World Families Forums - Some Ht 35/15 observations

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 17, 2014, 03:05:43 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)
| | |-+  Some Ht 35/15 observations
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Some Ht 35/15 observations  (Read 2690 times)
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2010, 09:28:16 PM »

^ Those seven mummies from the Tarim basin that came back R1a were probably related to the Afanasievo culture, and so weren't necessarily typical Tocharians. At least, that's what the guys who tested the mummies speculate...

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15/abstract

But anyway, I don't really see why the Tocharians should be linked to the Celts of Europe. The evidence is circumstantial.

Also, it's a mystery why R1b isn't showing up in any purportedly early Indo-European skeletal remains from the key sites, all the way from Germany to western China. The most likely explanation is that R1b isn't linked very strongly to the Indo-European expansions. But I suppose time will tell.

I think the oldest IE related remains with ydna found were the two R1a Corded Ware  males dated to 2600 BC in Germany.  Everything happening with the Centum or western IE branch and the Yamnaya period was several hundred years before that.  If the R1bs were among that movement, most of them would have been south of Corded Ware territory during that time in places around the middle Danube heading west from Hungary  and staying south of CW.  Really just a guess, but hopefully we'll get some ydna results that far back.

Corded Ware and Beaker were contemporaries in the 3rd Mil. BC, but there seem to have been fairly defined boundaries.  The Rhine being one, maybe the Upper Danube and the Carpathians as well.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 09:37:17 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

polako
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2010, 09:36:33 PM »

The "key sites" are all in areas lacking in R1b, and most of them are in areas that are strongly R1a. What a surprise that R1a is showing up at those sites!

R1a doesn't show up very strongly among centum IE-speaking peoples, and centum IE is supposed to be the older form.

That doesn't strike you as odd?

Centum isn't older than Satem. Apparently early Indo-European split into two, so in theory they're of the same age.

And there's no reason why this split should've been accompanied by a perfect division between R1a and R1b. So it's really strange why not a single R1b has popped up in the purportedly early Indo-European remains all the way from Central Germany to western China, even though R1b today is very common amongst many groups within this zone...specifically the Turkic groups.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 09:38:38 PM by polako » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2010, 07:07:33 AM »

Centum isn't older than Satem . . .

Says you. That is not what I have read. Centum is the older form of Indo-European.

http://popgen.well.ox.ac.uk/eurasia/htdocs/anderson.html

The following is from the site above, and written by Deborah Anderson from the Department of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley.

Quote
The original form of the word for 'hundred' in Proto-Indo-European was *(d)kmtom [k with an acute above it or k' can be used; dot under m; acute on o], which shows that the centum group has actually retained the original sound of the velar but the satem group has changed the sound; it moved the articulation forward in the mouth.

The underlining above is mine.

And there's no reason why this split should've been accompanied by a perfect division between R1a and R1b. So it's really strange why not a single R1b has popped up in the purportedly early Indo-European remains all the way from Central Germany to western China, even though R1b today is very common amongst many groups within this zone...specifically the Turkic groups.

Perfect divisions aren't necessary and don't exist anyway. The fact is that the places where centum Indo-European (the older form) is spoken are overwhelmingly R1b, while the satem areas are mostly R1a.

We aren't talking huge arrays of ancient corpses that have been tested. There have been a handful, mostly in areas where R1a is prevalent.

Eulau, the Corded Ware site in which the remains of ONE man and his two sons (i.e., a single y-dna line) were R1a, is not in "Central Germany". It's in eastern Germany:

http://www.maplandia.com/germany/sachsen-anhalt/halle/burgenlandkreis/eulau/
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 07:14:31 AM by rms2 » Logged

polako
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2010, 07:37:08 AM »

Centum is the older form of Indo-European.

How can Centum be older than Satem if they're the result of a split? That defies reason.

And how does the retention of one archaic word prove an older age? It just proves the survival of that particular archaic feature. FYI, some of the most archaic Indo-European languages are the Baltic languages, which belong to the Satem group.

In any case, such debates are a waste of time. The study of the DNA of a few ancient remains has given us more to go on in the last couple of years than a century of linguistics. 

Fact is, R1b is seen in many groups in the region from Germany to western China, where the 20 ancient skeletons that have been studied come from. You'd expect at least one R1b to be present, and at least in the earlier remains if not the later ones.

Indeed, the seven R1a1's and no R1b's from the Tarim basin are a real blow to the R1b argument, because these people broke away very early to be able to get to China during the early Bronze Age.

My theory at this stage, soundly backed up by all the results to date, is that R1b =/= Indo-Europeans.
Logged
polako
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2010, 08:01:57 AM »

Actually, here's an interesting quote from the link provided by my sparring partner above...

"In dialect geography, the more conservative elements are retained in the geographic periphery, away from the central area where innovation is taking place (in this case, where the satem languages are).  Using the satem/centum isogloss as a guide, Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Armenian, and Albanian serve as one central area.  However, it is important to also take into consideration other isoglosses in arriving at an adequate model for the PIE situation."

This actually makes sense in terms of the genetics as well. The central Indo-European zone would've retained the core of the proto-Indo-European genetics. On the other hand, the periphery would be the area where foreigners had the most chance to assimilate into  Indo-European society. However, ironically, it's the periphery that usually keeps the most archaic traits of a language, and that's what seems to have happened here as well.

Well, maybe my faith in linguistics has been resurrected here...
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2010, 08:16:38 AM »

How can Centum be older than Satem if they're the result of a split? That defies reason.

Because satem represents an innovation, i.e., a change.

That shouldn't be too hard to understand.

Centum speakers moved out first, leaving others behind in the old homeland whose language eventually changed to the newer, satem form.

