World Families Forums - Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 20, 2014, 11:50:45 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)
| | |-+  Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family  (Read 36367 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #100 on: August 25, 2012, 06:20:38 PM »

... Kurgan folks may have introduced the horse into Eastern Europe, but they seem to have left very little of their Y-DNA legacy in Western Europe.

Richard, I certainly don't know that haplogroups the Steppes folks where 5-6K years ago. I also don't know, and rather doubt, they were monolithic in their Y DNA or even in their culture. Anthony suggests it is better to think of Yamnaya as an horizon of cultures rather than as a single culture. The Steppes are large area that touch on vastly different geographies depending on what side you are on. Given they are plains and the people were nomadic, there could have been a lot of movement and exchange.

Why do you say the Steppes folks apparently left little Y DNA legacy in Western Europe? I don't know how we know one way or another without ancient DNA from those Kurgans.  What's the oldest Y DNA we have from the Steppes regions?

I didn't follow your response on this? Are you saying the skull types of the Steppes should be more prevalent in Western Europe?

I'm fine with the concept that R1b wasn't in the Steppes during the PIE timeframe, but I don't know and I'm open to that possibility. It solves some riddles if it was true. Do you have something that shows R1b couldn't have been any where in the Steppes during the PIE timeframe?  If R1b was in the Caucasus back then, that's pretty close, which is why I'm open to the idea.

Tripolye is close for that matter.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 06:24:42 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #101 on: August 25, 2012, 06:23:42 PM »

I'm not sure what you meant by "settled", but in Sicily AMH have been around since at least the Upper Paleolithic.

What do you mean by AMH?  

Anatomically Modern Humans.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 06:23:57 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jarman
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #102 on: August 25, 2012, 07:17:32 PM »

I'm not sure what you meant by "settled", but in Sicily AMH have been around since at least the Upper Paleolithic.

What do you mean by AMH?  Atlantic Modal Haplotype?  Are you talking about R1b-P312 in Sicily?
Anatomically Modern Humans - I wish people would stop abreviating this (or just not use it at all) as it causes too much confusion!
Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #103 on: August 25, 2012, 07:52:46 PM »

Quote from: alan trowel hands.
I am in no position to critique it though being a mathematical model.

No worries, it looks like that's most of us ; )

I briefly skimmed through the paper and I can see the method is beyond me. What I can discern is that the model is complex and it requires the input of many rates, which are assumed! More assumptions should lead to a greater margin of error. However, I can also see that the validity of assumptions are tested (in ways I don't understand)... Complicated for sure!

Quote from: Jean M
The basic problem with glottochronology and all similar methods is that they are based on the idea of a lexical clock i.e. a steady rate of linguistic change. The trouble is that languages do not change at a steady rate. Atkinson actually knows this. He was the lead author of a paper "Languages evolve in punctuational bursts" (2008) [to which you have access]. But the idea of being able to date a language by some computational method is just hugely attractive.

I have read somewhere that the same two people behind this paper had previously published a similar paper that did not assume a constant rate of evolution of language (I vaguely recall) because they incorporated historical data, which involved punctuated jumps in evolution, in the model. My reaction is that it's still a limited set and the many other punctuations can't possibly be accounted for. Unpredictable, right?

Anyways, if you have time read the comments from people who have a better grasp on the subject here,

 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4142#comment-237029

I'll add that the more obvious flaw in applying the method designed for bio evolution to language evolution is the huge excess of lateral transfer in the latter. I heard that the method assumes zero lateral transfer!!!

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #104 on: August 25, 2012, 07:59:06 PM »

If I was a betting man, based on all I have read about Linear A, I have a feeling it will turn out to be IE.

Not sure. I think if it was anything obvious, they would have cracked it. Are you thinking that it will be the same as the mysterious language with the place-names ending in -ossos? There is a school of thought in favour of Luwian for that. 

