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.
Kaixo Maju: I found something that might interest you from the ISBA 2018P–094Paleogenomics of populations in France, from the Neolithic to the Bronze AgeS. Brunel1, L. Cardin2, D. Garraud2, E. M. Geigl1, T. Grange1, M. Pruvost31Institut Jacques Monod, Paris, France2Institut de recherche criminelle de la gendarmerie nationale (IRCGN), Pontoise, France3PACEA UMR5199, Bordeaux, FranceExpanding from Anatolia into Europe about 7,500 years ago, the Neolithic culture based on agriculture followed two differentroutes, through the Balkans along the Danube northwards to the Hungarian plain and from there westwards to arrive in theParisian Basin, and along the coastline of the Mediterranean basin to arrive in Southern France and Spain. Both migrationwaves eventually reached the territory of present-day France, where the Neolithic culture further evolved and was laterreplaced by the Bronze Age culture, over the course of the third and second millennia BC. While France is a geographiccrossroads that provided multiple opportunities for interaction between populations of different origins, as is welldocumented by the archaeological record, the underlying demographic processes were not yet explored at a territory-widescale .Here we present the complete mitochondrial genomes, Y chromosome markers and genotypes on a number of nuclear loci ofinterest obtained through a DNA enrichment approach of 163 Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age individuals sampled fromthree regions of present-day France, the North, the East, and the South. This study provides, for the first time, a highresolution4000-year transect of the dynamics of maternal and paternal lineages in France as well as of autosomal genotypesassociated with known phenotypes. This transect that comprises two major cultural transitions (Mesolithic-Neolithic andNeolithic-Bronze Age), reveals contrasting population dynamics between northern and southern France. The study of 120nuclear SNPs, covering both physical and physiological traits, allowed us to follow the evolution of the allelic frequency overtime of several phenotypes that characterize modern Europeans. This study fills a large gap in the understanding of thepeopling of western Europe from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age, completing the knowledge of the global process of theNeolithization of Europe.
Is there a link?
https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/spanish-men-were-completely-wiped-out-by-the-arrival-of-a-new-tribe-4000-years-ago/Kaixo Maju THE STEPPIST STRICKES BACK!!There have been articles similar to this before,but this one is more persistent than the others.According to the article,the Iberian Y chromosome,R1b,appeared for the first time around 2500 BC in the peninsula, and none of Neolithic and its predecessors carried it on the peninsula. Moreover, 30% of the autosomal genetics of these new arrivals originated in steppe.Actually,I do not believe in this mass death theory,if the newcomers are purely Indo European,why there were speakers of Vasconic languages on the peninsula, and why the distribution of the R1B is proportional to the distribution of the Vasconic language.However, these results confuse me, do you have an explanation for this? Egun on eta zorte on
Sensationalism and also not according to facts. Let's not forget that the Cogotas individual with R1b-DF27 was autosomically non-steppe, only supervised runs produced very minor "steppe" but that's because they do not grasp the complexity properly, unsupervised runs produced exactly zero steppe and almost exactly a Basque-like modern autosomal composition.I'm anyhowy giving up. I'll close this blog in October, just waiting for a closing article on Guanche-Puerto Rican interaction that otherwise will not appear anyone else. Time for a new generation of critical bloggers, if they exist at all (Millenials!)
MajuI'm sorry about your decision to close the blog.If it bothered you that people weren't in your block like old times, you know that old rifles still remember you and follow you.If you comment on their blogs like you used to, they'il communicate more with you.If the scientific articles are no longer as impressive as they were, this year has been devoted to more scientific studies and the results of these studies will be fruitful in the coming year.By the way,I've read your old writings and noticed some of the things you know wrong.I'm writing them down,and if you still think they're right, I'm going to throw you links.If you have any question, please tell.1-)Autosomal DNA analysis revealed that ethnic Turks in Turkey came from Central Asia with Oguz migration(excluding those living in the former Pontus Greek state region).So the theory of elite domination was false.2-)Etruksan did not come from Anatolia as Herodotus said,descendants of the Neolithic migrations into the Italian peninsula.3-)Afro asiatic language family origin is not in africa but levant.The genetics of the first Neolithic cultures in North Africa and Mesopotamia comes from levantian.Gau on
I beg to disagree on #1 and #2. #2 - Ancient Etruscans and modern Tuscans seem to show a deviation towards the Aegean. I have not seen whatever 2018 paper you have in mind re. this issue though but I'd expect them to be mostly Vasconic ("Neolithic") with an Anatolian-influenced elite, but still very mixed with the Neolithic element because many centuries had passed since the establishment of Villanova culture and also because those "Anatolians" or "Pelasgians" of the Halaf-Vinca cultural wave were pre-Indoeuropean from West Asia, just like Vasconic Neolithic Europeans of the unmixed (Sardinian-like) stock. So you're almost certainly misinterpreting the data. #1. Anatolian Turks may have minor Central Asian (i.e. real Turkic) DNA but definitely not much, less than 5%. I think it's nearly impossible that autosomal DNA can alter the conclusions from haploid DNA in this case, because the distinction between West Eurasian and East Asian (Turkic, Altaic) lineages is pretty much straightforward. Again you may be reading too much (or to little, how deeply did you dive into the supplementary materials?)#3- That last I would need to ponder deeply on. But the linguistic and Y-DNA evidence is consistent with an African origin. And archaeological evidence is also consistent AFAIK. I would expect Neolithic peoples from the Levant expanding towards Africa but we can't clearly associate language with that process. It could be even Nubian rather than Afroasiatic or a mix of flows and backflows. I would need to consider all the evidence and I don't have the energy for it.
