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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 18, 2014, 09:57:21 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)
| | |-+  An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 Go Down Print
Author Topic: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012  (Read 13518 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #225 on: July 08, 2012, 07:26:46 PM »

You aren't thinking Cucuteni-Tripolye is the source of R1b, are you?

I can't see a more logical way into the steppe for it on present evidence, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.

On the physical anthropology there is a new paper out that might interest you. Anahit Yu. Khudaverdyan, Bioarchaeological Analysis Mutual Relations of Populations Armenian Highlands and Eurasia Using Craniological and Dental Nonmetric traits, Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012.

The author claims a movement out of the Armenian Highlands onto the steppe and suggests a link to R1b. Warning: he is from Armenia! :) He makes some astonishing claims of unexpected similarities between all sorts of cultures e.g. Kura-Araks culture of Georgia and Corded Ware culture in Poland, or Armenian Highlands and Yamnaya. However he may possibly have something.

I may be biased in favour, considering that I am actually suggesting that R1b moved from the South Caspian via the Armenian Highlands into Anatolia and from there into Europe including the steppe. The whole thing needs a critical eye from someone who actually understands physical anthropology well enough to judge whether he's making any sort of sense.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 07:27:44 PM by Jean M » Logged
Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #226 on: July 08, 2012, 08:18:23 PM »

The potential problem in Dienekes' reasoning is that he is apparently assuming the cephalic indices in West Asian populations have remained static (or relatively so) for a few thousand years (5000?).  I was skeptical of the degree of possible CI plasticity as well, until fairly recently.  

Actually, the point about the cephalic index is a bit moot, since there does appear to be continuity (see the Armenians, below).  But, the continuity excludes the cephalic index.  As long as he steers clear of CI, he might not do damage to his theory.   Well, his theory as far as the non-linguistic questions are concerned.  


Brachycephalization of Georgians

Craniometry of the Caucasus in the Feudal Period
Malkhas G. Abdushelishvili
Current Anthropology
Vol. 25, No. 4 (Aug. - Oct., 1984), pp. 505-509

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/craniometry_georgia.jpg


Brachycephalization of Armenians

On the Origin of the Armenians (In the Light of Non-Metric Cranial Traits Data)
Alla Movsesian and Nvard Kochar
Iran & the Caucasus
Vol. 8, No. 2 (2004), pp. 183-197

Quote
We can now postulate the genetic integrity of the contemporary and ancient populations of Armenia, starting from the Bronze period at least. This is corroborated by the data of craniometry, differentiating the contemporary and ancient groups only by value of the cephalic index.

“Their (ancient specimens) dolichocrany in this case does not impede the establishment of genetic links through the late development of brachycephalization.” The genetic ties between the epochs become even more evident when we examine the data on the discrete varying traits, subject to neither the epochal variation nor to the influence of the environmental factors.

[Note: The "Antique Period" refers to these crania:]

Relics of late third century B.C. - second century A.D. were discovered on the southern bank of the lake Sevan, near the village of Karchaghbyur (19 crania), as well as Shirakavan, district Ani (18 crania).


My population is closest genetically to the Iraqi Mandaeans.   If one were to go by the cephalic index alone, the genetic affinities that exist between the populations would not be apparent.

Iraqi Mandaean example: http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Iraqi%20Mandaeans/Mandaean10.jpg

Assyrian example: http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/brachy_asy.jpg


« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 08:20:34 PM by Humanist » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #227 on: July 08, 2012, 09:02:40 PM »

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.  ...

Have now looked into this. The paper on the incorrect dating looks solid. The N9 are Sarmatian and Magyar. 
Logged
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #228 on: July 08, 2012, 09:31:02 PM »

We talked about vitamin D, folic acid and de-pigmentation (or lack of it) in Mesolithic Europe. Could light coloring hence low folic have led to a low birth rates or high infant mortality for the light skinned Ural-Altaic and ancestors of IE peoples. Then once they moved into Europe the addition of high folic 'Greens' reduced the problem and the population exploded.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #229 on: July 08, 2012, 09:57:49 PM »

