World Families Forums - Another Possible Iberian R-L21 Haplotype Cluster?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 17, 2014, 02:36:57 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)
| | |-+  Another Possible Iberian R-L21 Haplotype Cluster?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Another Possible Iberian R-L21 Haplotype Cluster?  (Read 8019 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #50 on: June 24, 2010, 04:45:43 PM »

Besides, are the current age estimates (both of Beaker culture and L21) sooo accurate that we can be absolutely certain that one is older or younger than the other?

The last estimate for L21 that I had from V.V. was approx. 50 years after P312, which he dates about 4,600-5,200 BP. So we get a median date of 4,850 BP for L21 = 2850 BC.

That is comfortably before the spread of eastern Bell Beaker from Hungary or thereabouts. Not that precision is possible in these calculations. But it is an amazingly good fit.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 04:47:45 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #51 on: June 24, 2010, 06:53:38 PM »

If L21 was born entering France from Iberia and moved north..then can we safely assume the L21 in Scandinavia is mostly from the British Isles?



That probably is a good summary of the only way I really see Iberia having a role in L21. 

Another option are an entry from southern France via the Rhone etc which is geographically convenient for both the NW French and the SW German/Swiss etc concentrations. 

Another option is that it spread into France via an Upper Danube-Main-Middle Rhine-Mosselle-Seinne/Loire route. 

There are other variants but these three seem the most likely to me.

However, looking at L21 makes little sense without understanding its parent S116*.   
Logged
aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #52 on: June 24, 2010, 07:39:18 PM »



Then we know that  R1b1b2 in Europe 4500-4000 ybp spoke non-IE. This is logical. They spoke it earlier, they spoke in in Europe. At the same time, R1a1 brought IE language from the Russian Plain to the Caucasus and from there to Anatolia (Hetts, Mitanni, etc), 3600 ybp. In other words, the same time R1a1 brough IE to India, the same time R1a1 brought IE to Anatolia. Where R1b1b2 with "IE" in this equation?



I am picking here on a detail, but how do you know Hittites or Mitanni were R1a1? Besides, their languages, although both IE, are not directly related.

No, it is not detail, it is a very valid question.

Unfortunately, this Forum as most of others, is a bunch of questions and comments flying around and being disconnected. This is a sure way to kill any concept. It reminds me those classical wisemen blindly examining an elephant and commenting on different shapes they touch. As a result - a complete disarray.

Now, back to your question. You cannot consider it as posed here, being again disconnected from other "different shapes", namely chronology of R1a1 route to Anatolia (4800 ybp on the Russian Plain, 4500 ybp in the Caucasus, 3600 in Anatolia), language, its resemblance to Indian IE language (and detailed analysis of resemblance of the two IE languages), comparisons of names in Mittanni and in India, comparisons  with the Avestan descriptions, comparisons of the Gods in Anatolia and in India (and in Iran), horse-breeding and horse-training vocabulary, and, finally, R1a1 haplotypes structure in Anatolia, Iran and India.

That is why I mean by "optimization", that is considerations of MANY different factors in their entirety, and creating as non-contradictory pattern as possible. There is no place for  R1b1b2 in that pattern. There is no "Indo-European" R1b1b2 in either India or Iran. How could they be "Indo-European" when they have not been in India those times, that is ~3500 ybp? When R1b1b2 are absent in upper castes in India, while R1a1 reach there up to 72%?

Do you know that R1a1 are identical up to 67-marker haplotypes in both India, Iran and in ethnic Russians? I with my 67-marker R1a1 haplotype sit on the same branch in R1a1 67-marker haplotype tree along with a bunch of R1a1 Indians? Have you looked at R1b1b2 pattern in India? What have you seen?

Either, folks, you want to learn things, or you stick to your preconceived "knowledge" such as "Indo-European R1b1b2" 4500 or 3500 years bp, which did not exist. I do not know where did you get it? Is it a kind of religion? Do you just believe in it, and do not need any proof?   

             
Logged

R1a1

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #53 on: June 24, 2010, 07:47:32 PM »

1. R1a1 beought SATEM to India, not CENTUM! Nice try, pal. That has nothing to do with the older form of Indo-European brought to Western Europe!

Brought by whom and when? I would appreciate if you finish your centence.



2. Last time I checked the Hittites spoke Indo-European (IE)... That is mighty close to Lebanon country! Uh-oh!


:-)))))))))))))

Nice logic. China borders with Russia (being separated by just Amur river). Do Chinese speak Russian? Do Russians speak Chinese? Are you serious about IE language in Lebanon?


