World Families Forums - New Klyosov paper on R1b from Central Asia via multiple routes

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 31, 2014, 04:50:18 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)
| | |-+  New Klyosov paper on R1b from Central Asia via multiple routes
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: New Klyosov paper on R1b from Central Asia via multiple routes  (Read 10369 times)
acekon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #75 on: June 04, 2012, 12:31:11 PM »

I'm not entirely convinced that R1b1b2a cut across Poland in ancient times.  There are many explanations as to how a few L23* haplotypes arrived there. It is probably a very complex story. (Italy, Balkans, Central Asia...etc and a near infinite other set of possibilities)

This wouldn't have bearing on whether or not you had a high Ashkenazi percentage or not. The high % share is the result of recent founding effect - they are more related to one another than with any single outgroup, where as a single R1b1b2a* individual could have arrived in his current location 1000 years ago or more from another near infinite number of possibilites.


Which is the Ashkenazi line, with a founding effect?
Are they L584- or L584+ or do they fit in with, L945+L945+L946
kit#45475?
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=yresults

kit#45475-_R1b1a2a1b1: L23+ L584+ L943+ L944+ L945+ & L946+ (Ashkenazi "Group C")

One of these groups,separated by DYS426's .00009 low mutation rate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Y-STR_markers


http://www.familytreedna.com/public/JewishR1b/default.aspx?section=yresults

Group A or Group B?

or" 12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 14 29 - 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 15 16 17 - 11 11 19 23 16 16 18 17 37 38 12 12 (L23, Jewish)"Klyosov grouping

How does this fit in with Iraqi group?

"Another half of the Assyrian hap-lotypes in the Project, mostly from Iran, have a slightly mutated “classical” European R1b1a2 base haplotype (with DYS464 = 15 15 17 17), and a common ancestor of 850 ± 360 ybp calcu-lated from the first 12 markers, and 1100 ± 280 ybp from the first 37 markers. This R1b evidence is clearly a relatively recent event in Assyrian population, brought from Europe. "


Many more questions than answers.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 12:32:45 PM by acekon » Logged

YDNA: R-Z2105* Śląsk-Polska
MtDNA: U5b2a2*Königsberg-Ostpreussen
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #76 on: June 04, 2012, 02:12:48 PM »

No, I am not sure. I just quoted Wikipedia, that "like R1b* is rare. As mentioned above, examples are described in older articles, for example two in a sample from Turkey." This is cited from URL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)

They cite their source as
Quote
4. Cinnioğlu, C; King, R; Kivisild, T; Kalfoğlu, E; Atasoy, S; Cavalleri, GL; Lillie, AS; Roseman, CC et al. (2004). "Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia". Human Genetics 114 (2): 127–48. DOI:10.1007/s00439-003-1031-4. PMID 14586639.

If you think it is wrong, please contact them and see if you can get it updated. It would be of value for everyone. Thanks in advance if you choose to.

Well the findings weren’t duplicated on other studies(i.e. Myres.et.al.2010, Cruciani.et.al.2010), so it could have been a fluke.

I see you have a source, Cruciani 2010, that shows "R-P25* paragroup" as appearing in West Asia and East Asia.  I wonder how there could be such a rare find as far away as East Asia? particularly given that testing rates are so much higher in Europe than in Asia?

I'll re-iterate this point that I've made before. Do you see what happens when we (I'm including myself) start arguing by exception from anecdotal data?  It means very little and is wide open to cherry picking.

The only thing that finding R-P25* paragroup in East Asia says is that R-P25* is likely really old, and had enough time to be widespread. There is no cherry picking or anything involved in here, simply that the R-P25* paragroup appears in Europe, West and East Asia, albeit at very low frequencies.



I am also not sure that R1b is from Asia. It could have originated in Europe. You could be right if that is what you are proposing.  I don't think R1b originated in Europe, though, for a variety of reasons, but none the least are the anciently related cousins like R1a, R2, and Q (the P haplogroup (M45) family) found out that direction.

Well at some point someone must have come from Asia, be it R1b-M269, or R1b-P25, or R1b-M343. So what’s R1b, R-M343? If so, well, yes R2, and Q suggest and otherwise Central Asian origin, but the same reasoning would apply to the I and J folks given the distribution and origin of haplogroup J.

 
I am not at all sure if we have enough data and that it is representative enough.  I am saying that there is a difference between looking at R-M269xL23 data versus R-L23xL11 versus R-P312 or R-U106 long haplotype data from our DNA projects.

M269 has to be older than L23, phylogenetically speaking, and should exhibit much higher STR diversity than its g-grandsons P312 and U106.  However, the M269* from long haplotypes in our DNA projects does not exhibit the relative STR diversity reflective of its age.