As for the reasons to quit blogging the main one is that I don't really feel like working into coveying analytic critical thought to Humankind, the secondary ones are that: I'm not being paid in any way and that I'm a single-person project, that society pushes me too much to try to do other things like stupid paperwork and running ahead of the Capitalist bulldozer that flattens it all, that I've turned 50 and my back aches (literally). In order to do intellectual public service you first need to have your basic needs covered, I do not have them and I waste too much time and emotional energy in fencing off the Capitalist regime on daily basis. Finally I'm losing any sort of hope in Humankind, sadly enough we are just chimps with nukes and we will almost certainly nuke ourselves off the face of Earth in the next decades. I feel very sorry about that but I can't do much about it anyhow. So who cares about the past when the present and future are so bleak?
@Mem1- Elite domination refers to the political and cultural dominance of a group, usually a minority group, on other groups of people. I do not see anything contradicting it in the process of Turkification of Anatolia. Oghuz/Turcoman immigrants and their Persian supporters were minority in Anatolia and formed the elite group (including the military) that would initiate and sustain the process of Turkification (along with Islamization) of Anatolia. One of the two published Ottoman-era Anatolian genomes has about 40% East Eurasian DNA, that is way too high for modern Anatolian Turkish standards. That Ottoman-era genome might be from early Ottoman era, still it does not represent the genetics of the newly arriving Oghuz/Turcomans, as there was enough time for some mixing between the Oghuz/Turcoman immigrants and native Anatolians until the emergence of the Ottoman Empire, so the incoming Oghuz/Turcomans might have had even more East Eurasian DNA than 40%, only their ancient DNA testing can settle this issue.2- Where is the Etruscan autosomal or Y-DNA? What study is your claim based on?3- You must have missed the most recent ancient DNA results. From the paper "Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry" (Lazaridis et al. 2018):"Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers, a common link between the Levant and Africa. Moreover, our model predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5±1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt-related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan African source; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in West Africans. An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources."https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/20/423079.full.pdfSo the relevant migrations were probably mostly from North Africa to the Levant and Sub-Saharan Africa, not the other way around.
I already discussed that back in the day, I'm pretty sure. It just didn't seem to me conclusive enough to reject several other previous papers on the same issue, so I left the conclusion with a big question mark. I still think that the bulk of the evidence seems to support an Anatolian or Aegean origin.I thought you meant something more recent, from 2018, that I might have missed.
Gau on MajuYes,I've been looking for more articles about Etruscans, but it was the most recent, at least it pushed you into questioning.But there are other evidence that the Etruscans are indigenous.1-)although heredot claimed that Etruscans were Trojans who escaped the Trojan wars (I have also read Herodotus history,there is a lot of erroneous information), Roman historians describe them as native.2-)genetic analysis shows that a large migration from the Caucasus to Anatolia between MÖ3000-2500 occurred and the genetic rate of native Neolithic peoples decreased by half,replaced by CHG component.This migration was so severe that not only Anatolia, Crete Island and even the historic Ionian region could not get rid of it.If the etruscians had migrated from Anatolia in the Bronze Age,the intensive CHG component would have emerged in Italy, but the Etruscan genetic component is the same as the Neolithic Europeans.3-)Etruscan is not the only member of the language family tyrhenian,it was related to rhaethic language spoken in the Alps,and according to sound changes and lexicon, these two languages have long been separated from each other.This shows the presence of long-term Tyrrhenian in the region.There's a Lemnos Island language.It seems that the language was not much different from the other related languages and considering that Etruscans were active sailors in the Mediterranean(even in ancient Egypt, there are a lot of immigrants and inscriptions)it is more logical for a recent Tyrrhenian migration to lemnos.4-)about pre Greek and pre luwian languages,the following substrates have been studied and this words have not been associated with Tyrrhenian languages, which invalidates the presence of an ancient Tyrrhenian in the Aegean and Greek regions.
We don't say "gau on" but the compressed version "gabon", remember: like the Central African country. "Gabona" capitalized and declined (nom. sing.) is used for Christmas Night, when the last Gentile, Olentzero, a fat-yet-smart coal-maker, brings presents to kids. Santa is too commercial, the Three Magi, too Christian, we have our own giant from old for that, no bright colors, his clothes are black (or other traditional garments but in the black-ish zone). Egunon ba.
Herodotus said Etruscans were "from Lydia", not "from Troy". Of course, even in his time they realized Lydians (Indoeuropeans, Luwians) were not Etruscans but still he seems to have stumblend on legends and other clues (the Lemnian people) who drove him to that conclusion. I think he was most likely correct.That paper is the latest but not necessarily the best one. It raises a question mark but does not demolish the opposite-siding papers' arguments. So it's just one among many. Modern Tuscans keep remain more Anatolian-ish than most other Italians. That other Tyrsenian languages may have existed in Italy, to my eyes only underlines the extent of the Etruscan impact. What is clear is that neither ancient Etruscans nor modern Italians are like Ötzi (the Primary Neolithic type) but something else, so some sort of colonization must have taken place.That is, unless more archaeogenetic research in Italy (very desirable) would show us that Ötzi was not representative of pre-LB Italians but that some other demic changes happened at some other point somehow. Until then, I'll lean for the Etruscans as settlers model, and to my eyes they look "Pelasgian" (senso lato).
@MemThe CHG-admixed Anatolian migration wave reached Italy too, modern Italians have more CHG than should be explained by their steppe ratio, also they have high Y-DNA J ratio by general European standards.
