World Families Forums - R1 and Proto-Indo-European

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 16, 2014, 09:14:56 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)
| | |-+  R1 and Proto-Indo-European
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R1 and Proto-Indo-European  (Read 6856 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2011, 11:25:07 AM »

What do we know from anthropology? That the Cucuteni-Tripolye people had gracile, long-headed skeletons. How does that fit what we see in western Europe?

I don't think we see the spread of such Mediterranean type people westward. Instead, I think you see a round-headed, heavier-boned spread westward. I know that is the case with the Beaker Folk whose remains are found in the British Isles.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2011, 11:33:53 AM »

Here's another thing. If a pastoral R1a people from the steppe were able to impose their language and some aspects of their culture on a neighboring agricultural people to the west, then, in order for that IE language and culture to spread farther westward, that second, hybrid people would have had to impose their version upon their neighbors to the west. Then that next-stage folk would have had to impose IE upon their neighbors to the west, and so on and so on, on and on, to the Atlantic.

Sound like a likely scenario to you?
Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2011, 12:46:36 PM »

Here's another thing. If a pastoral R1a people from the steppe were able to impose their language and some aspects of their culture on a neighboring agricultural people to the west, then, in order for that IE language and culture to spread farther westward, that second, hybrid people would have had to impose their version upon their neighbors to the west. Then that next-stage folk would have had to impose IE upon their neighbors to the west, and so on and so on, on and on, to the Atlantic.

Sound like a likely scenario to you?

It sounds too convoluted to me. If this were the case, we would see phenomenon such as Satemization occur in Western Europe, while the original purveyors of IE spread east, with the older, Centum dialects.

Wouldn't the population who spoke the original language tend to keep it?
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 #28 on: April 16, 2011, 01:10:48 PM »

Here's another thing. If a pastoral R1a people from the steppe were able to impose their language and some aspects of their culture on a neighboring agricultural people to the west, then, in order for that IE language and culture to spread farther westward, that second, hybrid people would have had to impose their version upon their neighbors to the west. Then that next-stage folk would have had to impose IE upon their neighbors to the west, and so on and so on, on and on, to the Atlantic.

Sound like a likely scenario to you?

It sounds too convoluted to me. If this were the case, we would see phenomenon such as Satemization occur in Western Europe, while the original purveyors of IE spread east, with the older, Centum dialects.

Wouldn't the population who spoke the original language tend to keep it?

Good points.

Why would centum IE spread west and the satem innovations fail to do so?
Logged

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2011, 09:38:17 PM »

Good points made regarding the Centum-Satem split.  I think R1b as the steppe/Caucasus people has a little more weight at this time over a neolithic R1b.  I brought up the R1b neolithic scenario mainly because of a possible connection to the early spread of dairy farming in SE Europe and therefore lactose tolerance.

As for the physical anthropology,  the steppe people were in general taller,  more robust dolichocephalic (long-headed), with broad zygomata (cheekbones).  The round-headedness of the contemporary Beakers mainly come from the Beakers in Germany and Britain.   The British Beakers were the most robust.  They share the robust features of the steppe people like broad heads, wider zygomata (British types), and stature.   Where they really differ is  in cranial length.  The Beakers are like the small neolithic people in this feature.
Some things to consider, 1) brachiocephalic crania were found in the meso-(Ofnet burials in Bavaria) and neolithic periods (Ertebolle of Denmark), which is generally close to where Beaker remains are found in a later period ,i.e, Germany.  2) The preceding neolithic people of Spain were of the long-headed Mediterranean type
where Beaker supposedly emerged from, though a round-headed element was present.  The round-headed element in the copper/bronze ages is also found in Italy, Cyprus, and in the Baden culture in Hungary to give you an idea of where it may have come from.  The Caucasus people at this time were intermediate between the steppe and neolithic people.

Most of the neolithic is dominated by small, gracile long-headed people, so who were the Beakers?  Only speculation, but they may have been a new hybrid type between the mesolithic (robustness) and neolithics (short cranial length) or the neolithics and steppe people (again robustness).  Or none of that is a factor and it all comes down to climate and nutrition.  Or as a fourth possibility, they were already a distinct type that emerged out of SW Asia and into the mediterranean during the copper age.   Anyone have any ideas how R1b L11+ fits?

« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 09:44:42 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2011, 10:05:12 PM »

Another thing worth mentioning regarding the Bronze age is that the Beakers of Germany were culturally more connected with the Beakers of the Czech Republic than the slightly earlier spread from Spain, France, and Switzerland.  So, if the British Isles  and Scandinavian Beakers primarily came from the lower Rhine area then it suggests that some of those peoples trail comes from the direction of Czech Rep. and possibly Hungary.  The western Beakers only had an impact around Budapest, whereas the eastern Beaker range has more in common with the Corded-ware horizon and probably the Yamnaya people's descendents in eastern Hungary.  Carleton Coon observed an eastern long-headed element among the British Beakers, but considered it a 25% minority among the total Beaker remains.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 10:13:02 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2011, 10:25:59 PM »

Good points made regarding the Centum-Satem split.  I think R1b as the steppe/Caucasus people has a little more weight at this time over a neolithic R1b.  I brought up the R1b neolithic scenario mainly because of a possible connection to the early spread of dairy farming in SE Europe and therefore lactose tolerance.

As for the physical anthropology,  the steppe people were in general taller,  more robust dolichocephalic (long-headed), with broad zygomata (cheekbones).  The round-headedness of the contemporary Beakers mainly come from the Beakers in Germany and Britain.   The British Beakers were the most robust.  They share the robust features of the steppe people like broad heads, wider zygomata (British types), and stature.   Where they really differ is  in cranial length.  The Beakers are like the small neolithic people in this feature.
Some things to consider, 1) brachiocephalic crania were found in the meso-(Ofnet burials in Bavaria) and neolithic periods (Ertebolle of Denmark), which is generally close to where Beaker remains are found in a later period ,i.e, Germany.  2) The preceding neolithic people of Spain were of the long-headed Mediterranean type
where Beaker supposedly emerged from, though a round-headed element was present.  The round-headed element in the copper/bronze ages is also found in Italy, Cyprus, and in the Baden culture in Hungary to give you an idea of where it may have come from.  The Caucasus people at this time were intermediate between the steppe and neolithic people.

Most of the neolithic is dominated by small, gracile long-headed people, so who were the Beakers?  Only speculation, but they may have been a new hybrid type between the mesolithic (robustness) and neolithics (short cranial length) or the neolithics and steppe people (again robustness).  Or none of that is a factor and it all comes down to climate and nutrition.  Or as a fourth possibility, they were already a distinct type that emerged out of SW Asia and into the mediterranean during the copper age.   Anyone have any ideas how R1b L11+ fits?



IMO, R1b-L11 would have brought roundheadedness into Central Europe from the steppe, and this would explain the hybrid types seen in Beaker populations of Germany. L11 would be the intrusive element into the earlier, Neolithic population.

The Hochdorf Chieftain reminds me of this taller type associated with the steppe (although we can only surmise he is R1b). L11 would also pour into Britain, and the magnitude of their presence is illustrated with the robustness of British types. Mixing with the Neolithic substratum would explain the variety of types in the West Beaker zone.

I see U106 moving North along the Baltic Sea coast and Northern European Plain, with P312 shooting directly West of the Black Sea. Lactose tolerance would have made them larger, and as Rich says, the highest percentages are in Northwestern Europe: coincidentally the areas with the highest R1b concentrations.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2011, 10:53:42 PM »

It is interesting you think R1b could have brought the round-headed component from the steppe.  I found two sets of Yamnaya cranial-facial samples on the net.  One set of multiple individuals has an average cranial index of 78.9 and was found along the middle Dnieper river.  This is on the border between meso- and brachiocephalic and approaches Beaker CI's of around 80-82.  The second set was more typical of steppe people at 75.2  with a lower than average (for steppe people) bizyogamatic width and was found near the lower Dnieper.  However, the remains of the earlier Dnieper-Donets and Sredny-Stog people almost always have CI's of 74 or lower.  I did find a Sredny-Stog set with an average of 77.1, even so there is a new tendency towards mesocephaly.   So in general, the steppe people were becoming more variant, less robust, and less predominantly long-headed possibly as early as the Sredny-Stog period starting in 4500 BC.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #33 on: April 17, 2011, 11:19:04 AM »

I believe the gracile Mediterranean types were long-headed (dolichocephalic).

Logged

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2011, 11:43:46 AM »

I believe the gracile Mediterranean types were long-headed (dolichocephalic).