Leaving aside IE for now, I think a position for R1b in the highlands fringing the steppes is interesting.  Its a position I would like to see expanded with references to archaeological cultures and in particular to economy.  It seems that acceptance of the variance dating for R1b followed by a glance at its branching pattern (or lack of it) makes it fairly clear that M269 did not enter the path of farming until pretty late.  The steppes of course is a possibiliy but perhaps R1b was located on the mountain interface between the steppes and the farming core.  If this was the case I think its less likely to have been in Turkey because it is an early heartland of farming unless it was in some backwards niche.  I really am not familiar with the Neolithic and copper age of the mountain fringe areas bordering the steppes.  On the other hand maybe this is all overcomplicting things and R1b was simply on the steppes.  All we really know about R1b and R1a pre-3000BC is ???? zilch?  We know that LATER in the east and south-eastward push R1a dominanated among those IEs.  We know of one R1a burial site in Corded Ware and one R1b burial site in Europe c. 2600BC in the same area.  Everything else is a complete blanc for the period 5000-2600BC in terms of steppe and adjacent DNA.  That is a huge depth of time so I dont think we know much about the relative positions of R1a and R1b in the crucial area in the crucual period and everything is deduction based on very little data.  I think it could be a long time before we can safely deduce much.  In the steppes area alone you would really want a handful from each of the major cultural phases.  I would love to know who the Bug Dniester people that were overrun by Cuc-Tryp were.  I recall too that there was once not a single male burial known.  Dont know if that has changed but it would be interesting is there is a missing phase of mixing that is invisible. 
Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #230 on: July 09, 2012, 02:12:28 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.


Take a look at n/a's comments from an earlier post by dienekes.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/east-eurasian-mtdna-in-ukrainian.html?m=1

He argues that mtdna C could have decreased due to natural selection after a change of climate and lifestyle.

He even challenges the idea that mtdna c is "mongoliod".

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

Posts: 5023


« Reply #231 on: July 09, 2012, 07:32:37 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.


Take a look at n/a's comments from an earlier post by dienekes.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/east-eurasian-mtdna-in-ukrainian.html?m=1

He argues that mtdna C could have decreased due to natural selection after a change of climate and lifestyle.

He even challenges the idea that mtdna c is "mongoliod".



I guess you read Dienekes' reply.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #232 on: July 09, 2012, 07:43:37 AM »

You aren't thinking Cucuteni-Tripolye is the source of R1b, are you?

I can't see a more logical way into the steppe for it on present evidence, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.

On the physical anthropology there is a new paper out that might interest you. Anahit Yu. Khudaverdyan, Bioarchaeological Analysis Mutual Relations of Populations Armenian Highlands and Eurasia Using Craniological and Dental Nonmetric traits, Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012.

The author claims a movement out of the Armenian Highlands onto the steppe and suggests a link to R1b. Warning: he is from Armenia! :) He makes some astonishing claims of unexpected similarities between all sorts of cultures e.g. Kura-Araks culture of Georgia and Corded Ware culture in Poland, or Armenian Highlands and Yamnaya. However he may possibly have something.

I may be biased in favour, considering that I am actually suggesting that R1b moved from the South Caspian via the Armenian Highlands into Anatolia and from there into Europe including the steppe. The whole thing needs a critical eye from someone who actually understands physical anthropology well enough to judge whether he's making any sort of sense.


I would be really surprised if they ever recover any R1b from Cucuteni-Tripolye people, but I've been surprised before. I just don't think that's the source. They'll turn out to have been G2a, E1b1b, and I2a, in my opinion.

I saw that Armenian craniometry and dental trait paper. Honestly, I couldn't make heads nor tails of it, but I didn't try too hard. I was hoping for something a little clearer to a layman, but it was confusing.

I know Gerhardt, whose study of Beaker skulls, Die Glockenbecherleute in Mittel-und Westdeutschland (1953), has been mentioned here before, is supposed to have found a resemblance between the Beaker Folk and Armenians, and I think Coon said something similar.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #233 on: July 09, 2012, 08:12:05 AM »

Leaving aside IE for now, I think a position for R1b in the highlands fringing the steppes is interesting . . .

I agree for a number of reasons.