Well, M269 has to be older than L23, that is completely correct, now R1b-M269(xL23) might or might not be older than L23(xL51). I already noticed that there is a drop in variance when members of the Jewish project are  included, so I’m not sure what you mean about it being reflective of its age, it likely is, if you use the right samples,  for example R1b-M269(xL23) using 37 STRs, gives a variance for Europe (n=9) of 0.3423.

L23 has to be younger than M269 and older than P312 and U106, phylogenetically speaking. Therefore L23xL11 should have less STR diversity than M269 and more than P312 and U106.

Not necessarily, L23xL11 doesn’t have to be older than P312 or U106, mainly because they could easily descend from any other SNP that occur much later than both P312 or U106.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #77 on: June 04, 2012, 04:58:54 PM »


I am also not sure that R1b is from Asia. It could have originated in Europe. You could be right if that is what you are proposing.  I don't think R1b originated in Europe, though, for a variety of reasons, but none the least are the anciently related cousins like R1a, R2, and Q (the P haplogroup (M45) family) found out that direction.

Well at some point someone must have come from Asia, be it R1b-M269, or R1b-P25, or R1b-M343. So what’s R1b, R-M343? If so, well, yes R2, and Q suggest and otherwise Central Asian origin, but the same reasoning would apply to the I and J folks given the distribution and origin of haplogroup J.

I am not an expert on Hg's J and I, but I don't think Hg IJK is considered to have originated and expanded the same way as Hg P.  IJK is truly more "Middle Eastern", I think.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Haplogroup IJK
Possible time of origin    40,000-45,000 years BP
Possible place of origin    Southwest Asia
Ancestor    Haplogroup F
Descendants    IJ, K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_P_(Y-DNA)

Quote from: Wikipedia
Haplogroup P
Possible time of origin    27,000-41,000 years BP[1]
Possible place of origin    Central Asia - South Asia
Ancestor    MNOPS
Descendants    P*, Q, R
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_IJK_(Y-DNA)



I am not at all sure if we have enough data and that it is representative enough.  I am saying that there is a difference between looking at R-M269xL23 data versus R-L23xL11 versus R-P312 or R-U106 long haplotype data from our DNA projects.

M269 has to be older than L23, phylogenetically speaking, and should exhibit much higher STR diversity than its g-grandsons P312 and U106.  However, the M269* from long haplotypes in our DNA projects does not exhibit the relative STR diversity reflective of its age.

Well, M269 has to be older than L23, that is completely correct, now R1b-M269(xL23) might or might not be older than L23(xL51). I already noticed that there is a drop in variance when members of the Jewish project are  included, so I’m not sure what you mean about it being reflective of its age, it likely is, if you use the right samples,  for example R1b-M269(xL23) using 37 STRs, gives a variance for Europe (n=9) of 0.3423.

L23 has to be younger than M269 and older than P312 and U106, phylogenetically speaking. Therefore L23xL11 should have less STR diversity than M269 and more than P312 and U106.

Not necessarily, L23xL11 doesn’t have to be older than P312 or U106, mainly because they could easily descend from any other SNP that occur much later than both P312 or U106.


Exactly! L23xL11 doesn't have to be older because its remnants may not represent all of the non L11 parts of L23 well.  In the case of L23xL11 it appears that since the diversity is higher than down in L11 branching that L23xL11 actually represents a number of older lineages.

This is the difference for R-M269xL23.  Since we aren't seeing STR diversity that is great in it (with the long ht's from projects), the implication is that the remnants are very limited branches of the old and total R-M269 tree.  Other than L23 guys, the M269 tree got wacked pretty good! Therefore, we can't tell much from comparing M269xL23 variance from region to region.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 05:05:21 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #78 on: June 04, 2012, 06:14:30 PM »

Exactly! L23xL11 doesn't have to be older because its remnants may not represent all of the non L11 parts of L23 well.  In the case of L23xL11 it appears that since the diversity is higher than down in L11 branching that L23xL11 actually represents a number of older lineages.

Actually we don’t know if it is a number of older lineages or not. For all we know all L23(xL51) in the Caucasus, Anatolia, the ME could belong to a subclade L-XX, but it just so happens that L-XX, was born before P312, and is somewhat older than P312. Now, what would happen if it turns out that the Europe L23(xL51) was 90% L-XX, but 10% L23(xL51,L-XX), that would certainly change the dynamics. This is exactly what I have been saying, L23xL11 being older than P312, doesn’t really say much about it. In fact I’m actually running a couple of experiments, and will soon post the outcomes, we shall see if the variance of L23x51 being older in West Asia than Europe still holds when 24 STRs with mutation rates less than 0.001 are used. 

