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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 23, 2014, 01:29:55 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)
| | |-+  Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family  (Read 38572 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #125 on: August 26, 2012, 11:51:09 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.





I agree. Its a pity we cant strip away R1a maps to produce a distribution of pre-Slavic expansion R1a.  Or laternatively does variance help show where R1a was prior to the Slavic expansion?  
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #126 on: August 26, 2012, 12:00:27 PM »


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.  

The devil is in the details. What drives up R1b frequency there is the Bashkirs. However, their L23* variance is a fraction of what it is in places like the Caucasus and Turkey and by far the lowest of all sampled populations. Together with the zero variance in U152 samples (since the U152+ Bashkiris all had the same exact haplogroup), it looks like both L23* and U152 arrived there rather recently.
Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #127 on: August 26, 2012, 12:00:42 PM »

That said, the word for wheel or horse could have been introduced into an existing IE speaking population.

The word for horse is irrelevant. The word would have existed when horses were not domesticated. So it is not a word that comes with a built-in date.

The word for wheel does come with a built-in date. It is based upon a PIE root, so it was not introduced into PIE. It was invented within a PIE-speaking community. That is a clue that the wheel itself was invented within said community. Words for inventions tend to travel with said inventions. Of course that is not invariably the case. A community speaking a different language from that of an inventor can come up with its own word for an invention. But the point here is that the words for wagon, wheel and a whole slew of other things belonging to the secondary products revolution were not borrowed by PIE from another language. They were coined by PIE-speakers.

That is in marked contrast to the number of words relating to irrigation agriculture and urban life that were borrowed by Proto-Indo-Iranians and Indic speakers from an unrecorded language thought to be that of the BMAC, or words borrowed by Hittite from existing Hattic, which included words for "king" and "queen".
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 02:20:03 PM by Jean M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #128 on: August 26, 2012, 12:01:09 PM »


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.  

The devil is in the details. What drives up R1b frequency there is the Bashkirs. However, their L23* variance is a fraction of what it is in places like the Caucasus and Turkey and by far the lowest of all sampled populations. Together with the zero variance in U152 samples (since the U152+ Bashkiris all had the same exact haplogroup), it looks like both L23* and U152 arrived there rather recently.

Remember, I am not claiming a high frequency % means much of anything.  L23* is clearly present among these groups, though.  Other than in the Bashkirs, I think M269xL11 is dominant over L11.

You can't assume L23* and U152 arrived at the same time in the Bashkirs and then project that to the other populations. You may be right, but we really can't extrapolate that.
Logged

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

Posts: 523


« Reply #129 on: August 26, 2012, 12:40:52 PM »


Remember, I am not claiming a high frequency % means much of anything.  L23* is clearly present among these groups, though.  Other than in the Bashkirs, I think M269xL11 is dominant over L11.

You can't assume L23* and U152 arrived at the same time in the Bashkirs and then project that to the other populations. You may be right, but we really can't extrapolate that.

And where exactly did I assume that they came at the same time? I said they both arrived late, that is a big difference than saying they arrived together or even from the same area. And if we can't extrapolate that L23* and U152 are due to late founders due to their low variance in the former and non-existent variance in the later, then we should never speak of variance again.
Logged

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

Posts: 5023


« Reply #130 on: August 26, 2012, 03:39:09 PM »

. . .

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.


Add in the frequency of R-L23 from the recent Herrera et al study of Armenia:

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

That's nearly 30% on average.

Take into account what Kurt Gerhardt, who studied Beaker skulls, said in his 1953 book, Die Glockenbecherleute in Mittel-und West Deutschland. Not only was there a skull type among the "Glockenbecherleute" (Bell Beaker People) that was brachycephalic, but it was somewhat unique in that the back of the skull was almost vertical. Gerhardt named the skull type "Plano-Occipital Steilkopf". Steilkopf is German and literally means "steep head". He claimed there was an anatomical connection of the Steilkopf Beaker skull to Anatolia/Armenia, where it is found in a similar proportion of the men.

And, of course, the only two ancient Beaker men for whom we have y-dna test results were both R1b (xU106).
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 03:53:00 PM by rms2 » Logged

acekon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #131 on: August 26, 2012, 04:41:37 PM »


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.  