Really just a feeling I get looking through the various bits they have cracked.  Could be wrong.  Yes I suppose the Anatolian idea did tempt me a bit.  There has been a fair bit of too and fro about an Anatolian substrate beyond Anatolia but not a lot of agreement.  A very recent paper was against the notion.  However, the evidence is clearly wafer thin either way.  I am not sure what an Anatolian substrate beyond Anatolia would do for any of the current IE theories.  It could probably be used by either side of the divide.  
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #105 on: August 25, 2012, 08:35:27 PM »

Quote from: Mikewww

Richard, I certainly don't know that haplogroups the Steppes folks where 5-6K years ago. I also don't know, and rather doubt, they were monolithic in their Y DNA or even in their culture. Anthony suggests it is better to think of Yamnaya as an horizon of cultures rather than as a single culture. The Steppes are large area that touch on vastly different geographies depending on what side you are on. Given they are plains and the people were nomadic, there could have been a lot of movement and exchange.

Why do you say the Steppes folks apparently left little Y DNA legacy in Western Europe? I don't know how we know one way or another without ancient DNA from those Kurgans.  What's the oldest Y DNA we have from the Steppes regions?

I didn't follow your response on this? Are you saying the skull types of the Steppes should be more prevalent in Western Europe?

I'm fine with the concept that R1b wasn't in the Steppes during the PIE timeframe, but I don't know and I'm open to that possibility. It solves some riddles if it was true. Do you have something that shows R1b couldn't have been any where in the Steppes during the PIE timeframe?  If R1b was in the Caucasus back then, that's pretty close, which is why I'm open to the idea.

Tripolye is close for that matter.

Let me start by saying that I didn't say I had 100% proof of anything and that's why I carefully sprinkle in words like "seem". The day we know 100% what really happened, these types of forums will become very boring.

Now on to your questions...ancient DNA samples from the steppe Adronovo Culture (1800 BC) were mostly R1a1 with one lone C sample. Given the huge disparity in Ukrainian R1a (43%) and R1b (4%), It seems highly unlikely that a minority R1b Yamnaya people left and a majority R1a Yamnaya stayed behind. In fact, I2 (21%), E1b (7%), J2 (6.5%) and N (5%) all have higher numbers in Ukraine than R1b, and there is almost no chance that I2 and N weren't on the steppe during the times we are talking about.

There is too much R1b data (variance, SNP progression M269>L23>L51) and linguistic doubt (Anatolian being the most archaic IE language) that puts a lot of doubt into the Kurgan theory.

As for Cucuteni-Tripolye, they were part of pre-Kurgan "Old Europe". Surprisingly, the Cucuteni-Tripolye craniums do not match that of Yamnaya, but are closest to the Rinalonde Culture of central Italy.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 08:44:48 PM by Richard Rocca » Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #106 on: August 25, 2012, 08:47:36 PM »

I suspect Cucuteni-Tripolye didn't have much R1b, for the same reason Rich cites above about modern Ukraine. Cucuteni-Tripolye extended from Romania through Moldova and into Ukraine.

If and when they get ancient y-dna from C-T, I think it will be I2a, G2a, and E1b1b.

The only other possibility that occurs to me is if R1b were a western steppe population that moved west en masse, perhaps due to pressure behind it. Not likely, I guess.
Logged

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #107 on: August 25, 2012, 09:17:31 PM »

I suspect Cucuteni-Tripolye didn't have much R1b, for the same reason Rich cites above about modern Ukraine. Cucuteni-Tripolye extended from Romania through Moldova and into Ukraine.

If and when they get ancient y-dna from C-T, I think it will be I2a, G2a, and E1b1b.

The only other possibility that occurs to me is if R1b were a western steppe population that moved west en masse, perhaps due to pressure behind it. Not likely, I guess.

You are probably right about C-T. However, there is a decent amount of R1b in the two earlier areas of C-T...Romania (16-12% depending on the study) and Moldova (15%). The thing that has always intrigued me is that a Romance language survived in both those areas even though Roman occupation there was relatively short and light. Like other Eastern European countries, a serious Y-DNA study from Romania is long overdue and I wouldn't be surprised if they find higher R1b pockets in the Carpathian mountains.
Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #108 on: August 25, 2012, 09:22:46 PM »

Anyways, if you have time read the comments from people who have a better grasp on the subject here,

 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4142#comment-237029

Thanks for the link. Yes some excellent stuff from Language Log comments.
Logged
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #109 on: August 25, 2012, 09:30:36 PM »

The basic problem with glottochronology and all similar methods is that they are based on the idea of a lexical clock i.e. a steady rate of linguistic change. The trouble is that languages do not change at a steady rate.

