World Families Forums - Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 18, 2014, 08:20:56 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)
| | |-+  Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA  (Read 29121 times)
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #325 on: May 24, 2012, 07:29:29 PM »

Cheers.  I suppose I fell a need to flesh out a bit more about the Stelae People beyond the Stelae itself.  What other aspects other than the Stelae are characteristic of eastern roots?

For me the Big Stuff is metallurgy and the Secondary Products Revolution. That's what transformed the economy of Europe. Of course the greater emphasis on the individual is important too. If you want the archaeological nitty-gritty, the paper presents eleven components of the Yamnaya Package on pp. 196-7 and goes on to  discuss which cultures adopted these. They include lockenringe (which were found with the Amesbury Archer) and corded decoration on pottery.    

I was looking at one of the Desideri's studies again and she has the Bell Beaker groups in Czech Rep. clustering somewhat upstream  with the Obeba-Pitvaros group of the Maros culture.  Do you know if the Maros or Pitvaros cultures are related to either Bell Beaker or Yamnaya?  Supposing the males from Kromsdorf ancestors came from the east group, either south Germany or Bohemia, then this might be a possible connection.  However, the earliest date I've seen for Maros is 2500 BC which is problematic.

Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #326 on: May 24, 2012, 07:34:19 PM »

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source. 

Alan may be referring to my comment further up this thread that I don't try to use variance to pin-point origins that far back in time. There has been too much subsequent movement. For example it is estimated that over 4 million people were displaced within the Assyrian Empire. Whole communities were moved from one corner of the empire to another. That sort of thing blurs the details of older migrations. We may be left with a bit of a hint in very broad geographical outline. It is not impossible that L23 arose somewhere in the vicinity of northern Mesopotamia. I've just guessed that R1b was a bit further north in the mountain valleys and by-passed Mesopotamia to move into and across Anatolia.

I think the region encompassin Armenia, Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran is the home to R1b along with G, J2a and J1.

The linguists Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have proposed Eastern Anatolia/Armenia as the PIE Urheimat.

Of course, despite the apparently unsurpassed antiquity of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European, that is not a very popular notion here. I expect it is especially unpopular with R1a partisans.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #327 on: May 24, 2012, 07:55:40 PM »

The Canary Islands R1b is only tested to M269 and most likely due to Spanish/Portuguese colonization.  

The samples were taken from cemeteries (details below) prior to the Hispanic capture and colonisation of the islands 1402 AD+. There had been contact previously between the islanders and other people e.g. Greeks, Romans.  However it is perfectly possible that the R1b arrived with the first Berber people to colonise the islands c. 1000 BC, ancestors of the Guanches. Bear in mind that Bell Beaker goods and remains have been found in Morocco that date to before this.  

c. 1000 AD : Tenerife (2210 ± 60 to 1720 ± 60 BP), Gomera (1743 ± 40 to 1493 ± 40 BP), Hierro (1740 ± 50 to 970 ± 50 BP) and Gran Canaria (1410 ± 60 to 750 ± 60 BP).

Is that from the study at the link posted by JeanL (this one: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/181)?

Can you save me some time and tell me how many of the early remains tested R1b? I scanned that study a couple of times and could not find any really user-friendly, quick-to-access tables of aDNA results. From what I could see from one table, it looked like one

I work during the week and commute a long way to do so. I get a very limited amount of time to spend on dna-related stuff during the week.

Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #328 on: May 24, 2012, 09:26:59 PM »

^Some data from the study

Quote from: Fregel.et.al.2009

From the 30 successfully amplified indigenous samples, 24 were from Gran Canaria, 3 from Fuerteventura, 2 from Tenerife and 2 from Gomera.

[...]

Surprisingly, R-M269 was also found in the indigenous sample in a moderate frequency (10%). Its presence in the indigenous people could be explained in two ways: (a) R-M269 was introduced into NW Africa in prehistoric not historical times, or (b) the presence of this marker in the aborigines was due to a prehispanic European gene flow into the indigenous population. As NW African R-M269 chromosomes showed close STR-similarity to the Iberian ones [17], pointing to recent contacts between both regions, the second option appears more plausible.

[...]

Due to the low variance of J-M267 in N Africa compared to that in the Middle East, its presence in the former has been related to the Arab expansion in the 7th century A.D. [36]. However, if the arrival of the indigenous people in the islands was around 1,000 years B.C. [48], the presence of J-M267 in NW Africa could be previous to the Arab expansion. Alternatively, this marker might have reached the islands with a second wave of colonists.

