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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 10, 2014, 12:49:10 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 ... 21 22 [23] 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family  (Read 32118 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #550 on: October 03, 2012, 05:25:19 PM »

@ Mikewww

There is a lot of evidence of farming disappearing in Scandinavia and people turning up in Jastorf bringing the Nordic Bronze Age culture with them. It's about as clear a case of mass migration as we could have without TV cameras rolling to record the scene.

According to Ken, I1 diversity centres on somewhere in Jutland. Underhill 2007 put it Denmark. Last I heard I think Ken had it just over the border into northern Germany. It would not surprise me to learn that some I1 stayed in the north with hunter-gatherers.

The story of Germanic is linguistically complex. It does not behave like it is a simple story of a move along a path from X to Y. So we should not be too surprised if the genetic picture is also not at all straightforward. I think the idea of people moving up the Dniester to Corded Ware is OK as far as it goes. But Corded Ware is a big area to which other routes from the steppe contributed. From Corded Ware we can picture some people from different parts of CW deciding to move north into Jutland and Finland and meeting in Fenno-Scandia. Then some of this mixture retreats south into Jastorf. Then some of them move back into Scandinavia. See what I mean? The Germani were a mixture. U106 was just one of the haplogroups they carried. It is not the whole story at all.  

I agree that U106 was not the sole carrier of Germanic languages, but I think it is an interesting question if U106 carried pre-Germanic IE dialects. I don't necessarily think that I1 did and R1a1 could easily have been some kind of pre-Baltic IE dialect.  The reason I even care is just to see if U106 fits the Globular Amphora path that pre-Germanic IE might have followed according to Anthony. If it does then it pushes L11 to someplace like SE Europe back in time.

I pulled the Danish numbers out of the "north" of Germany. I think the number of haplotypes, 23, is too low so I don't feel great about reporting it individually but maybe this solves the riddle. It actually fits nicely, Denmark slightly higher than Benelux which is slightly higher than Germany, although I'm trying to read too much into it. A percent or two is clearly not significant.

However, the east of Germany (Poland et al) still throws a wrench into things with its high diversity... unless that's just the old pre-Germanic U106 guys leaving their trail on the way to Denmark well, well before Jastorf.


Denmark _____________ 1.06 __ n=23

Germany _____________ 1.00 __ n=131
Low Countries(Benel)_ 1.03 __ n=69
England _____________ 0.96 __ n=404
East(Poland et al) __ 1.15 __ n=81
South(Switz et al) __ 0.94 __ n=32


I'm starting to lean towards the idea that P312 was earlier to the Scandinavian Peninsula than U106, or at least no later.

I definitely don't think it is out of the range of possibilities that U106 was "born" in Denmark while traveling with a few L11* and P312 brother types who were slightly older.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 05:28:03 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Jarman
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #551 on: October 03, 2012, 05:27:31 PM »

Do you have similar black line for pre-Germanic speakers?

Not exactly. I mention David Anthony's theory that the pre-Germanic speakers moved north up the Dniester from Usatovo. Usatovo is on one of his illustrations that I reuse. (Yamnaya migrations 3100-2600 BC, mapped by David Anthony.)

Yes, I see the Dniester starts up on the east side of the Carpathians, very near the border with Poland. The Globular Amphora culture might just be an extension for a movement of people SE to NW along this line.

It appears to be a coincidence of data that Myres shows U106 with highest diversity in Poland and the Baltic states.

My related question is from what direction did U106 come into Germany or did it start there as far as major expansions go?

I don't trust limited STRs nor handfuls of haplotypes so I looked again for long haplotypes in all of the continental and Scandinavian projects. This time also looked for R1b1a2 predicted 492=13 (not 14 and not 12, just 13) since 96% of all U106 are 492=13 and it is very rare in P312.  I did this to solely to beef up the number of haplotypes.

Using Germany as the base here is what I get for 36 STRs (out of 67) that Marko Heinilla feels have linear duration of at least 7,000 years and are non-multicopy, non-null markers. Essentially, these are the slower mutators.