I haven't dug into the technical details of this paper, but I will say that in general the Bayesian models of the type these authors used do not necessarily depend on a "steady rate" clock.

When I did Bayesian analyses of mtDNA it was quite easy to let the model use different mutation rates on different branches of the inferred tree.

I can't claim that this paper took advantage of that, but it is such a basic feature of Bayesian models that its hard to imagine that they didn't
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #110 on: August 25, 2012, 10:15:47 PM »

@ V.V.

That would suppose that we actually know which rates applied to which parts of the tree. We are still stuck with the problem that a reliable outcome actually depends on already knowing the answer.

Bayesian models seem to me a bit like sympathetic magic. It will work if you believe in it. But anyway. Some dates for PIE for comparison: 

Holman 2011: 2348 BC (for PIE excluding Tocharian and Hittite), which they note was some way off their calibration date from archaeology of 3500 BC.

Starostin 2004 (in Blazek 2005): 4670 BC for PIE including Tocharian and Hittite.
Logged
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #111 on: August 25, 2012, 11:26:57 PM »

That would suppose that we actually know which rates applied to which parts of the tree. We are still stuck with the problem that a reliable outcome actually depends on already knowing the answer.

You seem to be unsympathetic to Bayesian analysis, so maybe you don't care but . . . .

You don't actually specify the rates for each particular branch a priori.

For instance, the 14 calibrations that the authors did were most likely NOT used to estimate an "average" rate of lexical mutation but rather to provide the MCMC process some data from which to build a distribution of lexical mutation rates.  Then, the tree construction and TMRCA calculation process samples from that distribution.

Bayesian estimation does not always produce the right answer, of course, and I don't mean sound as if I think it does.  However, I do think that linguists who dismiss this kind of approach do so at their own peril because  it is really sophisticated method.  I'd rather see more linguists working to refine the matrix and the model parameters than simply ignore the method outright.
Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #112 on: August 26, 2012, 02:24:35 AM »

There is a interesting website associated with the study which discusses in detail the findings and methodology including a very useful FAQ which discusses the Steppes alternative:

    How robust are these findings?
    What about the potential for borrowing words?
    How does this study build on our 2003 paper in Nature?
    As the languages expanded, did people move with them?
    Why do people think Indo-European languages came from the Steppes?

Regarding the latter:

"The historical linguist, Larry Trask, captures most of the above arguments more succinctly: -
“There is a PIE word *ekwo- ‘horse’, as well as *wegh- ‘convey, go in a vehicle’, *kwekwlo- ‘wheel’, *aks- ‘axle’, and *nobh- ‘hub of a wheel’. This has led some scholars to conclude that the PIE-speakers not only rode horses but had wagons and chariots as well. This is debateable, however, since everyone places PIE at least 6000 years in the past, while hard evidence for wheeled vehicles is perhaps no earlier than 5000 years ago. Watkins (1969) considers that these terms pertaining to wheeled vehicles were chiefly metaphorical extensions of older IE words with different senses (*nobh-, for example, meant ‘navel’). The word *kwekwlo- ‘wheel’ itself is derived from the root *kwel- ‘turn, revolve’.  Nevertheless, the vision of fierce IE warriors, riding horses and driving chariots, sweeping down on their neighbours brandishing bloody swords, has proven to be an enduring one, and scholars have found it difficult to dislodge from the popular consciousness the idea of the PIE-speakers as warlike conquerors in chariots.”  (Trask, 1996)."

http://language.cs.auckland.ac.nz/faq/

Several graphics and videos are presented in the Media Material section and a very comprehensive coverage od Media articles in The Media Coverage section.
I learned a lot from the "What we did" section.








« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 02:30:58 AM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #113 on: August 26, 2012, 02:30:07 AM »

nm
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 02:39:22 AM by princenuadha » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #114 on: August 26, 2012, 06:16:18 AM »

Bayesian estimation does not always produce the right answer, of course, and I don't mean sound as if I think it does. 

For linguists, this particular exercise produced the wrong answer. The date which Gray and Atkinson want to wish away is not negotiable. The fact that they keep arguing that it is negotiable suggests that they started out to prove Renfrew right and have fed into their model parameters which will produce the desired result.

So this exercise is just another way of fighting Renfrew's corner, but using methods which sound convincingly scientific to people who don't fully understand what they have done and why it does not constitute independent proof. There is no way to provide independent proof via mathematics, no matter how brilliantly sophisticated the method is.