[...]

The presence of the I-M170 haplogroup in the indigenous sample (6.7%) deserves special attention.[/bb] This haplogroup is the only major clade of the Y-chromosome phylogeny that is widespread over Europe and almost absent elsewhere, suggesting that it originated there [49]. It is especially abundant in the eastern Mediterranean area, with its highest frequencies in the Balkans [50]. Therefore, the presence of this European Y-chromosome lineage in the indigenous pool is compatible with a direct Mediterranean input, or to a more ancient demic influx from Europe to N Africa than has yet been proposed [17].

[...]

Different founder effects on different islands could be a plausible explanation, since all the natives carrying I-M170 were from Gran Canaria, whereas the historical sample was taken from Tenerife.

Table-1:Y-chromosome haplogroup frequencies in the studied populations

Figure-2: Y-chromosome tree of haplogroups and absolute frequencies for each population. Y-chromosome tree, taken from Karafet et al. (2008), representing the genealogical relationships of the haplogroups characterized in this study, using diagnostic SNPs and their absolute frequencies in the indigenous (ABO) and historical (CON) samples from the Canaries.

 
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #329 on: May 24, 2012, 09:44:48 PM »

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source.

Alan may be referring to my comment further up this thread that I don't try to use variance to pin-point origins that far back in time. There has been too much subsequent movement. For example it is estimated that over 4 million people were displaced within the Assyrian Empire. Whole communities were moved from one corner of the empire to another. That sort of thing blurs the details of older migrations. We may be left with a bit of a hint in very broad geographical outline. It is not impossible that L23 arose somewhere in the vicinity of northern Mesopotamia. I've just guessed that R1b was a bit further north in the mountain valleys and by-passed Mesopotamia to move into and across Anatolia.

I think the region encompassin Armenia, Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran is the home to R1b along with G, J2a and J1.

The linguists Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have proposed Eastern Anatolia/Armenia as the PIE Urheimat.

Of course, despite the apparently unsurpassed antiquity of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European, that is not a very popular notion here. I expect it is especially unpopular with R1a partisans.

And I hope you R1b partisans realize this wouldn't automatically make R1b the PIE group. Why would it not be J2a then? Or maybe J1? Maybe even G2a?

Also the Anatolian/Armenian hypothesis has major flaws anyways.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 10:18:22 PM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #330 on: May 24, 2012, 10:21:08 PM »

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source.

Alan may be referring to my comment further up this thread that I don't try to use variance to pin-point origins that far back in time. There has been too much subsequent movement. For example it is estimated that over 4 million people were displaced within the Assyrian Empire. Whole communities were moved from one corner of the empire to another. That sort of thing blurs the details of older migrations. We may be left with a bit of a hint in very broad geographical outline. It is not impossible that L23 arose somewhere in the vicinity of northern Mesopotamia. I've just guessed that R1b was a bit further north in the mountain valleys and by-passed Mesopotamia to move into and across Anatolia.

I think the region encompassin Armenia, Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran is the home to R1b along with G, J2a and J1.

The linguists Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have proposed Eastern Anatolia/Armenia as the PIE Urheimat.

Of course, despite the apparently unsurpassed antiquity of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European, that is not a very popular notion here. I expect it is especially unpopular with R1a partisans.

And I hope you R1b partisans realize this wouldn't automatically make R1b the PIE group. Why would it not be J2a then? Or maybe J1? Maybe even G2a?

Also the Anatolian/Armenian hypothesis is pretty laughable anyways.

Are you not reading the posts?!?!? Nobody is saying that R1b is "the" PIE pie group. Obviously R1a was a PIE group as well.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #331 on: May 24, 2012, 11:51:21 PM »

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source.

Alan may be referring to my comment further up this thread that I don't try to use variance to pin-point origins that far back in time. There has been too much subsequent movement. For example it is estimated that over 4 million people were displaced within the Assyrian Empire. Whole communities were moved from one corner of the empire to another. That sort of thing blurs the details of older migrations. We may be left with a bit of a hint in very broad geographical outline. It is not impossible that L23 arose somewhere in the vicinity of northern Mesopotamia. I've just guessed that R1b was a bit further north in the mountain valleys and by-passed Mesopotamia to move into and across Anatolia.