Germany _____________ 1.00 __ n=131
North(Fenno-Scand) __ 1.01 __ n=107
Low Countries(Benel)_ 1.03 __ n=69
England _____________ 0.96 __ n=404
East(Poland et al) __ 1.15 __ n=81
South(Switz et al) __ 0.94 __ n=32


Many of the haplotypes to the east are from Poland MDKAs but there Czech Rep, Slovakia, Lithuania, Belarus, Russia, Hungary are also included.

I don't think this is a bad set of data. I wouldn't make too much of a percent or two difference, but I think the 15% greater variance to the east is still noteworthy.

I keep looking for greater variance to the south in Switzerland, Austria and Italy but I just can't find it.

As I've said, before, I'm still perplexed that to the north in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway I can't find greater variance than Germany. This is what makes me question either than U106 was not pre-Germanic IE speaking (may have some other IE lineage though) or the primary pre-Germanic lineages came from the east, not from Scandinavia.

I recognize it is accepted that Jastorf formed when Nordic cultures moved south into northern Germany and merged with cultures in the area. How do we know the pre-Germanic IE came from the Nordic cultures?

15% is hard to ignore.  I suspect there is one inequality in the data that is not self adjusting. The eastern U106 is lacking the younger L48 subclades.   Including L48 subclades creates a modal for DYS390=23, but the modal without L48 is DYS390=24. Normally, I'd think subclades would increase diversity but what if this younger and numerically large branch is lacking in internal diversity? Are you counting DYS390=24 as mutations while in fact it is believed to be the original value?
Logged
Jaska
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #552 on: October 03, 2012, 05:29:47 PM »

Quote from: IALEM
The argument by Koch is not that Celtic was earlier than La Tène in Iberia, we already knew that because there are Celtic anthroponims in the Tartessian inscriptions dating at least from the 7th century BC. It is that since Tartessian (according to him) is Celtic then the Tartessian cultural sequence, dating back to the 13th BC is also Celtic.

That sounds like a continuity card.
Logged

Y-DNA: N1c1 Savonian
mtDNA: H5a1e
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #553 on: October 03, 2012, 05:46:45 PM »

...  Normally, I'd think subclades would increase diversity but what if this younger and numerically large branch is lacking in internal diversity? Are you counting DYS390=24 as mutations while in fact it is believed to be the original value?
I don't set the modal value. I just use the standard variance of a sample population formula and don't do any tweaking by STR. This is why having a lot of STRs helps. Anomalies within a particular STR tend to get washed out so I'm pretty sure DYS390 isn't causing the 15% difference.

Here is the related allele distributions for 390

East of Germany

25 =12%
24 =34%
23 =50%
22 =4%


Germany

25 =5%
24 =32%
23 =62%
22 =1%


It's definitely true that 390 is more balanced east of Germany but the way formula works I think 390=23 would still be the base you are asking about. It's still most common, or modal.

...umm.  I guess I could create a prognosticated ancestral set of values (with 390=24 and generally pretty close to WAMH) for U106 and check where the largest GDs are from.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 05:52:45 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #554 on: October 03, 2012, 05:58:59 PM »

I agree that U106 was not the sole carrier of Germanic languages, but I think it is an interesting question if U106 carried pre-Germanic IE dialects. I don't necessarily think that I1 did and R1a1 could easily have been some kind of pre-Baltic IE dialect.

I agree on I1, which I suspect was in the north before IE.

But I'm not sure that there was just one pre-Germanic route or dialect and I certainly don't think that it was confined to men of one haplogroup! I'm no linguist, so I await Jaska's comments, but I suspect that CW could represent a dialect continuum across which both U106 and R1a1a were wandering. (R1a1 has been found in CW.) There is no really hard/definite cultural boundary within it that might mark a linguistic boundary, but gradually dialects would form. At one end of this continuum people moved into Jutland and on into the Scandinavian peninsula. At the other end people moved into Finland, where they would encounter Uralic-speakers at some (disputed) date. (This is before the Balts reached the Baltic.) Contact across Fenno-Scandia and/or in Jastorf would bring these diverging dialects together once more to converge into Proto-Germanic.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 06:34:07 PM by Jean M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #555 on: October 03, 2012, 06:20:50 PM »

...  Normally, I'd think subclades would increase diversity but what if this younger and numerically large branch is lacking in internal diversity? Are you counting DYS390=24 as mutations while in fact it is believed to be the original value?
I don't set the modal value. I just use the standard variance of a sample population formula and don't do any tweaking by STR. This is why having a lot of STRs helps. Anomalies within a particular STR tend to get washed out so I'm pretty sure DYS390 isn't causing the 15% difference.

