World Families Forums - New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 28, 2014, 03:33:19 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic  (Read 25283 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #125 on: March 06, 2010, 09:05:39 PM »

Jean
The momentous event aspect is one of the reasons why for genes (and possibly languages) the late Neolithic just has never felt convincing in terms of THE major genetic or language change event once you get beyond eastern Europe.  The incredibe chain of cultures required to link the steppes to the far west of Europe has always felt very non-Occams Razor and a bit of a house of cards to me.   
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #126 on: March 07, 2010, 04:40:05 PM »

One thing I think that needs to be remembered in terms of y-dna about SE Europe is that it is mostly I2a (P37.2) country. Even R1a is outnumbered there by I2a.

So, if R1b1b2 pushed through carrying PIE, or the Neolithic Revolution and PIE, or nomad pastoralism and PIE, I2a closed ranks behind it, took up farming or kept on farming, and either became the most frequent Balkan y haplogroup or retained that status afterwards if it had it to begin with.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2010, 04:59:11 PM by rms2 » Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #127 on: March 07, 2010, 06:28:20 PM »

One thing I think that needs to be remembered in terms of y-dna about SE Europe is that it is mostly I2a (P37.2) country. Even R1a is outnumbered there by I2a.

So, if R1b1b2 pushed through carrying PIE, or the Neolithic Revolution and PIE, or nomad pastoralism and PIE, I2a closed ranks behind it, took up farming or kept on farming, and either became the most frequent Balkan y haplogroup or retained that status afterwards if it had it to begin with.
I think it is an error to see IE as being brought to Europe exclusively by R1b. I think it quite probable that the IE intruders were a mixture of haplogroups, and wouldn't be a bit surprised if I2a was one of them.
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #128 on: March 07, 2010, 06:30:06 PM »

Jean
The momentous event aspect is one of the reasons why for genes (and possibly languages) the late Neolithic just has never felt convincing in terms of THE major genetic or language change event once you get beyond eastern Europe.  The incredibe chain of cultures required to link the steppes to the far west of Europe has always felt very non-Occams Razor and a bit of a house of cards to me.   
Often forgotten in Occam's Razor are the words "sine necessitate." It is necessary to explain how all of Europe came to speak the language of a small group of people from the steppes.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #129 on: March 07, 2010, 06:30:14 PM »

Alan - I felt just the same way a few years ago. The Neolithic seemed the obvious period for the Indo-European languages to have spread. I'm not the only one. Barry Cunliffe was inclined in the same direction. I see Prof. Cunliffe as the presiding genius of British archaeology - a towering figure. So I won't apologise for having that idea, though I now see it as short-sighted, and unsupported by the evidence, and Prof. Cunliffe is currently editing a volume that will bring back the idea of the Celts as a Bronze* Age arrival.

* Should be Copper Age, but Britain hasn't seen itself as having one worth mentioning until very recently.      
« Last Edit: March 07, 2010, 06:46:12 PM by Jean M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #130 on: March 08, 2010, 12:15:24 AM »

....  But since I find the concept that IE spread throughout Europe by cultural diffusion completely unconvincing, one has to look for some likely scenario how R1b brought the centum IE languages to Europe from the east. ....
I agree completely.  The usage of IE languages was widespread in Europe and all the way to India in an ancient age without even writing, let alone without significant global communications.

Something happened that spread IE.  Then you have to wonder about all of these heavily Celtic (IE) territorities where R1b1b2 has become so thick.  Not saying other versions of R1b1b2 or R1b1 didn't touch Europe without IE, but some seemed to hit in a heavy way.

To be frank, the more I read of dating in archeology, the more I feel like genetic dating and language dating will be of huge help.  I don't see anything that is "rock solid" so all the puzzle pieces must fall in place, even if it is a complex scenario.  Occam's razor is an application of logic, but it is not always the truth.
Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #131 on: March 08, 2010, 07:18:44 AM »

Occam's razor is simply the rule that we should select the simplest explanation that explains all the evidence.

The idea that IE was spread in  the Neolithic was powerfully appealing in its simplicity, I agree. But it does not explain all the evidence. Not remotely.  

I have no doubt that the Neolithic was spread across Europe by real, live farmers, rather than cultural diffusion. I have no doubt that they brought a new language, or languages with them. So it is not surprising that Renfrew should assume that this language was IE.