I think the region encompassin Armenia, Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran is the home to R1b along with G, J2a and J1.

The linguists Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have proposed Eastern Anatolia/Armenia as the PIE Urheimat.

Of course, despite the apparently unsurpassed antiquity of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European, that is not a very popular notion here. I expect it is especially unpopular with R1a partisans.

And I hope you R1b partisans realize this wouldn't automatically make R1b the PIE group. Why would it not be J2a then? Or maybe J1? Maybe even G2a?

Also the Anatolian/Armenian hypothesis is pretty laughable anyways.

Are you not reading the posts?!?!? Nobody is saying that R1b is "the" PIE pie group. Obviously R1a was a PIE group as well.

I see people trying to push PIE into Anatolia and other regions followed by statements of low levels of R1a in those places. They are indeed trying to make R1b the only PIE group.

If this Anatolian hypothesis is right then J2a not R1b should be the PIE group.
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #332 on: May 25, 2012, 12:23:30 AM »

I see people trying to push PIE into Anatolia and other regions followed by statements of low levels of R1a in those places. They are indeed trying to make R1b the only PIE group.

There's also an R1a and Subclades forum, sort of:

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?board=2418.0
Logged

R1b Z196*
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #333 on: May 25, 2012, 04:55:54 AM »

Is that from the study at the link posted by JeanL (this one: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/181)?

Can you save me some time and tell me how many of the early remains tested R1b? one.  

Yes it's Fregal 2009. The details are on my website: Ancient DNA from North Africa and the Canary Islands

3 samples R1b1b2* (M269)
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 04:57:19 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #334 on: May 25, 2012, 05:22:11 AM »

I see people trying to push PIE into Anatolia and other regions followed by statements of low levels of R1a in those places. They are indeed trying to make R1b the only PIE group.

Could that possibly be a reaction to statements that R1b has nothing to do with PIE?

To me - a woman who has no idea what Y-DNA haplogroups run in her family - it is clear that R1a and R1b are two halves of the same story, and furthermore other haplogroups were also involved to a lesser degree. I have been following that line since I first put Peopling of Europe online in March 2009.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 05:55:36 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #335 on: May 25, 2012, 05:54:53 AM »

If this Anatolian hypothesis is right then J2a not R1b should be the PIE group.

You have put your finger on an important point. To me the fact that R1b of any type apparently did not travel with the earliest farmers, but in some of the later waves after the climate crisis of 6200 BC, suggests that R1b was tucked away somewhere in the Taurus/Zagros mountain valleys without easy access to the sea.  It seems that R1b-V88 made its way to the Levant by about 6000 and from there to North Africa with farmers.

It looks as though R1b-M269 made its way west across Anatolia, which was cool and wet around 6200 BC - good for cattle pasture - and then across into Europe.

See http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/neolithic.shtml#crisis     
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #336 on: May 25, 2012, 07:52:49 AM »

If this Anatolian hypothesis is right then J2a not R1b should be the PIE group.

You have put your finger on an important point. To me the fact that R1b of any type apparently did not travel with the earliest farmers, but in some of the later waves after the climate crisis of 6200 BC, suggests that R1b was tucked away somewhere in the Taurus/Zagros mountain valleys without easy access to the sea.  It seems that R1b-V88 made its way to the Levant by about 6000 and from there to North Africa with farmers.

It looks as though R1b-M269 made its way west across Anatolia, which was cool and wet around 6200 BC - good for cattle pasture - and then across into Europe.

See http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/neolithic.shtml#crisis     

Interesting. I have always seen the homeland of R1b put into the Armenian Highland or the Taurus. But you  think it might have originated in the Zagros in Iran or spread there in a large wave at a very early date? While we are on the topic of farmers isn't it strange very little J1 made its way to Europe (and to a lesser extent J2a)?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #337 on: May 25, 2012, 07:58:07 AM »

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source.

Alan may be referring to my comment further up this thread that I don't try to use variance to pin-point origins that far back in time. There has been too much subsequent movement. For example it is estimated that over 4 million people were displaced within the Assyrian Empire. Whole communities were moved from one corner of the empire to another. That sort of thing blurs the details of older migrations. We may be left with a bit of a hint in very broad geographical outline. It is not impossible that L23 arose somewhere in the vicinity of northern Mesopotamia. I've just guessed that R1b was a bit further north in the mountain valleys and by-passed Mesopotamia to move into and across Anatolia.

