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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 17, 2014, 08:40:46 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)
| | |-+  New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: New paper: R1b1b2 (R-M269) spread from Near East in Neolithic  (Read 19131 times)
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #100 on: February 22, 2010, 01:09:32 PM »

Your theories are like the calculations of Klyosov, where the sons are always older than the fathers.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #101 on: February 22, 2010, 01:51:27 PM »

You know, I don't have a firm position on this anymore. The only thing I am fairly confident of is that R1b1b2 wasn't around during the last Ice Age or the Younger Dryas and that R1b and its offspring did not spend those last two lengthy cold snaps in Iberia.

I've read Mallory and Anthony and other authors who favor the so-called Kurgan Theory, and I've read Renfrew, who advanced the idea that Indo-European was spread by farmers out of Anatolia.

Who's right? I cannot say with any confidence.

Maybe I missed something, but where's the evidence of early Steppe horse culture in Western Europe? That's an honest question. If IE was spread by horse-riding semi-nomads from the Steppe, where is that Steppe horse-riding culture in France or Britain or Spain during the right time frame? I mean, Western Europe is thoroughly Indo-European (with the exception of a small minority, the Basques), so shouldn't we be seeing some Steppe-style kurgans with horses in them, if IE was spread from the Steppe?

Those are sincere questions. If anyone can point me in the direction of some nice, conclusive-looking Steppe kurgans in Western Europe, unmistakably connected to those in Eastern Europe, then please do so. I would be happy to read about them.

Did R1b1b2 come out of the Steppe and spread IE on foot? Western Europe was still using its little, puny native ponies when the Scythians moved into the Danube Valley in the 7th century BC.

Here's another thing. I don't see the Steppe culture of the 4th millenium BC or the third millenium BC as so startlingly superior that all its neighbors would want to start speaking whatever its language was. And, yes, I've read all about the domestication of horses and the development of wagons and chariots.

But farming and animal husbandry, those were amazing developments. They secured a consistent and reliable source of food that enabled the growth of population and of civilization and the specialization attendant upon it.

There are problems with Renfrew's IE farmers scenario, too. I realize that.

One thing that comes to my mind is that horses were used in wagon or chariot before they were bred to the size for riding.

Maybe the kurgan horse-type burial mounds were after the initial expansion.
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


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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #102 on: February 22, 2010, 02:26:26 PM »

I take VV's point on board.  I totally agree that although ht35 is upstream of ht15 there is no reason per se  to say its order of arrival in every area always reflected the order of the haplotype phylogeny.  I am sure there are examples of this in many places.  The only reason I thought ht35 was earlier in Italy was Argiedude's diversity map which for SE Europe shows a large areas of ht35 of simiilar variance from the Levant to Italy. Argiedudes diversity counts seem to suggest that in that core early ht35 area it spead a little earlier than ht15, perhaps even just before the latter came into existance.  I took from both Argiedudes diversity map of ht15 and Tim Jansen's rootsweb calculations for variance of the main ht15 clades (calculated seperately) that ht15 came into existance somewhere beyond the Med. (my guess would be east-central Europe or the north Balkans) or at least among a group that was heading north and west (perhaps east) but not south.  Their calculations seem to suggest that ht15 started in that sort of area and headed west through central Europe (also moving up the north-flowing rivers of the area) reaching as far as the Atlantic fringe eventually.   However, Tim's  variance calculations seem to suggest ht15 did not extend into the Italy and the SE of Europe, Asia Minor etc until much later and that seems to agree with Argiedude's diversity maps.   
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 02:28:49 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #103 on: February 22, 2010, 02:48:18 PM »

Basically Tims maps (which only cover three ht15 clades' variance) and Argiedude's maps (which study both ht15 and ht35 individually) are in close agreement with regard to the one thing they both study - ht 15.  Ht 15 seems to have only become significant when it was in eastern Europe beyond the Med. area and its history is essentially one of an east-west spread through central Europe from the east to the Atlantic followed only far later by migration into the mid-east Med. area.  My impression is that the main original east-west movement was so quick that it gives the impression of sameness but IMO the east-west trajectory can still be detected in both Tim and Argiedude's work.  

