World Families Forums - R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 21, 2014, 01:39:42 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results  (Read 8262 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: November 05, 2011, 06:56:49 AM »

Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.

Next in age come the bodies from the Aldaieta cemetery in the Basque country in Spain, but they date only from the early medieval period (6th century).

The bodies of the warriors in chain mail in the cave in Ergolding in Bavaria are from the 7th century.

That's it: one Bronze Age R1b, then nothing until the 6th and 7th centuries A.D.

Ancient y-dna results recently obtained from Neolithic sites at Treilles in France, Derenburg in Germany, and in Spain have included G2a, I2a, F*, and E1b1b, but NO R1b. Of course, Ötzi, the famous "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps, is G2a4.

G2a seems to be the common denominator in all of these recent discoveries. Not only is Ötzi G2a4, but G2a was recovered from remains at all three of the other sites mentioned above. I2a was recovered at Treilles, F* at Derenburg, and E1b1b in Spain.

As it is famously said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where is the R1b? One would think that the single most common y haplogroup in modern Europe would have shown up in at least one of these sites, if R1b was present in Neolithic Europe.

Of course, ancient y-dna results are still scarce, and some Neolithic, Mesolithic or perhaps even Paleolithic European R1b could turn up tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that is likely, that R1b was actually in Europe prior to the Bronze Age and that what we have seen thus far with ancient y-dna is misleading us?



« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 07:03:33 AM by rms2 » Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2011, 08:37:22 AM »

Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.

Next in age come the bodies from the Aldaieta cemetery in the Basque country in Spain, but they date only from the early medieval period (6th century).

The bodies of the warriors in chain mail in the cave in Ergolding in Bavaria are from the 7th century.

That's it: one Bronze Age R1b, then nothing until the 6th and 7th centuries A.D.

Ancient y-dna results recently obtained from Neolithic sites at Treilles in France, Derenburg in Germany, and in Spain have included G2a, I2a, F*, and E1b1b, but NO R1b. Of course, Ötzi, the famous "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps, is G2a4.

G2a seems to be the common denominator in all of these recent discoveries. Not only is Ötzi G2a4, but G2a was recovered from remains at all three of the other sites mentioned above. I2a was recovered at Treilles, F* at Derenburg, and E1b1b in Spain.

As it is famously said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where is the R1b? One would think that the single most common y haplogroup in modern Europe would have shown up in at least one of these sites, if R1b was present in Neolithic Europe.

Of course, ancient y-dna results are still scarce, and some Neolithic, Mesolithic or perhaps even Paleolithic European R1b could turn up tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that is likely, that R1b was actually in Europe prior to the Bronze Age and that what we have seen thus far with ancient y-dna is misleading us?



I suppose its still a very tiny sample.  The negative evidence for R1b is still one or two early(ish) Med. Neolithic sites probably of Cardial roots, a couple of LBK sites for the whole of Europe, one Corded Ware site and one copper age Italian ice man.  That is a really tiny sample for an entire continent with cultures that lasted many centuries and covered many countries represented by a singe site.  I think the number of samples in a single site is not important as they are likely to be family based anyway.  

So, the ancient DNA record is like taking one man randomly from an entire nation and using him as a representative of the nation.  

Archaeologically speaking too there are huge swathes of time and space not even covered by a single ancient DNA site.  The Mesolithic is untested, the whole middle Neolithic of non-Med. Europe between the LBK and Corded Ware (c. 2000 years) is not covered.  There are no samples between the single Corded Ware site and 1000BC, another span of 1500-2000 years.  There are essentially no samples at all for north Atlantic Europe of any period.  So there are huge gaps.  I certainly dont think the 1000BC earliest R1b find is anywhere near as old as R1b in Europe.  Very few people have suggested anything later than beaker for R1b entry to Europe.  