Just look at the results of that Herrera et al study, Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian Plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists (2011). It's in Jean's Mini-Library (Population Genetics - Asia - West Asia).

R-L23 was the single most frequent y haplogroup.

Ararat Valley (ARV)= 36%; Gardman (GRD)= 30%; Lake Van (Van)= 33%; Sasun (SAS)= 16%

Those are some substantial percentages.

Then there is the West_Asian autosomal component that Dienekes is emphasizing in his current arguments, as follows.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/05/bell-beakers-from-germany-y-haplogroup.html

Quote from: Dienekes

Here's a challenge to those who think the migration that brought R-M269 to Western Europe is not related to the arrival of the "West_Asian" autosomal component to Western Europe.

What is responsible for that component, if not R-M269.

You can't pin it on:

I: native European
E: rare in Caucasus/Anatolia
G: related apparently to early Neolithic and all pre-Beaker autosomal data points lack "West_Asian"

The only other candidate is J2, which occurs at trace elements in the British Isles and Scandinavia.

So, let's summarize:

- R-M269 came to Europe from the east.
- In all existing autosomal samples from Europe up to 5,000 BC R-M269 is lacking in Europe, and so is the "West_Asian" autosomal component
- Modern Europeans have R-M269 and "West_Asian" autosomal component. The latter occurs at ~10% in populations that have almost no other lineages of West Asian origin other than R-M269

The writing is on the wall.


Even the Basques, who are the exception in not having much of the West_Asian component, have the "Gedrosia" component.

Add to that the similarity between Beaker Folk skulls and at least some Armenian skulls noted by Kurt Gerhardt in his study of Beaker skulls and, I think, mentioned earlier by Coon.

On the IE language front - and this part can be considered separate from the origin of European R1b, if desirable - you have the apparently strange and unique antiquity of the Anatolian languages, which, in the opinion of some linguists, points to the "Indo-Hittite" hypothesis. Ivanov and Gamkrelidze believe Armenia/Eastern Anatolia was the IE Urheimat; Whitaker has posited the existence of a pre-Sumerian IE language, Euphratic, in northern Mesopotamia; and Etchamendy has suggested that Basque is an archaic IE language (recall the Gedrosia component in modern Basques).

This doesn't necessarily amount to an all-or-nothing "out of Anatolia" scenario. It could simply mean that interaction between Armenia and the steppe led to PIE, and that the processes are more complex than we currently believe.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 08:18:07 AM by rms2 » Logged

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #234 on: July 09, 2012, 12:11:23 PM »

I checked out a hardcopy of Desideri's latest study When Beakers Met Bell Beakers 2011.  It is basically a more in-depth rehash of her dentition studies plus a more expansive interpretation of the interactions between east and west.  

She mentioned the brachycephalization element of Bell Beaker as not something directly associated with the arrival of the Beakers.  It is a continuation from the early neolithic when headform was more dolichocephalic, then in the middle neolithic a tendency towards an intermendiate form or mesocephaly.  This drifted towards an increase in 'roundheads' by the late neolithic.  She doesn't go into any potential causes only that headform was trending that way before the Beakers.  This is also seen in the Hungarian plain with the Baden people in the same timeframe.

Other points made were..

Exogamy was common for females in the eastern Beaker range.

The Bell Beaker population in Iberia was mostly non-intrusive, but a continuation of final neolithic/megalithic people.  

Beaker people in Czech Rep. were descended from Corded-ware people.  Only the Beaker package was intrusive.  There was a interestingly strong connection found between the Beaker in west Bohemia and Beaker in Villedubert, France.  

France received population movement from Iberia and Beaker is clearly intrusive.

Switzerland had a partial replacement during Beaker, also from the west or southern domain.

Hungarian Beaker developed over a Mako culture substrate, possibly from a southern domain intrusion.  It is not as clear as with France or Switzerland.  The problem is Mako used cremation exclusively, so no further analysis could be made.  The Nagyrev culture in Hungary seems to be derived from Beaker there.  Other contemporary cultures in the Hungarian plain do not show strong dental associations with Beaker.  These are Obeba-Pitvaros and Maros-Perjamos.