In contrast, only Argiedude (not Tim) has dealt with ht35 and his diversity maps seem to show a movement that commenced slightly earlier than ht15's to the north but was also so rapid that direction is less obvious.  Personally I think VV's ht35 phylogeny/geography work does point to a big picture of an eastern origin for ht35 and its westward spread along the Med. at least as far as Italy (albeit one that was rapid enough to blur the east-west gradient when measured by diversity).

The scenario of two fast movements of a common root but distinct subsequent routes one heading slightly earlier along the Med. and the other slightly later along a central European route, both heading on a mainly east-west trajectory but keeping strongly separated amd not meeting until the far Atlantic fringe of Euro is very tempting to parallel with the dual Cardial and Linearbandkermik spread in the Early Neolithic which both spread west but kept separate and did not meet again until they faced each other in Atlantic France and perhaps adjacent areas (perhaps merging in some way in the Middle Neolithic culture of that area).
  
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 03:06:20 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #104 on: February 22, 2010, 06:27:23 PM »

Basically Tims maps (which only cover three ht15 clades' variance) and Argiedude's maps (which study both ht15 and ht35 individually) are in close agreement with regard to the one thing they both study - ht 15.  Ht 15 seems to have only become significant when it was in eastern Europe beyond the Med. area and its history is essentially one of an east-west spread through central Europe from the east to the Atlantic followed only far later by migration into the mid-east Med. area.  My impression is that the main original east-west movement was so quick that it gives the impression of sameness but IMO the east-west trajectory can still be detected in both Tim and Argiedude's work.  

In contrast, only Argiedude (not Tim) has dealt with ht35 and his diversity maps seem to show a movement that commenced slightly earlier than ht15's to the north but was also so rapid that direction is less obvious.  Personally I think VV's ht35 phylogeny/geography work does point to a big picture of an eastern origin for ht35 and its westward spread along the Med. at least as far as Italy (albeit one that was rapid enough to blur the east-west gradient when measured by diversity).

The scenario of two fast movements of a common root but distinct subsequent routes one heading slightly earlier along the Med. and the other slightly later along a central European route, both heading on a mainly east-west trajectory but keeping strongly separated amd not meeting until the far Atlantic fringe of Euro is very tempting to parallel with the dual Cardial and Linearbandkermik spread in the Early Neolithic which both spread west but kept separate and did not meet again until they faced each other in Atlantic France and perhaps adjacent areas (perhaps merging in some way in the Middle Neolithic culture of that area).
  
If one accepts your hypothesis that R1b subclades formed the Cardial and LBK cultures, one is left with a complete mystery for the Beaker folk. What haplogroup(s) would you associate with them? Do you believe they developed internally from within the earlier Cardial and LBK cultures, or do you think they were intrusive from the east? If the latter, what contribution to the current genetic makeup of Europe do you think they had? And lastly, whom would you credit with the introduction of IE to Europe?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 07:15:38 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #105 on: February 22, 2010, 07:38:49 PM »

The mystery of what the genetic input of the beaker culture was if R1b1b2 was early Neolithic is nowhere near as major as the mystery of what the genetic input of the early Neolithic people was if R1b1b2 is attributed to the beaker phase.  The early Neolithic is a clearcut major demographic event while people still debate over whether beaker people actually existed.  

I think some limited evidence for movement  in Amesbury archer etc and some studies showing population drops in post-Linearbandkeramik times falls well short of open-shut evidence for the withering away of the earlier Neolithic lines and their replacement.  Population changes and fluctuations can be massive without any intrusion.  I can think of several isles examples of this.  

It is also true that the beaker phenomenon is still a major problem in terms of origin, spread and its very nature.  We have discussed this all before but all I will say is the kind of movement direction indicated by Tim and Argiedude's studies of ht15 and its clades (a central European route west from eastern Europe to the Atlantic) does not at all well fit with current ideas on beaker dating - an originally Mediterranean network linking Iberia (where beakers are oldest) to Italy etc.  
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 10:29:50 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #106 on: February 22, 2010, 07:52:21 PM »

Goldenhind

I really have no idea about the origins of the beakers.  The dating experts now say Iberia/the west Med. for the pots themselves.  Jean is more of an expert on this late period than I am and she suggests that although the beakers themselves may have developed earliest in Iberia that a lof of the rest of the beaker package has east European roots and there was a kind of two-way network relating to metallurgy linking the SW and eastern Europe (via Italy) which was established from the east a little before the beaker pots themselves.  I cannot really assess that proposition in any detail as its pretty specialist and subtle.  