... and Sicilians are anomalously Levant-tending for Europeans, what implies some sort of colonization from that area at some point. My best guess is precisely deducing a Late Bronze Age invasion of remnant Sea Peoples, possibly brought there by the Sherden (ancient Sardinians almost for sure) in order to counter the ongoing Indoeuropean (Italic) expansion from the North. My interpretation would be that the Etruscans are the Teresh (would be a "Pelasgian" or pre-IE people from the Aegean, maybe directly connected to Halaf-Vinca, whose remains persisted in Thessaly until well into the Bronze Age, we still read of Thessaly's Pelasgoi in classical Greek texts and maybe even Achilles would be one of them) and that the Shekelesh, who are reported as circumcissed by the Egyptians, would be some sort of Canaanite people, maybe even a mercenary group (shekel = Canaanite "pound"). It seems they could have first settled in Central Italy, just as Etruscans did, but were expelled by the Italics and had to resettle in Sicily and Calabria, leading to the historical Siculi and maybe the Sicani as well.
Some refs. Italian haploid DNA· http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/02/italian-haploid-genetics-second-round.html· http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/05/italan-complex-ancestry.html· https://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/05/sicilian-haploid-genetics-in.html (Sicilians specifically)
In Sicily Y-DNA J (all sublineages) adds up to 25%, with emphasis in J2a (16%) rather than the most common in Europe J2b.In overall Italy my "other West Asian" Y-DNA category reaches 26%, with greatest concentration in the Center-South (Tuscany somewhat lower), which scores well above 30% (also NE oddly enough scores c. 30%).
https://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjNoNXv_OXdAhWJK1AKHQoxAu0QFjABegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw1oT5JG0cIrPGJMtmtrTDvBhttps://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1216069/&ved=2ahUKEwjj-Pzk_-XdAhXOLVAKHZs2Cm4QFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1skX0SdDk1aVaFJFodI0m0&cshid=1538423161425https://www.google.com.tr/amp/s/mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/gainst-an-african-origin-for-afro-asiatic/amp/https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/bayesian-phylogenetic-analysis-of-semitic-languages-identifies-an-early-bronze-age-origin-of-semitic-in-the-near-east/https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/just-a-few-reading-links-for-afro-asiatic/https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/is-omotic-afroasiatic-and-other-links/Afro asiatic papers
All this is very old, except for the Lazaridis paper, which I don't know how it relates to the issue of Semitic origins. Mathilda, a great blogger by the way, vanished many years ago, I think she died (I recall she was very ill). All that is part of the classical debate and Mathilda herself in other posts and comments acknowledged the possibility at least of Afroasiatic originating in the Mid-Upper Nile, as both some archaeology and all the linguistic framework suggest (plus the issue of the expansion of E1b1b).I beg you that, in the future, you post the links "un-googled": the actual link is hidden in the google link but it's a pain for anyone to actually locate it properly.
The articles I've given you from mathilda are the latest articles about Afro asiatic languages and peoples.Yes, her old articles advocated an African ancestry, but eventually she rejected it and supported levant theory.Both genetic, archeological and linguistic perspective.
Have you revised the comments' sections. I haven't but I recall having very interesting debates with her on these issues. She was a very open-minded and quite knowledgeable person. Just being "the latest" does not automatically makes something "the best". Judgement is needed.
https://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.jolr.ru/files/(9)jlr2009-1(95-106).pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi9_dqchubdAhXIKFAKHQSDCFAQFjAHegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw1EmK2azMapNWqxD4xCf7td&cshid=1538424766710Pastoralist terms in Proto Afroasiatic language
Proto-afroasiatic or just Levantine Neolithic of some sort? Potato comes from Quechua, does that make English an Amerind or Andean language?*mar- as ram also happens in Basque "marro", even if "ahari" is the standard form.*kar- may relate to Basque aker = billy goat.*čaʔw- does not remind of English calf???? - Not sure what to make of this. A piece of info for further development proving nothing obvious in any sense.
as for the genetics of ethnic Turks,an article on the autosomal genetics of Turks has not been published(or I have not seen it).)but hundreds of Turks from both the Balkans and Anatolia have learned Y DNA and autosomal genes using ancestry kits, and these results have been shared in blogs and genetic forums such as Apricity,eupedia,antrogenica ,and in ethnic Turks, except for Pontus region, at least 5% and at most 20% and in general 10-15% Siberian and Central Asian genetics were determined.Other Balkan,Middle Eastern and Near Eastern peoples do not carry them more than 1%.There are a lot of links about this,so I can't send them all to you,so you can go to sites that I call yourself.If I find a site where the results are cumulative, I'il give it to you.
Commercial genetics is worthless, notably at autosomal DNA level. They do not compare with relevant real populations but with ghostly "zombies" of their Frankenstein-like creation. Most people in Europe and America get a lot of Ashkenazi for example and they freak a lot about it, when it's 99% sure a pure artifact.
Look at the last comment, you'il get the answers there.
One more thing,you know, I believe that the origin of the Turkic languages is the baraba forest steppes, and I've given you links.Did you read them?If you have read, What are your ideas and questions?I'd appreciate it if you told me.(and if you comment without reading it, I'll understand it).Gau on.
No, I do not believe that. In my entry on Barabba ancient genetics I concluded that IMO the pattern suggests Uralic peoples except for the Bronze Age parenthesis in which it suggests Altaic but IMO rather Tungusic than Turkic or Mongolic. Modern Siberian Turkics (discussed in other entries) also seem often Tungusic in terms genetic rather than properly Turkic.
