World Families Forums - An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 30, 2014, 08:40:34 AM
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)
| | |-+  An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Go Down Print
Author Topic: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012  (Read 13720 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #200 on: June 21, 2012, 07:59:07 PM »


I have revised my ideas anyway and no longer think R1b was in the farming zone because the structure of R1b doesnt fit that.  I would now tend to think both were in the steppes albeit distributed differently, perhaps with R1b hugging the Black Sea area.  R1b people seemed to have excellent maritime skills judging from the way L51 spread so I think they were located in a non-farming area north of the Black Sea but also with a maritime culture.  So I would now tend to shift it more towards the actual north shores of the Black Sea just east of the Cucutene=Trypole area.  

Alan,

Have you posted an updated summary of your R1b ideas in one location? I seem to not be able to keep up with you.

MJost

My views are not very fixed because the DNA evidence is always changing and even archaeological interpretation is going through a major phase of change, more in the last few years than the previous 30 or 40.  All I can do is take whatever new information on DNA that comes through and try to correlate it with my knowledge as an archaeologists.  I am kind of at the mercy of others to provide the DNA distribution, variance, phylogeny etc and the long term doubts over DNA dating has made it compicated, even foolish, to come out with a fixed model.  I certainly do not have an emotionally or culturally derived preference for the story of R1b as I think is quite common in this hobby.  The main change in my ideas is that I am coming around to be less of a doubting Thomas on the issue of variance dating thanks to the ancient DNA which is backing it up so far.  The only thing clear to me is that R1b was holed up in a place where it couldnt expand for a long time when other lineages were expanding, like G, E, J etc.  IMO a large expansion means extinction and bottle necks in the future wont tend to happen.  My conclusion if that R1b didnt have any sort of expansion worth the name until some point after L23 developed and only had its great expansion after L51.  That for me makes me think that wherever it was located was non-farming, be it a large area or some pocket somewhere.  As to where it was, I dont know but I hugely doubt it was in Anatolia or Mesopotamia or the Levant in the early Neolithic.  That would have placed it in the very best positions to have a farming driven expansion and expand into Europe etc, the exact reverse of what seems to have happened.  If R1b was vaguely in 'the east' in the early Neolithic I think Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Levant, the Balkans etc can be struck of the list of possibles as these all experienced early farming in an impressive way. While I am hardly known as a huge Kurganist, its the most obvious place where farming arrived late on the eastern fringes of Europe and SW/central Asia.   Its possible there could have been a pocket of non-farmers elsewhere and Jean L is clearly putting a case for SW Europe.  its not impossible archaeologically as the bell beaker culture did have early partial origins in that corner of Europe.  However, I find it hard to correlate with the vast majority of the DNA analysis of R1b that is presented.  I cant present a model I am sure of though because there is just too many variables that are unknown.  I does however seem that the case for the Neolithic farmers as the bringers of R1b to Europe has had a heck of a lot of blows and seems very unlikely now. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #201 on: June 21, 2012, 08:19:14 PM »

JeanL's "case for SW Europe" is just "Paleolithic R1b 2.0".

R-M269 heads over to Iberia prior to the LGM, hides out there for the duration of that, starts to expand after it but is reduced by the arrival of Neolithic farmers, which reduction, of course, makes it look younger than it really is (convenient). This causes it to hide out in the Pyrenees and in nearby caves. Later, as L11, it emerges from its Pyrenean fastnesses. Despite all the advantages the farmers had in possessing the better lands and the means of increased food production, L11, perhaps now as P312, nearly completely replaces the Neolithic farmers and becomes the dominant y haplogroup in western Europe.

Meanwhile, the R-M269 in the East is still there, but it bears little relationship to western R-M269 except a very very distant one, since the two have been separated since before the LGM. Eastern R-M269, as R-L23 (never mind that L11 and P312 are downstream of L23) advances into Europe as part of the Yamnaya Culture that brought IE to Europe. Somehow it transfers IE to its long lost western cousins.

