Unmasking AIT

[Husky]

Important post.

Related to post 472 and the previous post (also important).

Post 2/2



The following paper is AFTER Haak et al 2015.

- Remember: The Haak et al 2015 paper is the one that declared Massive Steppe migration into Euro space thought to have brought in most (but not all) "IE" languages in Europe, and which paper actually had nothing to conclude about India etc (not counting suppositions).

- The Haak et al 2015 paper led to all kinds of loonies on the internet declaring that Kurgan hypothesis for PIE (i.e. the hypothesis where Pontic Caspian Steppe = PIE urheimat) has finally won against Anatolian hypothesis for PIE, etc.



In previous posts, have already seen how some researchers are now suddenly insisting how linguistics has essentially "always" pointed to some Caucasus urheimat (this sudden changeover is courtesy Indian, C Asian and Armenian DNA not being derivable from Yamna).



In the current post will see how researchers - again, after the Haak et al 2015 paper - are still finding data that makes them conclude the Anatolian hypothesis of PIE urheimat (in Anatolia) must be true instead.

Although, they've only found evidence for one part of the Anatolian thesis - which part is not unique to the Anatolian thesis* (though it does not occur in the Kurgan thesis): of Iranian migrations northward into C Asia and beyond.

Specifically, the paper considers the distribution of another interesting haplogroup (which has both old and rather young branches such as a few in Kazakhastan).



Found via someone summarising the paper with:

There was a movement from Iran to North of Central Asia in Neolithic times and maybe later also. It was the G1 haplogroup.

But it's much more than that.



Excerpts all worth reading. (And just in case it isn't clear: the Argyn Kazakh case is a late example of how the process has been ongoing since a long time.)



journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0122968

Deep Phylogenetic Analysis of Haplogroup G1 Provides Estimates of SNP and STR Mutation Rates on the Human Y-Chromosome and Reveals Migrations of Iranic Speakers

Balanovsky et al April 7, 2015





Abstract



Y-chromosomal haplogroup G1 is a minor component of the overall gene pool of South-West and Central Asia but reaches up to 80% frequency in some populations scattered within this area. We have genotyped the G1-defining marker M285 in 27 Eurasian populations (n= 5,346), analyzed 367 M285-positive samples using 17 Y-STRs, and sequenced ~11 Mb of the Y-chromosome in 20 of these samples to an average coverage of 67X. This allowed detailed phylogenetic reconstruction. We identified five branches, all with high geographical specificity: G1-L1323 in Kazakhs, the closely related G1-GG1 in Mongols, G1-GG265 in Armenians and its distant brother clade G1-GG162 in Bashkirs, and G1-GG362 in West Indians. The haplotype diversity, which decreased from West Iran to Central Asia, allows us to hypothesize that this rare haplogroup could have been carried by the expansion of Iranic speakers northwards to the Eurasian steppe and via founder effects became a predominant genetic component of some populations, including the Argyn tribe of the Kazakhs. The remarkable agreement between genetic and genealogical trees of Argyns allowed us to calibrate the molecular clock using a historical date (1405 AD) of the most recent common genealogical ancestor. The mutation rate for Y-chromosomal sequence data obtained was 0.78×10-9 per bp per year, falling within the range of published rates. The mutation rate for Y-chromosomal STRs was 0.0022 per locus per generation, very close to the so-called genealogical rate. The “clan-based” approach to estimating the mutation rate provides a third, middle way between direct farther-to-son comparisons and using archeologically known migrations, whose dates are subject to revision and of uncertain relationship to genetic events.



Introduction



Despite multiple studies of the phylogeography of individual Y-chromosomal haplogroups, haplogroup G1-M285 has not received attention so far. This is partly explained by its relatively low frequency in its main area of distribution in South-West Asia [10,42], and partly by its uneven geographic distribution with a maximum frequency in the Madjar population in Kazakhstan [5]. For this reason, study of the phylogeography of haplogroup G [44] dealt mainly with the G2 sub-branch, and the only statement about G1 is an estimate of its age from Y-STR markers (19,000 ± 6,000 years). However, newly accumulated data indicate that G1 is present over a wider area in the Eurasian steppe than in Madjars only [10], and it also reaches very high frequencies in geographically distant populations of the Armenian plateau (Table 1). Thus, haplogroup G1 might mark an ancient genetic link between Iranic speakers of South-West Asia and populations of the Central Asian steppes where Iranian speech predominated in the second and first millennia BC (Fig 1A). However, the place of origin of this haplogroup remains unclear, and it is unknown whether South-West Asians and Madjars have the same or different subbranches of haplogroup G1, what the age of the branch(es) are, and which ancient migrations contributed to the contemporary distribution and diversity of this haplogroup.