This is the difference for R-M269xL23.  Since we aren't seeing STR diversity that is great in it (with the long ht's from projects), the implication is that the remnants are very limited branches of the old and total R-M269 tree.  Other than L23 guys, the M269 tree got wacked pretty good! Therefore, we can't tell much from comparing M269xL23 variance from region to region.


No, I actually think we can, the fact that most M269xL23 survives in the Balkans today, a region that was heavily colonized in the Neolithic, points to the fact that M269xL23 must have been pretty big in there pre-Neolithic, or otherwise it would have banished nowadays. Add to it, that M269xL23 appears to be consistently older in Europe than in West Asia, be it using 10 STR from Myres.et.al.2010, or 37 STR from the ht35 project is too much of a coincidence.
Logged
Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #79 on: June 04, 2012, 07:08:24 PM »

"Another half of the Assyrian hap-lotypes in the Project, mostly from Iran, have a slightly mutated “classical” European R1b1a2 base haplotype (with DYS464 = 15 15 17 17), and a common ancestor of 850 ± 360 ybp calcu-lated from the first 12 markers, and 1100 ± 280 ybp from the first 37 markers. This R1b evidence is clearly a relatively recent event in Assyrian population, brought from Europe. "


Many more questions than answers.

He is referring to our R-L584 men.  As stated previously here, and at another forum, an 1100 ± 280 ybp age is untenable for a variety of reasons.  Looking at it from the perspective of the Y chromosome:

Marko's R tree

R1b1a2a1b (L584)

Assyrian #1, kit # 205749: TMRCA of 1848 years with Askhenazi and Syrian Jewish men.

Assyrian #2, kit # 213562: TMRCA of 2239 years with Assyrian #1 and Askhenazi and Syrian Jewish men. Another 1011 years (3250 years), connects him to four men. One of the men lists France as an origin.

Assyrian #3*, kit # 147979: TMRCA of 3293 years with two men of unknown origin. One of the two men lists "Strickland" as a surname.

Assyrian #4, kit # 184027: TMRCA of 1505 years with three men. At least two appear to be Armenian. Further removed from present, this branch appears dominated by Armenians.

Assyrian #5, kit # 90492: TMRCA of 1735 years with a man listing Ireland as an origin. Another 2025 years (3760 years), connects him with a number of what appear to be Armenian and European men.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
This cannot be correct.  The lines he is referring to are R-L584.  They most certainly did not arrive 1100 ± 280 ybp. This is the same line that appears to be, albeit slightly mutated, the modal haplotype among the Alawites.  And the one shared with the Cohanim Jewish men.

GD to Al-Jeloo, based on 67 markers.  All of the men, save for one, are members of the "Nestorian" church.  The other one, Hermes, may be from the "Nestorian" church.  We still have not tested the Syriac Orthodox and Chaldean Catholics to any significant extent, unfortunately.  

205749    Al-Jeloo   L584 (Assyrian #1)

213562   David 13 L584
90492   Barkho 21   L584
147979   Hermes   21
184027   Gorgis   26  L584

There are additional R-L584 men in the project, and one at SMGF.  However, they are not tested through 67 markers.



« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 07:29:06 PM by Humanist » Logged

acekon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #80 on: June 05, 2012, 12:29:14 AM »

http://dna.reinyday.com/464/
http://www.smgf.org/ychromosome/marker_details.jspx?marker=DYS464

« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 12:31:00 PM by acekon » Logged

YDNA: R-Z2105* Śląsk-Polska
MtDNA: U5b2a2*Königsberg-Ostpreussen
Arwunbee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #81 on: June 06, 2012, 01:48:45 AM »

We all want our ancestors, especially those in our own direct y-dna line, to be heroic and larger than life.
The attraction for me in tracing the yDNA line is that it is conceptually an easier picture to hold in my mind's eye.  But I sometimes contemplate the sobering thought that there were almost certainly a number of rapes/rapists along the yDNA line.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 01:54:31 AM by Arwunbee » Logged

Map of L44 subclade (of U106): http://g.co/maps/9xswy
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #82 on: June 06, 2012, 09:41:49 AM »


I can't find the source for Klyosov stating that the oldest Bell Beaker artefacts are found in the Pyrenees. 

There is no such source.
Logged
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #83 on: June 06, 2012, 10:07:27 AM »


I can't find the source for Klyosov stating that the oldest Bell Beaker artefacts are found in the Pyrenees. 