I think the region encompassin Armenia, Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran is the home to R1b along with G, J2a and J1.

The linguists Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have proposed Eastern Anatolia/Armenia as the PIE Urheimat.

Of course, despite the apparently unsurpassed antiquity of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European, that is not a very popular notion here. I expect it is especially unpopular with R1a partisans.

And I hope you R1b partisans realize this wouldn't automatically make R1b the PIE group. Why would it not be J2a then? Or maybe J1? Maybe even G2a?

Also the Anatolian/Armenian hypothesis is pretty laughable anyways.

Are you not reading the posts?!?!? Nobody is saying that R1b is "the" PIE pie group. Obviously R1a was a PIE group as well.

I see people trying to push PIE into Anatolia and other regions followed by statements of low levels of R1a in those places. They are indeed trying to make R1b the only PIE group.

If this Anatolian hypothesis is right then J2a not R1b should be the PIE group.

I think most of us see R1a as the eastern half of the story. You seem to want to make it the whole story, and it was you who accused us of being "racist" and "nationalist" for thinking that R1b has some connection to the IE story.

I mentioned Gamkrelidze and Ivanov just to make it clear that not all the experts are on board with the Pontic-Caspian Urheimat, which must first be assumed as correct for any of the R1a-centric arguments to have any force. Take away the P-C Urheimat and the whole house of cards collapses, since no one really knows what language or languages the inhabitants of the steppe spoke in the 4th and 3rd millenniums BC.

Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #338 on: May 25, 2012, 08:13:24 AM »

^Some data from the study

Quote from: Fregel.et.al.2009

From the 30 successfully amplified indigenous samples, 24 were from Gran Canaria, 3 from Fuerteventura, 2 from Tenerife and 2 from Gomera.

[...]

Surprisingly, R-M269 was also found in the indigenous sample in a moderate frequency (10%). Its presence in the indigenous people could be explained in two ways: (a) R-M269 was introduced into NW Africa in prehistoric not historical times, or (b) the presence of this marker in the aborigines was due to a prehispanic European gene flow into the indigenous population. As NW African R-M269 chromosomes showed close STR-similarity to the Iberian ones [17], pointing to recent contacts between both regions, the second option appears more plausible.

[...]

Due to the low variance of J-M267 in N Africa compared to that in the Middle East, its presence in the former has been related to the Arab expansion in the 7th century A.D. [36]. However, if the arrival of the indigenous people in the islands was around 1,000 years B.C. [48], the presence of J-M267 in NW Africa could be previous to the Arab expansion. Alternatively, this marker might have reached the islands with a second wave of colonists.

[...]

The presence of the I-M170 haplogroup in the indigenous sample (6.7%) deserves special attention.[/bb] This haplogroup is the only major clade of the Y-chromosome phylogeny that is widespread over Europe and almost absent elsewhere, suggesting that it originated there [49]. It is especially abundant in the eastern Mediterranean area, with its highest frequencies in the Balkans [50]. Therefore, the presence of this European Y-chromosome lineage in the indigenous pool is compatible with a direct Mediterranean input, or to a more ancient demic influx from Europe to N Africa than has yet been proposed [17].

[...]

Different founder effects on different islands could be a plausible explanation, since all the natives carrying I-M170 were from Gran Canaria, whereas the historical sample was taken from Tenerife.

Table-1:Y-chromosome haplogroup frequencies in the studied populations

Figure-2: Y-chromosome tree of haplogroups and absolute frequencies for each population. Y-chromosome tree, taken from Karafet et al. (2008), representing the genealogical relationships of the haplogroups characterized in this study, using diagnostic SNPs and their absolute frequencies in the indigenous (ABO) and historical (CON) samples from the Canaries.

 


Thanks, JeanL.

I see it in Figure 2: 3 out of 30.

I get up around 0300 to commute by train to work and don't get home until about 1800. I was too tired to read that report last evening and really didn't have the time or motivation.

I don't see how the presence of three relatively late R1b in the Canary Islands is the tremendous blow to the IE bona fides of R1b that pole tater (or whatever his screen name was) says it is.
Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #339 on: May 25, 2012, 08:34:41 AM »

I don't see how the presence of three relatively late R1b in the Canary Islands is the tremendous blow to the IE bona fides of R1b that pole tater (or whatever his screen name was) says it is.

