World Families Forums - can the R1a and R1b populations both have spread Indo-European

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 18, 2014, 12:20:17 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)
| | |-+  can the R1a and R1b populations both have spread Indo-European
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: can the R1a and R1b populations both have spread Indo-European  (Read 3638 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2010, 06:16:07 PM »

I'm not sure the cultivar discovery knocks out Balaresque et al, Jean. It just alters the route

The crux of the argument by Balaresque et al is that the Neolithic spread from Anatolia and lo and behold! - R1b1b2 seems to spread from Anatolia! So it must be Neolithic.

The idea that the Neolithic spread to Europe from Anatolia has been so unquestioned for so long, that inevitably there will be resistance to the discovery that it didn't. But the evidence from cultivars just fits the wider picture. No early neolithic sites have been found in Western Anatolia. Perles went into print before the study of cultivars, pointing out that the Neolithic in Greece didn't seem to have sprung from Anatolia.
    

I think there were a few oddities and I think this study does indicate the need for further research but I am not convinced it can be taken as gospel in its entirety.  Personally I never felt that the Anatolian route was relevant to Greece and perhaps the Cardial culture and some Balkans cultures anyway.  I had thought that there was a dual route from the Levant via the sea and from Turkey into Bulgaria then the Danube.  Recent studies looking at dairying through traces on early Neolithic pots indicated (through RC dates) that crucial aspects of dairying emerged among early farmers in NW Turkey and first spread with the initial spread of farming to Bulgaria and then along the Danube into the LBK zone.  In doing so it bypassed Greece etc.  So, some archaeologists in recent studies do present evidence for an Anatolian to the Lower Danube route in the spread of farming.  Another thing I would note is that around the north Adriatic, the Cardial and LBK cultures have a brief point of relative proximity (Slovenia, Croatia, Austria etc) and I feel this could have led to exchange of ideas including cultivars etc which may mess up any inferences on human movement based on cultivars.  
The problem I have with the Cardial and LBK Neolithic cultures is their completely different routes should have led to more differences between R1b1b2 (R-M269) peoples.  Where are the two differentiated branches of R-M269?  This mis-alignment with R1b1b2 and the slighting off TMRCA timing always has me on the edge of ruling out the two great Neolithic expansions as carriers of R1b1b2 (at least in my mind.)

The only possibility I see of a possible two branches are R-P312 varieties with the Cardial and R-U106 varieties with LBK.  Still thinks don't end up correctly in the British Isles (should be a lot more early U106.)

Just like I think we need to talk about R-L21 in context of its brothers and its parent, R-P312.   I think the larger picture, the explosive (population growth) "package" was R-L11, parent to both R-P312 and R-U106.   So that leads to another key ingredient which is also a difficult question ....   What is the origin and path of R-U106?

From the discussion I've read, R-U106's origin is more wide open than R-P312's, but I can't help but being reminded that the R-U106 project administrators feel like R-U106 is of greatest diversity in Northeast Europe... i.e. Poland to Baltic.  No strong evidence here, but the correlation with David Anthony's Proto-Germanic path seems a bit uncanny.  

Are three westward paths possible for R-L11?  1) U106 north around the Carpathians and 2) P312 south and up the Danube and then also 3) P312 further south and along the Mediterranean?  *

I guess route #3 could include Anatole's North African... although I have to ask if there is any R-L11 trail in North Africa?  Has there been any deep clade testing there?

* Of course, there could be other haplogroups, e.i. I or J or E, included on some of these routes and a little bit of P312 could have gone with the U106 guys and vice versa.




I agree that distribution of S116 clades today do not intuitively support the early Neolithic option.  To maintain an early Neolithic spread of S116 it would seem necessary for it to have originated at a common origin point of Cardial and LBK.  I do not know where that would be as there has been a lot of debate with theorys coming in, out and back into fashion about the roots of these two cultures and I do not think we have seen the last word just yet on this.  However the common root has always been likely to be somewhere between the Levant and the Balkans.  So this model would require S116 to have occurred that far east and have then followed two routes (LBK and Cardial) west and really prospered and dominated.  It somehow just seems a bit convoluted to me but I suppose its not impossible.  Right now neither the early Neolithic or the copper age models for R1b1b2 spread are without huge problems IMO.   

If the bar of proof is set so low that clear intrusive horizons are not required and only a few foreign elements grafted onto a localised culture is enough to hide a crucial migration then I think that opens a Pandora's box where the same could be applied to many periods and it essentially becomes a matter of personal choice. 
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2010, 05:58:14 AM »

@Alan - I suspect that the real problem in your mind is the Bell Beaker evidence in Ireland. Take a look a my blog post on Population peaks in prehistoric Northern Europe.

See the figure for prehistoric population trends in Ireland, as judged by numbers of radiocarbon-dated sites.  See anything wrong with it? I certainly do. How could the population have virtually disappeared in the Bell Beaker period? I don't believe it. The problem is that there are a whole lot of Bell Beaker sites in Ireland that have never been properly entered into the record.