Unfortunately for him, there is insurmountable evidence against the idea. It must be very galling for him in his retirement. He can't be wheeled out to say "I told you so.  I was right all along.", when each study comes along proving him right about the Neolithic being  spread by demic diffusion, because he was wrong in all the details with which he clothed the idea - the contribution that was his own. He thought that the European Neolithic :

1) spread by a steady "wave of advance". Wrong.
2) spread into Europe from Anatolia. Wrong.
3) Carried IE languages. Wrong.  
 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 07:28:38 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #132 on: March 08, 2010, 07:45:44 AM »

To be fair to Lord Renfrew, he abandoned the simple version of his idea some years ago, in the face of all the contrary evidence, linguistic and archaeological. He and Cavalli-Sforza developed a two-wave model in which

1) the original Anatolian farmers spoke Pre-Proto-Indo-European and spread it with farming, eventually reaching the South Russian steppe, from which
2) the "Kurgan" expansions spread Proto-Indo-European.  

This resolves the two major problems with the simple version:

1) PIE has words for things not invented much before 3,500 BC.
2) There is a clear archaeological trail from the Yamnaya onto the Asian steppe, where there is continuity of kurgan-builders right up the identifiably IE-speaking Scythians.  

It is still wrong, however, on several counts. Dropping the whole idea of any connection between the Neolithic and IE is the only way forward.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 07:49:02 AM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #133 on: March 08, 2010, 08:59:16 AM »


I think it is an error to see IE as being brought to Europe exclusively by R1b. I think it quite probable that the IE intruders were a mixture of haplogroups, and wouldn't be a bit surprised if I2a was one of them.

Except that someone had to be indigenous to that region and non-IE to start with. I2a is a good candidate for that. They got to be IE by learning it from the group that introduced it to that area.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #134 on: March 08, 2010, 09:03:54 AM »

Alan - I felt just the same way a few years ago. The Neolithic seemed the obvious period for the Indo-European languages to have spread. I'm not the only one. Barry Cunliffe was inclined in the same direction. I see Prof. Cunliffe as the presiding genius of British archaeology - a towering figure. So I won't apologise for having that idea, though I now see it as short-sighted, and unsupported by the evidence, and Prof. Cunliffe is currently editing a volume that will bring back the idea of the Celts as a Bronze* Age arrival.

* Should be Copper Age, but Britain hasn't seen itself as having one worth mentioning until very recently.      

In his Europe Between the Oceans, Cunliffe theorizes that Celtic actually developed as a lingua franca among IE speakers along the Atlantic Facade, or within what he calls the Atlantic Bronze Age Network (if I am recalling the exact term correctly). I believe John Koch, who is a highly respected Celticist, has the same notion, i.e., that Celtic first arose in the West and actually spread east.

It's an interesting idea anyway.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 09:05:04 AM by rms2 » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #135 on: March 08, 2010, 12:54:45 PM »

Yes Europe Between the Oceans caught Prof Cunliffe in mid-shift from the old paradigm (nobody moved around in prehistory except a few traders) to the new (migration is respectable again). He points out the latter and adds his weight to the pendulum swing in principle, but had not worked it through in practice for the Celts.

However he is very keen to get on to that. He is part of the project Ancient Britain and the Atlantic Zone: a project of the Centre for Advanced Welsh & Celtic Studies, University of Wales, examining the evidence from linguistics, archaeology and genetics for British Celtic origins in the Atlantic Bronze Age. A volume is to be published in 2010, edited by Professors John T. Koch and Sir Barry Cunliffe, of papers presented at Celticization from the West (December 2008).

Personally I doubt that this will turn out to be the last word. It is based on DNA studies now out of date. But we shall see.

« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 12:56:57 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #136 on: March 08, 2010, 06:52:25 PM »

The Atlantic Bronze Age is such a wooly concept though.  It often just looks like 'all the other stuff we cant call Urnfied, Nordic Bronze etc'.  Besides, from an R1b1b2 clade point of view Atlantic Iberia and Atlantic Britain really couldnt be more different.  L21 points to an isles-northern France-west-central Europe-Norway? link not the trendy Atlantic link all the way from the Orkneys to Porugal down the Atlantic.  Otherwise how would Irish Gaelic surnamed people be so heavily L21 positive and Iberians so heavily L21 negative.  Indeed what L21 there is among the Iberians seems to be in the Basque area bordering France not in the Atlantic seaboard areas of Iberia normally linked to Bronze Age trade.     
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #137 on: March 08, 2010, 07:01:00 PM »

I knew that you wouldn't like it Alan. Have to admit that my heart sank a bit when I saw which way he was headed. On both archaeological and genetic evidence, we can't rule out some contact via the Atlantic seaboard, but it doesn't look like the main event.   