If you take a look at Holman 2011, you will see that the authors invited a mass of comment on their paper from linguists. Some were surprisingly encouraging! (I was surprised anyway.)
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #115 on: August 26, 2012, 06:43:47 AM »

"The historical linguist, Larry Trask, captures most of the above arguments more succinctly: -
“There is a PIE word *ekwo- ‘horse’, as well as *wegh- ‘convey, go in a vehicle’, *kwekwlo- ‘wheel’, *aks- ‘axle’, and *nobh- ‘hub of a wheel’. This has led some scholars to conclude that the PIE-speakers not only rode horses but had wagons and chariots as well. This is debateable, however, since everyone places PIE at least 6000 years in the past, while hard evidence for wheeled vehicles is perhaps no earlier than 5000 years ago.

That depends on what you consider hard evidence. Wood rots in the earth, so preservation may depend on items falling into bog, or leaving metal parts.

Pictographs of wagons appear around 3500 BC in Mesopotamia and on a Funnel Beaker pot from Poland. The earliest evidence of the wheel comes from the Late Cucuteni-Tripolye culture of what is now Romania and the Ukraine, in the form of wheeled toys. Around 3600 BC this culture produced models of sledges harnessed with oxen. By the inventive stroke of adding wheels, it seems that the sledge became the cart. (The wheeled toys are a bit ahead of the pictographs). The remains of about 250 wagons or carts, dated around 3000-2000 BC, have been found in kurgans (burial mounds) in the Russian and Ukrainian steppes.  A wagon from Ostannii kurgan was radiocarbon dated to 3300-2900 BC – the earliest anywhere. The new technology soon spread. Working on a pile-dwelling settlement in the Ljubljana marshes in April 2002, Slovenian archaeologists discovered an ancient wooden wheel in amazingly good condition, and nearby a wooden axle. They had been preserved by the boggy, oxygen-free conditions. Radiocarbon-dated to between 3160 and 3100 BC, it is the among the oldest wooden wheels so far found in the world.

So the accepted date for wheeled vehicles is c. 3500 BC, not 3000 BC. See Bakker, J.A., Kruk, J., Lanting, A.E. and Milisauskas, S. 1999. The earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles, Antiquity, 73 (282), 778–790; Parpola, A. 2008. Proto-Indo-European speakers of the Late Tripolye culture as the inventors of wheeled vehicles: Linguistic and archaeological considerations, in Proceedings of the 19th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. (The Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 54) K. Jones-Bley, M.E. Huld, A. Della Volpe and M. Robbins Dexter (eds.), 1-59. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.

The date of c. 4000 BC is for PIE prior to the invention of wheeled vehicles. The only language family which split off from PIE before the invention of wheeled vehicles is the Anatolian branch, which arrived in Anatolia as intrusive. The crucial point here is that all the other branches have to have split away from PIE after 3,500 BC. The Anatolian branch has the PIE word for thill (harness-pole) which could refer to a plough-shaft rather than the same part in a wheeled vehicle. (Or perhaps the same item used for harnessing oxen to a sled, as we see in Cucuteni toys.) But using animals for any form of traction was not invented until around the same time as wheeled vehicles - a little ahead it seems on this evidence. Ploughs were unknown in the early Neolithic.

They are being highly selective and even sly. Trask was an expert in Basque, not Indo-European. The question of evidence for wheeled vehicles has been extensively discussed by archaeologists who are expert on the topic. Why are they not quoting from such books and papers? Why quote from someone who clearly hadn't a clue on this particular point, wonderful though he was in his own specialist field?
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 08:05:32 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #116 on: August 26, 2012, 07:25:03 AM »

You can tell I have my Internet back on my usual machine. :)
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #117 on: August 26, 2012, 08:26:38 AM »


...

They are being highly selective and even sly. Trask was an expert in Basque, not Indo-European. The question of evidence for wheeled vehicles has been extensively discussed by archaeologists who are expert on the topic. Why are they not quoting from such books and papers? Why quote from someone who clearly hadn't a clue on this particular point, wonderful though he was in his own specialist field?


You are right Jean, there is a lot of information on wheels that place them before 3000 BC, so they are just quoting old information.