Your answer was not clear. I asked you if you read the articles,but you wrote that you just don't believe in my theory, that doesn't mean yes or no.By the way,I realized you didn't read the texts because none of them had anything to do with Seima-turbino or genetics.There were more paleolinguistic and archaeology.Maybe you confused the articles,I'm resorting to you.If you don't read it,you'll lose a lot and if you have questions,I'll explain to you, please just read the whole things and carefully.http://archive.is/Kt533http://chuvashlar.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-origins-of-bulgaro-turkic-languages.html?m=1http://chuvashlar.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-lexicostatistics-and_7.html?m=1http://chuvashlar.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-internal-classification-migration.html?m=1Only first one has pictures,the other ones pictures don't seen, but the important ones are already in the first one, so there's no problem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'll take a quick look but on the names of the links it looks all like linguistics (the word swamp!) I don't have time nor energies for going through the whole thing carefully just because somebody is interested in my opinion. The real question is: is Maju that much interested in proto-Turkic? And the answer is not really. Maybe someone else is. Or maybe someone else can write a comprehensive short article (with pretty clear images for those with little attention span) on it. I am always open to decent guest articles: I just don't get them. To my understanding Turkic expanded primarily from Mongolia, it did primarily with the Hunnic migration, later being consolidated by the Gökturk Khaganate in Central Asia but with some tribes lingering in the area of Russia as well, and finally expanding southwards in quite well documented historical times with the Seljuks, who conquered Iran and Turkey (roughly). There was also some female-side (mtDNA attested) admixture between Turkics and Iranics in the Iron Age but overall these two groups remained ethnically distinct until the Huns rolled over the Scythians, sending their shattered remnants as far West as Portugal (Alans) and opening the Pandora Box of Slavic expansion, who almost certainly thrived first as vassals and auxiliaries of the Huns. That's what I think I know. If I'm wrong or right, you judge: it's gratis.
First look, first link, seems to say I have a pwetty theory based on maps and words, I'm totally not considering archaeogenetics.Well, I, Maju, am considering archaeogenetics and that theory does not seem to work with them.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?217592-East-Eurasian-admixture-in-Turks-is-HUGE-!!!-(-autosomal-DNA-charts-)https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?188673-Turkish-Autosomal-DNA-West-Central-and-East-Anatolian-Turkshttps://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?190158-Turkish-Autosomal-DNA-West-Central-and-East-Anatolian-Turkshttps://turkishdna.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2018-09-30T11:55:00-07:00&max-results=2&start=1&by-date=false&m=1https://www.haplogruplar.com/the-genetic-structure-of-anatolia-from-the-neolithic-to-the-oghuz-migrations/https://www.haplogruplar.com/turkiye-turklerinde-y-dna-haplogruplarinin-dagilimi/About turkic admixture in turkey
@MemYou are basing your arguments on a lot of outdated papers from before the ancient DNA revolution. 1- Elite domination refers to the political and cultural dominance of a group, usually a minority group, on other groups of people. I do not see anything contradicting it in the process of Turkification of Anatolia. Oghuz/Turcoman immigrants and their Persian supporters were minority in Anatolia and formed the elite group (including the military) that would initiate and sustain the process of Turkification (along with Islamization) of Anatolia. One of the two published Ottoman-era Anatolian genomes has about 40% East Eurasian DNA, that is way too high for modern Anatolian Turkish standards. That Ottoman-era genome might be from early Ottoman era, still it does not represent the genetics of the newly arriving Oghuz/Turcomans, as there was enough time for some mixing between the Oghuz/Turcoman immigrants and native Anatolians until the emergence of the Ottoman Empire, so the incoming Oghuz/Turcomans might have had even more East Eurasian DNA than 40%, only their ancient DNA testing can settle this issue.2- Where is the Etruscan autosomal or Y-DNA? 3- You must have missed the most recent ancient DNA results. From the paper "Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry" (Lazaridis et al. 2018):"Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers, a common link between the Levant and Africa. Moreover, our model predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5±1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt-related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan African source; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in West Africans. An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources."https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/20/423079.full.pdfSo the relevant migrations were probably mostly from North Africa to the Levant and Sub-Saharan Africa, not the other way around.
@Onurit's been a long time since I've see you,thanks for your comment.As for the interpretation of ethnic Turks,Maju believe that ethnic Turks were not directly descended from Oguz tribes,only a small Oguz elite assimilated the natives,and I opposed his view , of course I did not oppose the fact that the elite had a role in the Turkification of Anatolia.You remember that you were a solid supporter of the elite dominance theory, but when the autosomal genetics of ethnic Turks emerged, you abandoned the idea and now you are trying to tell people that the Turks came from the oghuzes.By the way, I put some links on this subject, but he didn't answer, I guess he didn't deign to look at links because he didn't believe me. You have a more scientific language and you are more aware of genetic research, can you explain to Maju that the Turks carry the blood of the oghuzes?
@MemNone of us (Maju included) deny that modern Anatolian Turks have some Oghuz/Turcoman invader blood (though as you pointed out, those from parts of northeastern Anatolia totally lack Oghuz/Turcoman invader blood), and I did not deny this in the past either. What was in the dispute and what is still in dispute is the ratio of Oghuz/Turcoman invader blood in individual Anatolian Turks who show some such blood in genetic tests. Like I said in my previous comment, we should first learn the genetic makeup of the Oghuz/Turcomans who invaded Anatolia, which will require ancient DNA tests of them. I guess their ancient DNA results will be available in the following years, so I see no need to come to premature conclusions on this issue, I can wait a few more years.
