the Huns and Turkic expansions here.
Looks interesting, thank you again. Note: I fear I will not be able to produce before late June.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622Egun on MajuYesterday I encountered a very surprising and unexpected work.The study was about the Genghiz Khan's lineage.Judging by the results, the Genghis Khan's ancestors were closer to Westerners than the Mongols.I'm sure you'il be surprised after reading the article.By the way,(this is also about Genghiz khan's ancestry)I did some research on the botai R1b lineage.Indeed, botai belongs to the R1b1a1 lineage and there is a correlation between this lineage and the spread of the Turkic people .I'il give you pictures of that.This is Turkic peoples map.https://evolutionistx.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/carte_peuples_turcs.pngAnd this is botai lineage.https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FVxERBWRLXg/WwYD0077kqI/AAAAAAAAG1s/g0cSEpQ4WlwnI98XDqBriA59psvUAlQtwCLcBGAs/s1600/Botai_R1b-M343.pngNOTE:Please,after reading the post, do not write about Altai theories again.I used to believe in the Altai theory,so I have experted the arguments of Altai theorists.So please accept my posts as a different point of view.
Hi Maju I'm sorry,because I threw you a map of the spread of the Turkic peoples and the botai y DNA spread,anda last map was not correct.The botai y DNA has spread to a lesser extent, and it has nothing to do with the map I threw you.At the same time ,Genghis Khan's y-DNA study was an exaggeration by the Korean team to attract attention,it is not clear that the graves are related to Genghis Khan.I hope you'il forgive my mistake,by the way,when will you be active, are jobs going well?Did you read the other links I gave you?
https://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/12/13/233502.full.pdfAgur MajuThis link belongs to an article that explores the adventures of Homo sapiens in Africa with fresh and up-to-date information.This article supports your theory for return to Africa 50,000 years ago and the Eurasian origin of Y DNA E and Mt DNA L3. I hope you like it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. Personal attacks, manipulation and trolling are also very much unwelcome here.The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.Preliminary comment moderation is... ON (it may take some time before your comment is published, thank that to Trumptards).