The devil is in the details. What drives up R1b frequency there is the Bashkirs. However, their L23* variance is a fraction of what it is in places like the Caucasus and Turkey and by far the lowest of all sampled populations. Together with the zero variance in U152 samples (since the U152+ Bashkiris all had the same exact haplogroup), it looks like both L23* and U152 arrived there rather recently.

When you say "recently" could you be more specific in time frame, L23* and U152 arrived in the Bashkiris region?
Logged

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

Posts: 191


« Reply #132 on: August 26, 2012, 05:53:42 PM »


When you say "recently" could you be more specific in time frame, L23* and U152 arrived in the Bashkiris region?

Hundreds of years.
Logged
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #133 on: August 26, 2012, 05:55:29 PM »

For linguists, this particular exercise produced the wrong answer.

Clearly, but there remains open the possibility that linguists are completely full of crap.

It happens.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 05:56:03 PM by vineviz » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #134 on: August 26, 2012, 05:58:40 PM »


Remember, I am not claiming a high frequency % means much of anything.  L23* is clearly present among these groups, though.  Other than in the Bashkirs, I think M269xL11 is dominant over L11.

You can't assume L23* and U152 arrived at the same time in the Bashkirs and then project that to the other populations. You may be right, but we really can't extrapolate that.

And where exactly did I assume that they came at the same time? I said they both arrived late, that is a big difference than saying they arrived together or even from the same area. And if we can't extrapolate that L23* and U152 are due to late founders due to their low variance in the former and non-existent variance in the later, then we should never speak of variance again.

I apologize if I didn't understand the significance of what you were posting earlier when you posted this.
... their L23* variance is a fraction of what it is in places like the Caucasus and Turkey and by far the lowest of all sampled populations. Together with the zero variance in U152 samples (since the U152+ Bashkiris all had the same exact haplogroup), it looks like both L23* and U152 arrived there rather recently.

I see you are making a discernment between arriving recently versus at the same time (speaking of U152 and L23*.)  I see you are saying they are arrived recently but not at the same time. I apologize for not discerning the difference in your statement.

However, to me, that is of little consequence. The real issue is are some of the R1b-L23 very diverse? or possibly very old?

I don't think the Busby/Myres, etc. data is representative. The sample size is very low for an large area as large as from the Black and Caspian Seas all the way to the Urals.  This area is nearly as big as the Mediterranean.

Do you think that Busby/Myres' data is representative? You are apparently basing your assertions on that L23* is of low diversity in the vicinty. I do not disagree that L23* may be of low diversity in some samples. I just think that the general high (non-European-like) ratio fo L23xL11 to L11 in this general vicinity of the Eurasian plains, Caucasus, nearby SW Asia, etc., is something to consider closely. This is high haplogroup diversity as far as early branching goes.

What are the diversity numbers you are citing for low diversity of L23*? How many STRs are they using across how many hapltoypes? My questions are not just related to the Bashkirs, but to the various populations in the region.

I don't think you can rule out an R-M269 possibility as an element in the vincinity of the Yamnaya horizon in a period related to the PIE-Steppe homeland hypothesis.  I don't even think we can even say it is "highly unlikely."  We don't know.  I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I don't see any effective evidence yet to that effect.

As far as STR variance goes, please, please don't go the way of Dienekes, You said
Quote from: RRocca
And if we can't extrapolate that L23* and U152 are due to late founders due to their low variance in the former and non-existent variance in the later, then we should never speak of variance again.
If the data survey is bad, that is no reason to throw the STR diversity measurement out, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 06:41:35 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #135 on: August 26, 2012, 06:23:18 PM »


When you say "recently" could you be more specific in time frame, L23* and U152 arrived in the Bashkiris region?

Hundreds of years.

Vineviz, I think you are implying/agreeing that R-L23xL11 diversity is low among the Bashkirs?

Do you think the same for R-L23xL11 in the Caucasus?     or how does this contrast with L23xL11 in Turkey?   or versus the Arabian Peninsula?   or versus the Balkan Peninsula?

This is critical to understand.   Where do you think R-L23 is most diverse?  How does R-L23 diversity in the Caucasus rank compared to Anatolia?

I don't care what the answer is, but this is important to know.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 06:44:08 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #136 on: August 26, 2012, 06:35:02 PM »

. . .

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.


Add in the frequency of R-L23 from the recent Herrera et al study of Armenia:

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

Yes, I just picked the above numbers from Busby for the relationship to area of a Steppes PIE hypothesis.