4. Who is to say the R1a1 in the Tarim Basin had anything to do with Tocharians?

:-)))))

Look it up.

Logged

R1a1

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #54 on: June 24, 2010, 08:04:15 PM »

Besides, are the current age estimates (both of Beaker culture and L21) sooo accurate that we can be absolutely certain that one is older or younger than the other?

It is not a question of accuracy.  We are drawing a principal picture. The main question is - can we compose a pattern which includes data from history, archaeology, linguistics, DNA genealogy, and unify them in one concept, based on history, geography, migrations, languages?

The answer is a sound YES. The picture was presented here. Of course it can be detailed, refined, upgraded. However, its foundation does exist already.  "Absolutely certain" are wrong words here, they are the greatest obstacles to make such a picture.

Are you "absolutely certain" in any theory of origin of life? In any theory of origin of man? In any theory of cancer appearance in human body? (this is my professional area, by the way). In thermodynamic equations applied to solutions? (by the way, they are applicable to only infinitely diluted solutions, and every physico-chemist knows it, but applied to real solutions nevertheless). "Absolutely certain" is a very non-scientific question and statement. Scientists are always in doubt, they are looking for more and more proofs, cross-examinations, alternative interpretations.

We are developing a very complex matter, and the "Are you absolutely certain?" places someone in a non-scientific category. 

Do not take it personal, however, think about it.

     
Logged

R1a1

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #55 on: June 24, 2010, 08:12:29 PM »

1) Do we think L21 was born in Iberia?  I don't know, but it's variance is much higher in France and it is more populous there apparently.

2) Why assume L21 entered Scandinavia via the British Isles rather than directly from Northern Europe?  It is a shorter trip.  We also know that Bell Beaker peoples reached Scandinavia.

1. L21 could have been born in Iberia, and it could have been born in France. Yes, it seems that L21 is older in France (~4200 ybp) than in Iberia (~3900 ybp), however, first, in is within margin of error (typically plus-minus 500 years), and, second, it seems that P312 suffered through a population bottleneck lasted between 4800 and 3900 ybp. In that case a common ancestor of P312 in Iberia lived 4800 ybp, and a common ancestor of present-day P312 lived 3900 ybp, and a common ancestor of L21 lived 4200 ybp.

Just a plausible explanation.  We toooo often forget about population bottlenecks when try to interpret data.   
Logged

R1a1

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #56 on: June 24, 2010, 09:56:36 PM »

Dear Gioiello,

Let's dissect your informative message into few no less informative sections.

Klyosov writes in "Миграционный путь гаплогруппы R1b1b2 в Европу (2)" (p. 906):

"в Анатолии
12-24-14-10-Х-Х-Х-12-12-13-13-29

с «возрастом» общего предка 6000±820 лет, причем упомянутая пара (DYS
393-461) равна 12-9".

My haplotype is

12-24-15-10-11-14-12-12-12-13-12-29

and being a Tuscan I have always taken in consideration to come from an Etrusk
who came from Aegean Sea and linked with the Anatolian haplotype.

12-24-14-10-Х-Х-Х-12-12-13-13-29
 


Where would that leave me with 12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29
being L21?..(R-L159)

L21's model at 393 is 13.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 10:00:27 PM by OConnor » Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


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

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


Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #57 on: June 24, 2010, 10:03:05 PM »

....
1. L21 could have been born in Iberia, and it could have been born in France. Yes, it seems that L21 is older in France (~4200 ybp) than in Iberia (~3900 ybp), however, first, in is within margin of error (typically plus-minus 500 years), and, second, it seems that P312 suffered through a population bottleneck lasted between 4800 and 3900 ybp. In that case a common ancestor of P312 in Iberia lived 4800 ybp, and a common ancestor of present-day P312 lived 3900 ybp, and a common ancestor of L21 lived 4200 ybp.
....
Anatole,
When you speak of P312 in this context are you speaking of all P312 including all of the subclades (i.e. L21, U152, M153, SRY2627, etc.) or just in terms of P312*?  I have not seen any age estimates for P312 (as a whole) across Europe (and Africa.)  It is quite scattered so it appears, to me anyway, hard to pin down as to an origin.
Logged

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

Posts: 45


« Reply #58 on: June 24, 2010, 10:09:33 PM »



My haplotype is

12-24-15-10-11-14-12-12-12-13-12-29




Where would that leave me with 12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29


:-))

No problem. It happens. A split personality.