That said, the word for wheel or horse could have been introduced into an existing IE speaking population. Here is a real example of such a scenario:

It is highly likely that IE was spoken in Sicily at least as far back as the Bell Beaker period (2400 BC). And yet, the horse was not introduced in Sicily until 1100 BC by the Italic speaking Siculi.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 08:31:05 AM by Richard Rocca » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #118 on: August 26, 2012, 09:05:38 AM »

I suspect Cucuteni-Tripolye didn't have much R1b, for the same reason Rich cites above about modern Ukraine. Cucuteni-Tripolye extended from Romania through Moldova and into Ukraine.

If and when they get ancient y-dna from C-T, I think it will be I2a, G2a, and E1b1b.

The only other possibility that occurs to me is if R1b were a western steppe population that moved west en masse, perhaps due to pressure behind it. Not likely, I guess.

You might well be right about C-T but I think if we are going to take the line that languages normally are changed by substantial population change then we have to be consistant and think that the Slavic expansion might have massively increased the level of R1a at the expense of others in the Ukraine.  Ukraine got a double doze of R1a.  Also, I actually dont think it is unlikely per se that the west of the steppes was the early location of R1b.  The mobility of the cultures there would make the area unusually prone to radical changes in population and language.

 I have wondered in the past if the R1b people were not the hunters adjacent to C-T and R1a were not rather more to the east.  I recall that, through long period of farmer-steppes hunters contact there was a division between western steppes groups who took on more farming characteristics and eastern groups who were less influenced by farming.  I wonder if this could have predisposed the western steppe people to look for more agricultural areas to expand into and the more  eastern (including Yamnaya) to seek lands more suitable to continue their nomadic lifestyle.  That might explain aspects of the R1a and R1b distributions in eastern Europe.  

As I have posted many times too, if (and it remains a big if) the variance dating is correct and we look at its structure of a fairly straight line down to L23 then it really doesnt make sense for R1b to have been located in a booming farming population like C-T and its predecessors.  It is absolutely crucial though, to really have a handle on our options, that a date on L23 and its branching is resolved. Something happened to the ancestors of the main European line of R1b at the M269/L23 point and it started to grow after a huge period of time of doing very badly. Perhaps it was encorporated into the farming world at that time.  

If I was to take a semi-Kurganist point of view I would suspect R1b to be a western steppes lineage immediately east of C-T's expansion east.  I think the strange distribution of L23* which runs from Crimea down the Caucuses through Anatolia and then into SE Europe could explained by a two way split commencing on the north side of the Black Sea.  

I also (if I try and use a Kugan type model) have a strong feeling R1b people had or early aquired a maritime tradition (which apparently PIE had by the way) and were situation near or on the shores of large bodies of water.  For me, R1b existed somewhere where farming arrived relatively late, in a maritime area that also featured a tradition of metal working and settlement/exploitation of the uplands.  I also believe its structure with the extreme dominance of descendants of a few men from L23 down gives a hint of the sort of society it had developed by that stage.  


Another general impression I get is that R1a headed on a north-west trajectory heading from the Ukraine to the northern Europe.  I think one question we should be asking is why?  Why did they head that way and make a far lesser impact south of the Danube?  
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #119 on: August 26, 2012, 09:22:55 AM »

Has anyone ever set side by side a map of Anthony's Kurgan expansion phases west of the steppe and the distribution of R1a upsteam forms and L23*?  Do either actually coincide well?  I always thought that R1a looked rather like the Corded Ware distribution but never really have considered if it has any resemblance to the actual steppes intrusions.  Or does L23* bear any resemblance to the latter. Is there such a thing as a map of R1a minus the historic Slavic lines. I have never seen a map that tries to plot what R1a looks like if you removed the obvious historic period Slavic lineages.  

Another thought that has been brewing for a while is what enviroments did R1b and R1a follow and does that tell us something about where and in which culture they originated.  L23* seems to be better represented in south-central Europe but what interest me is the way R1a seems to follow a NW trajectory and passes through what was forest steppe and forest at one time. That seems odd to me for a steppe people.  Does anyone have maps which show the vegetation/eco-zones of eastern Europe c. 4000-3000BC.    
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 09:36:04 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #120 on: August 26, 2012, 10:14:10 AM »

Has anyone ever set side by side a map of Anthony's Kurgan expansion phases west of the steppe and the distribution of R1a upsteam forms and L23*?  Do either actually coincide well?  I always thought that R1a looked rather like the Corded Ware distribution but never really have considered if it has any resemblance to the actual steppes intrusions.  Or does L23* bear any resemblance to the latter. Is there such a thing as a map of R1a minus the historic Slavic lines. I have never seen a map that tries to plot what R1a looks like if you removed the obvious historic period Slavic lineages.  