Neil Carlin at University College Dublin is doing his PhD on Beaker material culture and social change in Ireland: a study of Beaker associated settlement, ritual and funerary practices

He says "The recent increase in development-led excavations has resulted in the discovery of many new Irish Beaker-related funerary and ritual sites. However, much of this information remains unsynthesised, despite its potential to advance Beaker studies at a European-wide level."
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2010, 08:17:46 AM »

Recent studies looking at dairying through traces on early Neolithic pots indicated (through RC dates) that crucial aspects of dairying emerged among early farmers in NW Turkey and first spread with the initial spread of farming to Bulgaria and then along the Danube into the LBK zone.

You are pushing the dates back here. The study actually found that dairy farming emerged around the Sea of Marmara c. 6500–5000 BC. Milk residues were found on pottery from two sites of c. 5,500 BC on the Romanian bank of the Danube and a site of c. 5,700 BC in the Carpathian Basin. These dates are not early Neolithic for that region. Farming had reached the Balkans earlier from Crete.

Dairy farming represents a later development - part of the Secondary Products Revolution. The arrival of dairy farming is  marked by a rise in the ratio of domesticated cattle to sheep and goats in the region.  

See http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/Neolithic2.jpg
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 08:23:52 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2010, 09:07:14 AM »

@ rms2

People have been expecting simplicity and real life is more complex. Instead of a nice clear choice between

1) A Big Migration in the Neolithic from Anatolia which brought everything we can think of, including IE languages, dairy farming and ceramics.

2) A Big Migration in the Copper Age from N of the Black Sea, which brought IE languages and metallurgy.

We have messy reality:

1) A migration of hunter-gatherers, or borrowing of ideas westwards from Asia brought pointed-bottom pottery onto the Pontic-Caspian steppe c. 7000 BC - the earliest pottery in Europe. This spread up the Volga to the Baltic coast by 5000 BC. Could be connected to Y-DNA haplogroup I, but without aDNA, nothing is certain.  

2) A migration in the Neolithic from the Levant from c. 8,500 BC, which gradually brought stage 1 agriculture to Europe i.e. digging sticks rather than ploughs, animals kept for meat. Probably connected to Y-DNA E and J and Afro-Asiatic languages or other languages of the Levant.  PIE developed too late to be involved.   

3) The early farmers of the Near East seem to have over-exploited the land. Constant cultivation, over-grazing and felling trees for timber and fuel led to erosion and loss of fertility. Çatalhöyük was one of a number of sites abandoned between around 6900-6000 BC.  People moved in all directions - south into Mesopotamia and to North Africa, westwards into Central and Western Anatolia, northwards into the Caucasus. This is where R1b1b2 gets into the act. It must have been in the Neolithic Levant by about 6,000 BC, in time to catch the boat to North Africa. So it could also have spread west into Anatolia. If I'm right about its origins S of the Caspian Sea, it was already in the Caucasus.

4) Dairy farming begins as a specialisation in NW Anatolia c. 6000 BC and spreads into the Balkans and from there to the Pontic-Caspian steppe (where it appears the most common gene for lactose tolerance appeared). Later there are other migrations from Anatolia to Greece. Since R1b1b2 could have been involved in those, I have arrows on the speculative R1b1b2 map in those positions.

5) A first movement from the steppe up the Danube c. 4000 BC probably fed lactose tolerance into the Funnel Beaker Culture, though dairy farming was already spreading that way earlier.

6) People move probably from Western Anatolia (round about Arslantepe) to NW Caucasus c. 3800 to form the Maikop Culture. They are metallurgists. In the steppe horizon between them and the declining Balkan cultures the complete Secondary Products package develops by 3,300 BC - the plough, wheeled vehicles, dairy farming, horse-riding, etc (along with arsenic-bronze metallurgy) in conjunction with PIE. Many of these traits appear in Funnel Beaker as it develops, so we can picture a continued connection up the Danube.

7) c. 3100-2800 BC - the big migration up the Danube that starts the process of spreading the Copper Age (and secondary products agriculture) into Western Europe. R1b1b2 is the big player here.          

 
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 09:09:21 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2010, 09:35:19 AM »

If the bar of proof is set so low that clear intrusive horizons are not required and only a few foreign elements grafted onto a localised culture is enough to hide a crucial migration then I think that opens a Pandora's box ... 

I agree entirely. One problem is that archaeology traditionally has not been not good at identifying migration.

But science moves on. With isotope analysis we are into a different ball-game. The Amesbury Archer forced a reconsideration of Bell Beaker. That process is continuing with a Beaker isotope project in Britain, while isotope analysis on the Continent has already shown Beaker people as arrivals. That supports what was already very convincing archaeological and anthropological evidence of intrusion (though argued away by anti-migrationists). To add to it we now have an inherited dental traits study, mentioned already on this forum by B. Secher. 

But if you want to wait for aDNA, that is fine by me. 


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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2010, 11:12:10 AM »

@Alan - I suspect that the real problem in your mind is the Bell Beaker evidence in Ireland. Take a look a my blog post on Population peaks in prehistoric Northern Europe.