R-L23* has high frequency in other areas too. I agree. I was not trying to skirt any possibility of R-L23* having high frequency elsewhere.

... but I still think it is more important where the non L11 branches of R-L23 have higher diversity levels. I'm just trying to change the course of the conversation more towards diversity rather than frequency.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 06:39:34 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 115


« Reply #137 on: August 26, 2012, 08:24:59 PM »

For linguists, this particular exercise produced the wrong answer.

Clearly, but there remains open the possibility that linguists are completely full of crap.

It happens.

Surely the data these authors used came from the research of linguists, in quantitative form?

My question is, seeing how models are essentially about starting with certain assumptions and getting certain predictions, what should be assumed? Should we assume that PIE must have encountered the wheel and wagon just as we assume certain dates in history or particular structures in language?

Any model that contradicted a know date should be discarded, right? Would if it contradicts the linguistic/archeological argument? Anthony has made this very argument, that the linguistic/archeological argument should calibrate the model as opposed to the reverse.

But I still agree that the linguistic arguement needs more definitive support.



« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 08:27:43 PM by princenuadha » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #138 on: August 26, 2012, 08:32:31 PM »

Yes, I just picked the above numbers from Busby for the relationship to area of a Steppes PIE hypothesis.

R-L23* has high frequency in other areas too. I agree. I was not trying to skirt any possibility of R-L23* having high frequency elsewhere.

... but I still think it is more important where the non L11 branches of R-L23 have higher diversity levels. I'm just trying to change the course of the conversation more towards diversity rather than frequency.

In my last post, I was actually just trying to show a possible connection between the Beaker Folk and Anatolia/Armenia.

I think haplotype diversity can be deceptive. It's important, but I think some places that are relatively high in diversity are that way because they were receivers of populations from several or many different sources. Thus a newly settled area (newly settled relative to the old place the people emigrated from) could appear to be more diverse than a single older source area. I think you would see that if you calculated R-L23 haplotype diversity in North America, for example.

I'm not sure how you overcome that problem, unless you calculate the combined haplotype diversities of various hypothetical source areas and compare the different regional combinations to each other and to smaller, single geographic units.

That is also where history (where it exists) and archaeology come into play.

« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 08:37:42 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #139 on: August 26, 2012, 08:55:20 PM »

I think haplotype diversity can be deceptive. It's important, but I think some places that are relatively high in diversity are that way because they were receivers of populations from several or many different sources. Thus a newly settled area (newly settled relative to the old place the people emigrated from) could appear to be more diverse than a single older source area. ....

I agree that diversity is not a perfect measurement and should be considered in context of archeological data, historical information and the like.

However, diversity might rule out some areas as source areas.  Even a cross-roads or pooling point should not have higher diversity than the true origin. Areas of low diversity can be ruled out, or at least to a great extent.

As far as genetic data goes, I still think diversity is more important than frequency in understanding migration patterns.

I'm not try to ask a loaded question in regards to R-L23*.  Anyway we can shed light on this is great. I just went back to the FTDNA project I data I have for L23xL11 and calculated relative STR variances on long (67 STR) haplotypes for the non-multi-copy, non-null markers.

SW Asia_____________:  Var=1.68 [Mixed 49]  (N=103)
East Europe_________:  Var=1.07 [Mixed 49]  (N=23)
Balkans/Italy_______:  Var=1.28 [Mixed 49]  (N=12)
West/NW Europe______:  Var=1.21 [Mixed 49]  (N=62)


What I label East Europe goes all the way into Russia.

SW Asia includes a lot of folks from Anatolia, so from a potential aging perspective, Anatolia wins vs Russia/Ukraine.

Unfortunately, our FTDNA projects don't have much data from the Caucasus so the numbers above don't tell us much about the Caucasus. The Caucasus is still a big question mark.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 09:02:39 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #140 on: August 26, 2012, 09:01:24 PM »

That is very interesting, and telling, I think.

Of course, those are broad geographic areas. When I was talking about a receiver of population possibly being more diverse than an older single source, I had in mind smaller geographic units.

Anyway, I think also archaeology would support the notion that Europe acted more as the receiver of population from SW Asia than as the donor, so it would support your findings above, Mike.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #141 on: August 26, 2012, 09:21:44 PM »

For linguists, this particular exercise produced the wrong answer.

Clearly, but there remains open the possibility that linguists are completely full of crap.

It happens.