Rube Goldberg would be proud.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 08:20:49 PM by rms2 » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #202 on: June 21, 2012, 08:52:17 PM »

Anyone see Dienekes blog and the new paper showing that Phyrigian may be the origin of an obscure language in NE Pakistan.  I just wonder how R1b and R1a fair in that population.   This strange group are of course surrounded by a sea of indo-iranian etc.  If this small population is significantly different then it might be indirectly telling us what the Phyrgians were like in the past. 
Logged
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #203 on: June 22, 2012, 04:44:10 AM »

As I see many people here ridiculizing the theories of other people, and it is not amusing, could we just stick to the arguments and leave out the mocking part?
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #204 on: June 22, 2012, 06:29:33 AM »

References to Rube Goldberg are not "ridiculizing". They're a legitimate way to characterize ideas that appear to be overly complex, convoluted, and overdone.

To say "Rube Goldberg would be proud" may not exactly be a compliment, but it is a criticism of an argument and not a person.

« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 06:42:04 AM by rms2 » Logged

IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #205 on: June 22, 2012, 10:24:34 AM »

References to Rube Goldberg are not "ridiculizing". They're a legitimate way to characterize ideas that appear to be overly complex, convoluted, and overdone.

To say "Rube Goldberg would be proud" may not exactly be a compliment, but it is a criticism of an argument and not a person.


In fact, i wasn´t thinking of that particular example. There is a general tone that seems to be infectious, in which such or such other theory are dismissed not by arguments, but by sarcastic remarks.
I wish people keep to arguments, and if you are tired of arguing over and over the same, just point to the relevant bibliography or the thread in which it was already discussed. That could save a lot of effort and bad feelings.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #206 on: June 22, 2012, 10:39:50 AM »

Quote from: alan trowel hands. link=topic=10498.msg133301#msg133301
Its possible there could have been a pocket of non-farmers elsewhere and Jean L is clearly putting a case for SW Europe.  its not impossible archaeologically as the bell beaker culture did have early partial origins in that corner of Europe.  However, I find it hard to correlate with the vast majority of the DNA analysis of R1b that is presented.  I cant present a model I am sure of though because there is just too many variables that are unknown.  I does however seem that the case for the Neolithic farmers as the bringers of R1b to Europe has had a heck of a lot of blows and seems very unlikely now.  
Thanks for your overview of your position. I appreciate your response.

I am not that knowledgeable but being in the Heartland of America, I know the farming is the core of any society. As the below UK Farming website reports, 'By 4,000 years ago farming systems were well developed',  So it’s apparent that in NW Europe and the Isles., farming had to dominate the landscapes. So it seems that the R1b guys knew and expanded the knowledge of overall farming systems which resulted in economic growth allowing for better tools and finer things in life at the time.

So my question is: What is the farming and Beaker Bell correlation, knowing that there was a late Bronze Age (around 1000 BC) the northern climate cooled affecting trade in foodstuffs, tin, leather, tools, baskets, pots, textiles and metal goods which all had so much economic commonallity.

http://www.ukagriculture.com/countryside/countryside_history_2000bc.cfm

MJost
« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 10:40:57 AM by Mark Jost » Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #207 on: June 22, 2012, 11:35:15 AM »

Quote from: alan trowel hands. link=topic=10498.msg133301#msg133301
Its possible there could have been a pocket of non-farmers elsewhere and Jean L is clearly putting a case for SW Europe.  its not impossible archaeologically as the bell beaker culture did have early partial origins in that corner of Europe.  However, I find it hard to correlate with the vast majority of the DNA analysis of R1b that is presented.  I cant present a model I am sure of though because there is just too many variables that are unknown.  I does however seem that the case for the Neolithic farmers as the bringers of R1b to Europe has had a heck of a lot of blows and seems very unlikely now.  



I am not that knowledgeable but being in the Heartland of America, I know the farming is the core of any society. As the below UK Farming website reports, 'By 4,000 years ago farming systems were well developed',  So it’s apparent that in NW Europe and the Isles., farming had to dominate the landscapes. So it seems that the R1b guys knew and expanded the knowledge of overall farming systems which resulted in economic growth allowing for better tools and finer things in life at the time.