Yes, as were the steppe people.  However, the Mediterraneans were smaller in stature and had narrower faces.  The Kemi Oba, Mikailovka(sp?), and Maikop cultures seem to have been Mediterranean types yet they were culturally steppe people who lived in a region from the Crimean peninsula to the North Caucasus.  
« Last Edit: April 17, 2011, 11:44:46 AM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #35 on: April 17, 2011, 06:02:40 PM »

Yeah, I've read Anthony's and Mallory's books a couple of times apiece. I did not remember that the steppe people were uniformly dolichocephalic. I thought I remembered that there were roundheads among them (but not Cromwell's Roundheads).

:-)
Logged

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2011, 10:56:09 PM »

Yeah, I've read Anthony's and Mallory's books a couple of times apiece. I did not remember that the steppe people were uniformly dolichocephalic. I thought I remembered that there were roundheads among them (but not Cromwell's Roundheads).

:-)

Anthony mentions three types, a mediterranean one and two with "broad-faces"("medium" and robust).   I haven't found any steppe popuations from around the time of the development of IE who were truly brachiocranic.  This doesn't necessarily mean anything, they were probably there just as they were in other populations.  Still from what data I can collect, even the Sredny-Stog and especially their Yamnaya descendents were showing tendencies away from the uniformly long-headed forager people.  I think there were more than a few people from SW Asia, either through SE Europe or the Caucasus, who were bringing a smaller physical type into the mix.  This is evidenced by the Maikop, Kemi-Oba, etc. cultures.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2011, 11:36:17 AM »

I know this is purely anecdotal, but having lived in Russia for a time, among a mostly R1a population, I can tell you that one thing that is striking about modern Russian males is their brachycephaly.

Of course, I guess that could be attributed to admixture from Asia.
Logged

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2011, 11:54:54 AM »

I know this is purely anecdotal, but having lived in Russia for a time, among a mostly R1a population, I can tell you that one thing that is striking about modern Russian males is their brachycephaly.

Of course, I guess that could be attributed to admixture from Asia.

I think that is a relatively recent development in the last 1000 yrs that is more related to   and lifestyle pressures.  I suppose some of that could be from admixture in a Turkic and Mongol elite apartheid-like arrangement.  Brachycephaly has always been a minority type, with peaks in the Bronze and Middle Ages.  I've looked at a few craniometrical studies on Dienekes' Blog and what I can gather is that the facial bones are more subject to climate.  While the the neurocranial area or braincase is more correlated with genetics.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 11:55:57 AM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2011, 12:11:35 PM »

On a slightly different subject, I think one MAJOR weakness in Anthony's book, and in the Pontic-Caspian steppe theory of PIE origins in general, is its inability to explain the mechanism by which IE spread from contacts in the Danube Valley all the way to the Atlantic, absent a major population movement, which no one seems to be claiming.

The strength of Renfrew's "Neolithic Farmers" theory is that it ties the spread of Indo-European to something - the Neolithic Revolution - that we know moved through Europe and had a major impact.

I'm not saying he is right. I know there are problems with his theory.

But it's pretty obvious there are problems with all the IE theories.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 18, 2011, 01:02:07 PM »

On a slightly different subject, I think one MAJOR weakness in Anthony's book, and in the Pontic-Caspian steppe theory of PIE origins in general, is its inability to explain the mechanism by which IE spread from contacts in the Danube Valley all the way to the Atlantic, absent a major population movement, which no one seems to be claiming.

The strength of Renfrew's "Neolithic Farmers" theory is that it ties the spread of Indo-European to something - the Neolithic Revolution - that we know moved through Europe and had a major impact.

I'm not saying he is right. I know there are problems with his theory.

But it's pretty obvious there are problems with all the IE theories.
I'm okay with Renfrew's idea of IE moving with the Neolithic advances. The only hitch I can see is the timing is too early and some of the PIE words weren't developed yet, but this could just be errors in Anthony's logic and calculations.

I can accept that Anthony is wrong, but where I have a problem is when I try to overlay R-M269's genetic trail over the Neolithic advances. I am assuming that R-M269's correlation with Centum IE languages is real. If it isn't then the whole discussion with IE is not that pertinent anyway.