Surely the data these authors used came from the research of linguists, in quantitative form?

I think Vineviz's answer applies the same....   meaning not necessarily, at least in the sense of proper applicability.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 10:37:08 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 523


« Reply #142 on: August 26, 2012, 10:39:04 PM »


...

However, to me, that is of little consequence. The real issue is are some of the R1b-L23 very diverse? or possibly very old?

I don't think the Busby/Myres, etc. data is representative. The sample size is very low for an large area as large as from the Black and Caspian Seas all the way to the Urals.  This area is nearly as big as the Mediterranean.

Do you think that Busby/Myres' data is representative? You are apparently basing your assertions on that L23* is of low diversity in the vicinty. I do not disagree that L23* may be of low diversity in some samples. I just think that the general high (non-European-like) ratio fo L23xL11 to L11 in this general vicinity of the Eurasian plains, Caucasus, nearby SW Asia, etc., is something to consider closely. This is high haplogroup diversity as far as early branching goes.

What are the diversity numbers you are citing for low diversity of L23*? How many STRs are they using across how many hapltoypes? My questions are not just related to the Bashkirs, but to the various populations in the region.

I don't think you can rule out an R-M269 possibility as an element in the vincinity of the Yamnaya horizon in a period related to the PIE-Steppe homeland hypothesis.  I don't even think we can even say it is "highly unlikely."  We don't know.  I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I don't see any effective evidence yet to that effect.

As far as STR variance goes, please, please don't go the way of Dienekes, You said
Quote from: RRocca
And if we can't extrapolate that L23* and U152 are due to late founders due to their low variance in the former and non-existent variance in the later, then we should never speak of variance again.
If the data survey is bad, that is no reason to throw the STR diversity measurement out, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Mike, don't worry, I won't go the Dienekes route. Much like yourself I think that variance, while it shouldn't be trusted blindly, can at least point us in the right direction.

If you are asking if the L23* Bashkiri samples are representative, I would say they are representative of Bashkirs, since Myres sampled SE, W, S, N and SW Bashkiris. If you are asking if I think they are representative of all areas that remain unsampled, then my answer is "how would I know what I don't know?". I'm not going to start formulating ideas/opinions based on what we don't know. So in the mean time, I will continue to say that I think the Kurgan theory for R1b is "highly unlikely" not just based on frequency or diversity, but based on a whole lot of other things I've triangulated in my mind.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 08:00:06 AM by Richard Rocca » Logged

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

Posts: 2151


« Reply #143 on: August 27, 2012, 03:43:12 AM »

The debate on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” continues, with some interesting contributes, but in this age of “centrisms” was born also a Lybiacentrism! Anyway the most interesting post seems to me this and this link (http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/UralicEvidence.pdf): Uralic evidence for the Indo-European homeland, by Jaakko Häkkinen, 13th February 2012   

“What is the conclusion about the Uralic evidence on the location of Proto-Indo-European? If the oldest Indo-European loanwords are already Late Proto-Indo-European – which now seems to be the less probable option – the case would be clear: Proto-Uralic cannot in any case be located south from the taiga zone, and therefore Late Proto-Indo-European could not be very far. Southeast European steppe would then be the obvious solution (the Kurgan theory).
If, however, the oldest Archaic Indo-European loanwords are only contemporaneous with the Early Proto-Aryan loanwords – which now seems the most probable option – things get more complicated. First we must identify the donor language. On geographical reason it can hardly be the Graeco-Armenian or any other remote dialect, so we are left with either Tocharian or Northwest Indo-European. Tocharian is generally seen to split off very early from the Indo-European stock, and it is connected to the Afanasyevo Culture. The main problem with the Tocharian explanation is that it could not have been present in the Volga region anymore at the Early Proto-Aryan stage. On the other hand, it is possible that Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken in Asia and met Tocharian there; but the Archaic Indo-European loanword layer was contemporaneous with the Early Proto-Aryan layer, and Early Proto-Aryan was not spoken in Asia. Tocharian explanation thus seems to be a dead end.
Northwest Indo-European, which is connected to the Corded Ware Culture, matches better both the temporal and spatial closeness to Early Proto-Aryan: in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC the Corded Ware Fatyanovo-Balanovo Culture and the steppe Poltavka Culture reached each other in the Mid-Volga area (Carpelan & Parpola 2001), which happens to be the Proto-Uralic homeland (Kallio 2006; Häkkinen 2009). This solution explains best the oldest Indo-European loanword layers in Uralic, the x-strata. In the same area we can locate the next oldest loanword layers, the Northwest Indo-European š-stratum and the Late Proto-Aryan w-stratum.
Consequently, we have a situation where we have two very close dialects of Proto-Indo-European spoken in adjacent areas in the easternmost Europe near the great Volga bend at the 3rd millennium BC. The farther in time and space we go from there, the more implausible is the solution concerning the Proto-Indo-European homeland. No language remains unchanged for millennia, least of all when spreading thousands of kilometers to new areas. It is most credible to derive these dialects from the homeland from less than 1 000 kilometers southwest and one millennium back in time (the Copper/Bronze Age steppe homeland). It would be very improbable indeed to derive them from more than 2 000 kilometers southwest, behind the Black Sea, and up to 4 000 years back in time (the Neolithic Anatolian homeland). So much we get from the Uralic anchor: the Kurgan theory seems to be the only credible one.
Caucasian and Semitic contacts – even if they were as accurately stratified as the Uralic contacts – do not require the Anatolian homeland, either: it does not matter whether the Proto-Indo-European was spoken north (Ukraine) or west (Anatolia) of these contact languages. However, they exclude the Central European homeland, as does the Uralic argument as well”.


