World Families Forums - Thoughts from Klyosov R1b data and the IE problem

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 18, 2014, 08:22:08 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)
| | |-+  Thoughts from Klyosov R1b data and the IE problem
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Thoughts from Klyosov R1b data and the IE problem  (Read 3859 times)
secherbernard
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


« on: November 21, 2010, 12:08:57 PM »

Anatole Klyosov has published a very interesting web page about R1a and R1b history: see http://www.turkicworld.org/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm
This is a short summary of Anatole thesis:
1) R1a and R1b are both from Altaï
2) 12.000 years ago R1a migrated and arrived in Balkans
3) Between 6.000 and 8.000 years ago R1b migrated westward from Altaï and arrived in the north of Black Sea. Cultures of Samara, Khvalynsk and Yamnaya
4) From here, 2 R1b migrations: the first one to Balkans and Italy and brings R1b-ht35, the second one to Caucasus, Near East, North Africa and Iberia. Then R1b-ht15 spreads in occidental Europe with Bell Beaker culture.
5) R1a migrated to North Europe, then eastward to Steppe between 5.000 or 4.000 years ago. Culture of Andronovo then R1a spread to Iran and India.

Anatole Klyosov thinks that R1a spoke proto IE language and R1b spoke proto turkic language. He doesn't agree with Kurgan hypothesis. He sees that R1b migrated from east to west and that R1a migrated from west to east.

I think that Klyosov data and chronology can be understood under the Kurgan hypothesis.

If R1b arrived first in the Steppe during Samara, Khvalynsk and Yamnaya cultures, I think R1b spoke proto IE language. The first migration of R1b to Balkans and Italy can be related with Yamnaya migrations:

When R1b arrived in East Europe, he comes in contact with R1a people. From this contact, R1a changed his language and became IE with satem language. R1b kept his centum language. Then R1a spread to the north of Europe:it is the Corded Ware culture. In the South-East of the Corded Ware culture, R1a created the Middle Dnieper and the Fatyanovo cultures. From David Anthony's book page 377:
Quote
Under the influence of this combined Globular Amphorae and Corded Ware expansion to the east, the already complex mixture of Yamnaya-influenced Late Tripolye people in the Middle Dnieper valley created the Middle Dnieper culture in the forest-steppe region around Kiev.
then page 380:
Quote
Fatyanovo pottery still showed mixed Corded Ware/Globular Amphorae traits, and the Fatyanovo culture probably was derived from an early variant of the Middle Dnieper culture.
then page 382:
Quote
This was Abashevo, the easternmost of the Russian forest-zone cultures that were descended from Corded Ware ceramic traditions. The Abashevo culture played an important role in the origin of Sintashta.
The Sintashta culture is the craddle of the Andronovo culture.
This map from Anthony's book shows the R1a eastward migration from Corded Ware culture to Sintashta culture:


Tokharian language is a centum language in the Tarim Basin probably from Afanasievo culture dated about 3.500 BC. Afanasievo culture began before R1a migration eastward. So, related to Klyosov chronology,  R1b people would be the the people of Afanasievo culture. The Tarim mummies are dated about 1.800 BC. They are R1a, so they are probably from Andronovo culture. Ouighurs people has both R1a and R1b in the same percentage: I think between 10 and 20%. I think R1b people came from Afanasievo culture about 5.500 years ago, and R1a people came from Andronovo culture about 3.800 years ago.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2010, 02:21:25 PM by secherbernard » Logged

YDNA: R-DF13+ L69+ DYS464X: cccc.3
mtDNA: U6a7a1
mtDNA of my father: U5a2c
YDNA of my maternal uncle: I1*
Ysearch and Mitosearch: UE9BU
Ysearch of my maternal uncle: CEC59

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2103


« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2010, 12:54:54 PM »

“From here, 2 R1b migrations: the first one to Balkans and Italy and brings R1b-ht35, the second one to Caucasus, Near East, North Africa and Iberia. Then R1b-ht15 spreads in occidental Europe with Bell Beaker culture”.

