World Families Forums - Beakers and P312 - is a model emerging?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 28, 2014, 11:34:41 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)
| | |-+  Beakers and P312 - is a model emerging?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Beakers and P312 - is a model emerging?  (Read 5049 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2012, 03:32:54 PM »

I'm sure I'll take some heat for this, but here goes...I don't think the distribution of Bell Beakers, especially in places like Bavaria, Bohemia and Moravia really works without at least "some" U106. And no, I can't quantify the "some" part.

Problem is that current populations there do not reflect ancient ones. I feel no heat on this, believe me. Just caution in drawing conclusions about areas in which Celts were succeeded by German-speakers (plus Slavs later in Moravia.)
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2012, 03:38:43 PM »

The biggest commonality among these P312 people that I can see is the connection to the western seaways from the Western Med to the Atlantic to the North Sea and even possibly the Baltic. That doesn't explain everything unless we consider that translates into traveling the river systems too.

Speaking of the North Sea proximity and the Rhine River delta, I think Alan brought this up elsewhere, but modern frequencies for L21 in the Benelux region may be a red herring. We see U106 drops off like a cliff, frequency-wise, when it hits Calais. Most think the U106 expansion west through this area into England was a historical period migration so it may be covering up ancient tracks for L21 people.  I can't find the analysis but an I-L38 researcher (Hans) correlated I-L38 with L21 at one time and found that both L21 and I-L38 had a particular type of scattered distribution in Benelux as compared to U106. He felt that the L21 and I-L38 pattern was the result of being an early inhabitant that left scattered remnants.

I agree Mike.  If you subtract U106 and go with the variance date that places it somewhere like Poland until late prehistory then it is fair to speculate who dominated the R1b world in the area between NE France and Holland prior to this.  I think the pattern in eastern Britain is the clue to this.  It is assumed that eastern and southenr Britian was also L21 dominated (with some U152) in pre-Germanic times and was only highly dilluted by movements of U106 into Britian much later.  There is no reason to think this was not also true for north coastal Gaul too and L21 has been severally diluted by U106 there too between NE France and Holland.  The British-Rhine beaker period connection was very strong and its very hard to understand how the (admittedly assumed) L21 dominance of even south and east Britain in pre-Roman times could have come about if the maritime dominance of L21 had not also stretched further east to the Low Countries at one time.  I get the impression on maps that in the north of Europe if you subtract suspected late expansions such as U106 then L21 would have been a big player.  SE Britain remained very connected to the Low Countries deep into the Bronze Age too by sister cultures that covered the area of NE France to Holland.  I would speculate that there is a hint in the distribution of L21 in northern Europe that U106 has punched a hole through L21.  There is much in L21's distribution to suggest it dominated the sea from Atlantic France to Scandinavia (again if you subtract U106).  I suspect that L21 was the main victim of U106 because U152 tends to dominate inland and less in its path.  The impression that the isles were surrounded by L21 coasts at one time is there.  Otherwise why is it the dominant clade even in NE Scotland?  The lowish amount of U152 in the isles may well imply a relative lack of north coastal access to U152 in the past.  My suspicion is that inland U152 may have risen and L21 declined while the oppsite was true of the coasts.  All of the coastal lands as far as the Rhine were within varieties of Atlantic cultures linked to Britain and northern France deep into the Bronze Age.  I suspect U152 influx may have picked up when central European urnfield and Hallsatt groups started to exert stronger influence northwards late in the Bronze Age, with the Altantic sphere becoming eclipsed somewhat.  So, at the risk of being thought an L21 cheerleader, I do suspect it was big all along the maritime areas as far as (and into) Holland and may have even extended into Scandinavia.  The isles and NW France have always given me the impression that L21 was once pretty well all there was and was the first and dominant clade in those areas.  If the present mix of clades along the coasts had existed then how come only L21 people (or overwhelmingly rather) seem to have formed the Celtic population of the isles.  The impression has always been that when the isles were settled L21 had few rivals on the coasts opposite.    
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #27 on: September 13, 2012, 03:39:39 PM »

I'm sure I'll take some heat for this, but here goes...I don't think the distribution of Bell Beakers, especially in places like Bavaria, Bohemia and Moravia really works without at least "some" U106. And no, I can't quantify the "some" part.

Are you implying that early Celts in Bavaria and Bohemia must have had a lot of U106?  I'm not sure if the Celts were in Moravia but we know Bohemia was named for them.

That's okay with me. I think there was a good chance that there were some U106 mixed in with Celtic people in Central Europe.

My primary struggle is to associate U106 with pre-Germanic IE and both of their routes into the Jastorf Culture. Did they both come from the south (and west of the Carpathians) into Jastorf?

The Baltic IE dialect influence on Germanic probably came from the east (and north of the Carpathians.) perhaps mainly by a mix of R1a1 and others. Perhaps the base pre-Germanic came from the same direction with the same Y hg's, which would mean that U106 people coming from the south (west side of the Carpathians) were NOT really carrying the pre-Germanic dialect, but possibly pre-Italo-Celtic, and were converted in the integration at Jastorf.