[...]

Migration of Iranic-speaking populations between the Central Asian steppes and South-West Asian uplands is an important issue in human population history, directly related to the much-debated problem of the homeland and early migrations of Indo-Europeans. Followers of the Kurgan theory propose that the carriers of Iranic languages expanded from the Eurasian steppe southward to present-day Iran, from which region these languages received their name (Fig 1B). The competing theory locating the Indo-European homeland in Eastern Anatolia proposes that the Iranic branch migrated from the Iranian plateau northward to the steppes (Fig 1B). Thus, both theories agree on the area populated by ancient Iranic-speakers (both the Iranian-Armenian plateau and Central Asia steppes) and later replacement of Iranic languages in the steppes by the Turkic ones. But these theories suggested opposite directions of the population movements between the steppes and uplands [34].



[...]

It is notable that the area of haplogroup G1, including the Eurasian steppes from the North Black Sea region to the Mongolian Altai and South-Western Asian uplands (Iran and historical Great Armenia), corresponds well with the area populated by Iranic speakers in the second and first millennia BC (Fig 1A). This correspondence was statistically confirmed by AMOVA (S3 Table).



[...]

The phylogenetic trees created by parsimony (S2 Fig) and Bayesian approaches (S3 Fig) coincided fully—not surprisingly, since the full-Y-chromosomal dataset allows robust reconstruction of phylogenetic events. The trees reveal three principal clusters: Kazakh, Armenian and Bashkir, with 100% specificity of the cluster members to the corresponding populations. The Armenian and Bashkir clusters have a shared ancestor on the tree, while the Kazakh cluster and an Indian cluster (described below) form independent branches. The Mongol sample forms a branch on its own, although this Mongolian branch then joins the Kazakh cluster in agreement with common geographical and historical background of the two groups.



This tree corresponds in general with the pattern revealed by the STR-based network (Fig 3). Kazakh, Armenian and Bashkir clusters are clearly visible on both plots. However, Armenians, which seemed to have two clusters and multiple single-haplotype mini-branches from the STR data, all turned out to belong to one single and compact cluster when complete Y-chromosomal resequencing was performed. Similarly, the Mongolian sample, which seemed to form a separate branch on the STR-based plot, actually joins the Kazakh cluster. We conclude that haplogroup G1 lineages actually form a restricted number of clusters, in contrast to the impression one can get from STR-data, with the caveat that the number of sequences examined thus far is limited.



The presence of additional clusters was confirmed when we included two GIH (Gujarat Indians from Houston) samples from the 1000 Genomes Project, which are the only publicly available data on haplogroup G1. Including the low coverage sequences halved the number of SNPs called in all samples (S4 Table), but tree revealed the same topology, and the Indian G1s formed their own cluster (Fig 5). One technical point is notable: the lengths of all the branches on the tree are similar, as they should be if the mutation rate is constant. The only exception is the very long branches of the samples from the 1000 Genomes Project, which is likely caused by the filtering criteria not being optimized for low coverage datasets. However, 26 SNPs were independently called in both samples, thus confirming the reality of the Indian-specific branch of haplogroup G1.



The Kazakh cluster fits the previously described G-L1323 branch (www.isogg.org), while the Bashkir, Armenian, Mongolian and Indian branches were not previously reported. Fig 5 approximates the phylogenetic relations between five branches found in our study and three previously known ones.



(Note they estimated the mutation rate based on a 14th-15th century ancestor of Kazakhs)



Discussion



The pattern of geographic distribution of haplogroup G1-M285 is to some degree exceptional, as it cannot be called either a West-Eurasian or an East-Eurasian lineage (Fig 2). Instead, its spread zone corresponds well with the area of ancient Iranic-speaking groups who dwelled both on the Iranian plateau (and neighboring uplands) and Eurasian steppe. The increased dataset on G1 frequencies and STR-variation leaves little doubt that G1 is partitioned into a small number of clusters (branches), each frequent in a particular population. It became very clear from the phylogenetic tree based on full Y-chromosomal sequences that the geographic specificity of G1 branches is virtually absolute, as all five branches are specific, respectively, to West Indians, Kazakhs, Mongols, Bashkirs, and Armenians, although further sampling in Iran and Central Asian countries may reveal additional minor branches.