I do "deny" or rather minimize it. Why? Because no O3 or other typical Central Asian Y-DNA in Turkey (and AFAIK neither in Azerbaijan) or at most in really tiny amounts. Occasional Q or N proves nothing, because Q is original from West Asia (seems most basally diverse in or around Iran) and N is rather associated with Uralics, who have been in West Eurasia since the Epipaleolithic. Kazakhs are the closest thing alive to "primigenial Turkics" and their lineages do not show up in Anatolia or almost so. As the Turkic admixture was necessarily male-biased, I believe that Y-DNA is the basic cue here, rather than often confusing autosomal DNA, more so as it is a rather clear-cut issue: O3? C3? Where and at which frequencies?An even more extreme case of negligible genetic influence by the dominant is in Hungary, where we can find exactly NOTHING that relates modern Hungarians to other Ugric nations like Khanty or Mansi or even to the wider Uralic genetic pool. In fact Hungarians are the more Western-like of East-Central European peoples, what is weird and can't be explained by the country being subject to repeated invasions from the steppes, be them Indoeuropean, Turkic or Ugric. If that would be mtDNA/autosomal only... but it's also the case in their Y-DNA. There's hardly a more clear-cut case of elite domination than Hungary, although Turkey is quite close.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?217592-East-Eurasian-admixture-in-Turks-is-HUGE-!!!-(-autosomal-DNA-charts-)https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?188673-Turkish-Autosomal-DNA-West-Central-and-East-Anatolian-Turkshttps://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?190158-Turkish-Autosomal-DNA-West-Central-and-East-Anatolian-Turkshttps://turkishdna.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2018-09-30T11:55:00-07:00&max-results=2&start=1&by-date=false&m=1https://www.haplogruplar.com/the-genetic-structure-of-anatolia-from-the-neolithic-to-the-oghuz-migrations/https://www.haplogruplar.com/turkiye-turklerinde-y-dna-haplogruplarinin-dagilimi/About turkic admixture in turkeyplease read these links carefully,then comment.
Be aware that anthrogenica's cookies make it a semi-hidden forum. Members can access freely but nonmembers will not unless they repeatedly delete the cookies. This is silly on their part but that's how they work and a reason not to care about that forum.Also, I'm not reading all that. I don't feel like, if you want to underline something be specific, please.
http://www.haplogruplar.com/on-turklerde-antik-y-dna-ornekleri/The results of the Hazar,xiugnu and göktürks,as you can see, there are quite a number of western Eurasian specimens at that time.http://www.haplogruplar.com/turklerde-otozomal-dna/Autosomal DNA results of turkic peoples.http://www.genelturktarihi.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/?MAThe results of the Y DNA of some of the Turkic peoples,even the kazakhs that you think are the purest, are quite complex.
Maju first of all,I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude when I said read carefully.In the meantime, I did not throw antrogenica link and I can read comment in apricity without becoming a member, the last two of the links just blog links.
@Mem Modern Turkmens and Uzbeks of Central Asia should not be used as representative of the genetics of the Oghuz/Turcomans coming to Anatolia 1000-800 years ago from what is now Kazakhstan because modern Turkmens and Uzbeks themselves are products of the admixture of Turkic peoples coming from what is now Kazakhstan with the Iranic natives of what are now Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and environs during the last 1000 years. It is best to wait for ancient DNA results of Oghuz/Turcoman skeletons from about 1000 years ago.
Maju, there is no evidence that speakers of proto-Turkic belonged in part or in their entirety to Y-DNA haplogroup O-M122 or C-M217.You should be aware that historical linguistics reveals a great deal of contact between speakers of Turkic and Mongolic both prior to or contemporaneous with the MRCA of each family (i.e. prior to or contemporaneous with the proto-Turkic and proto-Mongolic stages) and afterwards.You might also consider the onomastics of Kazakh and Mongol tribes, which overlap to a great extent. It is not easy to determine which tribe was (at least in name) originally Turk and which tribe was originally Mongol. Kereit, Naiman, Qongirat, Jalair, Dughlat... No one can declare confidently whether any one of these peoples was originally Turkic, originally Mongolic, or neither. Tribes or clans bearing these names still exist among present-day speakers of Turkic and Mongolic languages. According to Ashirbekov et al. (2017), most modern Kereis, Dulats, and Jalayirs in Kazakhstan belong to Y-DNA haplogroup C-M401 (which includes the former so-called "Genghis Khan star cluster"). Most modern Qongyrats in Kazakhstan belong to Y-DNA haplogroup C-M407, which otherwise has been found with high frequency in Buryats around the southern end of Lake Baikal (and in some neighboring populations, such as Soyots and Khamnigans). C-M407 belongs to C-F1067, the relatively southern half of C-M217 whose members have been found mainly in China, Korea, Vietnam, Japan, etc., and its relationship to C-M401 is very remote, roughly comparable to the distance between Q-M242 and R-M207. The Naimans in Kazakhstan mainly belong to a subclade of O-F444 (O-M134(xM117)) that is clearly recently (like perhaps historically -- Li Ling?) derived from an ancestor from China. Many relatively geographically isolated, linguistically and culturally divergent Turkic groups (Chuvash, Yakut, Khakas, Shor, Loplik, Keriyalik) contain nearly zero members of C-M217, O-M122, or both.It is difficult to discern the haplogroups to which members of the proto-Turkic linguistic community may have belonged, but that does not mean that you have carte blanche to presume that every proto-Turk belonged to C-M217 or O-M122.
@Mem: sorry, my bad about the nature of the links. In any case, I still renounce to head to read half a dozen of links when you are not even quoting an enticing excerpt (for each of them preferably). Don't you understand I do not have energies anymore? I just don't: information overload! It's not that my mind broke, my curiosity or enthusiasm, my desire to discuss things over and over, my "spirit" did. I need calm, rest, quietness, relaxation, not more endless links and debates. It may just be because of the fall of testorone levels for males at my age, it may be because of whatever. What matters is that I don't want to end up every day engaged on an anthro discussion or a dozen. Because I get truly exhausted emotionally. So quit all this Maju, Maju, Maju. I'm retiring as soon as I can publish the Puerto Rico - Guanche connection paper. This blog is too stressing for old age.