Right. It is clutching at straws. A bit of R1b might have arrived with Romans or Greeks, but it is perfectly possible that it arrived in the Canaries with the Berber settlers about 1000 BC, as Bell Beaker had quite an impact in Morocco earlier than that.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #340 on: May 25, 2012, 08:41:44 AM »

...  the Pontic-Caspian Urheimat, which must first be assumed as correct for any of the R1a-centric arguments to have any force. Take away the P-C Urheimat and the whole house of cards collapses ...

Not for me. The basis of the idea that R1a1a and R1b1b2 spread with the Indo-Europeans is their present-day correlation with IE languages. Both of them. Two sides of the same story. This is not based on any homeland theory, but as it happens (surprise, surprise) fits the archaeological and genetic evidence for a spread east and west from the PC steppe. This can all be argued completely separately from the linguistic evidence that the PIE homeland was on the P-C steppe. But isn't it handy when the pieces fit?    
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 08:42:22 AM by Jean M » Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #341 on: May 25, 2012, 08:50:24 AM »

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source.

Alan may be referring to my comment further up this thread that I don't try to use variance to pin-point origins that far back in time. There has been too much subsequent movement. For example it is estimated that over 4 million people were displaced within the Assyrian Empire. Whole communities were moved from one corner of the empire to another. That sort of thing blurs the details of older migrations. We may be left with a bit of a hint in very broad geographical outline. It is not impossible that L23 arose somewhere in the vicinity of northern Mesopotamia. I've just guessed that R1b was a bit further north in the mountain valleys and by-passed Mesopotamia to move into and across Anatolia.

I think the region encompassin Armenia, Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran is the home to R1b along with G, J2a and J1.

The linguists Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have proposed Eastern Anatolia/Armenia as the PIE Urheimat.

Of course, despite the apparently unsurpassed antiquity of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European, that is not a very popular notion here. I expect it is especially unpopular with R1a partisans.

And I hope you R1b partisans realize this wouldn't automatically make R1b the PIE group. Why would it not be J2a then? Or maybe J1? Maybe even G2a?

Also the Anatolian/Armenian hypothesis is pretty laughable anyways.

Are you not reading the posts?!?!? Nobody is saying that R1b is "the" PIE pie group. Obviously R1a was a PIE group as well.

I see people trying to push PIE into Anatolia and other regions followed by statements of low levels of R1a in those places. They are indeed trying to make R1b the only PIE group.

If this Anatolian hypothesis is right then J2a not R1b should be the PIE group.

I think most of us see R1a as the eastern half of the story. You seem to want to make it the whole story, and it was you who accused us of being "racist" and "nationalist" for thinking that R1b has some connection to the IE story.

I mentioned Gamkrelidze and Ivanov just to make it clear that not all the experts are on board with the Pontic-Caspian Urheimat, which must first be assumed as correct for any of the R1a-centric arguments to have any force. Take away the P-C Urheimat and the whole house of cards collapses, since no one really knows what language or languages the inhabitants of the steppe spoke in the 4th and 3rd millenniums BC.



Yes if you take away the best model for PIE the sotry becomes less R1a cenetric. It was someone else who shifted PIE to Anatolia ignoring that this would make R1b less important. If you want to go down that path J2 and G would be PIE groups as well.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #342 on: May 25, 2012, 09:11:35 AM »

...  the Pontic-Caspian Urheimat, which must first be assumed as correct for any of the R1a-centric arguments to have any force. Take away the P-C Urheimat and the whole house of cards collapses ...

Not for me. The basis of the idea that R1a1a and R1b1b2 spread with the Indo-Europeans is their present-day correlation with IE languages. Both of them. Two sides of the same story. This is not based on any homeland theory, but as it happens (surprise, surprise) fits the archaeological and genetic evidence for a spread east and west from the PC steppe. This can all be argued completely separately from the linguistic evidence that the PIE homeland was on the P-C steppe. But isn't it handy when the pieces fit?    

Apparently they don't fit for everyone in quite the same way. We have the posts on this thread of two stellar examples of the sorts of R1a partisans who haunt most dna discussion fora but who, until now, have been blessedly absent from this one. For them, the puzzle fits together to reveal an R1a-dominated panorama.