So my question is: What is the farming and Beaker Bell correlation, knowing that there was a late Bronze Age (around 1000 BC) the northern climate cooled affecting trade in foodstuffs, tin, leather, tools, baskets, pots, textiles and metal goods which all had so much economic commonallity.

http://www.ukagriculture.com/countryside/countryside_history_2000bc.cfm

MJost


Well assuming R1b was no among the first farmers in Britain (which seems on balance likely on present evidence) there is no doubt that the following Bronze Age peoples also were agricultural by the time they reached that area, even if they had been late ot the farming game back in their ancestral area (I currently favour the steppes but its uncertain).  The Bronze Age actually saw an expansion into marginal uplands suggesting pressure on land , similar to a similar phase in the high Medieval era.  I suppose we need to credit the copper and early Bronze Age peope's as introducing the horse, the wheel and the true plough (as per Anthony's book of that name).  Its strange but while on some areas its stated that the copper age saw a more mobile type of agriculture I have also head the Early Bronze Age period stated to be the origin of the northern European agricultural systems that persisted into modern times.  Its rather confusing and you can only be a master of certain periods in certain places in archaeology as the data is now just far to big.  I am afraid archaeology is always a work in progress and there is a lot of debate and reverses in interpretation.  Mind you if we had all the answers (even more) archaeologists would be unemployed.  Archaeology in Europe was mainly rescue archaeology and paid for by developers of houses, roads, you name it.  So, the economic crash and lack of building has many (actually most archaeologists who actually do the digging unemployed or in a precarious position.  The only plus point is after a huge phase of data through excavations during the economic boom there may be a period where this stuff is published and analysed.  There is a huge amount that has been excavated but not published.  However, many of the construction companies who are meant to pay for it have gone bust so that is a problem.   
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #208 on: July 06, 2012, 06:16:41 PM »

I suggest that the Basque language derived from that of the Copper Age Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture, which collapsed in large part c. 4000 BC due to climate change. Refugees from this culture could have sought  literally greener pastures. I don't imagine that they settled the whole of western Europe, but that some travelled via Sardinia and the Garonne to what became Aquitaine, and others northward up the Danube to feed into the TRB.

Meanwhile the remains of the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture was absorbed by Yamnaya. Picture a lot of intermarriage with patrilocality, so we could have Yamnaya-born mothers teaching R1b sons to speak PIE. Then we have further waves of departures westward and up the Danube 3,100 and 2,800 BC, this time by people genetically closely related on the male line from the ones who left before, but speaking a different language.

I thought these recent posts by Dienekes were interesting. Don't know quite what to make up of it and it is not necessarily connected to R1b, but Dienekes is making some of his strongest statements that sound David Anthony-like from "The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World"

Quote from: Dienekes on July 3
"Indo-European genetic signatures in an Orcadian and a Lithuanian"
It seems fairly clear that a post-5kya link between the North Atlantic and the Indian subcontinent admits to a single parsimonious explanation: the expansion of the Indo-Europeans out of their West Asian homeland during the Copper and Bronze Ages.

Quote from: Dienekes on July 1
"The Bronze Age Indo-European invasion of Europe".
There are several observations we can make:
    The West_Asian component has a pan-European distribution: it must have been involved in a pan-European process rather than a more localized historical phenomenon.
    Its absence from prehistoric individuals down to ~5ky ago suggests that it may have been added to the European population at a later date, although it may already have been present in currently unsampled areas (e.g., the Balkans) prior to 5kya.
    It reaches its lowest occurrence in areas where non-Indo-European languages have been spoken (Basques and Iberia in general, Sardinia, and Finland)
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/

However, I don't think Dienekes is necessarily saying this West Asian IE component is Steppes herder based.
Quote from: Dienekes on July 4
The West_Asian component is not "a "Caucasian" in reality", because its maximum extent stretches from the Caucasus to Balochistan. The Caucasus is one of its two peaks, the other being Balochistan, with very high occurrence in all regions in-between.

As for the idea that the West_Asian component was part of ancient steppe diversity and survives in the Caucasus as a refugium, this ignores the issue that this component stretches a long way from the Caucasus, and it's a strange refugium indeed that occupies pretty much the entire territory of West Asia all the way to Pakistan.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 06:33:18 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #209 on: July 06, 2012, 06:26:40 PM »

Dienekes is still trying to make PIE from Anatolia, though he has given up the actual Anatolian theory which has PIE from  Anatolia with the Neolithic. The facts don't fit, as even he has recognised. Of course they never did, but the genetic evidence has tipped the balance for him. Unfortunately for his Anatolian preference, the facts don't fit a shift to a later date in the same region any better.