And how does the retention of one archaic word prove an older age? It just proves the survival of that particular archaic feature. FYI, some of the most archaic Indo-European languages are the Baltic languages, which belong to the Satem group.

From what I can tell, most linguists regard the centum/satem division as legitimate, and believe centum is the older form.

Your beef is with them and the fact that what you want to believe doesn't quite jive with the facts.

In any case, such debates are a waste of time. The study of the DNA of a few ancient remains has given us more to go on in the last couple of years than a century of linguistics.

No it hasn't. We aren't talking large numbers of ancient corpses, and we don't even know what languages they spoke!

One must assume up front that the remains being tested are those of early speakers of Indo-European. That requires the assumption that a certain controversial theory of Indo-European origins is fact.

If that theory is incorrect, then your ADNA argument collapses like a house of cards.

Fact is, R1b is seen in many groups in the region from Germany to western China, where the 20 ancient skeletons that have been studied come from. You'd expect at least one R1b to be present, and at least in the earlier remains if not the later ones.

Indeed, the seven R1a1's and no R1b's from the Tarim basin are a real blow to the R1b argument, because these people broke away very early to be able to get to China during the early Bronze Age.

My theory at this stage, soundly backed up by all the results to date, is that R1b =/= Indo-Europeans.

I do not believe the number of R1a tested skeletons at alleged IE sites is 20. But even if it is, most of the sites are in Russia. Good grief! Try digging up the remains of early IE-speakers in WESTERN Europe, the undisputed stronghold of centum Indo-European (the OLDER form), and testing them.

Again, seven R1a skeletons so far east is not surprising, but it does not establish that the early Indo-Europeans were exclusively R1a.

Thanks for your theory.

My theory is that you are wrong.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 08:35:50 AM by rms2 » Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #31 on: May 01, 2010, 08:21:55 AM »

I don't know too much about Indo-European stuff, but if Centum is older and R1b is the pre-eminent Centum-speaking group... Could they have brought Proto-Indo-European to the native, R1a steppe folk?

Why didn't R1a move into Western Europe?
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #32 on: May 01, 2010, 08:28:27 AM »

Actually, here's an interesting quote from the link provided by my sparring partner above...

"In dialect geography, the more conservative elements are retained in the geographic periphery, away from the central area where innovation is taking place (in this case, where the satem languages are).  Using the satem/centum isogloss as a guide, Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Armenian, and Albanian serve as one central area.  However, it is important to also take into consideration other isoglosses in arriving at an adequate model for the PIE situation."

This actually makes sense in terms of the genetics as well. The central Indo-European zone would've retained the core of the proto-Indo-European genetics. On the other hand, the periphery would be the area where foreigners had the most chance to assimilate into  Indo-European society. However, ironically, it's the periphery that usually keeps the most archaic traits of a language, and that's what seems to have happened here as well.

Well, maybe my faith in linguistics has been resurrected here...

Other than your statements about "foreigners" and "Proto-Indo-European genetics", that is correct.

As I said before, centum is the older form. The centum speakers moved out of the core area first, leaving behind those who would ultimately begin to speak the newer, satem form of IE.

The core area was where R1 arose and, subsequently, where both R1b and R1a arose. However, there were plenty of "foreigners" in the HUGE core, steppe region where one theory alleges Indo-European originated.

It is possible that the various motley R1a tribes were Indo-Europeanized by centum speakers, who then moved west, out of the region, leaving the predominantly R1a tribes behind to be mistaken for the original Indo-Europeans by modern R1as who like that idea a lot.

In fact, if the "Neolithic Farmer" theory of IE origins is correct, or if Gamkrelidze and Ivanov's theory of an eastern Anatolian or Armenian homeland is correct - and I am not saying either of them is right - , then the likeliest scenario is that the R1a tribes got their IE from R1b1b2 farmers, whose produce and other goods they found desirable.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 08:30:38 AM by rms2 » Logged

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2010, 12:22:15 PM »

The archaeology strongly supports an early centum split going west.  First of all, some  form of "IE" was spoken at first, probably until horses and wagons caused a great increase in mobility.  The branches are a result of movement and interaction spheres at different times.

4200 BC -  A movement of Suvorovo people into SE Europe possibly speaking Proto-Anatolian.  This earliest split is the reason Anatolian became an isolate branch.

3700 BC - Another isolate branch yet related to early Celtic, Tocharian, moves east towards the Altay.  I think the oldest Tarim male mummy is dated to around 2000 BC.  No surprise, that no R1b aDna is found in these later dates.  However, there are collectively more than a few R1b's there today among Uyghurs, Mongolians, Kazakhs,etc..

3300 BC - Some form of proto-Germanic moves up the Dneister with the hybrid Usatavo people (Tripoyle farmers/steppe).

3100 BC - Proto Italo-Celtic carried into the Danube valley with large movements of Yamnaya people.  They settle primarily in Hungary.  These migrations continue for a couple hundred years.

Satem speakers, like early Balto-Slavic (probaby within Middle Dnieper culture)split about 2800.  Indo-Iranian, Albanian, Armenian, Greek much later.  
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 01:31:58 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

acekon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #34 on: June 27, 2012, 01:27:13 PM »

I don't know too much about Indo-European stuff, but if Centum is older and R1b is the pre-eminent Centum-speaking group... Could they have brought Proto-Indo-European to the native, R1a steppe folk?

Why didn't R1a move into Western Europe?

Good question. Seeing that R1a and R1b are split by about 50 miles between Eulau and Kromsdorf, in Eastern Germany.
Logged

YDNA: R-Z2105* Śląsk-Polska
MtDNA: U5b2a2*Königsberg-Ostpreussen
Pages: 1 [2] 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 0.133 seconds with 18 queries.