In general, the main thing I would concede is there is slowly building a body of evidence that the earliest Neolithic in Europe didnt include R1b and when combined with the ages people are arriving at through variance for R1b in Europe then the case is beginning to gather strength.  Other than that though I dont think we know anything about R1b's entry into Europe.  As I cant see any way R1b could possibly have reached such saturation levels in western Europe if it arrived any later, the best bet at the moment is probably mid-late Neolithic/Copper Age. My personal working hypothesis is that it crossed in L23 form over from NW Anatolia to SE Europe in the 5th millenium with dairy pastoralism and then after a bit of a delay (where it lost variance) exploded across Europe.   
 it could even have been two stage - a mid Neolithic crossing into eastern Europe then a copper age expansion after some interaction in that area with steppes cultures.  Archaeologically though the only culture that bears a strong resemblance to R1b in distribution remains beaker.  Problem is its eastern origins are far from clear. 
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 08:45:49 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2011, 08:37:46 AM »

You know what I think about this. The last paper about the snail Tudorella sulcata, diffused from Sardinia to North Africa and South France, strengthens my hypothesis. You know that I am waiting a paper of Fulvio Cruciani about this and my hypothesis that R1b1/V88+ in North Africa has come from Italy by sea. Now that this could be happened is possible. Sardinia is at the origin of R-M18, a subclade of R1b1*.
The fact that I have found amongst the few persons near me I have tested:

R1b1a2* (Federighi)
R1b1a2a (L23+/L150+): me, my son, my relative Tognarelli
R1b1a2 (possibly U152): Malvolti

makes me think that Tuscany was the fatherland of R1b.
And it was also the fatherland of G-L497*. We have found so far the descendants of this haplotype. I hope that also the others will be found.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2011, 09:46:12 AM »

Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.

Next in age come the bodies from the Aldaieta cemetery in the Basque country in Spain, but they date only from the early medieval period (6th century).

The bodies of the warriors in chain mail in the cave in Ergolding in Bavaria are from the 7th century.

That's it: one Bronze Age R1b, then nothing until the 6th and 7th centuries A.D.

Ancient y-dna results recently obtained from Neolithic sites at Treilles in France, Derenburg in Germany, and in Spain have included G2a, I2a, F*, and E1b1b, but NO R1b. Of course, Ötzi, the famous "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps, is G2a4.

G2a seems to be the common denominator in all of these recent discoveries. Not only is Ötzi G2a4, but G2a was recovered from remains at all three of the other sites mentioned above. I2a was recovered at Treilles, F* at Derenburg, and E1b1b in Spain.

As it is famously said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where is the R1b? One would think that the single most common y haplogroup in modern Europe would have shown up in at least one of these sites, if R1b was present in Neolithic Europe.

Of course, ancient y-dna results are still scarce, and some Neolithic, Mesolithic or perhaps even Paleolithic European R1b could turn up tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that is likely, that R1b was actually in Europe prior to the Bronze Age and that what we have seen thus far with ancient y-dna is misleading us?





In each of these sites today, R1b is the dominant y-haplogroup. G2 is relatively uncommon now, but we now know it is a major player in the Neolithic. One can say "Well, these are only small samples", but the fact that R1b is not represented at numerous sites where it is now dominant is surely telling.

I think R1b is associated with the Bronze Age migrations from the East, and as Rich mentions, we can only find R1b in the Bronze Age and later.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2011, 11:07:18 AM »

The crossing of R1b into SE Europe from Anatolia in the neolithic seems to make the most sense.  This area from Greece up to southern Poland has been untested from the neolithic to bronze age for ydna, so far.  I think this should be the area and timeframe that the academics should focus on to see the changes in population continuity.  
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 11:08:18 AM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2011, 11:19:35 AM »

Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.
Sorry if this redundant. Here is Schweitzer's Lichtenstein Cave Data Analysis.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 11:21:46 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2011, 12:42:19 PM »

Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.

Next in age come the bodies from the Aldaieta cemetery in the Basque country in Spain, but they date only from the early medieval period (6th century).

The bodies of the warriors in chain mail in the cave in Ergolding in Bavaria are from the 7th century.

That's it: one Bronze Age R1b, then nothing until the 6th and 7th centuries A.D.

Ancient y-dna results recently obtained from Neolithic sites at Treilles in France, Derenburg in Germany, and in Spain have included G2a, I2a, F*, and E1b1b, but NO R1b. Of course, Ötzi, the famous "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps, is G2a4.