My responses to his latest theory can be found on Razib Khan's blog: The mystery of the origin of the Indo-Europeans may be solved within the next 2 years

Incidentally that post initially read as an assumption that it had been solved by Dienekes. Razib clearly had second thoughts. :) Quite so.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 06:29:58 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #210 on: July 07, 2012, 11:08:04 AM »

I notice Dienekes has slowly been shifting his wording so that its more about the whole mountain area that lies between the steppes and Mesopotamia.  He has linked IE with a particular late autosomal DNA division which some call west Asian, others call Caucasian.  It apparently appears at around 10% in IE speakers but not in non-IE speakers and it appears to be post-Neolithic.  Dienekes seems to think that a lack of this element in the steppes rules out a steppe origin.  However, if there is one place where the modern genetics might be very different from the ancient its the steppes with its many waves of nomads and major Slavic input. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #211 on: July 07, 2012, 12:55:13 PM »

I notice Dienekes has slowly been shifting his wording so that its more about the whole mountain area that lies between the steppes and Mesopotamia.  He has linked IE with a particular late autosomal DNA division which some call west Asian, others call Caucasian.  It apparently appears at around 10% in IE speakers but not in non-IE speakers and it appears to be post-Neolithic.  Dienekes seems to think that a lack of this element in the steppes rules out a steppe origin.  However, if there is one place where the modern genetics might be very different from the ancient its the steppes with its many waves of nomads and major Slavic input.  

I would think so too, that an open plains across which there were multiple migrations might have little residue from 3000 BC. However, I realize that also sounds like special pleading.

As far Dienekes' view that IE, apparently then PIE is from the West Asian Highlands, it seems he is counting on those people being there prior to the Hittities. The Hittites seem to be an easy explanation for the IE in the highlands of Anatolia and Northern Iran. Am I right on that?

I guess Dienekes also does not see the Steppes as the highest probability as the PIE homeland. Maybe I've read too much of Anthony and others that follow the Steppes homeland line of thinking but I lean that direction. Mallory's presentations did not "un"convince me. He didn't focus on the linguistics itself.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 01:00:26 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #212 on: July 07, 2012, 05:14:15 PM »

Oh golly yes. It is all very logical. Here we have a Pontic Greek in origin who for some doubtless completely unconnected reason favours the homeland of his ancestors as the source of PIE and has discovered a "component" that just happens to be highest in Greeks that he feels represents IE speakers.

Meanwhile we have a certain vocal Australian who just happens for reasons totally unconnected with his Polish ancestry to feel that Poland should not only be the Slavic homeland, but that of "Aryans" tearing across the steppe to invade India.

Meanwhile we have a certain party from Amsterdam, who spent years arguing that the PIE homeland and origin of R1a was guess where and indeed that we are all descended from Neanderthals who roamed around in Northern Europe.

Then we have a party from the Balkans who .... you guessed.

Do you sense a certain pattern appearing?

I find it best to ignore all this on the whole. It is too time-consuming otherwise.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 05:25:50 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #213 on: July 07, 2012, 05:21:44 PM »

Here, for those who can't be bothered to click through,  is my first responses.

Quote
Whatever the West Asian component here is, it can’t be a major IE strand if there is more of it in Greeks than Slavs and Germanic speakers. Greeks are notably low in the major Y-DNA haplogroups that are well known to correlate with IE speakers. In fact they are a stand out exception, seeming to have assimilated much more in the way of previous Neolithic people. Nor can it have much to do with IE speakers if it is strong in the Caucasus.

One big problem for this analysis is that on archaeological and aDNA evidence (from Andronovo and Bell Beaker sites) IE speakers appear to have arisen from mesolithic hunter-gatherers carrying mtDNA U5 and U4, just like the people of the rest of Europe in the Mesolithic. Yes they apparently had mixed with dairy farmers of an Anatolian origin, but the massive supposedly Mesolithic component is liable to have actually arrived in most places in Europe in the Copper Age.

Dienekes then, with a magnificent disregard for his own personal safety, argued that Greeks were more IE than Slavs.  :)
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 05:25:24 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #214 on: July 07, 2012, 07:26:18 PM »

The Dienekes thing is nevertheless interesting and needs explained.  I wonder if it could mark remnants of the early stages of the IE group's trail out of the steppes that has subsequently been lost at the point of origin or perhaps they were simply a refuge area for populations of the steppes displaced by other steppes groups.  Maybe they left a bigger autosomal remnant in that area simply because the population there was more sparse but then became diluted to c. 10% as they moved into already well settled areas in Asia and west into Europe with only the y DNA impact being huge.  