Here is the related allele distributions for 390

East of Germany

25 =12%
24 =34%
23 =50%
22 =4%


Germany

25 =5%
24 =32%
23 =62%
22 =1%


It's definitely true that 390 is more balanced east of Germany but the way formula works I think 390=23 would still be the base you are asking about. It's still most common, or modal.

...umm.  I guess I could create a prognosticated ancestral set of values (with 390=24 and generally pretty close to WAMH) for U106 and check where the largest GDs are from.

I looked across P312 (which is biased by L21), U152, U106, Z381 (which is biased by L48), Z18 and L11* modals and picked what I thought must have been U106's ancestral values.

This is in reverse order so the winner is at the bottom - The Netherlands, although Poland and Germany were in the hunt only one step away .... Well, actually we should call it a three way tie.  There is a guy from Denmark who is 492=13 but untested for U106 that would have won by one mutation so we should probably consider him too. I guess that would make all well for the Germanic expansion traditions.


fN64413   Carl   R-U106   Ireland
f102524   Lapinski   R-U106   Poland
f108762   zzzUnkName   R-U106   England
f145856   Geddes   R-U106/Z18   Ireland
fN1971   Hamre   R-U106/Z18/Z14/Z372/L257   Norway
f17468   Lucas   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   England
f25535   McLaughlin   R-U106   Ireland
f83251   Pickens   R-U106   Ireland
fN88182   Pedersen(Føns)   R-U106/Z18/Z14**   Denmark
f128536   Sundyforth   R-U106/Z18   England
f169238   Wash   R-U106/Z18   Ireland
f130752   Lohn   R-U106/Z18/Z14/Z372/L257   Germany
f4607   Carr   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Ireland
fN22251   Drummen   R-U106   Netherlands
fE2535   Trautmann   R-U106   Germany
f138047   Jastak   R-U106   Poland
f197974   Slaghekke   R-U106/Z18/Z14**   Netherlands


Perhaps the most noteworthy item was, that despite the very large number of U106 people from England in the contest, they were under-represented in the finals.   Yes, Ireland fared better than England also.

I didn't solve anything but I'm still not counting Poland (or east of Germany) out for being the oldest U106 in Europe. We don't have near the numbers from Poland as Germany or particularly England but Poland seems to compete well for the title.  

We definitely need more people from Denmark testing.

I am becoming more and more solid in my inclination that U106 is younger than P312 or U152 which leaves clearly leaves the "from the west" possibility open. I never understood why a couple of years ago people thought U106 was older than P312.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 06:25:42 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Arwunbee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #556 on: October 03, 2012, 08:25:54 PM »

Gillete's Razor starts shaving stubble from NW Black Sea revealing underneath a trail of L11 and U106 going NW around Carpathian beard up the Vistula and Dniester, spreading along southern Baltic, pushing west, then holed up east of the Elbe by P312 already there (Elbe playing similar role to later Rhine). P312 already in Scandinavia.  U106 fending off steppe incursions on its east, leaving P312 largely buffered and cleanshaved along the breadth of the Atlantic to concentrate less on war and more on culture.  U106  into Scandinavia rather late.  Then Germanicals in volkswagens bearing emblems of red herrings spread starlike c AD 500.  At the beginning there may have been a small element of L48- who followed P312 up the Danube, who stayed put in north Italy.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 08:31:14 PM by Arwunbee » Logged

Map of L44 subclade (of U106): http://g.co/maps/9xswy
Jarman
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #557 on: October 03, 2012, 08:58:46 PM »

Gillete's Razor starts shaving stubble from NW Black Sea revealing underneath a trail of L11 and U106 going NW around Carpathian beard up the Vistula and Dniester, spreading along southern Baltic, pushing west, then holed up east of the Elbe by P312 already there (Elbe playing similar role to later Rhine). P312 already in Scandinavia.  U106 fending off steppe incursions on its east, leaving P312 largely buffered and cleanshaved along the breadth of the Atlantic to concentrate less on war and more on culture.  U106  into Scandinavia rather late.  Then Germanicals in volkswagens bearing emblems of red herrings spread starlike c AD 500.  At the beginning there may have been a small element of L48- who followed P312 up the Danube, who stayed put in north Italy.