Logged

R1a1

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #59 on: June 24, 2010, 10:24:39 PM »

I do love Pizza :))
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


aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #60 on: June 24, 2010, 10:33:33 PM »

Anatole,
When you speak of P312 in this context are you speaking of all P312 including all of the subclades (i.e. L21, U152, M153, SRY2627, etc.) or just in terms of P312*?  I have not seen any age estimates for P312 (as a whole) across Europe (and Africa.)  It is quite scattered so it appears, to me anyway, hard to pin down as to an origin.

Mike,

Here

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_67/8278000/8278745/1/print/8278745.pdf

on page 276 you will see a haplotype tree of 464 of 67-marker haplotypes R-P312 taken in October, 2009 from the FTDNA Project as indicated in the figure legend. You can see what was the origin of the dataset. The whole dataset of 464 haplotypes has 2890 mutations in the first 25 markers (this is the most accurate panel for calculations when there are so many haplotypes). This gives 3950+/-400 years to their common ancestor.

If to forget about mutations and count ONLY base haplotypes (that is identical to each other) in the 12-marker format, the whole dataset of 637 of 12-marker haplotypes contains 45 base haplotypes. It corresponds to 3400+/-610 years to a common ancestor. As you see, the two figures are the same within margin of error. It shows that the whole dataset descended from just one common ancestor, and the figure is valid.

If the dataset does not look good to you on some reasons, provide me with a better dataset, and I will calculate a timespan to a common ancestor of the dataset of P312.

In principle, it does not make any difference whether or not the dataset includes downstream subclades, as soon as you calculate a timespan to the upsteam common ancestor. Any dataset includes downstream subclades, identified or not. If some downstream subclades form a distinct branch, the haplotype tree will show it right away. In that case the tree has several base haplotypes, and, respectively, several common ancestors, one for each branch.

When you say "scattered P312 all over the world" (not an exact quotation), they all must be descended from one common ancestor of P312, or from its different (e.g., African)subclades. All they will be resolved on the tree and calculated separately , giving younger (or older) common ancestors of P312 and its branches/subclades.

It is a simple technicality. However, can be a very informative one.

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov      
Logged

R1a1

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #61 on: June 24, 2010, 11:06:58 PM »

Then we know that  R1b1b2 in Europe 4500-4000 ybp spoke non-IE. This is logical. They spoke it earlier, they spoke in in Europe. At the same time, R1a1 brought IE language from the Russian Plain to the Caucasus and from there to Anatolia (Hetts, Mitanni, etc), 3600 ybp. In other words, the same time R1a1 brough IE to India, the same time R1a1 brought IE to Anatolia. Where R1b1b2 with "IE" in this equation?
 

Either, folks, you want to learn things, or you stick to your preconceived "knowledge" such as "Indo-European R1b1b2" 4500 or 3500 years bp, which did not exist. I do not know where did you get it? Is it a kind of religion? Do you just believe in it, and do not need any proof?  

You are only partly correct on R1a1 bringing IE to India, sir. R1a1 brought the newer, SATEM IE to India. You forget to put that part in there... It changes the story quite a bit, doesn't it? It does not matter at what time Satem was brought to India, R1b-speaking Centum existed first! It's a moot point.

Did I not say the Hittites spoke an Indo-European Language? From what I gather, Anatolia/the Near East has some of the oldest R1b1b2 haplotypes, smack dab in the middle of an ancient, IE-speaking area. Did I mention that the Talysh in Northern Iran also speak an IE language... and are mostly R1b? :)

R1a1 had no effect on IE, other than learning it from migrants to the Caucasus (R1b1b2), and developing its own dialect (Satem). This is what is painful for you to believe.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 11:07:50 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #62 on: June 24, 2010, 11:43:10 PM »


You are only partly correct on R1a1 bringing IE to India, sir. R1a1 brought the newer, SATEM IE to India. You forget to put that part in there... It changes the story quite a bit, doesn't it? It does not matter at what time Satem was brought to India, R1b-speaking Centum existed first! It's a moot point.

I am not "partly", but completely correct on R1a1 bringing IE to India. My point was not about Satem, my point was about IE. My point that there were no R1b1b2 around in that regard. The Aryans were not R1b1b2, R1b1b2 were and are NOT in the upper castes. That was my point.