Then Klyosov has changed his opinion, as thus far he thought that R1b migrated from Asia to Middle East, Africa, Spain and Europe. Now he thinks that R1b1b2a arrived firstly to Balkans and Italy. Helas!
If my theories will be right, he will have to change his opinions again.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2010, 01:06:18 PM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2010, 02:06:39 PM »

This thread shows there is clearly very little agreed about the location of the R1, R1b, R1b1b2 homelands prior to the main thrust into Europe. Of course this is a hell of a long period too, from the Upper Palaeolithic to the early Neolithic.  I would really love to know where the ancestors were before say 6000BC.  I think if the late Neolithic/Corder Ware/Beaker idea of its spread west is correct (still an 'if') then R1b1b2 must have largely been out of the path of the wave of early farming c 8000 years ago or surely it would have been swept along.  Of course 8000 years ago R1b's most downstream form would according to the usual variance dates) have been still in the broad ht35 stage.  Perhaps not far downstream from M269*????? Clearly that was not along the main either the LBK or Cardial paths west unless the normal late Neolithic variance dating is wrong.  If we assume for a moment that the dating is correct then I think we can rule out R1b1b2 being in Turkey, the east Med., the Balkans, Hungary etc c. 8000 years ago when farming was spreading into Europe.  So, in that scenario it would have had to be somewhere north or east of the Black Sea at the srart of the Neolithic spread into Europe.   Presumably it must have been still in the hunter gatherer zone at the time. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2010, 11:40:36 AM »

This thread shows there is clearly very little agreed about the location of the R1, R1b, R1b1b2 homelands prior to the main thrust into Europe. Of course this is a hell of a long period too, from the Upper Palaeolithic to the early Neolithic.  I would really love to know where the ancestors were before say 6000BC.  I think if the late Neolithic/Corder Ware/Beaker idea of its spread west is correct (still an 'if') then R1b1b2 must have largely been out of the path of the wave of early farming c 8000 years ago or surely it would have been swept along.  Of course 8000 years ago R1b's most downstream form would according to the usual variance dates) have been still in the broad ht35 stage.  Perhaps not far downstream from M269*????? Clearly that was not along the main either the LBK or Cardial paths west unless the normal late Neolithic variance dating is wrong.  If we assume for a moment that the dating is correct then I think we can rule out R1b1b2 being in Turkey, the east Med., the Balkans, Hungary etc c. 8000 years ago when farming was spreading into Europe.  So, in that scenario it would have had to be somewhere north or east of the Black Sea at the srart of the Neolithic spread into Europe.   Presumably it must have been still in the hunter gatherer zone at the time.  
If you use Vince V's timeline of
14,000 BC R-M415 (R1b1, P25)
10,000 BC R-P297 (R1b1b)
4,000 BC R-M269 (R1b1b2)

R-M269 probably wasn't even around (or just barely), period, during the LBK and Cardial Wares advances. Since R-M269's diversity seems to be great in SW Asia, it appears he came from there too, but was some other wave, post the early Neolithic.  Upstream ancestors of R-M269, i.e. R-M343*, etc.,  may have caught the early Neolithic, though. They would have had to, I think, if you ascribe that P312 came out of Iberia with the Beaker folks. I don't personally think that, but It think it is important to recognize SE France has a lot of P312 diversity.

« Last Edit: November 22, 2010, 12:03:52 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2010, 12:01:48 PM »

Anatole Klyosov ......
3) Between 6.000 and 8.000 years ago R1b migrated westward from Altaï and arrived in the north of Black Sea. Cultures of Samara, Khvalynsk and Yamnaya
4) From here, 2 R1b migrations: the first one to Balkans and Italy and brings R1b-ht35, the second one to Caucasus, Near East, North Africa and Iberia. Then R1b-ht15 spreads in occidental Europe with Bell Beaker culture.
.... Anatole Klyosov thinks that R1a spoke proto IE language and R1b spoke proto turkic language. He doesn't agree with Kurgan hypothesis. He sees that R1b migrated from east to west and that R1a migrated from west to east....
I can see that R-M343+ M269- peoples could very well have been in Central Asia at this time around 8000 BC.

I understand that Anatole is saying R-M343 and its descendants were speaking some sort of Turkic language, but nothing like modern Turkic.  I don't follow his logic on the language part as we get into Europe.  We know there is a high correlation of R-M269 with lands were Centum IE languages were spoken. We know there is a high correlation of R1a1 with lands were SatemIE languages were spoken.    How did R-M269 Turkic speakers made contact with IE speakers and end up with Centum IE languages... but at the same time the same (R1a1) IE speakers were speaking Satem languages where they weren't in contact with R-M269 peoples?.  Is my concern valid?