Leaving aside the issue of languages, I also wonder if one YDNA equivelent to this mountain welling of the this autosomal DNA included L23*.  I understand it is the main clade of R1b in the area and it would have to be high among the candidates.  Its also about the right age.  I am not saying it originated there though.  In fact a lack of much upstream from L23* suggests it was not.  It is also tempting to associate it with Anatolian languages which again were an early breakoff and might have some correlation with L23*.

I suspect that the high variance area for L23* in Romania near the Black Sea amd the Caucuses might give a hint that L23* was located on the northern shores of the Black Sea prior to being squeezed out by R1a groups and it may have been preserved in the mountainous areas simply because they were less populated or they were early passed through or they later became refugia for the earlier groups as group after group swept through the steppes.  
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 07:43:13 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #215 on: July 07, 2012, 07:48:24 PM »

Actually I had a look through Dienekes tables and the areas with a lot of his west Asian component does seem to resemble areas with elevated upstream forms of R1b, especially L23*.  I might be wrong but it looks to me like there would be some kind of statistical correlation.   That is mighty interesting.  I have thought for a while that L23* could represent scattered remanants and refugia survival of the non-R1a steppe elements perhaps those in the early forrays out of the steppes. 
Logged
A_Wode
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #216 on: July 07, 2012, 10:05:02 PM »

^ In very simple terms, West Asian breaks into Caucasus and Gedrosia at high resolution. Caucasus is among European farmers, East Europeans (Germany -> eastwards) and fairly low in the west of Europe. Gedrosia however seems to cover the West Asian element among West Europeans (including Basque (~10% Ged) - who show 0 Caucasus)

I'm not entirely sure if it would relate to language, but the absence of "Gedrosia" among ancient European remains, and the fact it is a "sister" group to Caucasus but seemingly unrelated to European farmers indicates it ...may have arrived late to western Europe? If so, why did it skip eastern Europe and only pick up again in Anatolia and N.Middle East?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 10:08:32 PM by A_Wode » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #217 on: July 08, 2012, 06:54:51 AM »

Quote
the absence of "Gedrosia" among ancient European remains

So far we have a very limited set of ancient genomes: half a dozen. To represent farmers we have two Late Neolithic examples: Gok4 from South Sweden (Funnel Beaker - seems to be Balkan in origin) and Oetzi (groups with modern Sardinians, who may also have a high Balkan/Carpathian component.)

These two should not be taken as representing the whole European Neolithic. There were several strands to that, apparently with different origins. If the "gedrosa" element is found among Western Europeans, but not Eastern, that suggests that it is related to Cardial Ware (which does indeed skip the Balkans to land in Italy) and/or the North African route to Iberia (related no doubt to Y-DNA haplogroup E.)

Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #218 on: July 08, 2012, 08:15:23 AM »

I am wondering about the following assertion made by Dienekes, supported by a reference to Nikitin et al, which found mtDNA C, an East Eurasian haplogroup, in three of the ancient remains from two Neolithic sites in the North Pontic steppe in Ukraine (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html).

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-mystery-of-the-origin-of-the-indo-europeans-may-be-solved-within-the-next-2-years/

Quote from: Dienekes

So far, all the ancient mtDNA we’ve gotten from the steppe has shown a mixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid gene pool, and this extends all the way to Ukraine in the west:
dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html

This does not bode well for the identification of the steppe area as the PIE homeland, because East Eurasian mtDNA is lacking in most European populations or occurs at trace frequencies. Even if a supposed migration carried only males (explaining the non-existence of East Eurasian mtDNA) it would still carry East Eurasian autosomal component, which is similarly lacking.


That does seem to make a fairly good case that the steppe element in the PIE story did not spread IE very far to the west.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 08:15:49 AM by rms2 » Logged

A_Wode
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #219 on: July 08, 2012, 10:57:37 AM »

Quote
the absence of "Gedrosia" among ancient European remains

So far we have a very limited set of ancient genomes: half a dozen. To represent farmers we have two Late Neolithic examples: Gok4 from South Sweden (Funnel Beaker - seems to be Balkan in origin) and Oetzi (groups with modern Sardinians, who may also have a high Balkan/Carpathian component.)

These two should not be taken as representing the whole European Neolithic. There were several strands to that, apparently with different origins. If the "gedrosa" element is found among Western Europeans, but not Eastern, that suggests that it is related to Cardial Ware (which does indeed skip the Balkans to land in Italy) and/or the North African route to Iberia (related no doubt to Y-DNA haplogroup E.)