G2a seems to be the common denominator in all of these recent discoveries. Not only is Ötzi G2a4, but G2a was recovered from remains at all three of the other sites mentioned above. I2a was recovered at Treilles, F* at Derenburg, and E1b1b in Spain.

As it is famously said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where is the R1b? One would think that the single most common y haplogroup in modern Europe would have shown up in at least one of these sites, if R1b was present in Neolithic Europe.

Of course, ancient y-dna results are still scarce, and some Neolithic, Mesolithic or perhaps even Paleolithic European R1b could turn up tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that is likely, that R1b was actually in Europe prior to the Bronze Age and that what we have seen thus far with ancient y-dna is misleading us?





In each of these sites today, R1b is the dominant y-haplogroup. G2 is relatively uncommon now, but we now know it is a major player in the Neolithic. One can say "Well, these are only small samples", but the fact that R1b is not represented at numerous sites where it is now dominant is surely telling.

I think R1b is associated with the Bronze Age migrations from the East, and as Rich mentions, we can only find R1b in the Bronze Age and later.

You may well be correct that the first farmers didnt bring R1b but basically the entire continent of the last 8000 years is represented by only about 5 or 6 studies yielding ancient prehistoric European DNA, most of them dealing with one site.  The sample is absolutely useless in terms of providing reliable negative evidence.  Before we can start to feel like any sort of indicative negative evidence is there I think we will need to get well into double figures in each major area and each major period.   ...and by that I mean separate sites, not individuals in one site.  Burial sites will strongly tend to be families.

 
What it does provide is positive evidence and there is no question that when a clade appears several times in Neolithic-copper age samples when the number of sites involved is so small then it is not a coincidence.  G must have been big.  I wonder how that sits with the recent suggestion that the migration of the first farmers to Europe was by sea from the Levant rather than Anatolia?  In such a tiny sample any appearance (certainly more than one appearance) is very important. 

Certainly the beaker distribution has long been noted to bearing a resemblance to p312 in particular.  However, any link back to Asia Minor remains to be demonstrated.   The spread of dairying does seem to be a proven spread from NW Asia Minor.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2011, 01:43:52 PM »

The observation that essentially everything from L23 down to P312 and U106 is basically of the same variance if interesting.  Is it possible that a mixed bag of all of this stuff could have been around for some time as a peripheral element of society until some sort of climatic or similar issue gave them the advantage.  Perhaps they were a marginal element of specialist dairy pastoralists located in the more peripheral upland areas and the wet Atlantic areas that were not the prime land of the earliest LBK and Cardial farmers.  The periphery then moved into the core.  This is the sort of thing that has been suggested at other times and places through prehistory.  The process might be subtle in terms of archaeological remains rather than in your face. 

I definately have a suspicion that in many areas R1b is elevated in uplands and pastoral and rainy areas. This seems to be the case in Iberia, France, Italy, Britain, Ireland, the Alpine areas.  Of course these pastoral upland and Atlantic areas also tend to have rock exposures and metal ore deposits too.    What is clear to me is that the distribution better fits the areas that were settled more in the middle phases of the Neolithic than the first phases and the same areas.  Perhaps pastoralist communities in the areas of rock exposure also tended to be pioneers in metallurgy. 
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2011, 02:17:19 PM »

If this were true, it would testify that R1b is ancient and original in the places where we now find it: mountainous places are more conservative than planes. I read, but probably it was a little bit exaggerated, that Garfagnana (Tuscan Apennine) has 95% R1b. And it isn’t fortuitous that we find similar haplogroups in Italy (Alpine region above all) and Caucasus (Armenia). The last I was studying is mt hg. U1: difficult to say whom belongs to the U1a on the Ian Logan’s spreadsheet (for medical reason), but the parallel U1b is in Italy (2) and in Armenia (1).
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2011, 02:48:19 PM »


 . . .  As I cant see any way R1b could possibly have reached such saturation levels in western Europe if it arrived any later, the best bet at the moment is probably mid-late Neolithic/Copper Age.

That is something I wonder about. I can see a y-haplogroup achieving dominant status in a very short time indeed - perhaps only a few centuries - under the right circumstances. Look at the Americas with the introduction of European y-haplogroups and the subsequent decline of Amerindian y-dna.