My main new issue after looking at Tim and Argiedude's work is that ht15's apparently central European east-west route of spread could not be more different from the Mediterranean early (and suggested pre-) beaker network as understood by the most up to date dating studies (regardless of direction).  So, to link ht15 (which I understand to be P310 derived R1b1b2) with the beaker culture seems incredibly counterintuitive.  
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 10:31:10 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #107 on: February 23, 2010, 03:57:19 AM »

The mystery of what the genetic input of the beaker culture was if R1b1b2 was early Neolithic is nowhere near as major as the mystery of what the genetic input of the early Neolithic people was if R1b1b2 is attributed to the beaker phase.  The latter is a clearcut major demographic event while people still debate over whether beaker people actually existed. 
....
I think the other major mystery that should be accounted for (beyond who carried the Beaker culture?) is who carried or at least pushed the Indo-European languages?  IE is all over Europe today.  My read of the linguistic authors is that it appears to be a recent development of 3500 BC and later, after the LBK and Cardial Wares sweeps through Europe.

Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #108 on: February 23, 2010, 10:50:12 AM »

Mike

The expert opinion of the dating of IE languages changes frequently and for every expert who suggests later Neolithic you can find people who date them to the early Neolithic.  Its just point, counterpoint, counter-counter point.  Only a few years ago the early Neolithic perspective was very much on the rise and there were a lot of new mathematical calculations of language evolution that supported it.   My own opinion is indirect dating is not linguistics strong suite.  It seems to me that neither school has been able to deliver the other a fatal blow.  

Basically, of the three groups of dating data, archaeology and palaeoecology provides hard data for demographic aspects (although the population history aspect often remains unclear) while linguistics and DNA dating are far more subject to ongoing debate regarding formulae and variables.  Hopefully some day DNA dating will be on more solid ground but I think linguistic dating will probably always be uncertain and full of ifs and buts.  I certainly would not look to linguistics to save the day on the R1b1b2/Neolithic or Beaker/Indo-European debate.  Its the least likely of all to contribute the final answer. The idea of analysing the vocab etc to see what archaeological period it best fits goes back generations and you can see it has not led to a clear-cut answer.  The only observation I will make is that if genes and languages do tend to spread together then R1b1b2 is the only show in town to explain IE languages throughout most of western Europe.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 10:52:12 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #109 on: February 23, 2010, 10:56:14 AM »

The only reason I thought ht35 was earlier in Italy was Argiedude's diversity map which for SE Europe shows a large areas of ht35 of simiilar variance from the Levant to Italy.

I appreciate argiedude's efforts, but I do not accept his diversity map as being all that accurate.

And, generally, if you have a population movement that lacks successive founder effects then you lose a great deal of your ability to rely on variance as an indicator of age.  For example, imagine a scenario in which even a small number of ht35 were flowing into Italy from SW Asia on some regular basis.  As long as that small number were greater than one, your overall variance of ht35 in Italy might not be different from the variance in SW Asia.

What makes the ht15 picture in Europe resolvable is that fact that we witness a successive series of founder effects.  We see this in the SNPs (nesting clades) and in STRs (decreasing variance).  We don't really get the same picture from ht35 in Europe - at least not strongly so- and thus have  more challenging detective work.

Imagine that you sample ht35 variance in America.  It probably wouldn't be much different than Europe, and it might be higher given the increasing numbers of non-European immigrants.  But ht35 is probably one of the LAST forms of ht35 to gain frequency in America, since early colonists largely lacked it (being largely from NW Europe) while later immigrants brought more of it (southern Italians, Greeks, Jewish refugees, Arabs, Persians, Palestinians, etc.).