I specifically ended my post by saying I could not quantify it and then you turned around and wrote:

"Are you implying that early Celts in Bavaria and Bohemia must have had a lot of U106?"

So no, "some" does not mean a lot, nor does it mean a little. Let's not forget that U106 was more than likely already to the west of the Elbe during the Urnfield period (Lichtenstein Cave).
« Last Edit: September 13, 2012, 03:42:09 PM by Richard Rocca » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #28 on: September 13, 2012, 03:41:08 PM »

I'm sure I'll take some heat for this, but here goes...I don't think the distribution of Bell Beakers, especially in places like Bavaria, Bohemia and Moravia really works without at least "some" U106. And no, I can't quantify the "some" part.

Are you implying that early Celts in Bavaria and Bohemia must have had a lot of U106?  I'm not sure if the Celts were in Moravia but we know Bohemia was named for them.

That's okay with me. I think there was a good chance that there were some U106 mixed in with Celtic people in Central Europe.

My primary struggle is to associate U106 with pre-Germanic IE and both of their routes into the Jastorf Culture. Did they both come from the south (and west of the Carpathians) into Jastorf?

The Baltic IE dialect influence on Germanic probably came from the east (and north of the Carpathians.) perhaps mainly by a mix of R1a1 and others. Perhaps the base pre-Germanic came from the same direction with the same Y hg's, which would mean that U106 people coming from the south (west side of the Carpathians) were NOT really carrying the pre-Germanic dialect, but possibly pre-Italo-Celtic, and were converted in the integration at Jastorf.


My feeling is that the ancestors of U106 arrived in L11* form (as an offshoot) in the Poland area and the U106 SNP occurred there. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2012, 04:42:20 PM »

My feeling is that the ancestors of U106 arrived in L11* form (as an offshoot) in the Poland area and the U106 SNP occurred there. 

What culture was L11* spread to Poland in? or what timeframe?
Logged

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

Posts: 200


« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2012, 05:22:56 PM »

[No one seems to have an answer for L165's frequency being so dominant in Scotland.. It just gets kind of swept under the table for some reason.
I'm interested in DF27+ L165, it contains Clan MacLeod from the northern Isles, doesn't it?

Yes, and also contains a specific set of MacNeills, MacDonalds and a few others. I'm very interested in how L165 arrived into Scotland as I have a feeling my MacIsaac's made it there in a similar fashion.
Logged

Y-Dna: R1b-SRY2627

Mtdna: J1c8
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2012, 05:41:41 PM »

My feeling is that the ancestors of U106 arrived in L11* form (as an offshoot) in the Poland area and the U106 SNP occurred there. 

What culture was L11* spread to Poland in? or what timeframe?

lol I have no idea.  However, I do suspect remnant L11* lines would have travelled with P312 and even maybe have headed off on their own.  There must have been a brief period for a generation or so after P312 was born that L11* was still around.  I suppose it could have got there with the Polish beaker groups.  It is after all really a rare parallel line to P312 rather than 'older' as such.  There is a trail of L11* along the Baltic if I recall correctly perhaps suggesting a trail.  There is definately some new stuff on the recent discovery of beaker in Poland.
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #32 on: September 14, 2012, 08:09:58 AM »

I'm sure I'll take some heat for this, but here goes...I don't think the distribution of Bell Beakers, especially in places like Bavaria, Bohemia and Moravia really works without at least "some" U106. And no, I can't quantify the "some" part.

Problem is that current populations there do not reflect ancient ones. I feel no heat on this, believe me. Just caution in drawing conclusions about areas in which Celts were succeeded by German-speakers (plus Slavs later in Moravia.)

It's not just modern populations. It's putting U106 in the heartland of R1a, I2 and I1 and then having U106 leap-frog past all of them to become the dominant SNP and wind up being the western-most out of the four.
Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2012, 08:48:57 AM »

I'm sure I'll take some heat for this, but here goes...I don't think the distribution of Bell Beakers, especially in places like Bavaria, Bohemia and Moravia really works without at least "some" U106. And no, I can't quantify the "some" part.

Are you implying that early Celts in Bavaria and Bohemia must have had a lot of U106?  I'm not sure if the Celts were in Moravia but we know Bohemia was named for them.

That's okay with me. I think there was a good chance that there were some U106 mixed in with Celtic people in Central Europe.

My primary struggle is to associate U106 with pre-Germanic IE and both of their routes into the Jastorf Culture. Did they both come from the south (and west of the Carpathians) into Jastorf?

The Baltic IE dialect influence on Germanic probably came from the east (and north of the Carpathians.) perhaps mainly by a mix of R1a1 and others. Perhaps the base pre-Germanic came from the same direction with the same Y hg's, which would mean that U106 people coming from the south (west side of the Carpathians) were NOT really carrying the pre-Germanic dialect, but possibly pre-Italo-Celtic, and were converted in the integration at Jastorf.


I specifically ended my post by saying I could not quantify it and then you turned around and wrote:

"Are you implying that early Celts in Bavaria and Bohemia must have had a lot of U106?"

So no, "some" does not mean a lot, nor does it mean a little. Let's not forget that U106 was more than likely already to the west of the Elbe during the Urnfield period (Lichtenstein Cave).