I am not at all confident I know the answers, but I think it is entirely possible that R1b could have arrived in Europe during the Bronze Age. I am saying it is possible, not that that is what actually happened. I think a Bronze Age arrival, under the right set of circumstances, would have given R1b plenty of time to achieve the numerical dominance it enjoys today. Obviously, I don't have any real evidence to support the idea that the Bronze Age is when R1b arrived in Europe.

It's still possible that R1b has been in Europe since the Paleolithic Period or the Mesolithic Period. I don't think that is likely, but it is possible. We could be that wrong about the long term significance of modern STR variance. Honestly, I will be mighty disappointed if some Mesolithic or Paleolithic R1b surfaces in Europe. But, hey, if it does, we learn and push on.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2011, 03:11:34 PM »

Okay, here's what I think, part of which may perhaps be due to wishful thinking. Might as well go ahead and say it.

I think R1b arrived in Europe during the Bronze Age and with it Proto-Indo-European. It's funny, because Firefox didn't recognize the term Proto-Indo-European; one of the alternatives it suggested was Pronto-Indo-European! That seems apropos, since I think both R1b and Indo-European moved across the Continent at a rapid pace.

This is something I have suspected for a long time, even before I found out I myself am R1b. It just seemed to me too much to see the dominance of both R1b and Indo-European languages as a coincidence.

So, my prediction is that eventually that is what we will learn from ancient y-dna testing and archaeology.

If I am wrong, my face will turn red for a few minutes (but probably none of you will see it), and I will be disappointed. Then I will dust myself off and get back into the Cro Magnon thing.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 03:14:28 PM by rms2 » Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2011, 05:37:27 PM »

Okay, here's what I think, part of which may perhaps be due to wishful thinking. Might as well go ahead and say it.

I think R1b arrived in Europe during the Bronze Age and with it Proto-Indo-European. It's funny, because Firefox didn't recognize the term Proto-Indo-European; one of the alternatives it suggested was Pronto-Indo-European! That seems apropos, since I think both R1b and Indo-European moved across the Continent at a rapid pace.

This is something I have suspected for a long time, even before I found out I myself am R1b. It just seemed to me too much to see the dominance of both R1b and Indo-European languages as a coincidence.

So, my prediction is that eventually that is what we will learn from ancient y-dna testing and archaeology.

If I am wrong, my face will turn red for a few minutes (but probably none of you will see it), and I will be disappointed. Then I will dust myself off and get back into the Cro Magnon thing.

I agree with this scenario. Any of the recent Neolithic findings could have been R1b, but they are not. So, yes, we need more aDNA, but the results so far only support your theory.

I think if you are right, far more others will be disappointed.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2011, 05:39:38 PM »

I think the idea that R1b is associated with Indo-European could be true even if its not a classic Kurgan model.  There are Anatolian intrusions into the area west of the Black Sea c. 5000BC in the form of the Hamangia and Boian cultures http://www.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History/balkans-map/late-neolithic.htm

and this seems to coincide also with the spread of dairy pastoralism from NW Anatolia into the same area about the same time.  Those cultures then in turn contributed to Gumelnita and also to the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and probably others (its a bit specialist).  It is also interesting to note that the long eastern tail of LBK came very close to this area and thereby connected this intrusion to the LBK world and its interesting to note that dairying seems to have spread into the Lengyel, Rossen successor cultures to LBK and also was present in the TRB culture and the British Neolithic too (and I presume French too).  So, it is interesting to speculate if Anatolian lineages spread with dairying through these post-LBK groups, transforming them.

So, I am kind of in line with the 2003 modified theory of Renfrew that envisaged a pre-proto-IE 'Anatolian' spreading to SE Europe c. 5000BC and then Proto-IE developing among those immigrants in the Bulgaria area and spreading out from there.  The difference is that such a model would see the R1b-L23?? Anatolian migrants as the basis of proto-IE and not either the pre-existing early Neolithic (G, E, I?) farmers of SE Europe or the (R1a?) steppes hunter gatherer ancestors of the Kurgan peoples.  The Kurgan peoples would become the receivers of the language (from the vastly more advanced Cucuteni-Tripolye people) rather than doners.  Normally when less advanced but martial peoples conquer or settle among a vastly more advanced group they will take the language of the existing advanced group, even if they take up the reigns of power.