She concluded with a mention of further aDNA studies and more dentition studies needed from Italy, Germany, and the northern Beaker range.  
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 12:13:59 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #235 on: July 09, 2012, 12:49:49 PM »

You aren't thinking Cucuteni-Tripolye is the source of R1b, are you?

I can't see a more logical way into the steppe for it on present evidence, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.

On the physical anthropology there is a new paper out that might interest you. Anahit Yu. Khudaverdyan, Bioarchaeological Analysis Mutual Relations of Populations Armenian Highlands and Eurasia Using Craniological and Dental Nonmetric traits, Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012.

The author claims a movement out of the Armenian Highlands onto the steppe and suggests a link to R1b. Warning: he is from Armenia! :) He makes some astonishing claims of unexpected similarities between all sorts of cultures e.g. Kura-Araks culture of Georgia and Corded Ware culture in Poland, or Armenian Highlands and Yamnaya. However he may possibly have something.

I may be biased in favour, considering that I am actually suggesting that R1b moved from the South Caspian via the Armenian Highlands into Anatolia and from there into Europe including the steppe. The whole thing needs a critical eye from someone who actually understands physical anthropology well enough to judge whether he's making any sort of sense.

I tried to analyze this until I got a headache looking at the dendograms.  It looks like there was significant south to north input, but the problem is that the oldest samples only go back to 4000 BC.  I think the movement of R1b was happening before then into SE Europe or the steppe.  I did notice that some of the Ochre Grave samples from Romania seem to be intermediate on the dendogram between east and west.  Are these the same as Yamnaya or Suvorovo?  I couldn't see a connection between Pitgrave or Yamnaya to anything in the west.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #236 on: July 09, 2012, 01:21:55 PM »

Quote from: rms2
I guess you read Dienekes' reply.

I did, but read the rest of their discussion. The selection on C as described by n/a, would not only reduce its levels in the neolithic/pastoral steppe, but it could also make C appear to be younger* overall using standard methods, and make the far east appear as an older seat to C.

But the most relevant part to this discussion is that C might have been selected out of steppe people, without replacement.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 04:48:11 PM by princenuadha » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #237 on: July 09, 2012, 04:25:26 PM »

Quote from: rms2
I guess you read Dienekes' reply.

I did, but read the rest of their discussion. The selection on C as described by n/a, would not only reduce its levels in the neolithic/pastoral steppe, but it could also make C appear to be older overall using standard methods, and make the far east appear as an older seat to C.

But the most relevant part to this discussion is that C might have been selected out of steppe people, without replacement.

Make that Dienekes' replies, then.

MtDNA C could have been selected out, that is true, but what are the chances that both mtDNA C and an East Eurasian autosomal component would have been selected out?

I really have no dog in that race, but it is something to think about.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 04:46:50 PM by rms2 » Logged

princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #238 on: July 09, 2012, 05:18:18 PM »

Quote from: rms2
I guess you read Dienekes' reply.

I did, but read the rest of their discussion. The selection on C as described by n/a, would not only reduce its levels in the neolithic/pastoral steppe, but it could also make C appear to be older overall using standard methods, and make the far east appear as an older seat to C.

But the most relevant part to this discussion is that C might have been selected out of steppe people, without replacement.

Make that Dienekes' replies, then.

MtDNA C could have been selected out, that is true, but what are the chances that both mtDNA C and an East Eurasian autosomal component would have been selected out?

I really have no dog in that race, but it is something to think about.

I reread it and didn't see anything from dienekes about autosomal components. If you're referring to this post http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html?m=1 I would not take any of those minor components at face value. Take a look at the updates, in one brana has "African" while in the next he has "Asian". As arbitrary as those results are I think it does tell us that ancients aren't described well by moderns, probably due to drift (had to sneak that in ; ) ), making the program draw upon very ancient relations.

Or just consider that most the adna hunter gathers had funky components with arent in europe today.

Just curious, do you have a lot of respect for dienekes?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #239 on: July 10, 2012, 06:33:11 AM »

I don't agree with everything Dienekes says, but when he makes sense, he makes sense.

