World Families Forums - Wow! R-L21+'s twelve founders (sons) - Anatole's view

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 18, 2014, 07:56:08 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)
| | |-+  Wow! R-L21+'s twelve founders (sons) - Anatole's view
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Wow! R-L21+'s twelve founders (sons) - Anatole's view  (Read 6670 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #50 on: October 25, 2009, 07:51:02 PM »

Mike I agree with your main thrust, but I don't know of anyone who places PIE in Central Asia. The favoured homeland for decades has been the Pontic-Caspian steppe, north of the Black Sea and west of the Ural Mountains i.e. just inside SE Europe. ....  
I don't have a different perspective, just not a clear idea on where Central Asia, West Asia, East Europe really separate. (that's my fault.. not educated on it.)

 I meant you what you are saying, the Pontic-Steppes.  I do also think the Caucasus and Anatolia are possibilities.
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #51 on: October 25, 2009, 08:26:11 PM »

I think that the main reason the Neolithic stands out is it was a really unique demographic window associated with a huge change in economy from hunting etc to farming and increasingly (after a fashion for continuity) is seen as a clean break with the past in terms of culture/technology in most parts of Europe (see 'Europe's First Farmers' and various recent mtDNA studies).  I am not sure that the beaker culture if it really was a population movement possessed any comparable economic-demographic window of opportunity or presents a clean break.
  
However, I would not rule out the beaker origin of R1b1b2 or S116 anyway.  I never agreed with academics who felt that the beaker period was simply a cult or whatever.  Too many new elements and trends appear at this time.  It was not anything like the clean break we saw in the early Neolithic (just look at Stonehenge’s long story before and after the arrival of beakers) but there was a lot of new things going on.  I feel that if they were a movement that eventually contributed something as major as R1b1b2 to western Europe then they must have got there by some slow burn advantage that allowed their lineages to grow over centuries rather than some sort of knock out invasion scenario.
  
The best scenario I can imagine for a beaker origin is that an outside group of related mobile clans widely dispersed into small pockets all over western Europe when they were initially welcomed and settled by local tribes as they provided knowledge of and gained status through their ability to procure and produce metals and metalwork.  At first this would not have been any sort of decisive advantage but perhaps they slowly transformed themselves from traders, miners and craftsmen with a niche role providing shiny copper ornaments and ornamental copper weapons into people with the serious advantage of Bronze weapons and indeed slowly further transformed into a proto warrior class.  A sort of Trojan horse had been allowed in by the local Neolithic tribes.  

Perhaps this group remained distinct because they had a totally different modus operandi than the localised old tribes. Their niche and wealth depended on mobility, trade and even internationalism to procure supplies of copper, tin, gold and latterly lead.  They would have needed to maintain a lingua franca (their original language?) to perform this role.  Ultimately this may have given them a huge advantage over the more inward looking localised tribes.  I think they may have operated a bit like the extended lineages or clans in Dark Ages Ireland, Scotland and Wales i.e. as a widespread dynamic group of linked if unstable clans rather than a stable concentration of people such as a tribe with a king.  Maybe for a while the land based tribal chiefs and these more mobile widely connected clans co-existed but at some point fairly rapidly their showy individualistic warrior orientated subculture came to dominate and they took over the reigns of power.  

I think in Ireland a model along those lines fits very well. There was clearly an early arrival of beakers and metallurgy in Ireland but classic beaker culture and burials did not predominate.  During the actual beaker period, beaker mining was present and beaker culture artefacts were widespread in Ireland but burials continued in the indigenous late Neolithic tradition of poorly adorned cremations suggesting that the beaker people remained in a niche position and not in power or major dictators of fashion.  It’s also interesting that the only regular beaker associated type of grave, wedge tombs, were located in the rocky west and north and not the best lands of the east although there were perhaps most metal sources in those poorer lands.  