See the figure for prehistoric population trends in Ireland, as judged by numbers of radiocarbon-dated sites.  See anything wrong with it? I certainly do. How could the population have virtually disappeared in the Bell Beaker period? I don't believe it. The problem is that there are a whole lot of Bell Beaker sites in Ireland that have never been properly entered into the record.

Neil Carlin at University College Dublin is doing his PhD on Beaker material culture and social change in Ireland: a study of Beaker associated settlement, ritual and funerary practices

He says "The recent increase in development-led excavations has resulted in the discovery of many new Irish Beaker-related funerary and ritual sites. However, much of this information remains unsynthesised, despite its potential to advance Beaker studies at a European-wide level."


Its simply that I think the evidence is well short of presenting any sort of open-shut case right now.  The new evidence is very interesting but it needs built on.  Do not get me wrong I have always felt the beaker culture in some way involved migration but I think the ideas are in incredible flux in the last decade rather than really conclusive.  The Irish situation is odd regarding lack of classic beaker burials but (and I wish I knew more) its seems there was a similar traits in Brittany.  Noone has yet fully reassessed this and for example the odd Irish mix of vaguely Atlantic burial traditions and predominance of British/Rhenish beaker types (well that is what they did believe).  Actually, the precision (presumably trustworthy 'gold standard' from bones, hazelnuts and the like) dating for Wedge Tombs I recently read have squeezed their building phase something like c. 2400-1900BC almost exactly into the irish beaker period (although they were reused a lot).  I think you can probably give the entire class a beaker origin and it is worth noting that the other megalithic tomb types in Ireland had long ceased to be built by this stage (around half a millenium?) so there cannot have been continuity.  Long ago the Irish Wedge Tombs were compared with Breton Alles Couvert (pardon my French) but this idea became somewhat unfashionable.  I think it may be time to look again at this. They may have been a little pre-beakerbut they were a late tradition that was current when the beakers spread to the area.  Indeed all Atlantic Britain is somewhat odd in terms of beaker burials too.  I think the wedge tombs are fascinating and they do seem to have a weird distribution that has a correlation with metal ore deposits.  I personally think their importance is understated a little and it has long been recognised that they tend to be associated with beaker pottery and cremations and barbed and tanged arrows in their lowest layers. I think their pretty clearcut link with beakers was long clouded by disturbance by later insertions and aso very rare disturbance of pre-tomb layers.  Anyway, I think they may be a gifthorse for looking into any beaker period migrations.  The good thing is there are 100s of them identified and very few excavated. 
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 11:59:10 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2010, 12:03:04 PM »

If the bar of proof is set so low that clear intrusive horizons are not required and only a few foreign elements grafted onto a localised culture is enough to hide a crucial migration then I think that opens a Pandora's box ... 

I agree entirely. One problem is that archaeology traditionally has not been not good at identifying migration.

But science moves on. With isotope analysis we are into a different ball-game. The Amesbury Archer forced a reconsideration of Bell Beaker. That process is continuing with a Beaker isotope project in Britain, while isotope analysis on the Continent has already shown Beaker people as arrivals. That supports what was already very convincing archaeological and anthropological evidence of intrusion (though argued away by anti-migrationists). To add to it we now have an inherited dental traits study, mentioned already on this forum by B. Secher. 

But if you want to wait for aDNA, that is fine by me. 




The evidence is suggestive of migration but I would like to wait and see the results of a decent sample in a systematic study.   Also the devil is in the detail and the bigger picture of the direction(s) of beaker migration in Europe remains an issue.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2010, 02:28:35 PM »

Recent studies looking at dairying through traces on early Neolithic pots indicated (through RC dates) that crucial aspects of dairying emerged among early farmers in NW Turkey and first spread with the initial spread of farming to Bulgaria and then along the Danube into the LBK zone.

You are pushing the dates back here. The study actually found that dairy farming emerged around the Sea of Marmara c. 6500–5000 BC. Milk residues were found on pottery from two sites of c. 5,500 BC on the Romanian bank of the Danube and a site of c. 5,700 BC in the Carpathian Basin. These dates are not early Neolithic for that region. Farming had reached the Balkans earlier from Crete.

Dairy farming represents a later development - part of the Secondary Products Revolution. The arrival of dairy farming is  marked by a rise in the ratio of domesticated cattle to sheep and goats in the region.  

See http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/Neolithic2.jpg

I accept your point that the oldest traces on pots are a few hundred years younger than the earliest dates for the Neolithic in the Lower Danube but until I read the report in detail I would always initially treat presence in a presence/absence study as only providing a terminus anti quem unless the chances of recovery are very high and the sample is very good.  I do not know the specifics so I cannot really comment.  I remember not so long ago in the 1990s that the secondary products revolution in Europe was considered to be thousands of years earlier and a late Neolithic phenomenon.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2010, 05:43:34 PM »

You cant help but feeling that R1b1b2 is a south of the Black Sea thing in that bit of the world whereas R1a is a north of the Black Sea thing.  It seems a pretty sharp divide.  I am not sure how this tallies with the various theories.  I strikes me that the situation must be pretty old, otherwise the various sweeps east from both areas would have left telltale traces. 
Logged
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 0.092 seconds with 18 queries.