Another thought that has been brewing for a while is what enviroments did R1b and R1a follow and does that tell us something about where and in which culture they originated.  L23* seems to be better represented in south-central Europe but what interest me is the way R1a seems to follow a NW trajectory and passes through what was forest steppe and forest at one time. That seems odd to me for a steppe people.  Does anyone have maps which show the vegetation/eco-zones of eastern Europe c. 4000-3000BC.    

The only L23* map I've seen is Myres' and there are only 2 subtle hotspots west of the steppe: Switzerland and NE Poland. To the south is one in Anatolia. Busby has a M269(xL11) frequency map that  looks a lot like "Old Europe" and makes one think that M269 expanded from there. Unfortunately the map seems to be flawed as the data tables they provided do not correspond with the frequency shown on the map.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 10:16:20 AM by Richard Rocca » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #121 on: August 26, 2012, 11:02:36 AM »

This recent paper about the origins of the steppe Neolithic sums up the incredible complexity of the steppe Neolithic and makes the idea of a mono-haplotype population there seem pretty absurd.

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf36/36_10.pdf
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #122 on: August 26, 2012, 11:26:08 AM »

...ancient DNA samples from the steppe Adronovo Culture (1800 BC) were mostly R1a1 with one lone C sample. Given the huge disparity in Ukrainian R1a (43%) and R1b (4%), It seems highly unlikely that a minority R1b Yamnaya people left and a majority R1a Yamnaya stayed behind. In fact, I2 (21%), E1b (7%), J2 (6.5%) and N (5%) all have higher numbers in Ukraine than R1b, and there is almost no chance that I2 and N weren't on the steppe during the times we are talking about.

We don't really have ancient DNA from the Yamnaya territories and fringe during the timeframe that the proposed Steppes PIE homeland would have existed.

Too bad we don't have ancient DNA from the Catacomb cultures that were a successor or latter and westerly branch of Yamnaya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacomb_culture

I'm a little confused on the linkages between Corded Ware and Catacomb. They were essentially contemporaries, right?  We know R1a was found in Elau at 2600 BC, a Corded Ware culture. I'm just looking for clues to the west of the Yamnaya territories. Do we think Catacomb was like Corded Ware genetically?

I caution against using modern frequencies to indicate too much about ancient haplogroup distributions and suggest that diversity may be more helpful. In the case of the vast Eurasian plains, nomadic peoples were common to a fairly late date. I'm not sure there were great places to hide from on-coming war-like peoples. Some theorize the pre-Slavic people found haven in swamp lands in Eastern Europe, from where they re-expanded.

I took these frequencies of R-M269 (R1b1a2) from Busby's data supplements. These are the pockets of R-M269 that are greater than 5%.

Circum-Uralic Bashkirs N ___ 74.3%
Caucasus Bagvalals _________ 67.9%
Caucasus Tabasarans ________ 39.5%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs SE __ 35.9%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs SW __ 16.7%
Caucasus Lezgis ____________ 16.1%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs _____ 15.2%
Caucasus Kumyks ____________ 14.5%
Caucasus Daghestan _________ 14.3%
Circum-Uralic Komis ________ 13.1%
Circum-Uralic Tatars _______ 10.3%
Caucasus Cossacs of Adygea _ 7.7%
Circum-Uralic Tatars Kazan _ 6.3%
Caucasus Andis _____________ 6.1%
Afghanistan ________________ 5.9%
Russians Northern Russia ___ 5.8%
Russians Central Russia ____ 5.7%


The mountainous areas of the Caucasus may have been another place out of the way.  How did R-M269 get to the Caucasus? From Anatolia or from the north?  I don't know but I don't think we can rule out from the north, from old Yamnaya territories or interfacing territories, i.e. Maykop.  At least one of the above populations think they descend from the Khazars, which were definitely in old Yamnaya territories.