I would tend to see this as a very good potential scenario whereby R1b Anatolian immigrants into SE Europe were the origins of proto-IE and perhaps R1a was the hunter gatherer lineage of the steppes.  It seems to tie in the earliest forms of the language group, R1b, the spread of dairy pastoralism quite nicely.  It still strangely enough places the evolution of Proto-IE from Anatolian close to the Black Sea but crucially among the non-Kurgan groups.  








Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2011, 05:45:50 PM »

With G2a and E-V13 in Neolithic Spain plus G2a and I2a in Neolithic France, the paleo-mesolithic R1b is less likely now.  We know that G2a is very rare today and R1b is the predominant hg in those locations.  If R1b was a mesolithic forager hg as I think I2a (and F for that matter) are, then it seems it would show up in the 4 aDNA neolithic/copper ages sites.  

What are the chances Hg F which is extremely rare today and I2a more common, but usually less than R1b almost everywhere, would show up in 2 of the first 4 aDNA samples from this period?  

On the other thread Mikewww, demonstrated that the European L23 variance is significantly lower than it's Anatolian counterpart.  Also, the European L23 expands with the rest of it's L51+ descendents as the relative variance would indicate.  It is possible that the first European L23*'s were "bottlenecked" somehow in SE Europe via climate, steppe raiders, etc. until they could adapt and expand.  I think this period would be between 4000 and 3500 BC.  which is not too far off from any germline age estimates found on the net.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2011, 06:06:51 PM »

I think the idea that R1b is associated with Indo-European could be true even if its not a classic Kurgan model.  There are Anatolian intrusions into the area west of the Black Sea c. 5000BC in the form of the Hamangia and Boian cultures http://www.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History/balkans-map/late-neolithic.htm

and this seems to coincide also with the spread of dairy pastoralism from NW Anatolia into the same area about the same time.  Those cultures then in turn contributed to Gumelnita and also to the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and probably others (its a bit specialist).  It is also interesting to note that the long eastern tail of LBK came very close to this area and thereby connected this intrusion to the LBK world and its interesting to note that dairying seems to have spread into the Lengyel, Rossen successor cultures to LBK and also was present in the TRB culture and the British Neolithic too (and I presume French too).  So, it is interesting to speculate if Anatolian lineages spread with dairying through these post-LBK groups, transforming them.

So, I am kind of in line with the 2003 modified theory of Renfrew that envisaged a pre-proto-IE 'Anatolian' spreading to SE Europe c. 5000BC and then Proto-IE developing among those immigrants in the Bulgaria area and spreading out from there.  The difference is that such a model would see the R1b-L23?? Anatolian migrants as the basis of proto-IE and not either the pre-existing early Neolithic (G, E, I?) farmers of SE Europe or the (R1a?) steppes hunter gatherer ancestors of the Kurgan peoples.  The Kurgan peoples would become the receivers of the language (from the vastly more advanced Cucuteni-Tripolye people) rather than doners.  Normally when less advanced but martial peoples conquer or settle among a vastly more advanced group they will take the language of the existing advanced group, even if they take up the reigns of power.

I would tend to see this as a very good potential scenario whereby R1b Anatolian immigrants into SE Europe were the origins of proto-IE and perhaps R1a was the hunter gatherer lineage of the steppes.  It seems to tie in the earliest forms of the language group, R1b, the spread of dairy pastoralism quite nicely.  It still strangely enough places the evolution of Proto-IE from Anatolian close to the Black Sea but crucially among the non-Kurgan groups.  
Cucuteni-Tripolye seem to have got along well with their steppe neighbors for a long time.  It seems like the steppe people had the advantage of early horse domestication whereas the farmers had most of the copper and dairy products.  It was among these interchanges that PIE likely developed.  As the late neolithic became the copper age, the steppe people realized they didn't have to be as diplomatic as before since they could come and go at will with the advent of horse riding, carts, wagons, and finally chariots.