R-M269's spread in Europe is really R-L11 and R-L11 is really primarily just R-U106 and R-P312. Supposing that R-M269's spread through Europe is correlated with Centum IE languages, the problems with the Neolithic advance theory are:
1) R-L11's TMRCA is too young. It's a dead ringer for the Bronze age instead.
2) These two, P312 and U106, don't align geographically/variance-wise with the Neolithic advances, the LBK and the Impressed/Cardial Wares. You need both to cover Western Europe.
3) Myres showed us that R-L11's cousins, R-L23*, are oldest and most frequent in the Caucasus. This is a good place to look for R-L11's ancestor. This is close, but it isn't the Fertile Crescent of the Near East from where the Neolithic originated.

Alan has explained that it may be middle or latter Neolithic timeframe that R-L11 "took off" from the general Rhine Valley area.  That may be true, but for that to make sense you run into the same "weakness" that you describe of Anthony's theory: "is its inability to explain the mechanism by which IE spread from contacts in the Danube Valley all the way to the Atlantic".

If you add R-M269 Y DNA to the mix of evidence then Renfrew's theory has the same weakness as Anthony's. In either case there is a weakness making the connection all the way through to the Atlantic. That doesn't mean that either Renfrew or Anthony are wrong as we know that "the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence."

So what is the missing link? Since we are talking about Y DNA here I'm not convinced that the dramatic population expansions of the LBK and Impressed/Cardial Wares cultures are required to explain the dramatic spread of Centum IE.

Turning back to the Y DNA genetic evidence, there is a lot of alignment with Anthony. P312 just looks likes (given variance and U152) someone who came into Western Europe from north of the Alps and very possibly the Danube Valley, so I just don't see the Impressed/Cardial Wares fit.  It could make some sense that the LBK would fit P312 and U106 heading different directions, but that still leaves a lot of P312 in Iberia un-accounted for since the LBK just didn't get close. We also have some LBK ancient DNA but can't find R-M269 with it yet. Too many strikes against the Neolithic advances in my opinion.

BTW, I think I'm in the minority on this, as smart folks like Alan, Myres et al and Bennett Greenspan lean on the Neolithic Advance idea for the R-M269. In my humble and limited opinion, I think people are too mesmerized by the Neolithic concept of the farmers and their technologies having a heyday in essentially virgin lands.  They had a great run of it. I agree, but there is some evidence that Neolithic Europe petered out with population declines, possibly weather and crop failure related. .... I guess Jean M would say - here come the milk drinkers but no one says the whole population turned over in a dramatic fashion.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 01:14:55 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #41 on: April 18, 2011, 06:12:59 PM »

I wasn't arguing for the Neolithic Farmers theory. I was merely saying that its strong point is that it ties the spread of Indo-European languages to something concrete, something actually traceable, something that had a big impact on Europe and spread all the way to the North Atlantic.

A spread from the steppe, it seems to me, is traceable into the Danube Valley. How Indo-European languages spread from there is much more mysterious.

Is L11 just 4,000-5,000 years old? That's how long ago the Bronze Age began in Europe.  I thought that was more of the ballpark for P312 and L21.

What makes you say R1b entered Europe as L11? Why not as L23 or L51?

Anyway, the spread of Indo-European all the way to the Atlantic with R1b (of whatever varieties) makes more sense to me than some sort of set of falling cultural dominoes beginning with predominantly R1a tribes.


« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 06:13:37 PM by rms2 » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #42 on: April 18, 2011, 07:28:00 PM »

I suppose the fact that the arguement is now largely Anatolia/first farmers vs Steppes/late Neolithic is progress.  There was once other options strongly argued for including a fairly popular one that placed the homeland in the area of the Baltic States (Lithuania and Latvia).  I personally dont think either side have a knock out punch in this debate.  I am not convinced that its safe to use common IE vocab to work out what the latest date for proto-IE are.  There were just too many extremely large contact networks (sometimes indicated by common cultures) to rule out the possibility that words may have spread from one IE group to another after they had already dispersed.  Some of those contact networks/cultural groups were huge, especially in the later Neolithic.  Just beaker culture along linked the extreme west with areas as far east as Hungary and via contact with Corded Ware back to the Ukraine.  Why cant individual words for innovations not have spread AFTER the IE dispersal using these later pan-European linkages represented by cultures such as beakers and corded ware. 
Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #43 on: April 18, 2011, 08:13:11 PM »

We know R1b was present in Urnfield (Lichtenstein cave 1200 BC), although it was probably a minority in a sea of I2 men.  I think most of R1b in 1200 was west of there and also in the British Isles.