Now, about Centum. Where did you get that "R1b-speaking centum existed first"? Any evidence? When "first"? Years or centuries before present? ANY data? R1b1b2 are associated with non-IE in Europe. Have you heard about it?

Next point.  Yes, R1a1 (Andronovo culture, in the East) brough Satem to India. However, how about R1a1 in the West? Don't you think they did not speak at all? How do you know that it was not Centum? Which language was used by R1a1 4600 years ago in Germany (Haak at al, 2008)? Which language was used by R1a1 who moved as M458 to Central Europe? Why don't you think that it was THEM who taught R1b1b2 by IE language?

It was then when non-IE language of R1b1b2 became to fade away. Iverian, Basque, and other non-IE languages. R1b1b2 have started to switch to IE being taught by R1a1.

Logged

R1a1

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #63 on: June 24, 2010, 11:50:28 PM »

Did I mention that the Talysh in Northern Iran also speak an IE language... and are mostly R1b? :)


Again a methodological mistake. Did you calculate when their R1b common ancestor lived? What if it was merely 800 years before present? 

Hence, the "argument" is inadmissible. Sorry, tough luck.
Logged

R1a1

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #64 on: June 24, 2010, 11:54:44 PM »

The Aryans were Satem-speaking people, so they would not apply to Centum-speaking R1b1b2 in Western Europe.

You circumvented my point about the Hittite language and R1b1b2 in Anatolia. I believe you know that Anatolian is one of the OLDEST forms of Indo-European. Recent research postulates that R1b1b2 is oldest in Anatolia/Near East. WOW! Here's the fun part:

- R1b1b2 farmers crossed the Caucasus Mountains, reached the Pontic Steppe, and taught R1a1 nomads Indo-European.
- The older, Centum language continued west, either through the Balkans or north around the Black Sea into Western Europe. This would explain the clear dominance of R1b1b2 in Centum-speaking Europe: Italo-Celtic, Germanic, etc.
- This isn't to say some R1a1 followed their R1b1b2 teachers into Western Europe, but most of them stayed behind in Russia... and even moved east once they developed Satem (like the Aryans!)

It was R1a1 and I that spoke the pre-IE languages in Old Europe before R1b1b2 arrived. And the rest - my friend - is history.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #65 on: June 24, 2010, 11:56:06 PM »

Did I mention that the Talysh in Northern Iran also speak an IE language... and are mostly R1b? :)


Again a methodological mistake. Did you calculate when their R1b common ancestor lived? What if it was merely 800 years before present? 

Hence, the "argument" is inadmissible. Sorry, tough luck.

You should really read some interesting, peer-reviewed journals on the subject. Quite fascinating.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #66 on: June 25, 2010, 03:48:00 AM »



Then we know that  R1b1b2 in Europe 4500-4000 ybp spoke non-IE. This is logical. They spoke it earlier, they spoke in in Europe. At the same time, R1a1 brought IE language from the Russian Plain to the Caucasus and from there to Anatolia (Hetts, Mitanni, etc), 3600 ybp. In other words, the same time R1a1 brough IE to India, the same time R1a1 brought IE to Anatolia. Where R1b1b2 with "IE" in this equation?



I am picking here on a detail, but how do you know Hittites or Mitanni were R1a1? Besides, their languages, although both IE, are not directly related.

No, it is not detail, it is a very valid question.

Unfortunately, this Forum as most of others, is a bunch of questions and comments flying around and being disconnected. This is a sure way to kill any concept. It reminds me those classical wisemen blindly examining an elephant and commenting on different shapes they touch. As a result - a complete disarray.

Now, back to your question. You cannot consider it as posed here, being again disconnected from other "different shapes", namely chronology of R1a1 route to Anatolia (4800 ybp on the Russian Plain, 4500 ybp in the Caucasus, 3600 in Anatolia), language, its resemblance to Indian IE language (and detailed analysis of resemblance of the two IE languages), comparisons of names in Mittanni and in India, comparisons  with the Avestan descriptions, comparisons of the Gods in Anatolia and in India (and in Iran), horse-breeding and horse-training vocabulary, and, finally, R1a1 haplotypes structure in Anatolia, Iran and India.

That is why I mean by "optimization", that is considerations of MANY different factors in their entirety, and creating as non-contradictory pattern as possible. There is no place for  R1b1b2 in that pattern. There is no "Indo-European" R1b1b2 in either India or Iran. How could they be "Indo-European" when they have not been in India those times, that is ~3500 ybp? When R1b1b2 are absent in upper castes in India, while R1a1 reach there up to 72%?