So, ht15 COULD have arrived in Europe on top of a pre-existing ht35 minority.  But it is just as likely that ht35 arrived later as an overlay on a pre-existing ht15 majority.  Some would argue that E and J did this in Europe, so why not ht35 too?

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #110 on: February 23, 2010, 11:31:13 AM »

The last few days has really made me think differently about R1b1b2.

Until Tims Jansen's calculations and their prompting me to look at Argiedude's maps again I really had not realised how late ht15 was in variance/diversity terms in the south of Europe, especially Italy and the SE.  Pooling ht15 and ht35 together as R1b1b2 in the recent paper and Anatole's and other studies had hidden the fact that in the areas where ht35 is most common ht15 is very young, NOT very old as you would expect if one simply led to the other in the same locality.  

Unless the results have been distorted badly by sample issues etc or some demographic oddity then that for me effectively rules out a Mediterranean origin or route of spread for ht15 in general and pretty well dictates that the central European route west must have been taken by ht 15 (but not ht35).  Tim and Argiedude's calculations seem consistent in their pattern that ht15 and ht35 split somewhere in or near SE Europe and essentially moved west separately, not to meet again until a long time later at the western fringes of Europe and also even later when ht15 seems to have at a very late stage penetrated south to Italy and back towards the SE of Europe (which is suspiciously similar to the Celtic movements).  

 
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 11:41:43 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #111 on: February 23, 2010, 11:39:47 AM »

Vince
I accept all your points.   To be honest, my main interest is in ht15 and its apparent youth in Italy and SE Europe which does make it look like a late overspill from the north and back-migration to the south-east.  That is the part that really struck me about both Argiedude and Tim's calculations.  I had been wondering for a long time whether a Med. or Central European route (or both) to the west was used by ht15.  So, it really struck me that youth of ht15 in Italy and the SE and the greater age in eastern and central Europe in Tim and Argiedudes calculations seems to suggest that the central European route was taken west by ht15.  Is this a reasonable deduction?
Logged
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #112 on: February 23, 2010, 12:56:35 PM »

Vince
I accept all your points.   To be honest, my main interest is in ht15 and its apparent youth in Italy and SE Europe which does make it look like a late overspill from the north and back-migration to the south-east.

I don't think this is all that apparent, at least not with regard to Italy.  Perhaps in specific cases it is (e.g. L21), but R-U152 - for example - doesn't look all that much younger in Italy than in, say, Switzerland or Germany.  And surely we don't have nearly enough haplotypes in these clades from the most southeast parts of Europe to say for sure.  How many legitimate confirmed R-U152 or R-U106 haplotypes do we have from the southern Balkans, for example?  Hardly any.

I think the data do show that R1b1b2 entered Europe from SW Asia, most likely overland via the Balkans.  We probably agree on this, I think.  But the question of whether there were other routes or not remains much less settled.

If  - and BIG if - P312 had emerged as early as the Balkan peninsula then you'd have a hard time disproving the suggestion that P312* could have taken a second Mediterranean route towards the west and that L21 is a remnant of that movement just as U152 and P312 seem to be a remnant of the overland movement. 

STRs will probably never resolve this, but SNPs might. 

For example, we could find a SNP between L21 and P312.  We might find such a SNP largely positive in Mediterranean P312* but negative in northern European P312*.  Or vice versa.

But for now we need to be cautious.  Just because we can see evidence of some movements, we should not be too quick to assume that no other movements occurred.

VV
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 01:20:27 PM by vineviz » Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #113 on: February 23, 2010, 03:12:57 PM »

A man, migrated to America from Italy, after many years was asked by his wife to recognize the son she in the meanwhile had had. He was a man of humor and said to the  judge that he would be glad to do it if he has demonstrated that he had a  ***** long from America to Italy.
The same I can say to the last finding of Vizachero, who separates R1b-sons from their father. I think that it is more likely that R1b1* to R-150+ had wintered in Italy (at least from the Younger Dryas) and the sons were born out of Italy, Eastward and Westward.
The last finding of Tutankamun’s  haplotype demonstrates definitely, I think, my theory of the mutation around the modal: these haplogroups are more ancient than Vizachero and Klyosov (I don’t know what Nordtvedt is now thinking) have always supported.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 03:15:54 PM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #114 on: February 23, 2010, 06:23:25 PM »

Vince

I was just kind of having one last think about this all before putting it on hold for some time but deep down I know the sample is far too poor across Europe to have a realistic picture of the detail and will have to be patient :0( 

Argiedude describes his calculations as diversity while Tim looks at variance.  I think Argiedude pooled all ht15 into a large sample based on what he felt were crucial markers that frequently distinguished ht15 and 35.  Obviously, Tim took a very different approach and used a much smaller sample divided into clades. 