I was referring to Dienekes' post that I quoted earlier in this thread. If mtDNA C had much of a presence on the ancient P-C steppe (a big if), then chances are there was an East Eurasian autosomal component in ancient P-C steppe people. That component didn't make much headway in Europe. That fact would seem to indicate that P-C steppe people didn't have much impact on the genetic make-up of Europe.

That's all speculative, but it's something to consider.

Drift, when it is used as the answer to everything, starts to sound like special pleading, kind of like the good old "genetic bottleneck".
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #240 on: July 10, 2012, 01:12:14 PM »

That is the problem when people buy into one model.  When something problematic comes up its just dismissed while they have 20-20 vision and act like an attack dog against any problems with alterantive theories and dismiss problems of their own as trivial.  Its totally rife in this hobby.  I think the logical position is still butt on fence and wait and see for now.  Its clearly going to come clear in the next few years and its not a sweepstake.   The evidence is suggestive but not conclusive.  I have got to be honest and say I am not impressed in this hobby by the way so many people buy into theories first (often for tranparent reasons) and then interpret all evidence to fit chosen theory for the same ideologgical reason or plain ego.  Its amazing how many people want to interpret human history in a way that is most favourable to their own countries, ethnicity or heritage.  Its so common in this hobby its laughable,  You almost need people to declare their ethnicity/cultural/national identity as an interest so you can take this bias into account with their interpretations!  The worst is the mania for their clade or a big clade of their own cultural group being as indigenous as possible.  That is just so childish and frankly a dangerous idea taken to its logical conclusion.     
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #241 on: July 10, 2012, 02:36:56 PM »

That is the problem when people buy into one model.  When something problematic comes up its just dismissed while they have 20-20 vision and act like an attack dog against any problems with alterantive theories and dismiss problems of their own as trivial.  Its totally rife in this hobby.  I think the logical position is still butt on fence and wait and see for now.  Its clearly going to come clear in the next few years and its not a sweepstake.   The evidence is suggestive but not conclusive.  I have got to be honest and say I am not impressed in this hobby by the way so many people buy into theories first (often for tranparent reasons) and then interpret all evidence to fit chosen theory for the same ideologgical reason or plain ego.  Its amazing how many people want to interpret human history in a way that is most favourable to their own countries, ethnicity or heritage.  Its so common in this hobby its laughable,  You almost need people to declare their ethnicity/cultural/national identity as an interest so you can take this bias into account with their interpretations!  The worst is the mania for their clade or a big clade of their own cultural group being as indigenous as possible.  That is just so childish and frankly a dangerous idea taken to its logical conclusion.    

I think that is an excellent summary of the state of things.

I am pretty transparent about the emotional element in my own opinions. I am an admitted partisan for R1b. My partisanship grows more intense as one climbs the R-phylogenetic tree toward R-L21. But my partisanship is not particularly ethnic or nationalistic, though I have nothing against people who feel loyalty toward and pride in their tribes or nations. My partisanship does not also absolutely blind me to the truth, once the truth becomes plain.

I think that is especially true for me because I consider this stuff something I do for fun. Sure, I would like to think my y-dna ancestors were something heroic and ultra-cool, but I realize most of them were probably just hardworking peasants.

One is better off if he knows himself and his biases. Perhaps then he doesn't tend to take himself too seriously. I know I could be wrong in nearly all of my dna-related opinions.

So, if it turns out we got our IE languages from some mostly-R1a steppe people, that's fine. What have they done for us since the Bronze Age? The Cold War? The Iron Curtain? ;-)

Still, it will be interesting to see what the ancient y-dna results have to say. I'm still hoping for the ultimate triumph of R1b and especially P312 and L21! :-)

 
« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 02:40:08 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #242 on: July 10, 2012, 02:52:08 PM »

That is the problem when people buy into one model. ...

It probably is just natural that something as complex and long ago as ancient migrations and expansions can't be perfectly explained with any one model we can come up with.

Dienekes has some great points and is probably right on many of them. Same for Jean M.  However, I think we all know this is speculative.
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #243 on: July 10, 2012, 06:36:59 PM »

That is the problem when people buy into one model. ...

It probably is just natural that something as complex and long ago as ancient migrations and expansions can't be perfectly explained with any one model we can come up with.