Sorry, Richard, I wasn't look for a precise number. I was really just trying to get to if you thought U106 was present to some significant degree with the early Celts in Central Europe. I know that "significant presence" and "some" are not the same terms, but I don't think you'd be mentioning this point unless it was significant (not necessarily a lot though.)

Anyway, I was just looking for U106 as being an element with the early Celts in Central Europe. I think your answer was yes. I'm not arguing the point, just wanting to make sure that's what you were saying. If they were with the early Celts, they could have moved northward in Hallstatt during the phase where it influenced the Jastorf Culture, where it is possible that the Germanic language "germinated."

Partly, I'm trying to understand where the primary pre-Germanic IE dialect came from and if U106 was the main driver for it. David Anthony thinks it came from around the east and north side of the Carpathian Mountains. This kind of fits U106 diversity patterns but it is also possible that U106 came from Hungarian Plains vicinity west of the Carpathians as a part of the Hallstatt that eventually influenced Jastorf. I don't see that in the diversity right now, but U106 data east of Poland is limited as it is in Alpine and Hungarian regions.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 09:34:02 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2012, 09:28:42 AM »

I supposed I'm getting a bit off track here with the topic subject, but I agree with Richard that P312 must be considered in context with U106 and probably L11* too.

Anyway, I was just looking for U106 as being an element with the early Celts in Central Europe. I think the answer was yes. I'm not arguing the point, just wanting to make sure that's what you were saying. If they were with the early Celts, they could have moved northward in Hallstatt during the phase where it influenced the Jastorf Culture, where it is possible that the Germanic language "germinated."

Partly, I'm trying to understand where the primary pre-Germanic IE dialect came from and if U106 was the main driver for it. David Anthony thinks it came from around the east and north side of the Carpathian Mountains. This kind of fits U106 diversity patterns but it is also possible that U106 came from Hungarian Plains vicinity west of the Carpathians as a part of the Hallstatt that eventually influenced Jastorf. I don't see that in the diversity right now, but U106 data east of Poland is limited as it is in Alpine and Hungarian regions.

I guess what I'm searching for, is to get a better understanding of the possible presence of P312 and/or U106 in the Baden Culture of the Danubian area west of the Carpathians versus the Globular Amphora northeast and north of the Carpathians. These are contemporary cultures of about 3400-2600 BC.

Quote from: Wiki on Baden
Nándor Kalicz had proposed a connection between the Baden culture and Troy...
The linguistic identity and ethnic self-identification of the people associated with this culture is impossible to ascertain. It may be tempting to put the Italic and Celtic stocks together here at some point, at least in that great European mixing bowl, the plains of Hungary, but this is a speculation lacking any archaeological foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baden_culture

Quote from: Wiki on Globular Amphora
The supporters of the Kurgan hypothesis point to these distinctive burial practices and state this may represent one of the earliest migrations of Indo-Europeans into Central Europe. In this context and given its area of occupation, this culture has been claimed as the underlying culture of a Germanic-Baltic-Slavic continuum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_Amphora_culture

From the diversity patterns that I know of related to U106, the Globular Amphora seems like a better fit. We've seen higher diversity in Poland and the Baltic States to the northeast, at least according to Myres. It does not seem like P312 would have been in the Globular Amphora but there is enough P312xL21xU152 in places like Scandinavia that you have to wonder.

On the Baden side of things, Austria seems like a mystery as far as U106.  It is supposed to be a hot spot, but I've never seen high diversity numbers from there, albeit the data is limited.

Did the Baden Culture impact the succeeding Bell Beaker Cultures?

BTW, just thinking, but if U106 was big part of the Globular Amphora culture, that's a long way at an early time from Iberian Bell Beaker land where P312 might have been hanging out. Maybe these were just pre-P312 L11* lineages and pre-U106 L11* lineages at the time, but I can't see where L11* or L11 "all" has higher diversity anywhere. Busby seems inclined towards this undifferentiated diversity for L11 (S127) as well.  Do you see why U106 in or not in the Globular Amphora folks is a big deal? If U106, or pre-U106 L11* was over there on the other side of the Carpathians that pushes coalescence of U106, P312 and L11* quite a ways east, as in possibly right next to the Black Sea. On the other hand, if something like Baden can fully account for U106's presence in Europe then a coalescense back to the L11 TMRCA (with P312) is more easily possible in Southern or even Western Europe.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 10:25:44 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 141


« Reply #35 on: September 14, 2012, 10:12:50 AM »

Did U106 originate in a Baltic refuge and P312 in an Iberian refuge? They seem to have two different routes. U106 from East to West and P312 from South to North.That would make them very old subgroups. Why would  a group of L-11 people move East and then come back across Europe as U106? Is Austria the origin of R1b?
Logged
A_Wode
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #36 on: September 14, 2012, 10:50:35 AM »

Did U106 originate in a Baltic refuge and P312 in an Iberian refuge? They seem to have two different routes. U106 from East to West and P312 from South to North.That would make them very old subgroups. Why would  a group of L-11 people move East and then come back across Europe as U106? Is Austria the origin of R1b?