But we can see that the link with Uralic languages was due above all to “Early Archaic (Proto- or Northwest?) IE”, then what is conceived like IE was simply its Eastern part, that which generated the Indo-Aryan languages and was above all hg. R1a1 and subclades, even a few R1a-M420, above all Western European, from the Alps to the Isles. Then they should speak of this half of the IE world, and not of its whole. For this I wouldn’t exclude Central Europe or the Balkans like the fatherland of the IE world, above all if we think to the witness that the most ancient IE has left in the Etruscan-Rhaetian-Camun languages, if Etruscan “puplu” derives from *kwe/okwlo-, but about Etruscan language and its “peri-indoeuropean” origin (Giacomo Devoto) I have spoken many times in the past.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 05:14:53 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #144 on: August 27, 2012, 05:59:51 AM »

But I still agree that the linguistic argument needs more definitive support.

What more support do you want? Linguistically it is all logical deduction, but supported by archaeological data.

We have a widely-dispersed language family, which arose in the days before telephones and the like. So the people at one end of that range (say Ireland) had no way of communicating with people at the other end (say India). So the similarities between their languages must therefore have arisen from a common parent. None of the parties in the Renfrew-Mallory conflict disagrees with this.

That common parent - PIE - can be reconstructed from comparisons between its offspring. The first farmers used digging sticks rather than ploughs. They had no wheels or wagons, no gold or silver. They kept cattle for beef, not milk and cheese. They did not make wine. They did not use wool. Yet PIE had words for all these things. Putting rough dates on inventions from archaeological evidence is known as lexico-cultural dating.   
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 06:06:30 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #145 on: August 27, 2012, 06:22:10 AM »

For linguists, this particular exercise produced the wrong answer.

Clearly, but there remains open the possibility that linguists are completely full of crap.

It happens.

It certainly does. :) There are some linguists who have published utter rubbish. But in the case of PIE, you can judge for yourself, since the PIE lexicon is online. See what date you put on it. It is fun to do.
Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #146 on: August 27, 2012, 06:22:51 AM »

But I still agree that the linguistic argument needs more definitive support.

What more support do you want? Linguistically it is all logical deduction, but supported by archaeological data.


Honestly, I want to find a cave in Ukraine with ancient markings in PIE saying "this is the home of my ancestors".
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #147 on: August 27, 2012, 06:26:47 AM »

Honestly, I want to find a cave in Ukraine with ancient markings in PIE saying "this is the home of my ancestors".

And you would believe that, would you? :) 
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 06:27:41 AM by Jean M » Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #148 on: August 27, 2012, 06:29:14 AM »

Honestly, I want to find a cave in Ukraine with ancient markings in PIE saying "this is the home of my ancestors".

And you would believe that, would you? :) 

Idk, I'm sure even the ancients had trolls too : )
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #149 on: August 27, 2012, 06:34:40 AM »

Idk, I'm sure even the ancients had trolls too : )

Very likely. What these particular ancients didn't have was any idea of writing. Though having said that, there is something vaguely like a script not far away.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 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 0.107 seconds with 18 queries.