If it is, then the R-M269 people were speaking IE by the time they got to Europe, just different branches of it than the R-M417 (R1a1a1).

« Last Edit: November 23, 2010, 11:23:06 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2010, 04:45:03 PM »

Ihave no doubt that R1b-M269 lineages were speaking an IE language by the time they entered Europe. Whether they were amongst the original speakers of proto-IE, or whether they acquired the language at some time and somewhere in Asia or the Middle East, I think has to remain an open question. However I suspect they, and most likely their ancestors, had been speaking one or more varieties of Centum IE for a considerable period before they entered Europe.
Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2010, 06:44:35 PM »

Has anyone seen these haplotypes for R1b in the Altai region?  Are they something older such as M173*,M343* or P25*?  From the discussion on Rootsweb it seemed that some had 390=19.

I can't argue the math suggesting R1b at 17000ya in the Altai, but where is the archaeological trail from the east to the steppe in a late UP and Mesolithic time-frame?  Most archaeology show migrations coming out of the south, as in south or SW Asia then heading north in different directions.  The rest of the hypothesis seems plausible once R1b is near the steppe or SW Asia.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2010, 11:30:14 AM »

Has anyone seen these haplotypes for R1b in the Altai region?  Are they something older such as M173*,M343* or P25*?  From the discussion on Rootsweb it seemed that some had 390=19.

I can't argue the math suggesting R1b at 17000ya in the Altai, but where is the archaeological trail from the east to the steppe in a late UP and Mesolithic time-frame?  Most archaeology show migrations coming out of the south, as in south or SW Asia then heading north in different directions.  The rest of the hypothesis seems plausible once R1b is near the steppe or SW Asia.
According to Anatole Klyosov, the Botai culture may be the one we should be tracking. I don't know much about it but I'll try to find what I can to read.
Quote from: Klyosov
The Türkic-lingual Asian carriers of the group R1b haplotype remained in Asia. 5,700-5,100 years ago in the North Kazakhstan they established Botai Archeological Culture, and according to the latest data 5,500 years ago domesticated the horse (Archaeology, Jan-Feb 2010). In addition to the Botai settlement dated 3,700-3,100 BC (definitely haplogroup R1b, since the carriers of the R1a1 appeared in those places were only one and a half - two thousand years later), there was found a camp dated 1,200-900 BC, i.e. 3,200-2,900 years ago.
EDIT: Here is blog entry showing David Anthony and Marsha Levine's debate on horse bit teeth wear and the Botai.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/09/botai-and-horse-domestication.html
This debate was prior to Anthony's "Wheel, Horse..." book but I think he is winning the debate.
The earliest horse back riders, that we know of, are the Botai.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2010, 12:34:33 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2010, 10:32:51 AM »

I think Dr. Klyosov, like so many others, finds the Basques a stumblingblock in associating R1b1b2 (and its downstream clades) with the Indo-Europeans. Couple that with a strong R1b1b2 presence in a number of Turkic-speaking groups, like the Bashkirs, and you have the ingredients for his hypothesis.

It's an interesting idea, at any rate, but it seems to me the R1b1b2/Centum association is far stronger.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 10:33:37 AM by rms2 » Logged

secherbernard
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2010, 01:22:45 PM »

I am agree with you. Take for example the Uyghurs. There must be about 20% of R1b among them. The Uyghurs speak today a Turkic language. However in the past people spoke in the Tarim Basin, the tokharian: an IE centum language which  has disappeared. It could be the same for the Bashkirs.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 01:23:38 PM by secherbernard » Logged

YDNA: R-DF13+ L69+ DYS464X: cccc.3
mtDNA: U6a7a1
mtDNA of my father: U5a2c
YDNA of my maternal uncle: I1*
Ysearch and Mitosearch: UE9BU
Ysearch of my maternal uncle: CEC59

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2010, 08:34:41 PM »

I agree with Bernard and Rich about this one.