Jean we have a limited set of genomes but in all cases 0% of these SNPs fit into this Gedrosia category. The remainder of the components (Caucasus, SW Asian, N.Euro, S.Euro) have all turned up in ancient remains and are of moderate-high frequency in current European populations.

I still think this is very odd. Why not IE? :D
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 10:58:02 AM by A_Wode » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #220 on: July 08, 2012, 12:45:36 PM »

That does seem to make a fairly good case that the steppe element in the PIE story did not spread IE very far to the west.

I see how keen he is to make a case, but it doesn't add up. First he claims an absolutely massive Mesolithic input into modern Europeans, and a comparatively tiny IE one on the basis of his component analysis, then he says that East Asian haplogroups should be at more than trace level if steppe populations carried IE. Well not if the IE component in modern Europeans was actually minute as he claims.

In reality the samples are too small to be used with statistical confidence. If you get a group from one burial site, they are liable to be related. Dig in the next village and you might get no mtDNA C. Personally I would think in terms of Cucuteni with Dnieper-Donets as the basic IE mixture. The former has turned up no East Asian haplogroups and the latter three. So just based on those limited samples, we might expect movement westwards and northwards from the steppe (i.e. of the more Cucuteni-heavy orgin) to carry fewer East Asian haplogroups.
 
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #221 on: July 08, 2012, 02:29:43 PM »

I still think this is very odd. Why not IE? :D

Why not fairies? Or possibly aliens? That would make as much sense as the Greeks being more IE than the Slavs on account of Greek was written down first. :)
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #222 on: July 08, 2012, 05:10:59 PM »

That does seem to make a fairly good case that the steppe element in the PIE story did not spread IE very far to the west.

I see how keen he is to make a case, but it doesn't add up. First he claims an absolutely massive Mesolithic input into modern Europeans, and a comparatively tiny IE one on the basis of his component analysis, then he says that East Asian haplogroups should be at more than trace level if steppe populations carried IE. Well not if the IE component in modern Europeans was actually minute as he claims.

In reality the samples are too small to be used with statistical confidence. If you get a group from one burial site, they are liable to be related. Dig in the next village and you might get no mtDNA C. Personally I would think in terms of Cucuteni with Dnieper-Donets as the basic IE mixture. The former has turned up no East Asian haplogroups and the latter three. So just based on those limited samples, we might expect movement westwards and northwards from the steppe (i.e. of the more Cucuteni-heavy orgin) to carry fewer East Asian haplogroups.
 

It occurred to me that those two mtDNA C remains might be isolated cases. We won't know for sure until we get some more aDNA. Hopefully, that's coming soon.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #223 on: July 08, 2012, 05:36:18 PM »

. . . Personally I would think in terms of Cucuteni with Dnieper-Donets as the basic IE mixture. The former has turned up no East Asian haplogroups and the latter three. So just based on those limited samples, we might expect movement westwards and northwards from the steppe (i.e. of the more Cucuteni-heavy orgin) to carry fewer East Asian haplogroups.
 

You aren't thinking Cucuteni-Tripolye is the source of R1b, are you? (I don't mean the ultimate source, just the immediate source for the spread of IE.)

I just don't see that. I think C-T sites, when they do eventually get y-dna, will show up as Near Eastern farmers, with G2a, E1b1b, and Balkan I2a.

Weren't most Cucuteni-Tripolye physical types Mediterranean and rather small and gracile? How does that jive with R1b Bell Beaker with its brachycephaly, mesocephaly, and robust physical types?

Whatever the origin of Indo-European, there does seem to be some case for a physical connection between the Beaker Folk and the Armenian highlands. Look at the high levels of R-L23 there and the similarities in physical type.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 05:41:23 PM by rms2 » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #224 on: July 08, 2012, 05:37:59 PM »

There is some more East Asian DNA from the area. One Y-DNA C in the group tested from Andronovo, that was otherwise R1a1, and one mtDNA Z out of nine samples. There was one mtDNA C5 and two N9a from the Körös Culture, Hungary 5500 BC.  

I suppose that East Asian DNA arrived with the first pottery from Lake Baikal, but it was a surprise to find it in Hungary. I gather some people have queried the date.  But this game is full of surprises.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 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 0.146 seconds with 18 queries.