The Baltic is the destination rather than the source of U106. Do we have any neolithic elements there that might link it with the west? Otherwise, I would suspect the immigration there is fairly recent. I doubt it would have been a refuge as it is too far north. U106 was probably born in NE France or Western Germany.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 10:51:57 AM by A_Wode » Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #37 on: September 14, 2012, 11:12:14 AM »

Figure 6.16, of Cunliffe's  Britain Begins has a  a very striking map of origin and migration paths of Maritime Bell beakers.

"The Maritine Bell Beaker developed in the Tagus region of Portugal in the first half of the third millenium BC and the idea spread from there to many parts of Western Europe, inclusing Britain and Ireland. The distribution of the distinctive type of beaker gives us an indication of the routes in use at the time.
The Atlantic Facade route includes clusters at Tagus, Morbihan, Wiltshire, Ross Isle and Great Ormes. I believe this was the origin point of P312 and the migration path of L21.

Figure 6.20 shows the copper mining sites of the Isles including Ross Island, Canshanayoe and Mount Gabriel in SW Ireland and Bradda Head, Parys Mountain, Great Orme, Copa Hill, Nantyreira and Cwmystwyth on the Irish Sea.

"The copper mining sites of Britain and Ireland in use during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. Some are known from extensive workings, others from the occurance of distinctive hammer stones."

Figure 7.5 has a striking map showing the development of the Celtic Language.
This shows an out of Anatolia model for IndoEuropean circa 6,000 BC.
A Celtic Italic zone developed along the Meditteranean Littoral from 5,500 - 6,000 BC (L51).
An Atlantic Facade zone from Tartessos to The Isles shows the development of Celtic by 3,000 (P312,L21).
Finally the spread of Celtic inland to Continental Europe by 2,000 BC is shown. (U152).


"A model to suggest the stages that may have been involved in the development and spread of the Celtic Language following the establishment of Indo-European in south eastern Europe in the seventh millenium. According to this hypothesis Indo-European was introduced into the central and western Meditteranean with the spread of the Impressed Ware Neolithic and subsequently developed into Celtic as a lingua franca in the Atlantic zone. Later it spread into the rest of western and central Europe with the Beaker phenomenon.

This largly supports the model of M269 > DF21 shown here.

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/
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



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 14, 2012, 11:22:25 AM »

Figure 6.16, of Cunliffe's  Britain Begins ....

"A model to suggest the stages that may have been involved in the development and spread of the Celtic Language following the establishment of Indo-European in south eastern Europe in the seventh millenium. According to this hypothesis Indo-European was introduced into the central and western Meditteranean with the spread of the Impressed Ware Neolithic and subsequently developed into Celtic as a lingua franca in the Atlantic zone. Later it spread into the rest of western and central Europe with the Beaker phenomenon.

Is this Cunliffe's preferred hypothesis - that IE languages were brought to the Atlantic by the Impressed Ware Neolithic?    or was he just stating this is one possibility?

Do linguists think the Impressed Ware Neolithic carried IE languages? I haven't heard much discussion (specific to Imp Ware) of that alternative lately.  Has Renfrew been specific at including Impressed Wares in his IE out of Anatolia hypothesis?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 11:25:34 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #39 on: September 14, 2012, 11:25:04 AM »

Figure 6.16, of Cunliffe's  Britain Begins ....

"A model to suggest the stages that may have been involved in the development and spread of the Celtic Language following the establishment of Indo-European in south eastern Europe in the seventh millenium. According to this hypothesis Indo-European was introduced into the central and western Meditteranean with the spread of the Impressed Ware Neolithic and subsequently developed into Celtic as a lingua franca in the Atlantic zone. Later it spread into the rest of western and central Europe with the Beaker phenomenon.

Is this Cunliffe's preferred hypothesis - that IE languages were brought to the Atlantic by the Impressed Ware Neolithic?    or was he just stating this is one possibility?

Do linguists think the Impressed Ware Neolithic carried IE languages? I haven't heard much discussion of that alternative.

The problem with Cunliffe is he is obsessed with anything involving boats and the Atlantic.  He may be partly right but he is very wooly about the languages thing. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #40 on: September 14, 2012, 11:34:05 AM »

Figure 6.16, of Cunliffe's  Britain Begins has a  a very striking map of origin and migration paths of Maritime Bell beakers.

"The Maritine Bell Beaker developed in the Tagus region of Portugal in the first half of the third millenium BC and the idea spread from there to many parts of Western Europe, inclusing Britain and Ireland. The distribution of the distinctive type of beaker gives us an indication of the routes in use at the time.
The Atlantic Facade route includes clusters at Tagus, Morbihan, Wiltshire, Ross Isle and Great Ormes. I believe this was the origin point of P312 and the migration path of L21.

Figure 6.20 shows the copper mining sites of the Isles including Ross Island, Canshanayoe and Mount Gabriel in SW Ireland and Bradda Head, Parys Mountain, Great Orme, Copa Hill, Nantyreira and Cwmystwyth on the Irish Sea.

"The copper mining sites of Britain and Ireland in use during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. Some are known from extensive workings, others from the occurance of distinctive hammer stones."