Contemporary Turks may speak Turkish, but the ancient inhabitants of Turkey spoke Anatolian, one of the earliest forms of Indo-European.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2010, 01:07:04 AM »

I think Dr. Klyosov, like so many others, finds the Basques a stumblingblock in associating R1b1b2 (and its downstream clades) with the Indo-Europeans. Couple that with a strong R1b1b2 presence in a number of Turkic-speaking groups, like the Bashkirs, and you have the ingredients for his hypothesis.
It's an interesting idea, at any rate, but it seems to me the R1b1b2/Centum association is far stronger.
I agree that R-M269 and IE Centum languages have a high correlation. I don't think the association of R-M343 and R-M269 with ancient Turkic languages holds much weight, but I am open to understanding the Anatole K's point of view.

I don't think, however, that Anatole has much of a problem with the Basques. He thinks their language plays into an ancient version of Turkish somehow. Remember, this Turkish he is talking about is not like modern Turkish languages. My assessment is that he thinks tie R-P312 iexpanded out of Iberia with the Beakers.... just they weren't proto-Celtic - I think.

Well, that is the part I don't get. How these ancient  R1b Turkish speakers which have spread all over Europe somehow get IE from R1a1 people that they almost wiped out of Europe?

I am definitely open to R-M343 or even R-M269 being non-IE speakers, but somehow by the time the explosion of L23 to L11 started, since it was a late date, they must have been carrying IE Centum languages with them. Either that or some other huge Bronze Age event took place and that event seems to be invisible.

 
« Last Edit: November 25, 2010, 01:25:29 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2010, 10:42:27 AM »

I don't know if this will be of help but while looking a the ancestry of dog breeds (totally unrelated to this subject) I noticed a general trend that large dog breeds seem to come from somewhere around the Steppe area. The Tibetan Mastiff was thought to be the oldest breed but now it is thought to have come from further west. It is also supposed to be the descendant of Pastoral flock/herd guarding dogs. There is a seeming split between what seems eo be the most probable roots out of the steppes into Europe North and South. From SW Asia there are the Molosser (mastiff) type along the Med. There have foud small circular enclosures attached to the out side of houses (at the doorways) with bones that have been credited to very large dogs. I think it was associated with early Bell Beaker People or earlier. To the North There is the Bulldog Type (much larger than what we think of today. They both are descendants of the same Asian breed. What struck me was that this looked similar to the movements talked about on this thread. I was thinking maybe the splitting of the 2 types might reflect the transition from herding to farming. Possibly more arable to the South and pastoral to the south. I'm just throwing this out as maybe someone will find it useful as another part to the puzzle. This was taken from various Dog Websites so I can't vouch for the science but there might be something to it
Logged
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2010, 11:44:07 AM »

Has anyone checked out the Dravidian IE ancestor Theory. Here's 2 sites, there's more but I couldn't,t find them again.
http://tinyurl.com/2vvrukm and http://tinyurl.com/2ud83zp
I've heard theories that there is a musical connection between Irish folk and classical Indian music (can't see it as anything more than an indication of the age of the pentatonic scale and derivatives myself but...)
Logged
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2010, 11:53:42 AM »

Sorry this is the link I meant  not the 2nd one
http://tinyurl.com/34u3xxr
Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 675


« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2010, 08:44:24 PM »

I don't know if this will be of help but while looking a the ancestry of dog breeds (totally unrelated to this subject) I noticed a general trend that large dog breeds seem to come from somewhere around the Steppe area. The Tibetan Mastiff was thought to be the oldest breed but now it is thought to have come from further west. It is also supposed to be the descendant of Pastoral flock/herd guarding dogs. There is a seeming split between what seems eo be the most probable roots out of the steppes into Europe North and South. From SW Asia there are the Molosser (mastiff) type along the Med. There have foud small circular enclosures attached to the out side of houses (at the doorways) with bones that have been credited to very large dogs. I think it was associated with early Bell Beaker People or earlier. To the North There is the Bulldog Type (much larger than what we think of today. They both are descendants of the same Asian breed. What struck me was that this looked similar to the movements talked about on this thread. I was thinking maybe the splitting of the 2 types might reflect the transition from herding to farming. Possibly more arable to the South and pastoral to the south. I'm just throwing this out as maybe someone will find it useful as another part to the puzzle. This was taken from various Dog Websites so I can't vouch for the science but there might be something to it

Fragments of a dog’s skull and teeth have been discovered in a cave in Switzerland that date back more than 14,000 years, according to researchers, saying the find could be the oldest known remains of the domestic dog.