The question arises of whether the homeland of G1 was in steppe or mountains. Much higher STR variation in the west part of the Iranian-Armenian plateau makes the mountain homeland a more probable candidate. This conclusion fits the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origins, and the pattern of STR diversity (Fig 4) fits especially well. Migrations from Iran to Central Asia are also clear from paleoanthropological data [19,29]. Though haplogroup G1 certainly cannot serve as a marker for the Indo-European expansion in general, this haplogroup might be a genetic component carried by a wave of Iranic-speaker migration and brought northward to the Eurasian steppe. The genetic dates suggest that all principal branches already existed when this migration started. Indeed, even the last split into the Bashkir and Armenian clusters is dated back to 8000 YBP (S5 Table), while the Armenian linguistic branch separated around 4600 YBP and Indo-Iranian languages separated around 4200 YBP (starling.rinet.ru/new100/eurasia_long.jpg). Haplogroup G1 might remain a minor genetic component among many Eurasian and particularly Iranic-speaking populations (as it is now rare, for example, in Italy and West India, though more frequent in its possible homeland in Iran/Armenia). When Turkic languages replaced Iranic ones in the steppes (perhaps starting from the middle of the 1st millennium AD) the G1-carriers were probably assimilated into expanding Turkic and then Mongolian-speaking populations. In more recent times, haplogroup G1 has undergone three independent expansions in different geographic regions, shown by the full-Y-chromosomal analysis (Fig 5).

(That final prediction is worth investigating.)



The expansion in Kazakhs is genetically dated to an interval of 470–750 YBP, using the range of published mutation rate point estimates [17,37,41,50]. The genealogical ancestor of the Argyn Kazakh (the main carriers of this haplogroup) lived 600 years ago, which lies in the middle of this range. Expansion from a single man to half a million descendants within 500 years (20 generations) is not really surprising. Indeed, having two surviving sons in every generation gives half a million descendants in the 19th generation and Kazakh families had 3.5 children on average [36]. Also, an even more impressive expansion up to 16 million descendants was suggested for the same medieval steppe societies [53]. Note that the traditional genealogical partitioning of Argyns into three clans corresponds well with the Y-STR data (S4 Fig). This finding also questions the hypothesis [5] about the relationship between the Argyn subclan Madjars and Magyars (Hungarians), because haplogroup G1 (comprising 82% of the Madjar gene pool) finds its place within other Argyn Kazakh (S4 Fig) while no G1 samples have been reported in Hungarians so far.



The expansion in the Hemsheni Armenian is genetically dated to 1150 YBP using our rate (S5 Table). It corresponds well with the historical evidence [30,48] that the Hemsheni originated from relatives and servants of Prince Shapuh Amatuni, who migrated in 791 from the Abbasid Persian state.



The expansion in the Kangly tribe of Bashkirs is genetically dated to the 15th century AD (S5 Table). This tribe originated from the Pechenegs around the 8th century AD, then joined the Bashkirs, and later expansion in a restricted part of the tribe might have been caused by demographic changes when it became part of the Golden Horde in the 14th century and part of the Russian state in 16th century.



We note that despite geographic proximity, the ancestor of the G1 cluster in Bashkirs had no close genetic relationship to the corresponding ancestor in Kazakhs. These branches (and the third branch detected in Mongolians) have survived in the Eurasian steppe perhaps since the Scythian epoch.



The remarkable coincidence between the genealogical tree of the Argyn Kazakh clan (Fig 6B) and the genetic tree obtained from full Y-chromosomal sequences (Fig 6A) allowed us to suggest an independent calibration of the mutation rate of Y-chromosomal SNPs. This “clan” rate has been tested only within the time frame in which it was obtained (a few centuries), and in cases when it is reasonable to suppose expansion of a single paternal line rather than multiple lineages in the founding population, and by applying the “gold standard” portion of the Y-chromosome (that included in the BigY technology used in our study). Provided these limitations are taken into account, this “clan-based” calibration might be at least as reliable as calibrations based on archeological evidence, because archeological dates are subject to revision and of uncertain relationship to genetic events. For example, the calibration of the Y-chromosomal mutation rate in [41] is based on “archeological evidence that humans first colonized America around 15 kya” while the study that provides the commonly-used calibration of the mitochondrial DNA control region [15] relies on a “major wave of migration [which] brought one population ancestral to Amerinds from north-eastern Siberia to America 20,000–25,000 years ago”. Fortunately, despite differences in approaches, all mutation rates suggested for the “full” sequences of the Y-chromosome fall within the interval 0.6–1.0 ×10-9 per bp per year, and this uncertainty may be further narrowed, as we demonstrated for the haplogroup G1.