For me, I remain unconvinced. I think the antiquity of the Anatolian branch is a problem for the P-C steppe Urheimat, as is the possibility of the existence of  Euphratic, which I am not expert enough to dismiss so peremptorily.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #343 on: May 25, 2012, 09:25:28 AM »



Yes if you take away the best model for PIE the sotry becomes less R1a cenetric. It was someone else who shifted PIE to Anatolia ignoring that this would make R1b less important. If you want to go down that path J2 and G would be PIE groups as well.

Just what the "best" model is is a matter of opinion, and not all the experts agree.

J2 and G could very well be a part of the IE story. No doubt they are, to some extent at least.

R1a looks good for the eastern spread of Indo-European, but not for the western. It dwindles to next to nothing in the West, and what is there can often be accounted for historically. R1a is pretty clearly connected to the satem languages, while R1b is far and away more frequent among speakers of centum languages.

Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #344 on: May 25, 2012, 09:36:45 AM »

...  the Pontic-Caspian Urheimat, which must first be assumed as correct for any of the R1a-centric arguments to have any force. Take away the P-C Urheimat and the whole house of cards collapses ...
Not for me. The basis of the idea that R1a1a and R1b1b2 spread with the Indo-Europeans is their present-day correlation with IE languages. Both of them. Two sides of the same story. This is not based on any homeland theory, but as it happens (surprise, surprise) fits the archaeological and genetic evidence for a spread east and west from the PC steppe. This can all be argued completely separately from the linguistic evidence that the PIE homeland was on the P-C steppe. But isn't it handy when the pieces fit?    
Apparently they don't fit for everyone in quite the same way. We have the posts on this thread of two stellar examples of the sorts of R1a partisans who haunt most dna discussion fora but who, until now, have been blessedly absent from this one. For them, the puzzle fits together to reveal an R1a-dominated panorama....
A lot of the puzzle pieces do line up, at least better than anything else, IMO. I lean towards the Pontic Steppes, slightly extended, as being the Proto-IndoEuropean homeland. By slightly extended I include Cucuteni-Tripolye lands and even down into the Caucasus.

As far as citing some of the "stellar partisans," I don't think such citations are useful arguments. This is not to say everything they say is wrong, but their "house of cards" as you say call it, has some mighty and unfounded assumptions that are cause to consider the credibility of the stellar partisans themselves.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 09:38:25 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #345 on: May 25, 2012, 09:46:18 AM »

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source.

Alan may be referring to my comment further up this thread that I don't try to use variance to pin-point origins that far back in time. There has been too much subsequent movement. For example it is estimated that over 4 million people were displaced within the Assyrian Empire. Whole communities were moved from one corner of the empire to another. That sort of thing blurs the details of older migrations. We may be left with a bit of a hint in very broad geographical outline. It is not impossible that L23 arose somewhere in the vicinity of northern Mesopotamia. I've just guessed that R1b was a bit further north in the mountain valleys and by-passed Mesopotamia to move into and across Anatolia.

I think the region encompassin Armenia, Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran is the home to R1b along with G, J2a and J1.

The linguists Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have proposed Eastern Anatolia/Armenia as the PIE Urheimat.

Of course, despite the apparently unsurpassed antiquity of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European, that is not a very popular notion here. I expect it is especially unpopular with R1a partisans.

And I hope you R1b partisans realize this wouldn't automatically make R1b the PIE group. Why would it not be J2a then? Or maybe J1? Maybe even G2a?

Also the Anatolian/Armenian hypothesis has major flaws anyways.

Interested, it looks like you changed your tone slightly in an edit (original below), which is nice.

.... Also the Anatolian/Armenian hypothesis is pretty laughable anyways.

Nevetheless, could you be specific and explain the major flaws in the Anatolian/Armenian hypothesis.  I suspect you are correct, but I would appreciate a better understanding of this.  

Jean M, you probably have an assessment on this as well.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 09:47:53 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #346 on: May 25, 2012, 09:51:49 AM »



Yes if you take away the best model for PIE the sotry becomes less R1a cenetric. It was someone else who shifted PIE to Anatolia ignoring that this would make R1b less important. If you want to go down that path J2 and G would be PIE groups as well.

Just what the "best" model is is a matter of opinion, and not all the experts agree.

J2 and G could very well be a part of the IE story. No doubt they are, to some extent at least.