Do you know that R1a1 are identical up to 67-marker haplotypes in both India, Iran and in ethnic Russians? I with my 67-marker R1a1 haplotype sit on the same branch in R1a1 67-marker haplotype tree along with a bunch of R1a1 Indians? Have you looked at R1b1b2 pattern in India? What have you seen?

Either, folks, you want to learn things, or you stick to your preconceived "knowledge" such as "Indo-European R1b1b2" 4500 or 3500 years bp, which did not exist. I do not know where did you get it? Is it a kind of religion? Do you just believe in it, and do not need any proof?   

             
Me in particular I don´t have that preconceived "knowledge" such as "Indo-European R1b1b2", in fact I agree with you that IE language is not directly linked to R1b1b2, and as a cultural item arrived later to Western Europe, so my questions were on the validity of your optimization. I understand that your point on Mitanni R1a1 is its link to India, fair enough. However you should know that, while Mitanni language is indeed Indo-Aryan, Hittite is not, and the horse breeding and horse training vocabulary in Kikkuli´s text is translated with difficulty into Hittite.

Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #67 on: June 25, 2010, 07:53:12 AM »

. . .

That is why I mean by "optimization", that is considerations of MANY different factors in their entirety, and creating as non-contradictory pattern as possible. There is no place for  R1b1b2 in that pattern. There is no "Indo-European" R1b1b2 in either India or Iran. How could they be "Indo-European" when they have not been in India those times, that is ~3500 ybp? When R1b1b2 are absent in upper castes in India, while R1a1 reach there up to 72%?

Do you know that R1a1 are identical up to 67-marker haplotypes in both India, Iran and in ethnic Russians? I with my 67-marker R1a1 haplotype sit on the same branch in R1a1 67-marker haplotype tree along with a bunch of R1a1 Indians? Have you looked at R1b1b2 pattern in India? What have you seen?

Either, folks, you want to learn things, or you stick to your preconceived "knowledge" such as "Indo-European R1b1b2" 4500 or 3500 years bp, which did not exist. I do not know where did you get it? Is it a kind of religion? Do you just believe in it, and do not need any proof?  

            

Anatole,

There is the possibility that you are correct, but it is also quite possible that you are wrong.

You seem to be making India the measure of the early Indo-Europeans, which is quite convenient, if one wants to argue that R1a=Indo-European. Of course, some have used India to argue that J2=Indo-European.

But Western Europe is just as Indo-European as India (more so, considering the large Dravidian element in India, much larger than the miniscule, Basque-speaking element in W. Europe). In western Europe one could reasonably argue that there is no place for R1a in the Indo-European pattern (to use some of your own words).

I don't have the studies at hand, but actually quite a bit of R1b1b2 has been found in Iran and some in India (although admittedly not much in the latter).

The tone of your posts is very condescending and rather pompous. Everyone but you, it seems, has "preconceived 'knowledge'" (as opposed to the genuine knowledge you alone seem to possess, I guess).

Indo-European may have been spread to India by people whose males were mostly R1a, but that doesn't seem to be the case in Western Europe.

(I am really going to have to figure out how to split all these off-topic posts off of this thread to create a separate thread on this Indo-European topic. We have really gone far off the original topic of this thread!)
« Last Edit: June 25, 2010, 07:54:10 AM by rms2 » Logged

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #68 on: June 25, 2010, 03:29:17 PM »

The Aryans were Satem-speaking people, so they would not apply to Centum-speaking R1b1b2 in Western Europe.

Where did you get of "Centum-speaking R1b1b2 in Western Europe?" When? in 2010 AD? In1955 AD? In 1300 AD? In 600 AD? In 500 BC? In 1000 BC?

Why do you ALWAYS ignore chronology? Why such loose statements? 


You circumvented my point about the Hittite language and R1b1b2 in Anatolia. I believe you know that Anatolian is one of the OLDEST forms of Indo-European. Recent research postulates that R1b1b2 is oldest in Anatolia/Near East.

What you "believe" is not science. It is religion. And, again, lack of chronology (or knowledge).  Please define" one of the oldest" and what it is based on?