I am not claiming that these R-M269 frequency percentage are that high or that widespread nor even significant in the center of old Yamnaya territories. I'm just saying R-M269 can be found in the vicinity.

Given we don't have ancient Y DNA from the old Yamnaya territories of the Steppes PIE homeland hypothesis timeframe, I don't think we can rule out that R-M269 was not present in at least some Yamnaya or Yamnaya related groups. I don't think we can say that is "highly unlikely." It's more like "we don't know." That's all I'm suggesting, leaving R-M269 as on the table for an expansion of IE speaking peoples based out of the Yamnaya territories or fringe territories.



« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 11:28:42 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #123 on: August 26, 2012, 11:31:45 AM »

Has anyone ever set side by side a map of Anthony's Kurgan expansion phases west of the steppe and the distribution of R1a upsteam forms and L23*?  Do either actually coincide well?  I always thought that R1a looked rather like the Corded Ware distribution but never really have considered if it has any resemblance to the actual steppes intrusions.  Or does L23* bear any resemblance to the latter. Is there such a thing as a map of R1a minus the historic Slavic lines. I have never seen a map that tries to plot what R1a looks like if you removed the obvious historic period Slavic lineages.  

Another thought that has been brewing for a while is what enviroments did R1b and R1a follow and does that tell us something about where and in which culture they originated.  L23* seems to be better represented in south-central Europe but what interest me is the way R1a seems to follow a NW trajectory and passes through what was forest steppe and forest at one time. That seems odd to me for a steppe people.  Does anyone have maps which show the vegetation/eco-zones of eastern Europe c. 4000-3000BC.    

The only L23* map I've seen is Myres' and there are only 2 subtle hotspots west of the steppe: Switzerland and NE Poland. To the south is one in Anatolia. Busby has a M269(xL11) frequency map that  looks a lot like "Old Europe" and makes one think that M269 expanded from there. Unfortunately the map seems to be flawed as the data tables they provided do not correspond with the frequency shown on the map.

The Myres map seems to show its more common deep into Russia judging by the shading.  

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/wp-content/blogs.dir/34/files/r1b1b2-figures/r1bd.png

I dont know what to make of that.  
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #124 on: August 26, 2012, 11:32:51 AM »

Has anyone ever set side by side a map of Anthony's Kurgan expansion phases west of the steppe and the distribution of R1a upsteam forms and L23*?  Do either actually coincide well?  I always thought that R1a looked rather like the Corded Ware distribution but never really have considered if it has any resemblance to the actual steppes intrusions.  Or does L23* bear any resemblance to the latter. Is there such a thing as a map of R1a minus the historic Slavic lines. I have never seen a map that tries to plot what R1a looks like if you removed the obvious historic period Slavic lineages.   ...

Klyosov and his cohorts have created elaborate R1a expansion/migration maps. If I remember he actually thinks R1a almost went extinct in the Russian plains, but was "saved" by a back migration from more westerly locations in Europe. I'll go look for that, but I think he calculates R1a1 as older in areas to the west of the Russian plains than in the Russian plains.... just one more reason I caution looking at modern frequency %s too much, like R1a1's high Ukraine %.

EDIT: I may misunderstand what he is saying (check italics.) Let me dig it up so don't take my comments to the bank on reflecting Klyosov acccurately.

Well, here is a quote from Klyosov,
Quote
After 4,500 ybp R1a1 practically disappeared from Europe, incidentally, along with I1. Maybe more incidentally, it corresponded with the time period of populating of Europe with R1b1b2. Only those R1a1 who migrated to the Russian Plain from Europe around 6,000-5,000 years bp, stayed. They had expanded to the East, established on their way a number of archaeological
cultures, including the Andronovo culture, which has embraced Northern Kazakhstan, Central Asia and South Ural and Western Siberia, and about 3600 ybp they migrated to India and Iran as the Aryans. Those who left behind, on the Russian Plain, re-populated Europe between 3200 and 2500 years bp, and stayed mainly in the Eastern Europe
http://www.jogg.info/52/files/Klyosov2.pdf

He's getting his direction of movement hypotheses based on his diversity calculations... so forget his additional commentary or languages, etc., from a genetic diversity perspective of R1a1 this is what direction of movements he sees.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 11:58:21 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 24 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 0.152 seconds with 18 queries.