R1a looks good for the eastern spread of Indo-European, but not for the western. It dwindles to next to nothing in the West, and what is there can often be accounted for historically. R1a is pretty clearly connected to the satem languages, while R1b is far and away more frequent among speakers of centum languages.



I really doubt J2 and G have anything to do with IE. I could care less if they do. J2, G, R1a, R1b are all found in my ethnicity so I don't know why people think I have a personal reason to be biased towards R1a.

And where does centum Tocharian fit into this? Not with R1b carriers.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 09:54:26 AM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #347 on: May 25, 2012, 09:56:49 AM »

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source.

Alan may be referring to my comment further up this thread that I don't try to use variance to pin-point origins that far back in time. There has been too much subsequent movement. For example it is estimated that over 4 million people were displaced within the Assyrian Empire. Whole communities were moved from one corner of the empire to another. That sort of thing blurs the details of older migrations. We may be left with a bit of a hint in very broad geographical outline. It is not impossible that L23 arose somewhere in the vicinity of northern Mesopotamia. I've just guessed that R1b was a bit further north in the mountain valleys and by-passed Mesopotamia to move into and across Anatolia.

I think the region encompassin Armenia, Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran is the home to R1b along with G, J2a and J1.

The linguists Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have proposed Eastern Anatolia/Armenia as the PIE Urheimat.

Of course, despite the apparently unsurpassed antiquity of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European, that is not a very popular notion here. I expect it is especially unpopular with R1a partisans.

And I hope you R1b partisans realize this wouldn't automatically make R1b the PIE group. Why would it not be J2a then? Or maybe J1? Maybe even G2a?

Also the Anatolian/Armenian hypothesis has major flaws anyways.

Interested, it looks like you changed your tone slightly in an edit (original below), which is nice.

.... Also the Anatolian/Armenian hypothesis is pretty laughable anyways.

Nevetheless, could you be specific and explain the major flaws in the Anatolian/Armenian hypothesis.  I suspect you are correct, but I would appreciate a better understanding of this.  

Jean M, you probably have an assessment on this as well.

How does a hunter gatherer language come from Anatolia to begin with? Did J2a and G2a Anatolians all decide to stay home and not make it to Europe?
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #348 on: May 25, 2012, 10:03:21 AM »

...  the Pontic-Caspian Urheimat, which must first be assumed as correct for any of the R1a-centric arguments to have any force. Take away the P-C Urheimat and the whole house of cards collapses ...

Not for me. The basis of the idea that R1a1a and R1b1b2 spread with the Indo-Europeans is their present-day correlation with IE languages. Both of them. Two sides of the same story. This is not based on any homeland theory, but as it happens (surprise, surprise) fits the archaeological and genetic evidence for a spread east and west from the PC steppe. This can all be argued completely separately from the linguistic evidence that the PIE homeland was on the P-C steppe. But isn't it handy when the pieces fit?    

Apparently they don't fit for everyone in quite the same way. We have the posts on this thread of two stellar examples of the sorts of R1a partisans who haunt most dna discussion fora but who, until now, have been blessedly absent from this one. For them, the puzzle fits together to reveal an R1a-dominated panorama.

For me, I remain unconvinced. I think the antiquity of the Anatolian branch is a problem for the P-C steppe Urheimat, as is the possibility of the existence of  Euphratic, which I am not expert enough to dismiss so peremptorily.

Yes I am the partisan. Not people such as you relying on fringe theories such as Euphratic or shifting the PIE homeland to an R1b area. Or the individuals who believe in the Anatolian hypothesis which is not accepted by most people in the field. But people relying on outdated and fringe theories are unbiased ones who unfortunate have to deal with people like us.  The majority of the posters on this site believe R1a carriers got IE languages from R1b carriers.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #349 on: May 25, 2012, 10:38:19 AM »

The majority of the posters on this site believe R1a carriers got IE languages from R1b carriers.

A couple of people might have suggested that at some point. That is the sort of thing that happens when people have freedom of speech and like to use it to toss ideas around. I cannot speak for the majority. I don't even know what the majority think. But you have had assurances from more than one person on this thread that talking about R1b as Indo-European does not mean cutting R1a1a out of the story.

This just happens to be an R1b forum and so people talk a lot about R1b here. OK?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 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 0.164 seconds with 18 queries.