The fossils were among archaeological finds that were unearthed in 1873 in the Kesslerloch cave in northern Switzerland, Swiss news agency ATS said on Monday.

However, it was only last year that researchers at Germany’s Tuebingen University decided to take a closer look at the remains, it said.

“During a recent re-analysis of the faunal remains, we identified a cranial fragment and teeth of the domestic dog,” said the researchers in an article in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology.

The large fragment from the maxilla was directly dated to “14,000 to 14,600 BP (Before Present),” it said.

“We argue that the maxilla fragment must now be considered the earliest indisputable directly dated evidence of a domestic dog,” they said.

Belgian archaeologists claim to have discovered the skull of a dog dating from 30,000 years back, but researcher Hannes Napierala told ATS: “We are skeptical because the teeth are very similar to those of a wolf.”

Researchers said the Switzerland find was clearly distinct from wolf remains.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1899496/14000_year_old_domestic_dog_remains_found/index.html
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


A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2010, 10:00:38 AM »

Yeah there's loads of inconclusive stuff on ancient dogs there's even a suggestion that dogs are 100,000 years old. I was trying to be more specific. Basically the difference between  what came to be Bulldog types and Mastiff types.The Turks when moving from  C.Asia to Anatolia brought with them their own type dogs who's descendants are today's Kangal dogs, these are large but not of the same type as bulls.and mastiffs. In respect to the later 2 there seems to be a split before 3,000 BC somewhere around the Steppes Asia. There is differences in skull types shapes etc basically dogs with jobs. I was wondering if their skeletons could leave a trail. 
Logged
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2010, 10:56:33 AM »

Theres some stuff here and on links these guys are trying to use dog remains to pin down the movements of the Jomon people in E Asia. So maybe there is something in it. Note the dates, previous dogs were of thr lighter hunting type (eg Greyhounds) 
Logged
tomhandry1
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2011, 05:16:36 AM »

I am new to this forum and having little problem in understanding.So if any one can help me out in understanding this,I will be very grateful.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2011, 12:01:06 PM »

I think Dr. Klyosov, like so many others, finds the Basques a stumblingblock in associating R1b1b2 (and its downstream clades) with the Indo-Europeans. Couple that with a strong R1b1b2 presence in a number of Turkic-speaking groups, like the Bashkirs, and you have the ingredients for his hypothesis.
It's an interesting idea, at any rate, but it seems to me the R1b1b2/Centum association is far stronger.
I agree that R-M269 and IE Centum languages have a high correlation. I don't think the association of R-M343 and R-M269 with ancient Turkic languages holds much weight, but I am open to understanding the Anatole K's point of view.

I don't think, however, that Anatole has much of a problem with the Basques. He thinks their language plays into an ancient version of Turkish somehow. Remember, this Turkish he is talking about is not like modern Turkish languages. My assessment is that he thinks tie R-P312 iexpanded out of Iberia with the Beakers.... just they weren't proto-Celtic - I think.

Well, that is the part I don't get. How these ancient  R1b Turkish speakers which have spread all over Europe somehow get IE from R1a1 people that they almost wiped out of Europe?

I am definitely open to R-M343 or even R-M269 being non-IE speakers, but somehow by the time the explosion of L23 to L11 started, since it was a late date, they must have been carrying IE Centum languages with them. Either that or some other huge Bronze Age event took place and that event seems to be invisible.

 

I don't think he has a "problem" with the Basques. It's just that the Basques are at the root of his reasoning.

The old idea was that, since the Basques are a Paleolithic remnant who spoke a non-IE language that was once widespread in western Europe, and the Basques are mostly R1b, then R1b is non-Indo-European and also Paleolithic in western Europe.

I think Anatole has modified that old chestnut only slightly in his thinking. He has thrown out the Paleolithic part and retained everything else.

Never mind that R1b is everywhere in western Europe associated with Indo-European languages and the Basques are a tiny exception. He chooses to define the large majority by the tiny exception.

That used to make at least some sense when the Basques were viewed as the original, the Old Stone Age holdouts.