There is no such source.

I remember this also so I found the reference in this paper.

Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy
2011 June Volume 4, No. 6
publisher: Anatole A. Klyosov
Page 1178
Quote
This part of the hypothesis is supported by archaeological data, according to
which the oldest artifacts related to the
and dated by 2900-2500 BC (Muller et al, 2001).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_beaker
Quote
Iberian peninsula
Vessel from Ciempozuelos (Spain) dated from the Bronze Age (M.A.N., Madrid)
The Bell Beaker phenomenon in the Iberian peninsula defines the late phase of the local Chalcolithic and even intrudes in the earliest centuries of the Bronze Age.[36] A review of radiocarbon dates for Bell Beaker across Europe found that some of the earliest were found in Portugal, where the range from Zambujal and Cerro de la Virgen ran between 2900 BC and 2500 BC, in contrast to the rather later range for Andalusia (between 2500 BC to 2200 BC).[9]

...Very early dates for Bell Beakers were found in Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão in Guarda, Northern Portugal. The site was located on the summit of a spur.

Has this information changed?

MJost
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)
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #84 on: June 06, 2012, 11:08:20 AM »

Anatole A. Klyosov's papers found Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy Section:

http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net
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)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #85 on: June 06, 2012, 11:43:43 AM »

Exactly! L23xL11 doesn't have to be older because its remnants may not represent all of the non L11 parts of L23 well.  In the case of L23xL11 it appears that since the diversity is higher than down in L11 branching that L23xL11 actually represents a number of older lineages.

Actually we don’t know if it is a number of older lineages or not. For all we know all L23(xL51) in the Caucasus, Anatolia, the ME could belong to a subclade L-XX, but it just so happens that L-XX, was born before P312, and is somewhat older than P312. Now, what would happen if it turns out that the Europe L23(xL51) was 90% L-XX, but 10% L23(xL51,L-XX), that would certainly change the dynamics. This is exactly what I have been saying, L23xL11 being older than P312, doesn’t really say much about it. In fact I’m actually running a couple of experiments, and will soon post the outcomes, we shall see if the variance of L23x51 being older in West Asia than Europe still holds when 24 STRs with mutation rates less than 0.001 are used.  

You have a good point. In other words, what I said was poorly worded when I said "...that L23xL11 actually represents a number of older lineages."  In reality, all lineages of surviving people are of the same age.

As you said, however, the cause for L23xL11's higher diversity could be a clade "L-XX" that is older than P312.  You may think that doesn't tell us much, but time in place can be an indicator of origin or at least direction of movement.  P312 may have a cousin subclade that is older than P312.

If you use only slow STRs, as you are planning, you'll find the results will jump around a bit when comparing relative haplogroups. The problem, I think, is what Ken Nordtvedt has alluded to....  that when using only slow clocks, you lose precision. You are measuring minutes with a calendar. You have to have immense and very representative sample size for things to "average" out and be consistent.  The variance results I've calculated with different sets of STRs, did not involve cherry picking based on my own analysis.  I used Marko H's analysis or just Ken's advice to throw out multi-copy markers.  When I tried to do my own sets based on slow markers I saw the inconsistencies I mentioned.

This is the difference for R-M269xL23.  Since we aren't seeing STR diversity that is great in it (with the long ht's from projects), the implication is that the remnants are very limited branches of the old and total R-M269 tree.  Other than L23 guys, the M269 tree got wacked pretty good! Therefore, we can't tell much from comparing M269xL23 variance from region to region.


No, I actually think we can, the fact that most M269xL23 survives in the Balkans today, a region that was heavily colonized in the Neolithic, points to the fact that M269xL23 must have been pretty big in there pre-Neolithic, or otherwise it would have banished nowadays. Add to it, that M269xL23 appears to be consistently older in Europe than in West Asia, be it using 10 STR from Myres.et.al.2010, or 37 STR from the ht35 project is too much of a coincidence.

M269 may have been big in the Neolithic in the Balkans. We don't know if it originated there or not, though.  Since the M269xL11 STR diversity is low, lower than P312's, I'm not sure if we care if modern M269xL23 lineages are older in West Asia versus the Balkans.  Since we are looking at "youthful" subclades, younger than P312, any movements detected could just be very recent, possibly historical timeframe movements.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 12:10:44 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 121


« Reply #86 on: June 06, 2012, 12:36:03 PM »


DYS464 does not trump all other (and many times, more reliable) indicators regarding recent relatedness between populations.  I am referring to SPA, fastIBD, Chromo-Painter, fineSTRUCTURE, IBS, ADMIXTURE...