Given that, Urnfield has antecedents/commonalities back to the Unetice culture which started in 2300 out of eastern Beaker roots.  It was the eastern beaker range in Czech Rep. that had connections to Germany and probably Britain and Scandinavia after that.  If the steppe people settled around 2800 in Hungary, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that proto-Celtic languages split from Italo-Celtic at this time with the proto-Celtic being spoken around Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, and Czech Rep.  Proto- Italic would have taken the southern route into Croatia, Slovenia, and northern Italy probably from the Beaker-like Vucedol culture.  This would put U106 in eastern Europe with higher variance as well.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 08:14:41 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #44 on: April 18, 2011, 09:40:04 PM »

I wasn't arguing for the Neolithic Farmers theory. I was merely saying that its strong point is that it ties the spread of Indo-European languages to something concrete, something actually traceable, something that had a big impact on Europe and spread all the way to the North Atlantic.

A spread from the steppe, it seems to me, is traceable into the Danube Valley. How Indo-European languages spread from there is much more mysterious.

Is L11 just 4,000-5,000 years old? That's how long ago the Bronze Age began in Europe.  I thought that was more of the ballpark for P312 and L21.

What makes you say R1b entered Europe as L11? Why not as L23 or L51?

Anyway, the spread of Indo-European all the way to the Atlantic with R1b (of whatever varieties) makes more sense to me than some sort of set of falling cultural dominoes beginning with predominantly R1a tribes.




I don't buy the whole R1a substrate theory either. If these elites are so prolific, why is there more E1b and J in Central/Western Europe than R1a? Centum IE comes into Europe with majority R1b tribes.

I want to know what language was spoken on the steppe before R1b arrived on the scene. Or did Proto-IE develop with a hybrid R1a-R1b population?
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 #45 on: April 18, 2011, 09:57:38 PM »

We know R1b was present in Urnfield (Lichtenstein cave 1200 BC), although it was probably a minority in a sea of I2 men . . .

Were those people Urnfielders? I didn't think they were, since they deposited their dead in a cave (hence the recoverable dna). Urnfielders were so named because they cremated their dead and buried the ashes in urns.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #46 on: April 18, 2011, 09:59:33 PM »

I suppose the fact that the arguement is now largely Anatolia/first farmers vs Steppes/late Neolithic is progress.  There was once other options strongly argued for including a fairly popular one that placed the homeland in the area of the Baltic States (Lithuania and Latvia).  I personally dont think either side have a knock out punch in this debate.  I am not convinced that its safe to use common IE vocab to work out what the latest date for proto-IE are.  There were just too many extremely large contact networks (sometimes indicated by common cultures) to rule out the possibility that words may have spread from one IE group to another after they had already dispersed.  Some of those contact networks/cultural groups were huge, especially in the later Neolithic.  Just beaker culture along linked the extreme west with areas as far east as Hungary and via contact with Corded Ware back to the Ukraine.  Why cant individual words for innovations not have spread AFTER the IE dispersal using these later pan-European linkages represented by cultures such as beakers and corded ware. 

Those are good points. As it is we have the anomaly of the Anatolian languages, which, as I recall, are missing some of the horse and wagon terminology of later IE.
Logged

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #47 on: April 18, 2011, 11:35:03 PM »

We know R1b was present in Urnfield (Lichtenstein cave 1200 BC), although it was probably a minority in a sea of I2 men . . .

Were those people Urnfielders? I didn't think they were, since they deposited their dead in a cave (hence the recoverable dna). Urnfielders were so named because they cremated their dead and buried the ashes in urns.

Good point.  I say Urnfield because the time and place is right.  However, I can't remember if that study mentioned the circumstances of their deaths.  Maybe these I2 dominant people were a tribe rival to the Urnfielders.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 11:42:52 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #48 on: April 22, 2011, 10:02:54 AM »

..Is L11 just 4,000-5,000 years old? That's how long ago the Bronze Age began in Europe.  I thought that was more of the ballpark for P312 and L21....

Ken Nordtvedt is given a lot of credence on TMRCA's, and deservedly so. He is the inventor of the methodology most hobbyists think is the best available. Here are some of his comments from November and December 2010 on Rootsweb.