I can help you out. R1b1b2 were in Anatolia around 6000 ybp. There was no any "IE" in Anatolia those times. They were in 3600 ybp, when R1a1 were there. What is "R1b1b2 is oldest in Anatolia/Near East"?? Are you O.K.? Have you heard of J1, J2 there?   

- R1b1b2 farmers crossed the Caucasus Mountains, reached the Pontic Steppe, and taught R1a1 nomads Indo-European.

Where did you get it?? Do you know that R1b1b2 is of 7000 in the Russian Plain, 6000 in the Caucasus and Anatolia, and 5500 in Lebanon? You again do not pay attention to chronology.

The rest is not even worth to discuss, unless you incorporate dates to your "considerations" and "beliefs".

Logged

R1a1

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #69 on: June 25, 2010, 03:37:49 PM »

Did I mention that the Talysh in Northern Iran also speak an IE language... and are mostly R1b? :)


Again a methodological mistake. Did you calculate when their R1b common ancestor lived? What if it was merely 800 years before present? 

Hence, the "argument" is inadmissible. Sorry, tough luck.

You should really read some interesting, peer-reviewed journals on the subject. Quite fascinating.

For you, maybe. However, you did not not answer my question on R1b comman ancestor of Talyshs. If you present me their R1b haplotypes, I will help you out.

The expression "peer-review" is impressive for non-scientists. I could not care less about it. Those Zhivotovsky papers are all peer-reviewed, so what? They are disaster in DNA genealogy. The latest Hammer paper on R1a1-M458 was peer-reviewed, but he (and his co-authors) screwed up everything about dating of M458 and history of R1a1 movements to the East. Those "Cohen Modal Haplotypes" were disaster in terms of dating and assignments (a hint - the Arabs have them since 9000 years ago), and the papers were peer-reviewed (Nature). So what? Whom do you want to impress about those "peer-reviewed" papers? Me???

     
Logged

R1a1

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #70 on: June 25, 2010, 03:45:41 PM »

...while Mitanni language is indeed Indo-Aryan, Hittite is not, and the horse breeding and horse training vocabulary in Kikkuli´s text is translated with difficulty into Hittite.

I understand that. So what? What it actually proves or disproves? Some populations were mainly "Aryans" (R1a1), in some R1a1 were only leaders, some disappeared, some transformed.

My point was merely that R1a1 moved to Anatolia some 3600 ybp, and there were the same tribe (R1a1) who almost concurrently moved from the North to India and Iran. Hence, similarity in their languages, haplogroups,  cultural attributes, horse-breeding and horse-training techniques. After 3600 years many things - of course - changed, but some stay, sometimes vaguely.

   
Logged

R1a1

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #71 on: June 25, 2010, 04:04:53 PM »


Anatole,

There is the possibility that you are correct, but it is also quite possible that you are wrong.

Sure. This is what all science is about.

However, being a professional scientist, I try to do my best in creating a pattern which would incorporate as many factors as possible, and reject those factors which do not agree with many other factors. "He say - she say" things are not admissible.     


You seem to be making India the measure of the early Indo-Europeans, which is quite convenient, if one wants to argue that R1a=Indo-European. Of course, some have used India to argue that J2=Indo-European.

That "J2" thing as IE is what I mean "he said - she said".  I have published papers in that regard, in which I analyzed  J2 time-wise and haplotype-wise in India and elsewhere. I have not seen anything in which ANY analysis was done in that regard. No common ancestors, no dating, no base haplotypes, just nothing. Just gossips and rumors. Yes, there are up to 20% of J2 in the upper castes (rarely, and compared to 72% for R1a1), so what? US congress also contains some not R1b1b2 haplotypes, after just 390 years since 1620. In India 3500 years have passed.     

In western Europe one could reasonably argue that there is no place for R1a in the Indo-European pattern

We have freedom of speech. "One" could argue whatever he/she wants, and we see it every day on TV, radio, the Internet, and in daily life. So what?   

The tone of your posts is very condescending and rather pompous. Everyone but you, it seems, has "preconceived 'knowledge'" (as opposed to the genuine knowledge you alone seem to possess, I guess).

Well, love it or leave it. Or, rather, I will leave. No problem with that.

Best regards,

Anatole Klyosov

Logged

R1a1

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #72 on: June 25, 2010, 10:51:26 PM »

Did I mention that the Talysh in Northern Iran also speak an IE language... and are mostly R1b? :)


Again a methodological mistake. Did you calculate when their R1b common ancestor lived? What if it was merely 800 years before present?  