Figure 7.5 has a striking map showing the development of the Celtic Language.
This shows an out of Anatolia model for IndoEuropean circa 6,000 BC.
A Celtic Italic zone developed along the Meditteranean Littoral from 5,500 - 6,000 BC (L51).
An Atlantic Facade zone from Tartessos to The Isles shows the development of Celtic by 3,000 (P312,L21).
Finally the spread of Celtic inland to Continental Europe by 2,000 BC is shown. (U152).


"A model to suggest the stages that may have been involved in the development and spread of the Celtic Language following the establishment of Indo-European in south eastern Europe in the seventh millenium. According to this hypothesis Indo-European was introduced into the central and western Meditteranean with the spread of the Impressed Ware Neolithic and subsequently developed into Celtic as a lingua franca in the Atlantic zone. Later it spread into the rest of western and central Europe with the Beaker phenomenon.

This largly supports the model of M269 > DF21 shown here.

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/

I think there are serious problems in pushing this too far back in time.  Irish and British Neolithic is not in any way derived from the the Iberian one.  All analysis on recent years points to origins involving the area between Brittany and Belgium. 

Too much is made of vague similarity like 'megaliths'.  There was no such thing as a unified megalithic culture.  They arose at different times and places independently through most of Europe spanning a period of at least several thousand years across many different and unconnected cultures.  The idea of a megalithic culture is a complete misnomer.  Even where they are connected in some more tangible way such as Newgrange and Maes How, the people who used them had different material cultures and burial practices etc.  It seems that generalised ideas like that spread through contact and perhaps movement of wives rather than migration.
 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #41 on: September 14, 2012, 11:44:13 AM »

I supposed I'm getting a bit off track here with the topic subject, but I agree with Richard that P312 must be considered in context with U106 and probably L11* too.

Anyway, I was just looking for U106 as being an element with the early Celts in Central Europe. I think the answer was yes. I'm not arguing the point, just wanting to make sure that's what you were saying. If they were with the early Celts, they could have moved northward in Hallstatt during the phase where it influenced the Jastorf Culture, where it is possible that the Germanic language "germinated."

Partly, I'm trying to understand where the primary pre-Germanic IE dialect came from and if U106 was the main driver for it. David Anthony thinks it came from around the east and north side of the Carpathian Mountains. This kind of fits U106 diversity patterns but it is also possible that U106 came from Hungarian Plains vicinity west of the Carpathians as a part of the Hallstatt that eventually influenced Jastorf. I don't see that in the diversity right now, but U106 data east of Poland is limited as it is in Alpine and Hungarian regions.

I guess what I'm searching for, is to get a better understanding of the possible presence of P312 and/or U106 in the Baden Culture of the Danubian area west of the Carpathians versus the Globular Amphora northeast and north of the Carpathians. These are contemporary cultures of about 3400-2600 BC.

Quote from: Wiki on Baden
Nándor Kalicz had proposed a connection between the Baden culture and Troy...
The linguistic identity and ethnic self-identification of the people associated with this culture is impossible to ascertain. It may be tempting to put the Italic and Celtic stocks together here at some point, at least in that great European mixing bowl, the plains of Hungary, but this is a speculation lacking any archaeological foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baden_culture

Quote from: Wiki on Globular Amphora
The supporters of the Kurgan hypothesis point to these distinctive burial practices and state this may represent one of the earliest migrations of Indo-Europeans into Central Europe. In this context and given its area of occupation, this culture has been claimed as the underlying culture of a Germanic-Baltic-Slavic continuum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_Amphora_culture

From the diversity patterns that I know of related to U106, the Globular Amphora seems like a better fit. We've seen higher diversity in Poland and the Baltic States to the northeast, at least according to Myres. It does not seem like P312 would have been in the Globular Amphora but there is enough P312xL21xU152 in places like Scandinavia that you have to wonder.

On the Baden side of things, Austria seems like a mystery as far as U106.  It is supposed to be a hot spot, but I've never seen high diversity numbers from there, albeit the data is limited.

Did the Baden Culture impact the succeeding Bell Beaker Cultures?

BTW, just thinking, but if U106 was big part of the Globular Amphora culture, that's a long way at an early time from Iberian Bell Beaker land where P312 might have been hanging out. Maybe these were just pre-P312 L11* lineages and pre-U106 L11* lineages at the time, but I can't see where L11* or L11 "all" has higher diversity anywhere. Busby seems inclined towards this undifferentiated diversity for L11 (S127) as well.  Do you see why U106 in or not in the Globular Amphora folks is a big deal? If U106, or pre-U106 L11* was over there on the other side of the Carpathians that pushes coalescence of U106, P312 and L11* quite a ways east, as in possibly right next to the Black Sea. On the other hand, if something like Baden can fully account for U106's presence in Europe then a coalescense back to the L11 TMRCA (with P312) is more easily possible in Southern or even Western Europe.

It is hard to believe L11* moved with GA culture.  It would place its origins so far to the east and very early.  However, that aside, it is rather suprising how little discussion it gets on these forums given that its spread is the right sort of time and place to have been of some importance to the whole IE question.   
Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #42 on: September 14, 2012, 11:46:26 AM »

Figure 6.16, of Cunliffe's  Britain Begins ....