Now it makes almost no sense.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 12:01:45 PM by rms2 » Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2011, 10:38:25 PM »

I think Dr. Klyosov, like so many others, finds the Basques a stumblingblock in associating R1b1b2 (and its downstream clades) with the Indo-Europeans. Couple that with a strong R1b1b2 presence in a number of Turkic-speaking groups, like the Bashkirs, and you have the ingredients for his hypothesis.
It's an interesting idea, at any rate, but it seems to me the R1b1b2/Centum association is far stronger.
I agree that R-M269 and IE Centum languages have a high correlation. I don't think the association of R-M343 and R-M269 with ancient Turkic languages holds much weight, but I am open to understanding the Anatole K's point of view.

I don't think, however, that Anatole has much of a problem with the Basques. He thinks their language plays into an ancient version of Turkish somehow. Remember, this Turkish he is talking about is not like modern Turkish languages. My assessment is that he thinks tie R-P312 iexpanded out of Iberia with the Beakers.... just they weren't proto-Celtic - I think.

Well, that is the part I don't get. How these ancient  R1b Turkish speakers which have spread all over Europe somehow get IE from R1a1 people that they almost wiped out of Europe?

I am definitely open to R-M343 or even R-M269 being non-IE speakers, but somehow by the time the explosion of L23 to L11 started, since it was a late date, they must have been carrying IE Centum languages with them. Either that or some other huge Bronze Age event took place and that event seems to be invisible.

 

I don't think he has a "problem" with the Basques. It's just that the Basques are at the root of his reasoning.

The old idea was that, since the Basques are a Paleolithic remnant who spoke a non-IE language that was once widespread in western Europe, and the Basques are mostly R1b, then R1b is non-Indo-European and also Paleolithic in western Europe.

I think Anatole has modified that old chestnut only slightly in his thinking. He has thrown out the Paleolithic part and retained everything else.

Never mind that R1b is everywhere in western Europe associated with Indo-European languages and the Basques are a tiny exception. He chooses to define the large majority by the tiny exception.

That used to make at least some sense when the Basques were viewed as the original, the Old Stone Age holdouts.

Now it makes almost no sense.

I am sure Dr. Klyosov would be happy to explain the R1a1-rich Estonian and Hungarian populations, both of which speak Uralic languages.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2011, 01:16:44 PM »

The part that I found interesting was the following extract which concords with the recent Moffat and Wilson book, "The Scots, A Genetic Journey" and Cunliffe and Koch, "Celtic from the West". I cannot understand how the two language groups Turkic and PIE swapped or were they already proto Celtic when they reached Iberia.

"From the Anatolia, which the carriers of R1b1b2, together with their agglutinative language, reached 6,000 ± 800 years ago (Klyosov, 2008a, b), they continued moving westward toward Europe by two routes. One route went through the Balkans, where the haplogroup R1b1b2 is recorded at about 4,000 years ago (a formal calculation gives 4050 ± 890 years ago). In Sardinia, it dates from the 5,025 ± 630 years ago, Sicily 4,550 ± 1020 years ago, in Italy 4,125 ± 500 years ago, in Slovenia 4,250 ± 600 years ago. Another route went through the Middle East (the common ancestor of the modern carriers of the haplogroup R1b1b2 in Lebanon dates back to 5,300 ± 700 years ago, among the modern Jews 5,150 ± 620 years ago), then on across the North Africa (Algerian Berbers 3,875 ± 670 years ago) to the Atlantic Ocean and on to the Iberian Peninsula (3,750 ± 380 years ago), and further on to Europe (Klyosov, 2009a).

It is very likely that carriers of R1b1b2 reached Iberia 4,800-4,500 years before present, but then they had passed a “population bottleneck”, and reappeared again (through a few survived DNA-lineages) 3,750 ± 380 years ago. This is when a common ancestor of the present-day Basques lived.

Approximately 3,600 years ago that haplogroup is noted in the British Isles. This is the movement of Beaker culture - from the Iberian Peninsula in the British Isles and on the European continent. On the overall, the peopling of the Europe by the carriers of the haplogroup R1b1b2, who were speaking the ancient Türkic languages, occurred between 4,500 and 3,600 years ago. They are the ancestors of the Proto-Celtics and Proto-Italics, and, probably, Proto-Picts and other “Proto”-R1b1b2 peoples in Europe
Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Pages: [1] 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 0.191 seconds with 19 queries.