The Iranian-speaking Ossetians in the Greater Caucasus space - descendants of Alani type Sarmatians (Scythians), an Iranian-speaking population - show significant levels of the distinctive G2a1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G-L293%2B

Perhaps locally generated from the isolation? Or derived via 'founder effect' like behaviour from a particular subset of ancient Iranians of Iranic space?

Speculation:

If Indo-Afghan and/or Iranian space can explain some significant part of the non-European portion (non-EHG portion) of Euro-steppe genetics but if Euro-steppe genetics is not able to explain long-standing ancient genetic diversity in Indo-Afghan-Iranian populations (with steppists maybe choosing to dismiss this as local "genetics" of "invaded" natives of Iran and Afghanistan/SC Asia and India), then I'm not surprised there are many people rethinking the paradigm.

Personally R1b- and R1a-heavy Steppe kulturs seem like founder effects as a result of outposts. I.e. founder effects caused by a few - but ancient and common - Indian-Iranian strains dumped in the steppes by a few clans of Indian-Iranian forming distant outposts [say for additional mining and metallurgy operations for say Tepe Hissar in Iran, to complement their existing haul]. Fits with the "Indian-specific" m52 mtDNA found at Maykop related grave site.





Anyway. Again, note how the above paper is AFTER Haak et al 2015.



Why is the above important?

- Because: Steppe Kurgan PIE (and urheimat) thesis is far from Q.E.D.

- Or (for those who're interested in this sort of thing): the Anatolian PIE (and urheimat) thesis is far from dead. (Though Renfrew's preferred version of the Anatolian PIE hypothesis - which claimed Anatolia -> steppes -> invasions on Indian-Iranian space - is no longer considered, for the same reason that the steppe hypothesis has been put on moratorium.)

- And more importantly: certain other options factually remain open too. See also post 472.



Anyone who claims otherwise at this early stage - at a stage when aDNA from Indo-Afghan-Iranian regions (i.e. including also all of Iranian backyard through Caucasus up to the very steppes) has yet to be collected - is LYING.

(Or maybe they'll try hiding their crime behind how they 'conveniently' didn't read papers such as the above either. But conveniently latched onto what their IE-ist supremacist superiors told them and they just rolled over and believed it.)



Moral: any heathen who can't think for themselves is a danger to itself and everyone else.





ADDED:

Read the excerpts from the Balanovsky paper in conjunction with this again:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture

Culture



Its inhumation practices were characteristically Indo-European, typically in a pit, sometimes stone-lined, topped with a kurgan (or tumulus). Stone cairns replace kurgans in later interments.



The Maykop kurgan was extremely rich in gold and silver artifacts; unusual for the time.

(Note discussion of "foreign objects" further below.)



The Maykop culture (also spelled Maikop, Majkop), ca. 3700 BC—3000 BC,[1] was a major Bronze Age archaeological culture in the Western Caucasus region of Southern Russia.



[...]

Iranian Origins



A more recent suggestion, by Mariya Ivanova, [8] is the Maikop origins were on the Iranian Plateau:



"Graves and settlements of the 5th millennium BC in North Caucasus attest to a material culture that was related to contemporaneous archaeological complexes in the northern and western Black Sea region. Yet it was replaced, suddenly as it seems, around the middle of the 4th millennium BC by a “high culture” whose origin is still quite unclear. This archaeological culture named after the great Maikop kurgan showed innovations in all areas which have no local archetypes and which cannot be assigned to the tradition of the Balkan-Anatolian Copper Age. The favoured theory of Russian researchers is a migration from the south originating in the Syro-Anatolian area, which is often mentioned in connection with the socalled “Uruk expansion”. However, serious doubts have arisen about a connection between Maikop and the Syro-Anatolian region. The foreign objects in the North Caucasus reveal no connection to the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris or to the floodplains of Mesopotamia, but rather seem to have ties to the Iranian plateau and to South Central Asia. Recent excavations in the Southwest Caspian Sea region are enabling a new perspective about the interactions between the “Orient” and Continental Europe. On the one hand, it is becoming gradually apparent that a gigantic area of interaction evolved already in the early 4th millennium BC which extended far beyond Mesopotamia; on the other hand, these findings relativise the traditional importance given to Mesopotamia, because innovations originating in Iran and Central Asia obviously spread throughout the Syro-Anatolian region independently thereof"

And to repeat: "Indian-specific" mtDNA M52 already found at Maykop-connected burial site (see post 472 further above).



This post and the previous one - along with post 472 further above, from which they follow - are important.