Imo, it is why Tripolye started building those "supertowns" for defensive purposes.  However, the conflict probably only intensified when the climate went bad and it forced the steppe people to move into farmer areas.  It is easier then to picture a displaced, but IE speaking R1b.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2011, 06:14:48 PM »


So, I am kind of in line with the 2003 modified theory of Renfrew that envisaged a pre-proto-IE 'Anatolian' spreading to SE Europe c. 5000BC and then Proto-IE developing among those immigrants in the Bulgaria area and spreading out from there.  The difference is that such a model would see the R1b-L23?? Anatolian migrants as the basis of proto-IE and not either the pre-existing early Neolithic (G, E, I?) farmers of SE Europe or the (R1a?) steppes hunter gatherer ancestors of the Kurgan peoples.  The Kurgan peoples would become the receivers of the language (from the vastly more advanced Cucuteni-Tripolye people) rather than doners.  Normally when less advanced but martial peoples conquer or settle among a vastly more advanced group they will take the language of the existing advanced group, even if they take up the reigns of power.



I watched Renfrew's recent presentation on Tocharians at the University of Pennsylvania, and that was equally credible.

The dairy factor and the technology I see all coming from Southwest Asia, not the Steppes. I think you are right on with the Steppe tribes receiving PIE from the incomers. We already know there is a high likelihood of lactose tolerance originating in R1b-dominant tribes. At some point they come into contact with R1a Steppe tribes and intermarry enough to spread the LT gene as well.

Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2011, 06:24:01 PM »

Okay, here's what I think, part of which may perhaps be due to wishful thinking. Might as well go ahead and say it.

I think R1b arrived in Europe during the Bronze Age and with it Proto-Indo-European. It's funny, because Firefox didn't recognize the term Proto-Indo-European; one of the alternatives it suggested was Pronto-Indo-European! That seems apropos, since I think both R1b and Indo-European moved across the Continent at a rapid pace.

This is something I have suspected for a long time, even before I found out I myself am R1b. It just seemed to me too much to see the dominance of both R1b and Indo-European languages as a coincidence.

So, my prediction is that eventually that is what we will learn from ancient y-dna testing and archaeology.

If I am wrong, my face will turn red for a few minutes (but probably none of you will see it), and I will be disappointed. Then I will dust myself off and get back into the Cro Magnon thing.

I agree with this scenario. Any of the recent Neolithic findings could have been R1b, but they are not. So, yes, we need more aDNA, but the results so far only support your theory.

I think if you are right, far more others will be disappointed.

To be honest I personally dont really have a preferred result and nothing could disappoint me on this.  I can see interest in all of the normal options.  The Mesolithic, the Neolithic, the Beakers all have very interesting aspects to their cultures.  I would be happy if it was any of the above.  I just would like to know.  

I think we are very close to being able to eliminate pre-Neolithic origins but we do remain at the mercy of the various takes on the y-DNA clock regarding that.   If haplogroup I has five times as much variance as European R1b then it suggests to me that its virtually impossible for European R1b to be pre-Neolithic.    Its not as though there could have been pockets of M269* hanging about that then took off.  Unlike haplogroup I the R1b tree is bushy and most is descended from L11 in turn descended from L51 etc. Its one line that took off in the L51-L11-P312/U106 (and so on) burst rather than some substrate. Haplogroup I lineages probably are a Mesolithic substrate though and it seems that they are just like you would expect from pockets of hunters scattered around Europe being swept up along with farming.  R1b doesnt seem to fit that pattern in Europe.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2011, 06:36:50 PM »

With G2a and E-V13 in Neolithic Spain plus G2a and I2a in Neolithic France, the paleo-mesolithic R1b is less likely now.  We know that G2a is very rare today and R1b is the predominant hg in those locations.  If R1b was a mesolithic forager hg as I think I2a (and F for that matter) are, then it seems it would show up in the 4 aDNA neolithic/copper ages sites.  

What are the chances Hg F which is extremely rare today and I2a more common, but usually less than R1b almost everywhere, would show up in 2 of the first 4 aDNA samples from this period?  