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #138 on: March 08, 2010, 07:20:36 PM »

If the Koch/Cunliffe basically creates an Atlantic group by lumping all S28-ve/U106-ve M269 together OR uses S116 but not L21 then the concusions will be all wrong. A study of Atlantic fringe genetic links is worthless without L21.  
« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 07:30:15 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #139 on: March 08, 2010, 07:29:54 PM »

I knew that you wouldn't like it Alan. Have to admit that my heart sank a bit when I saw which way he was headed. On both archaeological and genetic evidence, we can't rule out some contact via the Atlantic seaboard, but it doesn't look like the main event.  


It will be like the Blood of the Irish series which was made when the western Ice Age refugia idea was still gong but by the time it was broadcast it was already becoming clear through S116, L21 and new ideas of R1b dating that the model presented was absolutely wrong.

As for the Atlantic contact, I see it more as a relay thing with contact not being long distance in a direct sense but through a series of flinks in a long chain, trhe ends of which never meet.  The middleman in the chain I think was probably NW France which would be an ideal meeting point of central European and Iberian cntacts. 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 07:36:06 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #140 on: March 08, 2010, 07:35:45 PM »

The problem is the long lead-up to books and TV programmes.
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #141 on: March 09, 2010, 12:04:42 AM »

The problem is the long lead-up to books and TV programmes.
I don't think there has been a book yet on the genetic make up in Europe that wasn't out of date by the time it was published. New discoveries are moving far too fast for the academics and pseudo-academics to keep up with.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #142 on: March 09, 2010, 09:04:51 PM »

Well, early in the L21 story I emailed Professor Koch and informed him of the discovery of L21 and the way things were headed. He never responded to my email, but I did what I could.
Logged

Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #143 on: March 09, 2010, 10:35:35 PM »

My favorite film quote seems appropriate. It references Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in the Cider House Rules, but seems appropriate for a lot of fields. I think the actual quote is “When the morons who write the books”.

Cider House Rules Quote

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/cider_house_rules.html

http://www.literaturemaster.com/ebooks/115/2/items/27481741/27481741.pdf

LARCH
   Fuzzy is not uncommon. I tell you,
   there's something about the premature
   babies of alcoholic mothers. They
   seem susceptible to every  thing
   that comes along.

         HOMER
   I haven't read that.

         LARCH
   I haven't, either. But you *will*.
   The morons who write the books should
   do a little research *here*.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2010, 10:36:20 PM by Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen » Logged
argiedude
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #144 on: March 26, 2010, 06:31:58 PM »

This is an update of the maps I made of R1b1b2 diversity, because yhrd has recently added hundres of samples from southeast Europe.



http://s88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/R1b1b2variance-ht15updatedafteryhrd.gif

Would be interesting to calculate the diversity of those Belgian Brabant samples.
Logged

y-dna: R1b L21
mtdna: U5
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2158


« Reply #145 on: March 27, 2010, 03:54:43 AM »

Your map demonstrates clearly that R-L51+ and subclades was born probably in Central Europe, what I have never denied. My hypothesis was that from R1b1* to R-L150+ were born in Italy and then expanded to Central Europe.
If it is true the theory of Jean Manco and others of an origin farther East it should be demonstrated. But in your calculations I think we shouldn't forget that one thing is a country where R is 90/80/70 % and another the countries where it is 10/15% like in Anatolia, the Caucasus etc.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #146 on: March 27, 2010, 07:00:52 AM »

Argiedude-your map of ht15 is broadly in line with Tim Jansen's variance findings for S116* and U152.  He also found that the most variance was in the area you outline in blue and some evidence of an east-west trend.  However, Tim calculated in terms of dates and in fact the contrast between the older ht15 in Europe north of the Alps (Russia to France) and southern Europe/SW Asia was very sharp.  So you found the same trends but Tim makes the contrast much greater in his S116* and U152 calculations (admittedly with very small samples in some areas).  

That sort of trajectory would best fit movements heading west from landlocked part of eastern Europe along the Danube.  It amazing what a difference the seperation of ht15 off from ht35 makes. It seems the two groups split early, possibly before or as R1b was entering Europe presumably a splinter group broke off and found itself on an east-central European trajectory.  

My own guess in that the acestors of ht15 somehow broke away from the ancestral ht35 group of SW Asian/Anatolia/SE Europe and passed into the the landlocked Lower Danubian area north of the Balkans either having come from the Balkans or direct from Anatolia.  I suppose one other possible route would be by sea from the Levant to the extreme north-east shore of the Adriatic and into east-central Europe from there but I do not think the variance supports that.  I cannot think of any other possible routes to link the ht15 and ht35 areas in a way that is supported by the variance calculations.   One way or other if you separate the two groups and look at their variace, ht15 has a very different European history ftrm ht35.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2010, 07:11:01 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #147 on: March 27, 2010, 07:37:05 AM »