To all: the question is not if there were Turkics with Western genetics before the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia, the question is that they still carried both sets of lineages and yet in Anatolia the Eastern set does not exist... at all. It's HOMEOPATIC DILUTION LEVEL, just as with Magyars in Hungary: homeopaty does not get proven but its ethno-linguistic equivalent, elite domination, does, very clearly so.Anyhow, if you think about it, it makes total sense: Anatolia was always a very densely populated region, one of the centers of the Ancient World and not some backwater semidesert like Kazakhstan. You just can't pump enough nomads from Central Asia to make any major dent, much less after going through filter after filter (Uzbekistan, Persia), just as you can't draw enough Bedouins from Arabia either. In order to settle a region or country, the source population must be larger than the conquered population, for example England vs Australian Aboriginals, Germany vs the Lakota, things like that. And it helps if migration is sustained century after century and not just a single conqueror burst. This is almost beyon history, demographics and genetics: it's basic thermodynamics, if the pressures are balanced, gases (people are collectively like gases or fluids) do not move from one recipient to the other, much less if the flow only has a very limited time to happen. Turkic ancestry in Turkey is demonstrated with O3 and C2 (that's the new name of old C3, right?) Y-DNA, exactly as Corded Ware/Unetice influence in Western Europe (much more intense) is directly measurable by apportioning R1a relative to East Germany, the Czech Republic or Poland. Sure, most of the actual immigration (Celts, Germanics, Italics) happened from West Germany or Italy, but it still it gives a ratio above those buffers or intermediate dilution zones, then you can recalculate but what you can't say is that R1a is not a measure of Indoeuropeanness in Western Europe or that O3+C2 is not a measure of Altaicness, etc. In terms genetic, more so when it was the men who made the migration primarily, that is it. With autosomal DNA you can make all sorts of errors and cheats instead, notably when you tinker the sample sizes (intently or accidentally, the result is the same: errors and biases) or, worse, when you use "zombie" components as if they'd be real populations, what is becoming a true scandal, totally abusive.
@Ebizur You seem to be very interested in Turkic peoples.Your comment was really up to date and full of information. I'm giving you links in case you're interested.I'd appreciate it if you wrote your comment after reading all of it.I like to answer if you have questions.http://archive.is/Kt533http://chuvashlar.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-origins-of-bulgaro-turkic-languages.html?m=1http://chuvashlar.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-lexicostatistics-and_7.html?m=1http://chuvashlar.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-internal-classification-migration.html?m=1
Maju wrote,"Turkic ancestry in Turkey is demonstrated with O3 and C2 (that's the new name of old C3, right?) Y-DNA"The former O3-M122 is the current O2-M122. This haplogroup does not exhibit any signs of having been originally Turkic. It is found with non-negligible frequency and diversity among a few Turkic peoples (e.g. Uyghurs in the Hotan area of SW Xinjiang: 26/478 = 5.44% O-M117, 15/478 = 3.14% O-M134(xM117), 15/478 = 3.14% O-P164(xM134), 3/478 = 0.63% O-JST002611, 1/478 = 0.21% O-KL1(xJST002611), 60/478 = 12.55% O-M122 total Uyghur/Hotan area according to Lu Yan 2011). However, a great deal of this appears to be a result of recent or historical gene flow from Chinese and Tibetans.A subclade of O-CTS2643 looks like it has experienced a founder effect among the Naiman Kazakhs, most of whom inhabit eastern Kazakhstan, the Ili region of northern Xinjiang, southern Altai, or western Mongolia. Branches of O-F430 basal to O-CTS2643 are represented on YFull by individuals from Beijing, Tokyo, Kanagawa, Fujian, Sichuan, and Ho Chi Minh City, and O-CTS2643 itself is also well-represented in China, with members also found in Vietnam, Korea, and Japan. It appears that this clade is most likely Chinese in origin, and some Chinese man may have been very genetically successful among the ancestors of the Naimans.It also appears that a branch of O-N6 (O-P164(xM134)), a subclade of O-M122 known for its high frequency among Polynesians and some other Austronesian populations, has experienced a founder effect in some steppe nomad population that has contributed to several modern Turkic-speaking groups (e.g. Uyghurs, Volga Tatars), though this founder effect is of minor magnitude compared to the O-CTS2643 founder effect among the Naimans. The branch that is concerned here is a typically Chinese and Korean one, not an Austronesian one; its TMRCA with the typically Austronesian subclade of O-N6 is estimated to be 13,300 [95% CI 12,100 <-> 14,600] ybp, so they only share a common ancestor around the end of the Palaeolithic era, probably somewhere in what is now eastern China, and it does not by any means indicate any sort of exotic, mysterious relationship between Turks and Polynesians. DA45, a specimen from Mongolia (radiocarbon 14C date: 2083 +- 27 BP uncal, population label: XiongNu according to Damgaard et al. 2018), also belongs to this branch according to YFull.Members of several branches of O-F18 (TMRCA 12,500 [95% CI 11,200 <-> 13,800] ybp according to YFull), which is another typically Chinese clade and the major subclade of O-JST002611, also have been found among Turkic speakers (e.g. Azeris), but it does not seem to be any more concentrated among them than among their neighbors who speak other languages (e.g. Armenian, Persian, Brahui). Chinese/Hui merchants might be the most plausible ancestors for these individuals, or perhaps even patrilineally Chinese men working for the Mongols.Likewise, the former C3-M217 is the current C2-M217. Within this clade, there is a very ancient division between C-L1373 and C-F1067, comparable to the division between Q-M242 and R-M207 within P-M45.C-L1373 contains a great deal of basal diversity, but each of its many extant subclades contains rather little diversity, which suggests that it may have expanded rapidly over a wide territory and then lived under conditions unfavorable to population growth ever since its initial rapid expansion. That initial expansion seems to have been roughly contemporaneous with initial human settlement in the Americas, most likely between 15,000 and 16,000 ybp.