Quote from: Ken Nordtvedt
When most people take P312 and U106 haplotype collections and estimate tmrcas for the two they typically come out to be very similar and around 4000 years ago. But there is a third estimation which can and should be performed --- the node age for the MRCA ancestral to both the P312 and U106 populations. That age also comes out very close to the same 4000 years. This means there probably was not much time between the single man ancestral to both haplogroups and the individual MRCAs of the two haplogroups.

I think this makes it more difficult to sustain scenarios in which the migratory history and geographical details leading up to the two founding events and locations are excessively different from each other.

There are some constraints in place which probably favor some geographical closeness between these foundings..
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2010-11/1290042075

Quote from: Ken Nordtvedt
The MRCA common to U106 and P312 seems to be very close in time to the two individual MRCAs for U106 and for P312. So it appears all three of those guys would be from nearby places --- at least that's the default position in my view, requiring some strong piece of evidence to put them far apart. We know where the geographical centers of today's U106 and P312 folks are.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-12/1291428404

Quote from: Ken Nordtvedt
Another reason for L11(x U106,S116) population being small could be the very close time between the father MRCA and the two descendant MRCAs. This leaves less tree branch lengths in between to spawn surviving lines to the present. Someday when we suck demographics more into the quantitative analysis, we may be able to sort out such factors.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-12/1291489388

You can see this in the modals. Even at 67 markers, there are just very few genetic steps differences between the modals for R-P312, R-U106 and R-L11*.  The whole R-L11 ball of wax seems to have a TMRCA of 4000-5000 ybp.

I can also tell you from variance that both R-U152 and R-L21 are nearly as old as R-P312, particularly R-U152.

The implication is that an explosion, not necessarily a general population explosion but at least a paternal lineage explosion, took place starting with an R-L11+ P312- U106- guy.  In rapid fire succession, P312, U152, L2, L21 and U106, U198 all occurred.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2011, 01:44:34 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 22, 2011, 10:33:50 AM »

...R-M269's spread in Europe is really R-L11 and R-L11 is really primarily just R-U106 and R-P312. Supposing that R-M269's spread through Europe is correlated with Centum IE languages, the problems with the Neolithic advance theory are:
1) R-L11's TMRCA is too young. It's a dead ringer for the Bronze age instead.
2) These two, P312 and U106, don't align geographically/variance-wise with the Neolithic advances, the LBK and the Impressed/Cardial Wares. You need both to cover Western Europe.
3) Myres showed us that R-L11's cousins, R-L23*, are oldest and most frequent in the Caucasus. This is a good place to look for R-L11's ancestor. This is close, but it isn't the Fertile Crescent of the Near East from where the Neolithic originated....
...What makes you say R1b entered Europe as L11? Why not as L23 or L51?

I didn't mean to imply that R1b entered Europe as L11. All I was trying to say that R1b's great expansion is essentially R-L11.  It is the vast majority of the expansion.

I created this map a couple of months ago from the Myres 2010 study data.
http://www.4shared.com/photo/TAm6ukWE/R-L11_Brothers_and_Cousins_Map.html

R-L11 (including U106 and P312) is about 96% of the R1b in Western Europe. The reason I created the map was to look at haplogroup diversity within R1b to determine if I could find a south to north pattern with more haplogroup diversity (brothers and cousins of R-L11) in the south. I just can't find fit.  I can only see the east to west pattern... same for the P312 "All" variance. It's not indicative of south to north expansion, just east to west.

You can see why I can't buy off that the Impressed/Cardium Wares Neolithic brought significant R1b to Europe. It should trail from the Near East through the boot of Italy and over to Iberia.  On the other hand the LBK never reached anywhere close to Iberia and the ancient Y DNA we have for the LBK is R1b-less (not present so far.)

If we throw out the LBK and Cardium Neolithic advances as alternatives then we eliminate the strength of the "Neolithic carries R1b" hypothesis. We are left with searching from secondary/middle to late Neolithic cultures that will fit R-U106 and R-P312 being in about the same place at the same time.

The Middle/Late Neolithic hypotheses leaves us with the same fuzzy, multi-pronged, multi-directional movements that we have problems with in the Bronze Age alternatives.

The only difference is that Bronze Age fits the Ken Nordtvedt type TMRCA estimates dead-on as it does a David Anthony IE expansion. It also fits better with MHammers TMRCA's on R-L23* going back to the Caucasus.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2011, 10:42:34 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
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 0.127 seconds with 18 queries.