Hence, the "argument" is inadmissible. Sorry, tough luck.

You should really read some interesting, peer-reviewed journals on the subject. Quite fascinating.

For you, maybe. However, you did not not answer my question on R1b comman ancestor of Talyshs. If you present me their R1b haplotypes, I will help you out.

The expression "peer-review" is impressive for non-scientists. I could not care less about it. Those Zhivotovsky papers are all peer-reviewed, so what? They are disaster in DNA genealogy. The latest Hammer paper on R1a1-M458 was peer-reviewed, but he (and his co-authors) screwed up everything about dating of M458 and history of R1a1 movements to the East. Those "Cohen Modal Haplotypes" were disaster in terms of dating and assignments (a hint - the Arabs have them since 9000 years ago), and the papers were peer-reviewed (Nature). So what? Whom do you want to impress about those "peer-reviewed" papers? Me???

    

Let me help YOU out a little bit. You may be a "scientist", Anatole, but your lack of professionalism is a salient feature of your easily refutable arguments. Crunching numbers does not explain the obvious, qualitative truth about IE.

Sure, I know chronology. I know Centum came first and it is spoken in Europe where R1a1 is almost non-existent. Oh wait, here's more chronology for ya: R1b1b2 is oldest in the Near East where some of the oldest forms of IE were spoken! R1a1 folks speak Satem, the newer form of IE... So they had to learn it from somebody. ;)

I believe I am repeating myself here.

Now, what could have happened (I will give a little bit here) is a hybrid R1b1b2/R1a1 population in Southern Russia developed IE. Nevertheless, R1a1 had NOTHING to do with Centum, but rather went east due to the pre-Italo-Celto-Germanic R1b1b2 folks keeping them from going west.

And you still can't explain that, can ya?  
« Last Edit: June 25, 2010, 10:54:21 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #73 on: June 26, 2010, 04:21:07 AM »



I understand that. So what? What it actually proves or disproves? Some populations were mainly "Aryans" (R1a1), in some R1a1 were only leaders, some disappeared, some transformed.

My point was merely that R1a1 moved to Anatolia some 3600 ybp, and there were the same tribe (R1a1) who almost concurrently moved from the North to India and Iran. Hence, similarity in their languages, haplogroups,  cultural attributes, horse-breeding and horse-training techniques. After 3600 years many things - of course - changed, but some stay, sometimes vaguely.

   
My point is that while you can argue rightly that Mitanni and Aryans that invaded India were the same people as they spoke a related IndoAryan language, and then be R1a1 since that is present in India higher Castes, that not follows in the case of Hittites, since they spoke a non related IE language, Nesite, that conforms a different IE family together with Luwite and Palaian. They were in Anatolya before the 16th century, when the Hittite kingdom was created, and in any case they linguistics differences with Mitanni IE aristocracy were so great that they should have been developed on a long period of time, at least several centuries.
To sum up, Hittites is a piece of your optimization that doesn´t fit with the rest, the ycould be indeed R1a, as you claim, but you have to look for another argument to support that.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #74 on: June 26, 2010, 04:29:43 AM »

Dear Anatole,
I thank you for your interesting and kind response, but, perhaps unwillingly, you are saying
which is the true problem re. the dating of a haplogroup: to mix clades that have different
origin and to falsify the dating itself (you say Zhivotovskij, I could say Klyosovskij).
When we compare a haplotype (say on Ysearch etc.) we find the closest to it, but we cannot know
if these clades are comparable, i.e. if they have the same ancestor. We now can determine the
"clade", after many wrong comparisons.
Here, I think, enters in game my theory of the "mutations around the modal".
You are a scientist of value in your field, but we too have our fields (literature, critics,
textkritik, psychoanalysis, glottology, history, etc.). I needed many tens of years for
reconstructing my paper trail of my family: the problems are the same: often a man with the
same name and surname and sometimes the same birth year wasn't whom I was searching for. The
same I think is genetic genealogy: what is worth for gas and molecules probably isn't worth
for persons and YDNA. If you have experience on this you should have had from many time the
knowledge that often there are more mutations among two close relatives in the last a few
hundreds of years than with a reconstructed ancestor of thousands of years ago: because mutations
around the modal occur.
And if my ancient R1b1b2a comes from Anatolia or Middle East or Russian plane and not the contrary
must yet be demonstrated.

Kind regards, Maliclavelli
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 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 0.192 seconds with 19 queries.