On the other thread Mikewww, demonstrated that the European L23 variance is significantly lower than it's Anatolian counterpart.  Also, the European L23 expands with the rest of it's L51+ descendents as the relative variance would indicate.  It is possible that the first European L23*'s were "bottlenecked" somehow in SE Europe via climate, steppe raiders, etc. until they could adapt and expand.  I think this period would be between 4000 and 3500 BC.  which is not too far off from any germline age estimates found on the net.

Yes one thing I think is important to note is all intraclade variance calculations are far less useful  (and potentially much younger) than interclade calculations and as far as I understand Mikes calculations for L23 in Europe and L23 outwith Europe are both intraclade.  So I dont think we can rule out L23 in Europe being older, potentially as old as the L23 SNP but then again why on earth would one hunter gatherer family holed up somewhere suddenly populate western Europe? Seems extremely unlikely. 

Mike-if you are watching-do you have an interclade date for L23 of some sort?  I am curious to know what its maximum age is.     
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2011, 06:48:14 PM »


So, I am kind of in line with the 2003 modified theory of Renfrew that envisaged a pre-proto-IE 'Anatolian' spreading to SE Europe c. 5000BC and then Proto-IE developing among those immigrants in the Bulgaria area and spreading out from there.  The difference is that such a model would see the R1b-L23?? Anatolian migrants as the basis of proto-IE and not either the pre-existing early Neolithic (G, E, I?) farmers of SE Europe or the (R1a?) steppes hunter gatherer ancestors of the Kurgan peoples.  The Kurgan peoples would become the receivers of the language (from the vastly more advanced Cucuteni-Tripolye people) rather than doners.  Normally when less advanced but martial peoples conquer or settle among a vastly more advanced group they will take the language of the existing advanced group, even if they take up the reigns of power.



I watched Renfrew's recent presentation on Tocharians at the University of Pennsylvania, and that was equally credible.

The dairy factor and the technology I see all coming from Southwest Asia, not the Steppes. I think you are right on with the Steppe tribes receiving PIE from the incomers. We already know there is a high likelihood of lactose tolerance originating in R1b-dominant tribes. At some point they come into contact with R1a Steppe tribes and intermarry enough to spread the LT gene as well.



Renfrew has not published any major update in his theories for quite a while, probably before the whole Dairying spreading from NW Anatolia was even known about.  When I heard about it, bearing in mind that Anatolian is seen by many as a kind of proto-proto-IE language, I thought this fits together rather well and even the spread of R1b into Europe would seem possible to be related to this all.  It is tempting to see this as all relating to one thing.  However, it is very easy to come up with apparently very convincing but false correlations so I am cautious.  It also remains to be seen if anyone can really convincingly demonstrate a spread from SE Europe to the west. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2011, 09:44:48 PM »

I have been digging about trying to look into the even deeper origins of R1b and this brought me back to M73, the sister clade of M269.  It is rather remarkable on the Myres maps how M73 and L23* both seem to share peaks in the same area in the south of the Urals.  You could interpret the various maps as being suggestive of a people originating somewhere between the east side of the Caspian and the south Urals that partly (M73) then headed into the north of Mesopotamian (or could it be the reverse) and also (L23) moving into the Caucuses and then into Anatolia and the Balkans, apparently making a beeline for the Swiss Alps.  You could look at these strange patterns as the behavour of people looking for metal ores. So, that is another potentially rational reason for the spread as an alternative to the dairy farming Anatolia idea. 

I think maciamo actually came to a very similar conclusion although I am less sure about some of his other conclusions.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-25949.html
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2011, 10:49:49 PM »

This has a nice, if perhaps not quite up to date, summary of early copper working in Europe and SW Asia

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba56/ba56feat.html
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2011, 01:34:50 AM »

This has a nice, if perhaps not quite up to date, summary of early copper working in Europe and SW Asia

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba56/ba56feat.html

“In the mid-4th millennium, arsenical copper was now taking centre stage with a new focus on Alpine and sub-Alpine Europe”.