Dienekes has some great points and is probably right on many of them. Same for Jean M.  However, I think we all know this is speculative.

To be honest though, take away the details and the big picture is no different from 25 years ago when I bought Mallory's book.  The basic gist was the kurgan theory works well when dealing with the steppes, the adjacent area of eastern Europe and the spread east and south-east.  For the rest of Europe back then there was a bit of a feeing of hopelessness of the Kurgan model explaining IE in most of Europe and a general idea that somehow Corded Ware and beaker would need to be linked to the Kurgan culture even though the evidence was not clear on that link.  I think the big picture is the same.  There is a lot of new evidence, new models etc the big picture remains the same.  The issue is beyond archaeological inference and if its ever going to be solved it will be by ancient DNA. 
Logged
Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #244 on: July 10, 2012, 08:45:26 PM »

I have got to be honest and say I am not impressed in this hobby by the way so many people buy into theories first (often for tranparent reasons) and then interpret all evidence to fit chosen theory for the same ideologgical reason or plain ego.  Its amazing how many people want to interpret human history in a way that is most favourable to their own countries, ethnicity or heritage.  Its so common in this hobby its laughable,  You almost need people to declare their ethnicity/cultural/national identity as an interest so you can take this bias into account with their interpretations!  The worst is the mania for their clade or a big clade of their own cultural group being as indigenous as possible.  That is just so childish and frankly a dangerous idea taken to its logical conclusion.

I certainly agree that there are a good many people who fit that bill, but I still believe the majority of folks in this hobby are open-minded.  Perhaps I need a few more years in the hobby...

As for the indigeneity matter, I see nothing wrong with wanting to be descended, in principal part, from a particular area or group.  I sincerely doubt many folks here, whether Irish, African, or whatever, would wish for themselves otherwise.  What have I learned about my ancestry since beginning in this hobby?  I went from believing I was descended in significant part from the people of northern Mesopotamia, to now believing that I may have a good deal more ancestry from the central and southern parts of Mesopotamia, northern Arabia, parts of Iran, and other areas of the world.   Interestingly, the linguistic evidence (both Assyrian and Babylonian strata) appear to support this unexpected discovery regarding my ancestry.  I think this hobby can be a terrific way to past the time, if, again, one has an open mind.   
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #245 on: July 10, 2012, 09:00:19 PM »

I have got to be honest and say I am not impressed in this hobby by the way so many people buy into theories first (often for tranparent reasons) and then interpret all evidence to fit chosen theory for the same ideologgical reason or plain ego.  Its amazing how many people want to interpret human history in a way that is most favourable to their own countries, ethnicity or heritage.  Its so common in this hobby its laughable,  You almost need people to declare their ethnicity/cultural/national identity as an interest so you can take this bias into account with their interpretations!  The worst is the mania for their clade or a big clade of their own cultural group being as indigenous as possible.  That is just so childish and frankly a dangerous idea taken to its logical conclusion.

I certainly agree that there are a good many people who fit that bill, but I still believe the majority of folks in this hobby are open-minded.  Perhaps I need a few more years in the hobby...

As for the indigeneity matter, I see nothing wrong with wanting to be descended, in principal part, from a particular area or group.  I sincerely doubt many folks here, whether Irish, African, or whatever, would wish for themselves otherwise.  What have I learned about my ancestry since beginning in this hobby?  I went from believing I was descended in significant part from the people of northern Mesopotamia, to now believing that I may have a good deal more ancestry from the central and southern parts of Mesopotamia, northern Arabia, parts of Iran, and other areas of the world.   Interestingly, the linguistic evidence (both Assyrian and Babylonian strata) appear to support this unexpected discovery regarding my ancestry.  I think this hobby can be a terrific way to past the time, if, again, one has an open mind.   