"A model to suggest the stages that may have been involved in the development and spread of the Celtic Language following the establishment of Indo-European in south eastern Europe in the seventh millenium. According to this hypothesis Indo-European was introduced into the central and western Meditteranean with the spread of the Impressed Ware Neolithic and subsequently developed into Celtic as a lingua franca in the Atlantic zone. Later it spread into the rest of western and central Europe with the Beaker phenomenon.

Is this Cunliffe's preferred hypothesis - that IE languages were brought to the Atlantic by the Impressed Ware Neolithic?    or was he just stating this is one possibility?

Do linguists think the Impressed Ware Neolithic carried IE languages? I haven't heard much discussion (specific to Imp Ware) of that alternative lately.  Has Renfrew been specific at including Impressed Wares in his IE out of Anatolia hypothesis?

Mike,

Cunliffe coauthored "Celtic from the West" along with Koch. IMO when the greatest experts in  Celtic Archealogy and Language in Europe come to these conclusions they have thought it through.

"One more question which needs to be explored: how did the branch of Indo-European from which Celtic arose reach Iberia? The most likly context would be with the spread of the Neolithic package from the southern Balkens across the length of the Meditteranean in the sixth millennium BC - a process which can be traced in the distribution of Neolithic material assemblages characterized by pottery decorated with impressions of the cardium shell. Enclaves of Cardial Ware users spread quickly first to Italy and then to the Meditteranean coast of France and Spain, some sailing onwards through the Strait of Gibralter to establish themselves in the Atlantic coastal areas of Iberia south of the Mondego estury around 5,000 - 4,800 BC. These settlements were particularly dense in the region of the lower Tagus....
This has been a long interlude - but if the hypothesis offered here is correct, then the inhabitants of Britain and Ireland were speaking Celtic dialects by 2,000 BC, and some communities, particularly in the Irish Sea zone, may have been speaking Celtic for a lot longer."
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



Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #43 on: September 14, 2012, 12:14:31 PM »

Did U106 originate in a Baltic refuge and P312 in an Iberian refuge? They seem to have two different routes. U106 from East to West and P312 from South to North.That would make them very old subgroups. Why would  a group of L-11 people move East and then come back across Europe as U106? Is Austria the origin of R1b?
-The Baltic area was under the ice sheet during the last ice age. There wouldn't have been a refugee there. http://ferrebeekeeper.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/europe_16000bc.jpg

-The P312 ans U106 SNPs are very closely related and seem to have popped up a few hundred years at most.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #44 on: September 14, 2012, 12:15:28 PM »

The problem with Cunliffe is he is obsessed with anything involving boats and the Atlantic.  He may be partly right but he is very wooly about the languages thing.  

Today has been a success already. I've learned at least one thing for sure. I had never heard the use of the word "woolly" like that before so I had to look it up.
Quote
Woolly ideas and reasoning are confused and not clear, and have not been considered carefully enough.

Heber, I definitely respect Cunliffe and Koch. Cunliffe is not a linguist though Koch may be a Celticist but is PIE and the PIE homeland part of his studies?

Cunliffe coauthored "Celtic from the West" along with Koch. IMO when the greatest experts in  Celtic Archealogy and Language in Europe come to these conclusions they have thought it through.

"One more question which needs to be explored: how did the branch of Indo-European from which Celtic arose reach Iberia? The most likly context would be with the spread of the Neolithic package from the southern Balkens across the length of the Meditteranean in the sixth millennium BC - a process which can be traced in the distribution of Neolithic material assemblages characterized by pottery decorated with impressions of the cardium shell. Enclaves of Cardial Ware users spread quickly first to Italy and then to the Meditteranean coast of France and Spain, some sailing onwards through the Strait of Gibralter to establish themselves in the Atlantic coastal areas of Iberia south of the Mondego estury around 5,000 - 4,800 BC.

Heber, I know it is not your responsibility to do this, but I still have to understand the logic before I'm convinced. I'm just not seeing the PIE connection to the Impressed Wares.

Look at the PIE lexicon that Jean M has posted. IE languages didn't disperse until they had words for things that the Impressed Wares people didn't know about. I'd also have to think PIE should have more of a Mediterranean flavor to it if Impressed Wares was a carrier. The timing and archaeology just don't fit PIE well. Did Cunliffe/Koch address the PIE lexicon issues directly or do they accept someone like Renfrew's thinking for its face value? When looking to understand the father, Italo-Celtic, it may be critical to understand the grandfather, PIE.

How do U106's distribution and the Germanic languages distribution fit into the Impressed Wares?

I've asked this before, but what are the base words of the Italo-Celtic IE dialect that are not in PIE?  They should have a Mediterranean flair to them if this IE dialect came out of the Impressed Wares.  Maybe they do, but I'd sure like to understand the unique base (not borrowed) words between Italic and Celtic that are non-PIE.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 01:24:36 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 14, 2012, 12:44:01 PM »

... From the diversity patterns that I know of related to U106, the Globular Amphora seems like a better fit. We've seen higher diversity in Poland and the Baltic States to the northeast, at least according to Myres. It does not seem like P312 would have been in the Globular Amphora but there is enough P312xL21xU152 in places like Scandinavia that you have to wonder.