Many thanks, Alan. I have learned for the first time in my life to be a “sub-Alpine” man and not an Italian.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2011, 08:24:40 AM »

I respectfully disagree with the idea that R1b was part of or came out of the Tripolye culture or Cucuteni-Tripolye cultures. I think those will be found to be a mix of G2a, I2a, and possibly E1b1b, like the other Neolithic sites tested thus far.

I am not sure what the right answer is, but I cannot see Tripolye as the source of the y-haplogroup that overspread Europe so rapidly and imposed IE languages on it.

Look at Tripolye. It was a big farming culture, apparently matriarchal and female-centered, apparently non-aggressive, giving the overall impression of a commune of plow-driving lotus-eaters.

I know Alan mentioned folks with icons of the Virgin Mary who were nevertheless very militaristic and aggressive, but that is comparing Christianity, which is, the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding, a patriarchal religion, to the mother goddess-worshiping, female-centered cult of the Tripolye folk. Very different things.

The Tripolye folk just didn't have it in them to sweep west and dominate a continent. I don't see it. Geographically and temporally Tripolye looks like a possibility, but it just doesn't fit, at least in my opinion.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 08:25:03 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2011, 08:45:48 AM »

I respectfully disagree with the idea that R1b was part of or came out of the Tripolye culture or Cucuteni-Tripolye cultures. I think those will be found to be a mix of G2a, I2a, and possibly E1b1b, like the other Neolithic sites tested thus far.

I am not sure what the right answer is, but I cannot see Tripolye as the source of the y-haplogroup that overspread Europe so rapidly and imposed IE languages on it.

Look at Tripolye. It was a big farming culture, apparently matriarchal and female-centered, apparently non-aggressive, giving the overall impression of a commune of plow-driving lotus-eaters.

I know Alan mentioned folks with icons of the Virgin Mary who were nevertheless very militaristic and aggressive, but that is comparing Christianity, which is, the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding, a patriarchal religion, to the mother goddess-worshiping, female-centered cult of the Tripolye folk. Very different things.

The Tripolye folk just didn't have it in them to sweep west and dominate a continent. I don't see it. Geographically and temporally Tripolye looks like a possibility, but it just doesn't fit, at least in my opinion.


I suspect the entry of R1b into Europe west of the Black Sea was some variation of the Kurgan idea and that it surfed a wave of advance, becoming far more populous at the forefront than it ever was or is now in its old homelands.

By about 2000 BC, as I recall reading (need to find the source), horseback riding and wheeled transport had overspread most of Europe, and PIE seems to have a close connection to those developments. R1a is too thin on the ground, it seems to me, to have been responsible.

I don't have all the details worked out in my own thinking, but that is the rough outline of what I think probably occurred.
Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2011, 09:41:38 AM »

I respectfully disagree with the idea that R1b was part of or came out of the Tripolye culture or Cucuteni-Tripolye cultures. I think those will be found to be a mix of G2a, I2a, and possibly E1b1b, like the other Neolithic sites tested thus far.

I am not sure what the right answer is, but I cannot see Tripolye as the source of the y-haplogroup that overspread Europe so rapidly and imposed IE languages on it.

Look at Tripolye. It was a big farming culture, apparently matriarchal and female-centered, apparently non-aggressive, giving the overall impression of a commune of plow-driving lotus-eaters.

I know Alan mentioned folks with icons of the Virgin Mary who were nevertheless very militaristic and aggressive, but that is comparing Christianity, which is, the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding, a patriarchal religion, to the mother goddess-worshiping, female-centered cult of the Tripolye folk. Very different things.

The Tripolye folk just didn't have it in them to sweep west and dominate a continent. I don't see it. Geographically and temporally Tripolye looks like a possibility, but it just doesn't fit, at least in my opinion.


By about 2000 BC, as I recall reading (need to find the source), horseback riding and wheeled transport had overspread most of Europe, and PIE seems to have a close connection to those developments. R1a is too thin on the ground, it seems to me, to have been responsible.

I also think that current R1a levels north of the Black Sea are the result of more recent population movements rather than a continuity from earlier periods. Just like the Neolithic in Europe, we will probably see a much different genetic makeup of the population around the Black Sea in ancient times.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.149 seconds with 19 queries.