Its not a problem unless people start fighting desperate rearguard arguements against all evidence just to maintain their indigenous self image.  There are several people who are clearly unhappy that their haoplogroup or clade has not worked out to support their self identity and it drags them into asurd unlikely arguements of denial.  Anyone who desperately wants to prove some ancestry and really doesnt want another has to understand that this may e a risky hoby for them if they are insecure about stuff like that.  I think this is especially clear in countries with conflict and strong political and cultural nationalism where the 'we are the natives'arguement is still used.   To be honest the more you know about prehistory and DNA the more that doesnt work.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #246 on: July 10, 2012, 09:11:27 PM »

I know from an Irish perspective that nationalistic people loved the idea that R1b was ice age because it gave the ultimate nativeness to the vast bulk of the Irish male lines.  The copper age and later re-dating of Irish R1b will fall of deaf ears in terms of the general public for a long time because the old Ice Age model was publicised widely a few years back (there was a program called Blood of the Irish or something like that) and the new dating of R1b is a lot less welcome to those seeking nativeness.  It will take another major program on this using new info to undo that disinformation.  Hopefully in 2 or 3 years when all becomes clear another program will be made.  Now is not the right moment though IMO as its clear we will have many of the answers in a couple of years.  It may sound odd but most Irish would not like to see themselves as conquerors or colonisers because later history has had so much of being on the sharp end of that.   The self image of victim of agression is very strong and I dont think being copper age beaker guys who squeezed out the guys who lived in Ireland for 5500 years before them and had built Newgrange etc would go down well at all! 
« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 09:25:35 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #247 on: July 10, 2012, 09:30:20 PM »

Quote from: alan trowel hands.
Its clearly going to come clear in the next few years and its not a sweepstake.

Yea, but its fun to pick something ahead of time and test it out along the way. I'm biased towards a steppe migration (though my bias is more relative than a specific thoery), I picked it for various reasons, and I do try to find evidence in support of it. But that doesn't mean I won't be excited when we get to find what actually happened and the steppe migration to the west isn't one of them. Basically, its a guessing game with some attachment.

I think that's ok as long as you're being logical/reasonable about your claims.

Quote from: rms2
I don't agree with everything Dienekes says, but when he makes sense, he makes sense.


Ya, but I thought he was pretty bad in that thread, which he usually is when something goes against M.E. admixture. But when he's not advocating, he can be pretty good.

Ex.

* pre bronze age Europeans were missing a huge chunk of "North European" and a small chunk of "West Asian". Dienekes... "PROOF that PIE were 'West Asians'!!!"

* mtdna c was reduced after bronze age due to selection? Dienekes... "No way, if c were reducing after the bronze age it would have had to disappear before the bronze age for the same reason." ?!?

Quote from: Mikewww
It probably is just natural that something as complex and long ago as ancient migrations and expansions can't be perfectly explained with any one model we can come up with.

Ain't that the truth. Not too long ago I thought jean's idea on proto_Italo-Celtic was insane. A group going from East Europe to Portugal by sea, then swinging back to to Eastern Europe by land, and meeting up with a kin group (though the former is hugely diluted) before they both go west...

But recently we have seen very different groups living side by side and not mixing! That's amazing; stories can be so much more complicated because of that. People can migrate long distances without mixing in between. We can get one remain saying x and another nearby remain saying y. I don't know just how complicated the picture will be.




Logged
Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #248 on: July 10, 2012, 09:34:16 PM »

alan.  Thanks.  Yes, I can certainly agree, and do appreciate your perspective.  As for people being indigenous, you can probably get an idea what "indigeneity" means to me, by something I posted on another forum a couple of days back:

Quote
Well. I do believe my ethnicity is relatively "old." And the same goes for my vernacular. However, I am the first to say that I am no different in many ways than, for example, a Turk. The difference being that they are the product of a hybridization event (or events) that took place in more recent times. That is all any of us are. Hybrids. Mongrels. What distinguishes one from the other is, as I said, the time since the "hybridization" event(s), and the nature of the original constituent parts. Those constituent parts, of course, were also products of earlier mixing. And so on. The same general concept can be applied to language. I speak Assyrian-Aramaic. An Aramaic language with strata of earlier and later language contacts (e.g. Akkadian and Kurdish respectively). Anyway, nothing most people do not already know.
Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #249 on: July 11, 2012, 09:52:07 AM »

I tried to analyze this until I got a headache looking at the dendograms. 

Thanks for trying. You've made better headway than me! I think I'll pass on that paper and await more aDNA. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.136 seconds with 19 queries.