On the Baden side of things, Austria seems like a mystery as far as U106.  It is supposed to be a hot spot, but I've never seen high diversity numbers from there, albeit the data is limited.

Did the Baden Culture impact the succeeding Bell Beaker Cultures?

BTW, just thinking, but if U106 was big part of the Globular Amphora culture, that's a long way at an early time from Iberian Bell Beaker land where P312 might have been hanging out. Maybe these were just pre-P312 L11* lineages and pre-U106 L11* lineages at the time, but I can't see where L11* or L11 "all" has higher diversity anywhere. Busby seems inclined towards this undifferentiated diversity for L11 (S127) as well.  Do you see why U106 in or not in the Globular Amphora folks is a big deal? If U106, or pre-U106 L11* was over there on the other side of the Carpathians that pushes coalescence of U106, P312 and L11* quite a ways east, as in possibly right next to the Black Sea. On the other hand, if something like Baden can fully account for U106's presence in Europe then a coalescense back to the L11 TMRCA (with P312) is more easily possible in Southern or even Western Europe.

It is hard to believe L11* moved with GA culture.  It would place its origins so far to the east and very early.  However, that aside, it is rather suprising how little discussion it gets on these forums given that its spread is the right sort of time and place to have been of some importance to the whole IE question.  

Yes, it seems hard to believe that L11* would have been in the Globular Amphora (GA), but it is not hard to think U106 couldn't have been.

1) Some, i.e. Anthony, think GA had pre-Germanic IE in it and U106 is heavy in modern Germanic language areas.

2) U106's high diversity, not only in Poland, but in the Baltic area to the north east.... a little harder to reach from Austria the Hungarian Plains. Here is the Myres data on U106 all average variance. Estonia zooms to the top with Poland while Denmark and the Netherlands are of low variance.  No data on Austria, but Switzerland and Italy don't show as high. The Slovakia result still leaves open the door to a southern source.  Myres data excerpt:

Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20


This doesn't mean U106 was in GA but a pre-U106 L11* might have been instead.

So is the real smoking gun may be ancient (not the modern remnant) L11*?  The TMRCA for all of L11 was not much different than for U106 or P312 so maybe the L11 TMRCA was the clan progenitor of the early and rapid expansion of L11. The pre-U106 L11* lineage and the pre-P312 L11* lineage split and moved quickly under the "U106 in a north of Carpathians" scenario.

I've still never really understood the Beaker/Corded Ware contact/integration zone. As Richard R noted, the ancient DNA R1b may well have been U106 so U106 and P312 bifurcation and integration has to be resolved.

I've been saying I have to understand better the different Beaker cultures. They were not necessarily one people. The same probably goes for Corded Ware. That's a broad area and probably was not monolithic. Perhaps it should be considered an horizon rather than a singular culture.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 01:16:46 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 448


« Reply #46 on: September 14, 2012, 01:57:20 PM »

The problem with Cunliffe is he is obsessed with anything involving boats and the Atlantic.  He may be partly right but he is very wooly about the languages thing.  

Today has been a success already. I've learned at least one thing for sure. I had never heard the use of the word "woolly" like that before so I had to look it up.
Quote
Woolly ideas and reasoning are confused and not clear, and have not been considered carefully enough.

Heber, I definitely respect Cunliffe and Koch. Cunliffe is not a linguist though Koch may be a Celticist but is PIE and the PIE homeland part of his studies?

Cunliffe coauthored "Celtic from the West" along with Koch. IMO when the greatest experts in  Celtic Archealogy and Language in Europe come to these conclusions they have thought it through.

"One more question which needs to be explored: how did the branch of Indo-European from which Celtic arose reach Iberia? The most likly context would be with the spread of the Neolithic package from the southern Balkens across the length of the Meditteranean in the sixth millennium BC - a process which can be traced in the distribution of Neolithic material assemblages characterized by pottery decorated with impressions of the cardium shell. Enclaves of Cardial Ware users spread quickly first to Italy and then to the Meditteranean coast of France and Spain, some sailing onwards through the Strait of Gibralter to establish themselves in the Atlantic coastal areas of Iberia south of the Mondego estury around 5,000 - 4,800 BC.

Heber, I know it is not your responsibility to do this, but I still have to understand the logic before I'm convinced. I'm just not seeing the PIE connection to the Impressed Wares.

Look at the PIE lexicon that Jean M has posted. IE languages didn't disperse until they had words for things that the Impressed Wares people didn't know about. I'd also have to think PIE should have more of a Mediterranean flavor to it if Impressed Wares was a carrier. The timing and archaeology just don't fit PIE well. Did Cunliffe/Koch address the PIE lexicon issues directly or do they accept someone like Renfrew's thinking for its face value? When looking to understand the father, Italo-Celtic, it may be critical to understand the grandfather, PIE.

How do U106's distribution and the Germanic languages distribution fit into the Impressed Wares?