Rarely do we scenarios with L11 in the east. So where does L11 go to sire P312 and where did that L11 come from? The next question is where is the origin of L11?
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #558 on: October 03, 2012, 09:42:29 PM »

Rarely do we scenarios with L11 in the east.

Please explain in a little more detail what you mean.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Jarman
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #559 on: October 03, 2012, 10:04:51 PM »

Rarely do we scenarios with L11 in the east.

Please explain in a little more detail what you mean.

Nothing complicated or scientific. Its just that I sense most theories posted in our forums have a preference for a more western birth of L11 albeit they seldom are specific.  Do you have a different impression of what has been posted re the origin of L11?
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #560 on: October 03, 2012, 11:01:12 PM »

Richard Rocca has said an interesting thing, I of course am saying from many years, before he began to interest himself to this stuff:

As we've seen in the Italy project, U106 is overwhelmingly L48- whereas in other countries L48 is the dominant subclade. This means that at least one major migration into Italy never happened

and I’d add the case of R-L21, I have remembered many times also to rms, then Italy haven’t had introgressions from elsewhere of the most recent haplogroups and the oldest ones (R1b1*, R-M269, R-L23, R-L51, R-P312*, R-U152) were born here. Why? Mikewww has the answer: “which clearly leaves the "from the west" possibility open”.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #561 on: October 03, 2012, 11:12:50 PM »

In my list of haplogroups born in Italy I lacked R-L11, which isn’t so represented like the others. Why? Because probably it came out of Italy early and it is more diffused in the Isles and in the Baltic region but also close to Italy in the Alpine zone. From those R-L11 probably was born R-U106, but close to Italy, in the Alps, if U106* easily came back to my country and in a low percentage.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #562 on: October 03, 2012, 11:57:28 PM »

I received a couple of PM's on this. The list of people are the highest GD's from a prognosticated U106 ancestral haplotype with the highest person (GD) last, which is who I called the winner. This was just anecdoctal attempt to get away from possible biases (i.e. large number of L48s) by showing where the most diverse haplotypes were located.


Quote from: Mikewww
...umm.  I guess I could create a prognosticated ancestral set of values (with 390=24 and generally pretty close to WAMH) for U106 and check where the largest GDs are from.

I looked across P312 (which is biased by L21), U152, U106, Z381 (which is biased by L48), Z18 and L11* modals and picked what I thought must have been U106's ancestral values.

This is in reverse order so the winner (highest GD from the ancestral) is at the bottom - The Netherlands, although Poland and Germany were in the hunt only one step away .... Well, actually we should call it a three way tie.  There is a guy from Denmark who is 492=13 but untested for U106 that would have won by one mutation so we should probably consider him too. I guess that would make all well for the Germanic expansion traditions.


fN64413   Carl   R-U106   Ireland
f102524   Lapinski   R-U106   Poland
f108762   zzzUnkName   R-U106   England
f145856   Geddes   R-U106/Z18   Ireland
fN1971   Hamre   R-U106/Z18/Z14/Z372/L257   Norway
f17468   Lucas   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   England
f25535   McLaughlin   R-U106   Ireland
f83251   Pickens   R-U106   Ireland
fN88182   Pedersen(Føns)   R-U106/Z18/Z14**   Denmark
f128536   Sundyforth   R-U106/Z18   England
f169238   Wash   R-U106/Z18   Ireland
f130752   Lohn   R-U106/Z18/Z14/Z372/L257   Germany
f4607   Carr   R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47*   Ireland
fN22251   Drummen   R-U106   Netherlands
fE2535   Trautmann   R-U106   Germany
f138047   Jastak   R-U106   Poland
f197974   Slaghekke   R-U106/Z18/Z14**   Netherlands


Sorry, no Italians, Austrians, Swiss, nor Swedes. A Norwegian made the finals though.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 11:58:54 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #563 on: October 04, 2012, 12:25:54 AM »

Sorry, no Italians, Austrians, Swiss, nor Swedes. A Norwegian made the finals though.