What I found interesting is that despite all of these differences in methods, approach and sampling they seemed to find similar patterns of the age of ht15 (or subsets of it) across Europe, with central and northern Europe with older MRCA dates than the Mediterranean. It is also no surprise that they both picked up an east to west trend too.   

I was wondering, due to the tendancy in Europe for east-west movements to follow one of two main routes west, if a simple comparison between ht15 along the landlocked northern/central route (basically all the countries that do not have a Mediterranean coast) compared to ht15 along the Meditteranean might help get around the lack of numbers to some degree and tell us something.  I understand that this would be very much a composite of a lot of human movement but if the result is very strong it may be interesting nevertheless. 

Alan
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #115 on: February 23, 2010, 06:36:21 PM »

I think Vince's cautionary warning is a point which should be well taken. There just isn't sufficient data to draw any firm conclusions.
The only points which I feel have been established are:
1) the old idea of an R1b1b2 presence in the Iberian refuge in Europe during the LMG, or indeed its presence in anywhere in central and western Europe during the Paleolithic is dead,
2) that it entered Europe from the east no earlier than than the Neolithic,
3) that one and perhaps the main route it took was from the Black Sea area up the Danube to central Europe and the Rhine and other rivers, proably fanning out as it progressed.
Personally I am inclined to suspect another more southerly route along the coast of the Mediterannean as well as a more northerly one, probably up the Dniester towards the Baltic.
Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #116 on: February 24, 2010, 02:55:52 PM »

I think Vince's cautionary warning is a point which should be well taken. There just isn't sufficient data to draw any firm conclusions.
The only points which I feel have been established are:
1) the old idea of an R1b1b2 presence in the Iberian refuge in Europe during the LMG, or indeed its presence in anywhere in central and western Europe during the Paleolithic is dead,
2) that it entered Europe from the east no earlier than than the Neolithic,
3) that one and perhaps the main route it took was from the Black Sea area up the Danube to central Europe and the Rhine and other rivers, proably fanning out as it progressed.
Personally I am inclined to suspect another more southerly route along the coast of the Mediterannean as well as a more northerly one, probably up the Dniester towards the Baltic.

I think the northern route is a possibility too. I don't know if this is pertinent, but since I belong to Haplo HV I have been reading about it more of late. Anyway, HV has higher percentages in eastern European countries, especially Baltic ones and countries like Belarus and Russia. I wonder if mtDNA movements such as HV/H correspond to the same movements of R1b1b2?
« Last Edit: February 24, 2010, 02:56:25 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #117 on: February 25, 2010, 01:41:11 PM »

 I know their are problems but Tim's calculations and Argiedudes too seem to consistently point to R1b1b2 or some clades like S116* and U152 being relatively young in southern Europe, especially Italy.  Obviously Italy need to be older not younger if a Med. route was taken west.  I know its far from perfect but perhaps a simple pooling of Med. vs non-Med will help with the sample issue.  As a last throw of the dice to try and overcome the sampling issues I have asked Tim to recalculate simply dividing into Med. and non-Med. samples in a post on rootsweb.