I've asked this before, but what are the base words of the Italo-Celtic IE dialect that are not in PIE?  They should have a Mediterranean flair to them if this IE dialect came out of the Impressed Wares.  Maybe they do, but I'd sure like to understand the unique base (not borrowed) words between Italic and Celtic that are non-PIE.

Mike,

I am sure there were many carriers of PIE. The Meditteranean Cardial Ware route, The Danube and Great Rivers route, The Steppes Route maybe even a North African route. My interest is the Celtic route and the route of Proto Celtic and Pre Proto Celtic going back to IE and PIE. I believe that once L51 secured the strategic river sources of the Rhine, Rhone , Danube, Loire as indicated on Rich Rocca's map, then greater dispersal was possible includiing for U106, P312 and downstream clades. It took maximum six months, probably less (not hundreds or thousands of years) to get from the source of these rivers or the estuaries.  I believe P312 and L21 was an Atlantic Facade Bronze Age movement, as supported by Cunliffe and Koch. Morbihan was also a strategic hub on the Atlantic Facade and this opened up the continent for what became the Iron Age Celts of Halstatt (U152). I dont believe in the "Lemmings" model where the Celts migrated from SE to NW Europe and walked over the cliffs at Dun Aengus. I believe there were many "reflux" models and backward migrations.
I am in the biggest beer garden in  Munich, Germany at the moment so it's probably not the best place to research this. I will reply in greater detail tomorrow.
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



Jarman
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #47 on: September 14, 2012, 02:36:24 PM »

So is the real smoking gun may be ancient (not the modern remnant) L11*?  The TMRCA for all of L11 was not much different than for U106 or P312 so maybe the L11 TMRCA was the clan progenitor of the early and rapid expansion of L11. The pre-U106 L11* lineage and the pre-P312 L11* lineage split and moved quickly under the "U106 in a north of Carpathians" scenario.

What has not made sense to me is the mass of L11* along the Baltic and in England as shown in the Myers map.  Perhaps this L11* is really a third brother to U106 and P312? Would that scenario allow us to return to central Europe for L11's possible origin? But how would that explain the Baltic variance numbers for U106? Problems, problems, but is the Myers map revealing a third son of L11 with an undiscovered SNP?  Any thoughts on this?
Logged
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #48 on: September 14, 2012, 02:47:27 PM »

Quote
2) U106's high diversity, not only in Poland, but in the Baltic area to the north east.... a little harder to reach from Austria the Hungarian Plains. Here is the Myres data on U106 all average variance. Estonia zooms to the top with Poland while Denmark and the Netherlands are of low variance.  No data on Austria, but Switzerland and Italy don't show as high. The Slovakia result still leaves open the door to a southern source.  Myres data excerpt:

Estonia_______ AvgVar=0.352 __N=10
Poland________ AvgVar=0.278 __N=9
Slovakia______ AvgVar=0.249 __N=11
Ireland_______ AvgVar=0.243 __N=6
Switzerland___ AvgVar=0.228 __N=19
Italy_________ AvgVar=0.226 __N=10
Germany_______ AvgVar=0.203 __N=66
France________ AvgVar=0.200 __N=6
England_______ AvgVar=0.179 __N=26
Netherlands___ AvgVar=0.177 __N=30
Denmark_______ AvgVar=0.161 __N=20
Here are Mike's variance values for U106, posted last december. They basically support Myres.

Quote
The differentiation in variance is even stronger. Eastern Europe looks like a winner.

I wasn't doing this in round 1 and 2 I don't think, but now I'm selecting only the 36 STRs (out of 67) that match the >7K yrs linear qualities according to Marko Heinila's work.

U106 All____________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=1304)

East of Ger/Aus/Ital:  Var=1.23 [Linear 36]  (N=58)   ***
Low Countries_______:  Var=0.88 [Linear 36]  (N=43)   
Alpine Area_________:  Var=0.84 [Linear 36]  (N=21)
Germany_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=102)
England_____________:  Var=0.75 [Linear 36]  (N=335)
Nordic Countries____:  Var=0.71 [Linear 36]  (N=46)

*** Czech Rep, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine
Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #49 on: September 14, 2012, 02:51:16 PM »

Did U106 originate in a Baltic refuge and P312 in an Iberian refuge? They seem to have two different routes. U106 from East to West and P312 from South to North.That would make them very old subgroups. Why would  a group of L-11 people move East and then come back across Europe as U106? Is Austria the origin of R1b?
-The Baltic area was under the ice sheet during the last ice age. There wouldn't have been a refugee there. http://ferrebeekeeper.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/europe_16000bc.jpg

-The P312 ans U106 SNPs are very closely related and seem to have popped up a few hundred years at most.

You quoted a map from 16,000 years ago. There have been people
(perhaps Hunter/Gatherers) in Scandinavia for some 6000 years. if my memory from readings are correct.

Bronze age stone art of ships and things seem to be abundant enough to know there was shipping activity in the area at that time. I..myself.. suspect the north of Scotland with places like Brogar was habited from Scandinavian peoiple including R1b types. From there they filtered southwards and S/W to Ireland. But this is my hunch.  
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 02:54:06 PM by OConnor » Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.124 seconds with 18 queries.