The DYS464 values for the most frequent Iraqi Arab R-L23* (xL584) haplotype, based on the data listed on the Iraqi Arab project page, are 14-15-17-17.  It may or may not be of particular relevance here.  But, it is something worth investigating.  


acekon.  Are you "Silesian" from the other forum?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 12:45:04 PM by Humanist » Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #87 on: June 06, 2012, 12:48:24 PM »

M269 may have been big in the Neolithic in the Balkans. We don't know if it originated there or not, though. Since the M269xL11 STR diversity is low, lower than P312's, I'm not sure if we care if modern M269xL23 lineages are older in West Asia versus the Balkans.  Since we are looking at "youthful" subclades, younger than P312, any movements detected could just be very recent, possibly historical timeframe movements.

That’s not true according to the data collected from Myres.et.al.2010, at least not in the European case.

European R1b-L23+ (n=812, var=0.2377)

European R1b-M269(xL23) (n=17, var=0.2706)

Feel free to analyze the data yourself, it is found in Table-S3 of Myres.et.al.2010.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 12:52:37 PM by JeanL » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #88 on: June 06, 2012, 01:13:28 PM »

I have enjoyed Jean L and Mike W's debate on this because I much prefer contrary positions as they sharpen and refine arguements in a way you wouldnt get with consensus/apathy.  However, at most, all this has raised for me is the question that R1b at the M269* or L23* stage could have been on either side of the Bosphorus or on the steppe or somewhere on the fringes south of the steppe.  It in no way presents any strong evidence for the roots of L51 derived clades being in the west of Europe.

I suppose one of the biggest arguements against L51 derived clades not being IE is simply that beaker is the last pan west (and central) European cultures.  If beaker was not IE then it leaves absolutely nothing other than the terrible outmoded house of cards that trying to explaing ALL Celtic language by the La Tene-Hallstatt-Urnfield model is.  If beaker and L11 was not IE then I would find it impossible to sustain the languages spread with genes idea. 

As for some P312 and indeed some beaker not being in what were IE speaking areas at the start of written records, the same can be said for several Urnfield areas which are best represented in non-IE area.  Highest urnfield in Spain?  I believe it was Catalonya where the Iberians were located.  Highest Urnfield in Italy?  I believe it was in Tuscany where the Etruscans were located.  Are we to use the same arguements being used against beaker and suggest that Urnfield was non-IE?  Well if we did this, we would end up being thrown back on the untenable idea that Celtic is late and related to Hallstatt C and D and La Tene which clearly cannot be true.   

I personally see Basque/Iberian as an exception to the rule that P312 was associated with the Celtic, Italic and perhaps Germanic languages. Unless I see evidence showing that   
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #89 on: June 06, 2012, 01:35:31 PM »

I have enjoyed Jean L and Mike W's debate on this because I much prefer contrary positions as they sharpen and refine arguements in a way you wouldnt get with consensus/apathy.  However, at most, all this has raised for me is the question that R1b at the M269* or L23* stage could have been on either side of the Bosphorus or on the steppe or somewhere on the fringes south of the steppe.  It in no way presents any strong evidence for the roots of L51 derived clades being in the west of Europe.

I suppose one of the biggest arguements against L51 derived clades not being IE is simply that beaker is the last pan west (and central) European cultures.  If beaker was not IE then it leaves absolutely nothing other than the terrible outmoded house of cards that trying to explaing ALL Celtic language by the La Tene-Hallstatt-Urnfield model is.  If beaker and L11 was not IE then I would find it impossible to sustain the languages spread with genes idea. 

As for some P312 and indeed some beaker not being in what were IE speaking areas at the start of written records, the same can be said for several Urnfield areas which are best represented in non-IE area.  Highest urnfield in Spain?  I believe it was Catalonya where the Iberians were located.  Highest Urnfield in Italy?  I believe it was in Tuscany where the Etruscans were located.  Are we to use the same arguements being used against beaker and suggest that Urnfield was non-IE?  Well if we did this, we would end up being thrown back on the untenable idea that Celtic is late and related to Hallstatt C and D and La Tene which clearly cannot be true.   

I personally see Basque/Iberian as an exception to the rule that P312 was associated with the Celtic, Italic and perhaps Germanic languages. Unless I see evidence showing that   

Urnfielders in Catalonia lived side-by-side with non-Urnfelders, so don't let the broad stroke painted maps fool you.

The earliest Urnfield cultures in Italy (Scamozzina and Canegrate) are from North-West Italy and date to the 13c BC. There is no doubt that IE was spoken there since at least the 6c BC.