I have no fixed views and in fact had recently began to favour the Med. route west for R1b1b2 but Tim and Argiedudes work throws big doubt on that and also doubt that the ht35 of Italy is ancestral to the P310/L11 that headed west.  It seems to me that there is a lot of L11/P310 negative ht35 in Italy.  However, L11/P310 is the link between those clades and ht15 clades like S116* and a casual glance would seem to me to point to a rather more central European distribution L11/P310* compared to the upstream forms of ht35.  My gut feeling is that there are hints that P310/L11 happened in a position that was a little removed from or on a strajectory that was largely away from the Med.  I could be wrong through.  I will have another look at the FTDNA ht35 project.  It seems to give lists of names but not countries of origin or maps so you kind of have to guess origins from the types of names. 
Logged
argiedude
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #118 on: February 25, 2010, 08:32:06 PM »

Using predicted R1b1b2 samples, mainly from yhrd, it can be seen that ht15 decreases from 45% in the north to 20% in the south, but ht35 is roughly 5% everywhere in Italy, even in Sicily. It gives the impression their diffusion is due to separate events.
Logged

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

Posts: 2151


« Reply #119 on: February 26, 2010, 01:16:46 AM »

Yes, Argiedude, but try to think to my theory: R1b1* to R-L150+ (language Rhaetian-Etruscan) in Italy, then out of it and the subclades born in Central Europe and returned to Italy with Indo-Europeans (Italic-Celtic).
If the new escamotage of Vizachero was true, why 3 R1b1* over 5 over the world in Italy (mostly Sicily= Italians Americans) and all subclades to R-L150+ and why they aren't in the places where they should have been originated?
There was certainly a migration after the Younger Dryas from Italy: see the demonstrated mtDNA U5b3.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #120 on: March 01, 2010, 09:04:47 PM »

Mike

The expert opinion of the dating of IE languages changes frequently and for every expert who suggests later Neolithic you can find people who date them to the early Neolithic.


Untrue. The consensus among Indo-European scholars has long been c.4000 BC for PIE.

Quote
Only a few years ago the early Neolithic perspective was very much on the rise and there were a lot of new mathematical calculations of language evolution that supported it.  

Just the notorious paper by Gray & Atkinson, whose work was ripped apart by linguists. Renfrew is still clinging to it like a drowning man clutching the proverbial straw. But it doesn't hold up for reasons I gave just a few posts ago.   
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #121 on: March 06, 2010, 12:32:25 PM »

I'm not trying to argue, but my impression is that linguistic age estimates are even less solid than the TMRCA estimates for y-dna haplogroups.

After all the reading I've done, I'm less certain of Indo-European origins than I ever was.

Neverthless, I feel pretty sure of a couple of things:

1) People don't change their languages lightly

2) Something big must have happened early to account for the spread and success of Indo-European languages.

So, look for something truly momentous in the right places at the right time, something weighty enough to either move new people into an area or cause the old inhabitants to take up the new lingo.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #122 on: March 06, 2010, 05:23:58 PM »

I'm not trying to argue, but my impression is that linguistic age estimates are even less solid than the TMRCA estimates for y-dna haplogroups.

After all the reading I've done, I'm less certain of Indo-European origins than I ever was.

Neverthless, I feel pretty sure of a couple of things:

1) People don't change their languages lightly

2) Something big must have happened early to account for the spread and success of Indo-European languages.

So, look for something truly momentous in the right places at the right time, something weighty enough to either move new people into an area or cause the old inhabitants to take up the new lingo.

Very odd, as you were the first I know of to propose the connection of R1b with IE. I was one of your first converts, and Jean's arguments have only reinforced my opinion.
I might add I am not particularly wed to the Bell Beaker idea. 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. At the moment the Beaker scenario looks to me as the most likely explanation.
I do think though that we only have part of the answers at this time, and I expect further refinement over time.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2010, 06:09:25 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #123 on: March 06, 2010, 06:26:15 PM »

I'm not saying R1b wasn't connected with the spread of IE; I think it must have been. I'm just less sure of the exact scenario than I once thought I was.
Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #124 on: March 06, 2010, 06:52:20 PM »

I'm not trying to argue, but my impression is that linguistic age estimates are even less solid than the TMRCA estimates for y-dna haplogroups.

In general yes. Glottochronology has plenty of critics. At its best, it can only be an estimate. However if we look at the reconstructed PIE lexicon, we get clues about the type of society that created it. The first farmers used digging sticks rather than ploughs. They had no wheels or wagons, no gold or silver. Yet the Indo-Europeans had words for all these things.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 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 0.131 seconds with 19 queries.