It was only a few centuries years later when the beakers give way to the food vessels and copper fully gave way to bronze that there appears a delayed assertion of the beaker style burial traditions of individual burials with whole pots, inhumation, crouched posture, warrior/archer grave good elements within the burials etc.  Interestingly this sudden delayed appearance of beaker style traditions is predominantly in the eastern half of the country.  I wonder if this marked the beaker lineages ceasing to be a niche or marginal element and stamping their values on the country.  
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #52 on: October 26, 2009, 11:45:40 AM »

Alan - You are a Time Lord! I am normally impressed with your ability to think yourself into the past, but this last post is extraordinary.

One thing that I have tried to get across in my few pages online is the complexity of migration. The pendulum is now swinging away from the love affair with continuity, but that does not mean returning to thinking in terms of "waves of invasion". There were straightforward invasions of course. But the past is a messy place, with a lot of different kinds of movement going on.

Time and again we can discern the type of pattern you envisage. Newcomers can filter in gradually and only take over control centuries later e.g. Semitic-speakers in Sumer, Mycenaeans in Greece.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #53 on: October 26, 2009, 02:41:30 PM »

Yes I think delayed hegemony with an originally friendly and useful subordinate element toppling their masters  may be a lot more common than people think.  Sort of a prehistoric version of the Vortigern story.  The first generations may be missing or only scantily hinted at in the record and by the time they are in power they may have sort of gone a little native.  That could seriously blur the sharp edges of junctons of change in the archaeology record.  Certainly the smaller movements.

With the beaker people, imagine just how useful a sophisticated national and international network of alies and contacts would have been when it came to the crunch against localised inward looking and small scale tribes possibly led by chiefs and kings with a theocratic outlook. Add to that that increasingly they had control over the material needed to make and the supply of real Bronze weapons (not just copper and gold ornaments) and you can see there would only ever be one winner. 

I actually have long thought that the essence of the Celts is that they were the overgrown decendants of elites that were originally grown on  control of trade etc.  They were still doing this 2000 years later even in the Hallstatt C period.  I have always felt that by the time we see the Celts in the Hallstatt D and La Tene periods their real glory days were behind them and that was really just a localised Indian summer based on a couple of surviving trade nodes with the Med. associated with wine etc  The ubiquitous nature of Iron dealt a big blow to people who have built a lot of their wealth and owed their hegemony to contol over less easily obtained metals like copper, tin and gold. 
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #54 on: October 26, 2009, 03:52:53 PM »

Blimey Alan. More good stuff. Your'e on a roll! This should be in print somewhere.

Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 29, 2009, 10:13:34 AM »

I think that the main reason the Neolithic stands out is it was a really unique demographic window associated with a huge change in economy from hunting etc to farming and increasingly (after a fashion for continuity) is seen as a clean break with the past in terms of culture/technology in most parts of Europe (see 'Europe's First Farmers' and various recent mtDNA studies).  I am not sure that the beaker culture if it really was a population movement possessed any comparable economic-demographic window of opportunity or presents a clean break.
  
However, I would not rule out the beaker origin of R1b1b2 or S116 anyway.  I never agreed with academics who felt that the beaker period was simply a cult or whatever.  Too many new elements and trends appear at this time.  It was not anything like the clean break we saw in the early Neolithic (just look at Stonehenge’s long story before and after the arrival of beakers) but there was a lot of new things going on.  I feel that if they were a movement that eventually contributed something as major as R1b1b2 to western Europe then they must have got there by some slow burn advantage that allowed their lineages to grow over centuries rather than some sort of knock out invasion scenario.
  
The best scenario I can imagine for a beaker origin is that an outside group of related mobile clans widely dispersed into small pockets all over western Europe when they were initially welcomed and settled by local tribes as they provided knowledge of and gained status through their ability to procure and produce metals and metalwork.  At first this would not have been any sort of decisive advantage but perhaps they slowly transformed themselves from traders, miners and craftsmen with a niche role providing shiny copper ornaments and ornamental copper weapons into people with the serious advantage of Bronze weapons and indeed slowly further transformed into a proto warrior class.  A sort of Trojan horse had been allowed in by the local Neolithic tribes.  