There may have been a mix of IE and non-IE settlements on the edges of Urnfield,  but I don't think I've ever heard of that being the case at its core.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #90 on: June 06, 2012, 01:42:10 PM »

I am no Basque expert but I was reasonable convinced by an article which placed Aquitanian (early Basque) in the same language family as Iberian i.e they were cousin languages.  I think if we understood a bit more about the Iberians we would indirecly understand the Basques better.  I really am unclear about the origin of the Iberians but I tend to favour the idea of them as a superstrate rather than a substrat.  They may for an odd break in the Italic/Ligurian/Lusitanian type dilalects that we see from the Adriatic to Atlantic Iberia, as of course do the Etruscans. 
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #91 on: June 06, 2012, 01:51:27 PM »

I am no Basque expert but I was reasonable convinced by an article which placed Aquitanian (early Basque) in the same language family as Iberian i.e they were cousin languages.  I think if we understood a bit more about the Iberians we would indirecly understand the Basques better.  I really am unclear about the origin of the Iberians but I tend to favour the idea of them as a superstrate rather than a substrat.  They may for an odd break in the Italic/Ligurian/Lusitanian type dilalects that we see from the Adriatic to Atlantic Iberia, as of course do the Etruscans. 

Something to keep in mind on that front: http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif
Logged

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

Posts: 152


« Reply #92 on: June 06, 2012, 02:02:32 PM »


DYS464 does not trump all other (and many times, more reliable) indicators regarding recent relatedness between populations.  I am referring to SPA, fastIBD, Chromo-Painter, fineSTRUCTURE, IBS, ADMIXTURE...

The DYS464 values for the most frequent Iraqi Arab R-L23* (xL584) haplotype, based on the data listed on the Iraqi Arab project page, are 14-15-17-17.  It may or may not be of particular relevance here.  But, it is something worth investigating.  


acekon.  Are you "Silesian" from the other forum?

 However for the samples in Eastern Europe, there is some continuity +/- 1 step, 14-15-16-19 is uncommon.

Eastern European variants
14-15-16-17 [1.854%]
14-15-16-18 [.546%]
14-15-16-19[0.061%]
Iraqi Base.
14-15-17-17[1.869%]
http://www.smgf.org/ychromosome/marker_details.jspx?marker=DYS464

                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                      2M759                                                                                                                  
D3TNG    Skoda    Split, Croatia    
DB9H7    Katranov    Ukraine    
DDHPK  Bartoszewski    .                                                                                                                                                
EKXJ7    Necsefor    Woloshka, Ukraine
                                                          
MK9TU    Burda    Silesia, Germany                                                                                                                                            
P7U4J    Necsefor    Woloshka, Ukraine    
RBNQT    Gabert    Carani, Romania
TMGGE    Eskulic    Ceskoslovensko                                  22                                        
XQHH7    Banuk    Musnik, Lithuania    
Y2H3T    Rimmasch    Glommen, Preußen/Prussia, Germany                                                                                                                  
99SC2 Silesia
U98VT [1180 CE Czech sample is also most likely part of this group,even though his 464 values are not mapped out.]

" I am referring to SPA, fastIBD, Chromo-Painter, fineSTRUCTURE, IBS, ADMIXTURE..".

True we have to use many different tools.
I learned that last month, when I got my 2nd 12 marker match From Northern Germany/Denmark.
What are the chances someone matches all first twelve markers coming from the same region[little to the North] as you but is in a different  group, I'm L51- matching more closely to Necsefor/   Katranov types from Ukraine, while he his is   R1b1a2a1a1b4_L21{at 37 markers huge variance between us}?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 02:04:53 PM by acekon » Logged

YDNA: R-Z2105* Śląsk-Polska
MtDNA: U5b2a2*Königsberg-Ostpreussen
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #93 on: June 06, 2012, 03:27:27 PM »

I am no Basque expert but I was reasonable convinced by an article which placed Aquitanian (early Basque) in the same language family as Iberian i.e they were cousin languages.  I think if we understood a bit more about the Iberians we would indirecly understand the Basques better.  I really am unclear about the origin of the Iberians but I tend to favour the idea of them as a superstrate rather than a substrat.  They may for an odd break in the Italic/Ligurian/Lusitanian type dilalects that we see from the Adriatic to Atlantic Iberia, as of course do the Etruscans. 

Something to keep in mind on that front: http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif

Yeah that is interesting the way that in the west it does have some correpsondence with non-IE languages which some argue all are in some way related - Iberian, Basqie and Palaeo-Sardinian although I am well aware that is all a bit speculative.  I suppose there might be some temptation to think there is a link with the Cardial culture but I dont know enough about the details of the I clade to comment.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #94 on: June 06, 2012, 04:25:46 PM »

I remember this also so I found the reference in this paper.

Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy
2011 June Volume 4, No. 6
publisher: Anatole A. Klyosov
Page 1178
Quote
This part of the hypothesis is supported by archaeological data, according to
which the oldest artifacts related to the
and dated by 2900-2500 BC (Muller et al, 2001).

A review of radiocarbon dates for Bell Beaker across Europe found that some of the earliest were found in Portugal

...Very early dates for Bell Beakers were found in Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão in Guarda, Northern Portugal. The site was located on the summit of a spur.

Has this information changed?

MJost

The source cited by Wikipedia is the same as that cited by Klyosov: Müller and van Willigen 2001, which refers to early dates in Portugal, not the Pyrenees. There were also pretty early dates for some sites in Southern France (which would encompass the southern end of the Pyrenees), but there is no statement that the earliest BB artefacts were from the Pyrenees.

Since then a new paper has rehabilitated some early dates for the Netherlands.


  
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 04:27:06 PM by Jean M » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #95 on: June 06, 2012, 04:28:21 PM »

I am no Basque expert but I was reasonable convinced by an article which placed Aquitanian (early Basque) in the same language family as Iberian i.e they were cousin languages.  I think if we understood a bit more about the Iberians we would indirecly understand the Basques better.  I really am unclear about the origin of the Iberians but I tend to favour the idea of them as a superstrate rather than a substrat.  They may for an odd break in the Italic/Ligurian/Lusitanian type dilalects that we see from the Adriatic to Atlantic Iberia, as of course do the Etruscans. 

Something to keep in mind on that front: http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif

Yeah that is interesting the way that in the west it does have some correpsondence with non-IE languages which some argue all are in some way related - Iberian, Basqie and Palaeo-Sardinian although I am well aware that is all a bit speculative.  I suppose there might be some temptation to think there is a link with the Cardial culture but I dont know enough about the details of the I clade to comment.

Just thinking out loud, it would seem to me that haplogroup I is not related to Cardial Ware migrations because...

- The Epi-Cardial samples from Catalonia were G2a and E1b
- Haplogroup G is rare in Basques (less than 1%)
- There is a supposed lack of "Caucasus" scores for modern Basques (Eurogenes)
- Cardial Ware doesn't seem to have had an impact on modern day Basque Country

So, it would seem (to me anyway) that haplogroup I is either a hunter-gatherer marker in Sardinia and Iberia or is a separate Neolithic wave from Cardial Ware.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #96 on: June 06, 2012, 05:13:19 PM »

Just thinking out loud, it would seem to me that haplogroup I is not related to Cardial Ware migrations because...

- The Epi-Cardial samples from Catalonia were G2a and E1b
- Haplogroup G is rare in Basques (less than 1%)
- There is a supposed lack of "Caucasus" scores for modern Basques (Eurogenes)
- Cardial Ware doesn't seem to have had an impact on modern day Basque Country

So, it would seem (to me anyway) that haplogroup I is either a hunter-gatherer marker in Sardinia and Iberia or is a separate Neolithic wave from Cardial Ware.

Can't agree. Cardial Ware does not have to be linked to one haplogroup alone. There is scant evidence of human life on Sardinia before farming arrived. I2a1a-M26 on Sardinia looks like a founder effect and pretty certainly Neolithic.  Two examples of I2a1 have been found in the DNA of Neolithic farmers. They were among the burials in the Cave of Treilles in Aveyron, in the South of France.

I2a1a-M26 is also found in other places where Cardial Ware turns up in the archaeological record, such as eastern Spain. It runs at between 3% and 9% in Pyrennean Basques and their French neighbours in Béarn and Chalosse.

I am not suggesting that this is the sole origin of the Basques. I ended up feeling that they are a genetic mixture, like other European populations, of waves into Gascony at different times. [Note that my online Basque page is out of date and due to be taken down when I can get around to it. I no longer buy the proposed common linguistic origin of Basque, Iberian and Palaeo-Sardinian.]  

« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 05:15:24 PM by Jean M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #97 on: June 06, 2012, 06:23:17 PM »

I am not suggesting that this is the sole origin of the Basques. I ended up feeling that they are a genetic mixture, like other European populations, of waves into Gascony at different times. [Note that my online Basque page is out of date and due to be taken down when I can get around to it. I no longer buy the proposed common linguistic origin of Basque, Iberian and Palaeo-Sardinian.]  
I think JeanL was on to something here that is in agreement. Even within the R1b Y lineages, there appears different waves. SRY2627 and L21 have completely different distribution patterns that are much larger than Basque or pre-Basque territories.  M153 is really just a sub-element of NS-Cluster or Z209/Z220+.  It may or may not have arrived with the SRY2627. A bit of U152 has also impacted them.  We'll know more as DF27 unfolds.
Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #98 on: June 06, 2012, 09:52:35 PM »

... A bit of U152 has also impacted them.  We'll know more as DF27 unfolds.