I have always thought, and said to you, that your way to calculate the GD doesn’t carry to anything. You don’t know where that Norwegian’s ancestor was born, he could descend from a German speaking separated from Italic-Celtic-German in North Italy or the Alpine region and migrated Northward. That you find now a descendant in Norway doesn’t say anything of his ancestor of thousands of years ago.
But I have something to suggest you: you should theorize that the Refugium of the Europeans during the Last Glacial Maximun was in the North Pole and from there all Europe and all the world was peopled.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #564 on: October 04, 2012, 05:08:55 AM »

The Proto-Indo-Europeanness of the earliest loanwords in Uralic is now uncertain. The Early Proto-Aryan *x-layer in Uralic can be dated around the early 3rd millennium BC, so the Archaic Indo-European *x-layer is not necessarily any older than that. But it may still be somewhat older, dating to the late 4th millennium BC, in which case they could be considered Late Proto-Indo-European. But their identity as Proto-Indo-European loanwords is no more as certain as it was during the recent decades.

I thank very much Jaska for his response and his kindness, but I’d want to add that: 1) his mtDNA H5a1e is overwhelmingly Italian, in its previous subclades, and probably came out from the Italian Refugium to North Europe 2) his statement in “Is Finnish an archaic language?” that Finnish “kaski” [Slash and burn (technique in agriculture where plant matter is roughly cut down and then burned over to prepare fields for the next crop)] derives from Northwest-Indo-European  *h2azgV (English “ash”, Proto-Nordic “aska”), which would demonstrate the IE laryngeal, then a very old phase of IE, isn’t probably demonstrated. Mallory&Adams 2006 reconstruct this root like *h2éhxōs! If someone played with Caucasian roots might demonstrate this and other.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Jaska
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #565 on: October 04, 2012, 10:55:42 AM »

Quote from: Maliclavelli
I thank very much Jaska for his response and his kindness, but I’d want to add that: 1) his mtDNA H5a1e is overwhelmingly Italian, in its previous subclades, and probably came out from the Italian Refugium to North Europe 2) his statement in “Is Finnish an archaic language?” that Finnish “kaski” [Slash and burn (technique in agriculture where plant matter is roughly cut down and then burned over to prepare fields for the next crop)] derives from Northwest-Indo-European  *h2azgV (English “ash”, Proto-Nordic “aska”), which would demonstrate the IE laryngeal, then a very old phase of IE, isn’t probably demonstrated. Mallory&Adams 2006 reconstruct this root like *h2éhxōs! If someone played with Caucasian roots might demonstrate this and other.
1) Databases show no H5a1e in Italia... So far the only people with 16166 in H5-group are in the northern half of Finland. But H5a1 is unfortunately so wide-spread from Near East to Iberia that I find it difficult to know the route of it to Finland.
2) Mallory & Adams use the Early Proto-Indo-European reconstructions without *a, so their H2 before *e corresponds to *a in other IE reconstructions. The Finnic word *kaski derives from Northwest-Indo-European *hazg- from which the Germanic *askon becomes. So it goes something like Early PIE *h2ehos- > Late PIE *ha(h)os- > NW IE *haz-g- (--> WU *kaski) > G *askon.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 10:56:26 AM by Jaska » Logged

Y-DNA: N1c1 Savonian
mtDNA: H5a1e
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #566 on: October 04, 2012, 12:20:51 PM »

Sorry, no Italians, Austrians, Swiss, nor Swedes. A Norwegian made the finals though.

I have always thought, and said to you, that your way to calculate the GD doesn’t carry to anything.