C-F1067, on the other hand, appears most likely to have originated near the shores of the East China Sea (including e.g. the Yellow Sea, Korea Bay, and Bohai), with all or nearly all its extant members probably being descendants of agriculturalists who have thrived in eastern China and Korea. Some members of this clade in Japan are of recorded foreign ancestry; e.g. a certain Mr. Imamura who belongs to haplogroup C-Z31667 is allegedly (according to the paternal ancestor name reported by this user at FTDNA) a descendant of a certain ceramic artist who relocated to Hirado from Ungcheon ("Bear Stream" in Sino-Korean, with the Chinese characters also read as Komogai or Komogae in Japan, following a now obsolete native Korean reading of the same characters: cf. Modern Korean gōm "a bear" and Modern Korean gae-ul "a small stream, a brook," gae-cheon "a ditch, a drainage canal; a small stream, a brook," gae-golchang "a ditch, a drain, a gutter, a sewer; [in dialects spoken near the southern end of the Korean Peninsula] a small stream, a brook," also dialectal or obsolete gae "an estuary, an inlet, a creek") when the Japanese withdrew from southern Korea after their failed attempt to conquer the Kingdom of Joseon in the final decade of the 16th century CE. Ungcheon was at one time one of three ports in Joseon where accommodations for foreigners (Japanese) had been established and international trade with Japanese could legally be conducted. Invading Japanese warriors constructed a large fortress in the Ungcheon area; the stone foundation walls of this fortress remain in fairly good condition today, though no buildings remain. Tangentially, it appears that a disproportionately large number of at least the non-academic samples from Japan on YFull and on FTDNA projects allege themselves to be of Korean or Chinese ancestry, and therefore may not represent authentic Japanese people. I suppose that this may be an unintentional result of greater interest in genetic genealogy among people whose pedigrees indicate foreign ancestry, but it is something that third-person observers should keep in mind. (Besides the ones who have publicly indicated a Korean or Chinese ancestor, there may be an indeterminable number of others who are also in fact of known Korean or Chinese ancestry and yet have not made any indication of such ancestry.)
Nearly all members of C-M217 among Turkic speakers belong to one of four subclades:C-M504/M401/F1918: TMRCA 8,000 [95% CI 6,200 <-> 10,000] ybp (This clade is extremely common among Hazaras, the tribes of the Senior Juz of Kazakhs, and the Kerey tribe of Kazakhs. It is also common among Mongols, especially Khalkhs, and it may also be the most common subclade of C-M217 among Kyrgyz. Despite its apparently ancient TMRCA, it appears to be comprised of at least two distinct subclades, one being found especially among Turko-Mongols, including Kalmyks, Uyghurs, Buryats, Tatars, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and Hazaras, and another being found among Mongolo-Tunguses, including the Qing Manchus, Daurs, Xibes, Oroqens, etc. The Turko-Mongol subclade is roughly equivalent to the so-called "Genghis Khan star cluster" plus a few outliers, and its TMRCA is estimated to be 2,500 [95% CI 1,900 <-> 3,200] ybp.)C-M86: TMRCA 3,800 [95% CI 3,100 <-> 4,600] ybp (This clade is extremely common among the Tungus proper i.e. Evenks and closely related tribes, as well as among the Oirat i.e. western Mongolic speakers and the Alshyn/Junior Juz i.e. western Kazakhs. It is slightly more closely related to C-B90, which has been found among indigenous peoples in the extreme northeast of Siberia, than it is related to other subclades of C-L1373.)C-448del/F1756: TMRCA 5,300 [95% CI 4,400 <-> 6,400] ybp (This clade is generally uncommon but widespread among present-day speakers of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages. In Kazakhstan, it seems to be found most notably among the Tore, "an aristocratic privileged class in the traditional Kazakh society, which is considered as the descendants of Genghis Khan, and therefore they are not a part of the tribal structure of the Kazakh zhuzes." One fairly old branch of this clade has been found in the Czech Republic and Poland, and another has been found in Shandong. Specimens from Bronze Age strata of some archaeological sites in Inner Mongolia and Manchuria also have been found to belong to this haplogroup, dating back at least as far as the first half of the first millennium BCE. The population of the Jinggouzi site in southeastern Inner Mongolia has been associated by some with the Donghu people mentioned in Chinese historical texts. The C-F1756 clade is slightly more closely related to North American C-P39 than either of them is related to other subclades of C-L1373.)C-M407: TMRCA 4,100 [95% CI 3,200 <-> 4,900] ybp (Unlike the other subclades of C-M217 found among modern Turkic speakers, C-M407 belongs to the C-F1067 subclade common among Chinese and Koreans rather than to the C-L1373 subclade common among eastern nomads and indigenous Siberians and Americans. C-M407 is very common among indigenous people living in southwestern Buryatia, near the southern end of Lake Baikal, and among the Qongyrat tribe of Kazakhs. It is also common among the Dörwöd subgroup of the Kalmyks, but less so among their other subgroups. Rather large percentages of a few samples of Han Chinese from Shandong and Gansu, which are located at the eastern and western edges of northern China, respectively, have also belonged to C-M407.)The idea of linking Turkic languages with O-M122 seems very farfetched.Linking Turkic with C-M217 is less absurd, but it still faces a similar problem as that faced by the hypothesis that subclades of both R-M17 and R-M269 have been spread by proto-Indo-Europeans. Namely, although most extant Turkic-speaking populations contain at least some members of C-M217 (however small a fraction of the total population they may comprise), they do not all contain members of the same subclade, and even the more closely related subclades of C-M217 among those that are found in Turkic-speaking populations share a MRCA who lived in the era of the first human settlement of the American continent.