The Moroccan/Algerian anomoly has been noted before.  Its a kind of an outlier with values not otherwise approached in southern Europe and more like higher values in east-central and northern Europe.  I suppose the question is what is the origin of ht15 there?  What clades are there?  Could this be down to European colonial history there which is unusually complex and spread from the Iron Age to the 20th century and included several groups who may have brought varieties of Ht15: the Romans, Greeks/Byzantines, Vandals, Visagoths, Turks, Spanish, French etc.  There were pre-Roman empires that included this area too although they seem less likely to have been a major source of ht15.  Could the arrival of different ht15 groups from across Europe in multiple phases spread across 2000 years or more have led to this variance?  There are few places in Europe itself that have been subject to such a diversity of colonisation. Usually in wars and conflict in Europe it was adjacent countries attacking and invading each other but in north Africa the colonial history was unusual.  There must be few place in the world which have been so constantly effected by expanding empires and colonialism for so long, including (but certainly not exclusivey) European colonisation.  Just read the wiki pages for Morroco and Algeria!  
« Last Edit: March 27, 2010, 07:40:16 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
argiedude
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #148 on: March 27, 2010, 05:04:28 PM »

Now I've updated the ht35 variance map.



http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/R1b1b2variance-ht35updatedafteryhrd.gif

Note that North Africa's high value in the previous map was calculated using just 5 samples, but now I've increased that to 18, and the variance stayed the same, even slightly rose from 0,30 to 0,31. This then lends credence to the other high value in western Iberia.

One interesting thing I noticed while doing this is the existence of an ht35 cluster with 392=14 and 389B=15 (usually resulting in 389II=28). This cluster seems to accompany ht35 everywhere. In Anatolia and the Levant, it's about 20% of the ht35 samples. In Europe, from Iberia to Greece, it's between 5% and 10% of the ht35 samples. The unusually high result seen for the Baltic/Finnish region is due to 3 of the 9 ht35 samples belonging to this 392=14 cluster (and the very low sample size). Incredibly, this clade exists even in India, where it constituted 3 of 14 ht35 samples, or 20% of their ht35.
Logged

y-dna: R1b L21
mtdna: U5
argiedude
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #149 on: March 28, 2010, 11:47:20 AM »

The high variance of R1b1b2 in Turkey and nearby areas such as the Levant is an artifact due to the presence of the 392=14/389B=15 cluster. This cluster makes up 20% of the ht35 samples in these regions, or for that matter, 20% of all their R1b1b2. The cluster has 3 off modal values, in 391=10, 392=14, and 389B=15 (usually 389II=28). These off modal values result in false mutational steps being counted when calculating variance. For this same reason I excluded the Irish M222+ cluster when calculating the variance of Ireland. If I had included the Irish M222+ samples the variance of ht15 in Ireland would have jumped from 0,220 to 0,263, which you can see in the map of ht15 variance I posted 2 days ago would change Ireland's standing hugely. The 392=14/389B=15 cluster has the same number of off modal differences from the general ht35 modal as the Irish M222+ does from the ht15 general modal, and both clusters make up about 20% of the R1b1b2 samples in Ireland and Turkey, so we would expect a similar change in Turkey's variance after eliminating the samples in the 392=14/389B=15 cluster. And that's exactly what happened.

The original estimate for Turkey, which is the one shown in the ht35 variance map I posted yesterday, is 0,314, using 60 samples. After eliminating 13 samples that belong to the 392=14/389B=15 cluster, the variance drops to 0,255. The change, in percentage terms, is just slightly greater than in the case of Ireland: 20% and 23%. As expected.

But this has interesting implications, because this 392=14/389B=15 cluster is much rarer anywhere in Europe, usually constituting just 5% of their ht35 samples, which means their recalculated variances after eliminating this cluster won't drop nearly as much as Turkey's or the Levant's variance. And since Italy and southeast Europe already had a variance that was equal to Turkey and the Levant, the result should be that Italy and southeast Europe will have slightly higher ht35 variance than Turkey or the Levant. And that's what happened. For now, I've estimated North Italy and all of southeast Europe combined. For North Italy I got an estimate of 0,28, and for southeast Europe somewhere around 0,27. The initial values were around 0,30. In either case, the number of samples was 100 or more, and the 392=14/389B=15 cluster constituted just 6% and 8% of the ht35 samples.

This ht35 cluster is pretty rock solid, by the way. It has 3 off-modal values, leaving little doubt about its validity, and it consistently appears everywhere that ht35 is present, even in India, where it makes up 20% of the sub-continent's ht35 samples (I think there were 3 out of 14 samples).
« Last Edit: March 28, 2010, 11:56:50 AM by argiedude » Logged

y-dna: R1b L21
mtdna: U5
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 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 0.146 seconds with 18 queries.