I'm just doing the best I can with the data I have. The GD's I calculate are only at 67 (or 111 if specified) and they do treat multi-copies with modified infinite allele methods as described by a a variety of people including Bruce Walsh - http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2003-12
/1070422671   No relation, BTW.

I hope you see that I just did the GD's as another perspective because people have concerns about variance formulas and bias. I'm not in love with any of the methods and I wish they were perfect.

Quote from: Maliclavelli
You don’t know where that Norwegian’s ancestor was born, he could descend from a German speaking separated from Italic-Celtic-German in North Italy or the Alpine region and migrated Northward. That you find now a descendant in Norway doesn’t say anything of his ancestor of thousands of years ago.

Could be and without a lot grave digging all we can do is take what people report on its face value but not count on any one piece of data too much.

But I have something to suggest you: you should theorize that the Refugium of the Europeans during the Last Glacial Maximun was in the North Pole and from there all Europe and all the world was peopled.

I"m not sure what reasoning you have for citing the North Pole. Was that on the Bell Beaker migration trail?  LOL, I guess.

Well, may be this is serious stuff.  Kris Kringle/Sinterklaas has a Germanic tradition.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #567 on: October 04, 2012, 12:25:13 PM »

Rarely do we scenarios with L11 in the east.

Please explain in a little more detail what you mean.

Nothing complicated or scientific. Its just that I sense most theories posted in our forums have a preference for a more western birth of L11 albeit they seldom are specific.  Do you have a different impression of what has been posted re the origin of L11?

From what I see on this forum, where L11 came from is a wide open question.  I don't know the answer but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Romania, or Portugal, or the Alpine region (including Italy) for that matter.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 12:26:13 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #568 on: October 04, 2012, 12:30:31 PM »

1) Databases show no H5a1e in Italia... So far the only people with 16166 in H5-group are in the northern half of Finland. But H5a1 is unfortunately so wide-spread from Near East to Iberia that I find it difficult to know the route of it to Finland.
2) Mallory & Adams use the Early Proto-Indo-European reconstructions without *a, so their H2 before *e corresponds to *a in other IE reconstructions. The Finnic word *kaski derives from Northwest-Indo-European *hazg- from which the Germanic *askon becomes. So it goes something like Early PIE *h2ehos- > Late PIE *ha(h)os- > NW IE *haz-g- (--> WU *kaski) > G *askon.

Certainly you know this, having written on www.anthrogenica.com:

Attached Images
clustalw(H5 all anotated polsr tree).jpg (99.6 KB, 4 views)
 
Look carefully at it, and you’ll see that the Italian haplotypes are present everywhere in the tree and demonstrate where the origin of this haplogroup is. Of course your H5a1e is a recent subclade of Finland, but probably you won’t find there any older subclade.

Re: your linguistic theories I let them to you of course.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #569 on: October 04, 2012, 12:36:57 PM »

From what I see on this forum, where L11 came from is a wide open question.  I don't know the answer but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Romania, or Portugal, or the Alpine region (including Italy) for that matter.

Seen that you like variance, this is the unique Italian in the “ht 35 FTDNA Project”:

N49180 Giuseppe D'Ambrosia, Theresa Balestri, Salerno, It Italy R1b1a2a1a1
13 24 14 10 11-15 12 12 12 16 13 29 18 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15-15-17-18 10 11 19-23 16 15 17 17 36-37 12 12 11 9 15-16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23-23 16 10 12 12 16 8 12 22 22 14 12 11 13 11 11 12 12        

I make you note that DYS389I=16 and DYS389II=13 and DYS520=22.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 12:38:12 PM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #570 on: October 04, 2012, 12:40:10 PM »

From what I see on this forum, where L11 came from is a wide open question.  I don't know the answer but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Romania, or Portugal, or the Alpine region (including Italy) for that matter.

Seen that you like variance, this is the unique Italian in the “ht 35 FTDNA Project”:

Do we really know he is from Italy? Perhaps he is related to some Germanic folks from the North Pole?

Quote from: Maliclavelli
You don’t know where that Norwegian’s ancestor was born, he could descend from a German speaking separated from Italic-Celtic-German in North Italy or the Alpine region and migrated Northward. That you find now a descendant in Norway doesn’t say anything of his ancestor of thousands of years ago.