Perhaps this group remained distinct because they had a totally different modus operandi than the localised old tribes. Their niche and wealth depended on mobility, trade and even internationalism to procure supplies of copper, tin, gold and latterly lead.  They would have needed to maintain a lingua franca (their original language?) to perform this role.  Ultimately this may have given them a huge advantage over the more inward looking localised tribes.  I think they may have operated a bit like the extended lineages or clans in Dark Ages Ireland, Scotland and Wales i.e. as a widespread dynamic group of linked if unstable clans rather than a stable concentration of people such as a tribe with a king.  Maybe for a while the land based tribal chiefs and these more mobile widely connected clans co-existed but at some point fairly rapidly their showy individualistic warrior orientated subculture came to dominate and they took over the reigns of power.  

I think in Ireland a model along those lines fits very well. There was clearly an early arrival of beakers and metallurgy in Ireland but classic beaker culture and burials did not predominate.  During the actual beaker period, beaker mining was present and beaker culture artefacts were widespread in Ireland but burials continued in the indigenous late Neolithic tradition of poorly adorned cremations suggesting that the beaker people remained in a niche position and not in power or major dictators of fashion.  It’s also interesting that the only regular beaker associated type of grave, wedge tombs, were located in the rocky west and north and not the best lands of the east although there were perhaps most metal sources in those poorer lands.  

It was only a few centuries years later when the beakers give way to the food vessels and copper fully gave way to bronze that there appears a delayed assertion of the beaker style burial traditions of individual burials with whole pots, inhumation, crouched posture, warrior/archer grave good elements within the burials etc.  Interestingly this sudden delayed appearance of beaker style traditions is predominantly in the eastern half of the country.  I wonder if this marked the beaker lineages ceasing to be a niche or marginal element and stamping their values on the country.  

Hans De Beule has been studying I subclades and he found that I-L38's (I2b2) distribution has a correlation with R-L21*'s.
http://www.dna-forums.org/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=1811

De Beule's hypothesis was that the Michelsberg culture must have carried both R-L21* and I-L38 out of Rhineland Palatinate and Suttgart areas.
However, here is the response he received from a scientist who's specialty is Michelsberg.
Quote from: Dirk Fabian
Dear Mr De Beule, thank you very much for your interesting paper! Being by no means an expert on genetics, I can only comment on the distribution of I-L38 in relation to possibly contemporaneous archaeological groups.
Michelsberg is dated from c. 4200 to 3500/3400 cal BC; early sites aredistributed form eastern France to the western fringe of the Middle Elbe-Saale region (new finds in eastern Lower Saxony).
In my opinion Michelsberg in it's core reflects a highly mobile society, developing in the Aisne-Meuse-Rhine-region and spreading rapidly in eastern direction.
Cattle breeding seems to play an important role, and thought here are still many agricultural elements, the society may be partly dominated by herdsmen.
In it's late phases (MK IV-V) Michelsberg seems to be more dense in central Germany than the actual distribution maps suggest, interacting closely with the emerging Baalberge Culture.
There is only sparse evidence for a connection of Michelsberg with early copper metallurgy. In relation to the Lichtenstein cave, which is dated to the LBA andthe MCRA value of 4800 +-1050 cal BP, Michelsberg may be a little bit to old for a correlation with I-L38.
If there is a certain correlation between I-L38 and R-L21, the distribution centers of the latter in the the Rhine region and the British Isles resemble the Bell Beaker distribution, which shows a similar density pattern (with the exception of Ireland).
The first Bell Beakers (AOO) appear as early as 2600 cal BC.
This relation is of course not more than just a vague guess. The Bell Beaker Culture is the last Neolithic/Copper Age culture, leading to the EBA. The first EBA groups in the Rhine, Danube and Elbe/Saale regions (Adlerberg,Singen, Straubing, Aunjetitz/Unetice) start around 2400/2200 cal BC.
Best regards & Happy Easter, Dirk Fabian

« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 10:18:17 AM by Mike » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #56 on: October 29, 2009, 10:21:43 AM »

I think that the main reason the Neolithic stands out is it was a really unique demographic window associated with a huge change in economy from hunting etc to farming and increasingly (after a fashion for continuity) is seen as a clean break with the past in terms of culture/technology in most parts of Europe (see 'Europe's First Farmers' and various recent mtDNA studies).  I am not sure that the beaker culture if it really was a population movement possessed any comparable economic-demographic window of opportunity or presents a clean break.
  
However, I would not rule out the beaker origin of R1b1b2 or S116 anyway.  I never agreed with academics who felt that the beaker period was simply a cult or whatever.  Too many new elements and trends appear at this time.  It was not anything like the clean break we saw in the early Neolithic (just look at Stonehenge’s long story before and after the arrival of beakers) but there was a lot of new things going on.  I feel that if they were a movement that eventually contributed something as major as R1b1b2 to western Europe then they must have got there by some slow burn advantage that allowed their lineages to grow over centuries rather than some sort of knock out invasion scenario.
  
The best scenario I can imagine for a beaker origin is that an outside group of related mobile clans widely dispersed into small pockets all over western Europe when they were initially welcomed and settled by local tribes as they provided knowledge of and gained status through their ability to procure and produce metals and metalwork.  At first this would not have been any sort of decisive advantage but perhaps they slowly transformed themselves from traders, miners and craftsmen with a niche role providing shiny copper ornaments and ornamental copper weapons into people with the serious advantage of Bronze weapons and indeed slowly further transformed into a proto warrior class.  A sort of Trojan horse had been allowed in by the local Neolithic tribes.  

Perhaps this group remained distinct because they had a totally different modus operandi than the localised old tribes. Their niche and wealth depended on mobility, trade and even internationalism to procure supplies of copper, tin, gold and latterly lead.  They would have needed to maintain a lingua franca (their original language?) to perform this role.  Ultimately this may have given them a huge advantage over the more inward looking localised tribes.  I think they may have operated a bit like the extended lineages or clans in Dark Ages Ireland, Scotland and Wales i.e. as a widespread dynamic group of linked if unstable clans rather than a stable concentration of people such as a tribe with a king.  Maybe for a while the land based tribal chiefs and these more mobile widely connected clans co-existed but at some point fairly rapidly their showy individualistic warrior orientated subculture came to dominate and they took over the reigns of power.  

I think in Ireland a model along those lines fits very well. There was clearly an early arrival of beakers and metallurgy in Ireland but classic beaker culture and burials did not predominate.  During the actual beaker period, beaker mining was present and beaker culture artefacts were widespread in Ireland but burials continued in the indigenous late Neolithic tradition of poorly adorned cremations suggesting that the beaker people remained in a niche position and not in power or major dictators of fashion.  It’s also interesting that the only regular beaker associated type of grave, wedge tombs, were located in the rocky west and north and not the best lands of the east although there were perhaps most metal sources in those poorer lands.  

It was only a few centuries years later when the beakers give way to the food vessels and copper fully gave way to bronze that there appears a delayed assertion of the beaker style burial traditions of individual burials with whole pots, inhumation, crouched posture, warrior/archer grave good elements within the burials etc.  Interestingly this sudden delayed appearance of beaker style traditions is predominantly in the eastern half of the country.  I wonder if this marked the beaker lineages ceasing to be a niche or marginal element and stamping their values on the country.  