Actually according to Table-S3 of the Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 study R1b-U152+ (that is everything that is downstream of R1b-U152) is as follows:

R1b-U152+

Gascony

Bigorre: 1/44 or 2.27%
Bearn: 1/56 or 1.79%
Chalosse: 2/58 or 3.45%

French Basque

Lapurdi/Baztan: 1/44 or 2.27%
Lapurdi Nafarroa: 1/66 or 1.52%
Zuberoa: 0/53 or 0 %

Navarra

Roncal and Salazar valleys: 3/53 or 5.66%
Central Western Nafarroa: 0/60 or 0%
North Western Nafarroa:  3/51 or 5.88%

Spanish Basque

Gipuzkoa: 0/47 or 0%
SouthWestern Gipuzkoa: 0/57 or 0%
Araba: 2/51 or 3.92%
Bizkaia: 2/57 or 3.51%

North Spain

La Rioja: 2/54 or 3.70%
North Aragon: 1/27 or 3.70%*(Sample size is small compared to others. )

So the presence of R1b-U152 in Basques can be considered of historical arrival, as it is found in the same levels that R1b-U106+ is found. For comparison according to Table-S3 of the Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 study R1b-U106+ (that is everything that is downstream of R1b-U106) is as follows:

R1b-U106+

Gascony

Bigorre: 2/44 or 4.55%
Bearn: 1/56 or 1.79%
Chalosse: 4/58 or 6.90%

French Basque

Lapurdi/Baztan: 0/44 or 0%
Lapurdi Nafarroa: 3/66 or 4.55%
Zuberoa: 0/53 or 0 %

Navarra

Roncal and Salazar valleys: 1/53 or 1.89%
Central Western Nafarroa: 0/60 or 0%
North Western Nafarroa:  3/51 or 5.88%

Spanish Basque

Gipuzkoa: 0/47 or 0%
SouthWestern Gipuzkoa: 0/57 or 0%
Araba: 0/51 or 0%
Bizkaia: 0/57 or 0%

North Spain

La Rioja: 0/54 or 0%
North Aragon: 0/27 or 0%*(Sample size is small compared to others. )


« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 09:53:10 PM by JeanL » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #99 on: June 06, 2012, 10:58:02 PM »

Just thinking out loud, it would seem to me that haplogroup I is not related to Cardial Ware migrations because...

- The Epi-Cardial samples from Catalonia were G2a and E1b
- Haplogroup G is rare in Basques (less than 1%)
- There is a supposed lack of "Caucasus" scores for modern Basques (Eurogenes)
- Cardial Ware doesn't seem to have had an impact on modern day Basque Country

So, it would seem (to me anyway) that haplogroup I is either a hunter-gatherer marker in Sardinia and Iberia or is a separate Neolithic wave from Cardial Ware.

Can't agree. Cardial Ware does not have to be linked to one haplogroup alone. There is scant evidence of human life on Sardinia before farming arrived. I2a1a-M26 on Sardinia looks like a founder effect and pretty certainly Neolithic.  Two examples of I2a1 have been found in the DNA of Neolithic farmers. They were among the burials in the Cave of Treilles in Aveyron, in the South of France.

I2a1a-M26 is also found in other places where Cardial Ware turns up in the archaeological record, such as eastern Spain. It runs at between 3% and 9% in Pyrennean Basques and their French neighbours in Béarn and Chalosse.

I am not suggesting that this is the sole origin of the Basques. I ended up feeling that they are a genetic mixture, like other European populations, of waves into Gascony at different times. [Note that my online Basque page is out of date and due to be taken down when I can get around to it. I no longer buy the proposed common linguistic origin of Basque, Iberian and Palaeo-Sardinian.]  

I certainly don't (and didn't) rule out a Neolithic arrival for I-M26. However, I do think it had a different expansion time and route from G2. Certainly they both have different TMRCAs in Sardinia.

At 3,000 BC, the classification of the Treilles samples as Neolithic is somewhat misleading. Farming had spread thousands of years before the Treilles samples and by then the European Copper Age had already begun. All major haplogroups had probably moved into Europe by 3,000 BC and more than likely they all practiced farming in some way or another.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 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 0.106 seconds with 18 queries.