What I require for "signature of Turkic immigration at detectable levels" is some Y-DNA lineages that come from East Asia and can't be attributed to the much older Uralic migration (for example N1 would not work, because it's been around the Black Sea since the Epipaleolithic or Neolithic). All R is West Eurasian, regardless of whether it is Indoeuropean or something else, hence can't be related to Turkic unless you mean "West Eurasian populations assimilated" by Turkic conquests/migrations. I'll try to look at further details now.
After trying to dive a bit into your nuances, Ebizur, I decided not worth the effort: anything O or anything C2 would serve as potential Turkic marker, as neither of those lineages has been found in West Eurasia before the Iron Age AFAIK. It seems like Cinnioglu 2004 is still the only relevant study on Turkey's Y-DNA genetics, and all that there in this category is 1.3% C (subclade unspecified). That's the upper limit for root-Turkic immigration (male side) to Anatolia: 1.3%. It just cannot be greater because all other haplogroups are West Eurasia. You can of course elaborate about what haplogroups did the Seljuk Turks actually carry, and some have suggested that they carried a lot of L for example and that most of L in West Asia might be attributable to Turkic migrations but that is obviously a lineage they picked up "on the march", i.e. a lineage dominant in some assimilated population not in root-Turkics.
So any study that claims >0.7% East Asian or root-Turkic in Anatolia should raise eyebrows. The reconstructed history of the Turkics is as follows:1. They originally lived in or near what is now Mongolia, East of the Altai Mts. We see no genetic permeability before the Iron Age in Central Asia and only some bidirectional mtDNA flow in the Iron Age BCE. 2. The Xiongnu/Huns/root-Turkic expanded very vigorously Westwards since the 2nd century BCE, their best known effect was the Hunnic invasion of Europe, which was quite important in the collapse of the Roman Empire, in triggering the late migrations of Germanic peoples (and even the last Scythians: the Alans, who ended up in Spain and Tunisia) and almost certainly favored the Slavic expansion under their shadow (as vassals or allies). 3. Then they form a series of states: Gökturk Khaganate, the Bulgarias, Cumans, Pechenegs, Khazars, etc., all then in or near the West-Central steppe. 4. Only very late in the history of the Turkic expansion they conquer large parts of West Asia, as Seljuk Turks, which should be a very diluted bunch. The core of their conquest was Greater Persia, incl. Iran, Syria, etc., with Azerbaijan and Anatolia being only peripheral in this conquest. 5. Finally the played a subservient role within the Mongol Empire and derived states, as well, as a leading one in the Ottoman Empire (of course). Do we basically agree with this "narrative" of the Turkic expansion? Or am I missing something important?
Kaixo Majuhttp://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat4457After this year's stagnant and mundane articles,finally, a surprising work has been published.This study is about the genetic structure of peoples in the bronze and Iron Age pontic steppes.What is surprising is that the Cimmerians have a dense Siberian and eastern Asian component, unlike other nomads.That was something I never expected.My guess is that the Cimmerians are an early oguric horde,considering that the PBT language is separated from 1000 to 800BC.But it is a possibility that this event may be an unexpected yeniseic migration from the minusinsk basin. I'm waiting for your comments.Enjoyed readings.
OK, thanks. Somewhat interesting. I'm guessing that this relates to the East Asian mtDNA (and surely autosomal) admixture that happened in Central Asia and Mongolia (bidirectional) in the Iron Age. Cimmerians are still known to be an Indoeuropean people by language (just as Scythians) and they did not invade much (at least not in a way that led to sustained effects, basically a wave on Anatolia c. 700 BCE), rather they were invaded and gradually vanished from history. There's no Y-DNA nor mtDNA info in the paper I can find. Why?
MajuThanks for the comment.There are samples of Y DNA and mtDNA in the paper.If you look at the pictures carefully, you'il see. As for the Cimmerian language,we know almost nothing about it.Only three kings name and the word cimmmer.The interpretation of this language is as indoeuropen, certainly a wisfull thinking.(and yes, I read Iranian etymologies based on the King's names and did not satisfy me.)
Ref. Iron Age Central Asian mtDNA exchange: https://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/11/mitochondrial-snapshots-from-east-west.html
"Read carefully" is a phrase that should be declared illegal. Cite carefully is what I demand instead. I just don't see them in a rapid overview and I do not have patience anymore.
https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/scythian-cimmerian-sarmatian-y-dna-mtdna.pngThere is ydna,mtdna results.Sorry for my rudness again,picture was in Carlos blog,not in article,my bad
Thank you, Mem: they don't look anything "Turkic" to me in the Y-DNA at all. As for the mtDNA, there are a few instances (I think it's five, not many) of lineages that can be attributed to Altaic female-biased flow. Doesn't look like it could justify the autosomal DNA results but I'm not really willing to dive into the supp. materials in order to, once again, straighten a wrong without any economic compensation for my work.
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... OFF (let's see how long it can last this time).