Hans De Beule has been studying I subclades and he found that I-L38's (I2b2) distribution has a correlation with R-L21*'s.
http://www.dna-forums.org/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=1811

De Beule's hypothesis was that the Michelsberg culture must have carried both R-L21* and I-L38 out of Rhineland Palatinate and Suttgart areas.
However, here is the response he received from a scientist who's specialty is Michelsberg.
Quote from: Dirk Fabian
Dear Mr De Beule, thank you very much for your interesting paper! Being by no means an expert on genetics, I can only comment on the distribution of I-L38 in relation to possibly contemporaneous archaeological groups.
Michelsberg is dated from c. 4200 to 3500/3400 cal BC; early sites are distributed form eastern France to the western fringe of the Middle Elbe-Saale region (new finds in eastern Lower Saxony).
In my opinion Michelsberg in it's core reflects a highly mobile society, developing in the Aisne-Meuse-Rhine-region and spreading rapidly in eastern direction.
Cattle breeding seems to play an important role, and thought here are still many agricultural elements, the society may be partly dominated by herdsmen.
In it's late phases (MK IV-V) Michelsberg seems to be more dense in central Germany than the actual distribution maps suggest, interacting closely with the emerging Baalberge Culture.
There is only sparse evidence for a connection of Michelsberg with early copper metallurgy. In relation to the Lichtenstein cave, which is dated to the LBA andthe MCRA value of 4800 +-1050 cal BP, Michelsberg may be a little bit to old for a correlation with I-L38.
If there is a certain correlation between I-L38 and R-L21, the distribution centers of the latter in the the Rhine region and the British Isles resemble the Bell Beaker distribution, which shows a similar density pattern (with the exception of Ireland).
The first Bell Beakers (AOO) appear as early as 2600 cal BC.
This relation is of course not more than just a vague guess. The Bell Beaker Culture is the last Neolithic/Copper Age culture, leading to the EBA. The first EBA groups in the Rhine, Danube and Elbe/Saale regions (Adlerberg,Singen, Straubing, Aunjetitz/Unetice) start around 2400/2200 cal BC.
Best regards & Happy Easter, Dirk Fabian

Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
bart otoole
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #57 on: December 13, 2009, 04:46:57 PM »

I apologize for coming late to the discussion on this, but I just chanced across this post.

I'm familiar with Mike's spreadsheets and Anatole's diagrams - the diagrams got me interested in creating my own phylograms for my particular L21 cluster.

I got lost when Anatole discussed the null 425 cluster based on 14 data sets (of which I am one of the data sets) and time frames.  Dates seemed to come and go quickly in this post.

Did he actually mean that the null 425 cluster in L21 is 2575 (or 4000) years old?  I got lost when he was referring to the overall L21 at 3375.



« Last Edit: December 13, 2009, 04:47:33 PM by bart otoole » Logged

yDNA L21+ null 425


mtDNA T2e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #58 on: December 13, 2009, 05:52:55 PM »

I apologize for coming late to the discussion on this, but I just chanced across this post.

I'm familiar with Mike's spreadsheets and Anatole's diagrams - the diagrams got me interested in creating my own phylograms for my particular L21 cluster.

I got lost when Anatole discussed the null 425 cluster based on 14 data sets (of which I am one of the data sets) and time frames.  Dates seemed to come and go quickly in this post.

Did he actually mean that the null 425 cluster in L21 is 2575 (or 4000) years old?  I got lost when he was referring to the overall L21 at 3375.
My interpretation of his email (towards the beginning of this topic) is that the L21+ common ancestor lived around 3675 years before present (ybp), however, L21+ might have actually formed about 4500 ybp.  The common ancestor for the R-L21* guys with 425=null as 2576 ybp, however, it formed 4400 ybp.

The only way I understand it logically is that he meant that one guy (surviving lineage) with L21+ and 425=null came to Europe about 2576 ybp, whereas the common ancestor in Europe for all of (the rest?) of L21+ is about 3675 ybp.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 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 0.123 seconds with 18 queries.