Relax, my remark is just in fun.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 12:42:02 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #571 on: October 04, 2012, 01:13:00 PM »

Relax, my remark is just in fun.
Of course, fun for fun. But just for this I have always said that the most important thing is the pathway of a haplgroup, what Italy gets for R1b1* and many others, also mtDNA above all, like the H5 of Jaska but also my K1a1b1e etc.  Now also FTDNA has recognized as European (I think Italian) mtDNA R0a, the mother of all subclades.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Jaska
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #572 on: October 04, 2012, 01:57:23 PM »

Quote from: Maliclavelli
Certainly you know this, having written on www.anthrogenica.com:

Attached Images
clustalw(H5 all anotated polsr tree).jpg (99.6 KB, 4 views)
 
Look carefully at it, and you’ll see that the Italian haplotypes are present everywhere in the tree and demonstrate where the origin of this haplogroup is. Of course your H5a1e is a recent subclade of Finland, but probably you won’t find there any older subclade.

Re: your linguistic theories I let them to you of course.

Thank you, I found the picture! Yes, it seems that Finnish H5a1 derives from the same branch as some Italians... Very interesting.

I only recently went to Anthrogenica, to debate against the Anatolian homeland for Indo-European. :)

Those are actually not my linguistic theories, the Northwestern IE and Pre-Germanic loanwords have been found in Finnic (and other western Uralic branches) since 1980's. I only updated the interpretation of loanwords, because Proto-Uralic now looks much younger than it looked in 1980's...
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 01:59:40 PM by Jaska » Logged

Y-DNA: N1c1 Savonian
mtDNA: H5a1e
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #573 on: October 04, 2012, 02:19:27 PM »

You must remember that you and they are talking about the genetic and cultural roots of Celts – that is a different level than language, and the root of language is often in different direction than the main cultural root.

I cannot speak for Heber, but profs. Cunliffe and Koch define the Celts as persons speaking Celtic. They are indeed arguing for the homeland of the Proto-Celtic language in Iberia. See Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and Literature (2010)

Quote
This book is an exploration of the new idea that the Celtic languages originated in the Atlantic Zone during the Bronze Age, approached from various perspectives pro and con, archaeology, genetics, and philology. This Celtic Atlantic Bronze Age theory represents a major departure from the long-established, but increasingly problematical scenario in which the story of the Ancient Celtic languages and that of peoples called Keltoí Celts are closely bound up with the archaeology of the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures of Iron Age west-central Europe. The Celtic from the West proposal was first presented in Barry Cunliffe's Facing the Ocean (2001) and has subsequently found resonance amongst geneticists. It provoked controversy on the part of some linguists, though is significantly in accord with John Koch's findings in Tartessian (2009). The present collection is intended to pursue the question further in order to determine whether this earlier and more westerly starting point might now be developed as a more robust foundation for Celtic studies. As well as having this specific aim, a more general purpose of Celtic from the West is to bring to an English-language readership some of the rapidly unfolding and too often neglected evidence of the pre-Roman peoples and languages of the western Iberian Peninsula. Celtic from the West is an outgrowth of a multidisciplinary conference held at the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth in December 2008. As well as the 11 chapters, the book includes 45 distribution maps and a further 80 illustrations. The conference and collaborative volume mark the launch of a multi-year research initiative undertaken by the University of Wales Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies [CAWCS]: Ancient Britain and the Atlantic Zone [ABrAZo].

I do not think they are right. But the debate has thrown up some interesting material.
It certainly has. You say that you don't think they are right. What would you propose in relation to Celtic origins?
Logged
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #574 on: October 04, 2012, 02:28:36 PM »

Heber,

Quote

You posted this map from Britain Begins. As remarked earlier, the work would pobably be somewhat outdated by the time it was published - but surely Cunliffe is aware of the new evidence against this theory?

Genetics is not his field, but a book in 2012 claiming R1b is Cro-Magnon feels about as ancient as the people it supposedly originated with!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 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 0.209 seconds with 18 queries.