World Families Forums - R1 and Proto-Indo-European

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 25, 2014, 07:29:31 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)
| | |-+  R1 and Proto-Indo-European
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R1 and Proto-Indo-European  (Read 6643 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #50 on: April 22, 2011, 10:40:24 AM »

Very interesting! Thanks, Mike, especially for the quotes from Ken Nordtvedt.

Honestly, I would say that, if he is right, one is almost forced to conclude that L11 was the driving force behind PIE in Central and Western Europe, and that it must have come from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

What other possibility is there?
Logged

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #51 on: April 22, 2011, 12:38:12 PM »

Here are new calculations for L11* using the interclade method which I posted on DNA Forums.  This is the post..

I ran some new TMRCA's on Ken's Generations5 spreadsheet calculating 50 of 67 markers. First, the oldest intraclades: P312-France, G=139, n=26; U106-SE Europe, G=128, n=14; L11*, G=135, n=22. France includes new world French surname members and SE Europe includes 11 Italians. The data comes from the FTDNA P312, U106, and Ht35 projects. The next highest intraclades for U106 were NW Europe then NE Europe. For P312, Germany then Iberia.

Interclade estimates
P312-France
U106-SE Europe
G=148+/-46 or 2440 BC +/-1380 yrs. using 30 yrs/generation for a presumed L11 common ancestor.

P312-France
L11*-all
G=141/45 or 2230 BC, also for a possible common L11 ancestor.

U106-SE Europe
L11*-all
G=141/45 or 2230 BC

Keep in mind, some of these member samples may not have tested for some of the new snp's that have come out.  I use the highest variance areas because they are possibly more representative of the earliest P312 and U106 haplotypes.   It now appears that  the 14 member@67, SE Europe U106* group now has the higher variance, although it is mostly Italian members in the calculation.  Really most of these geographic groups are fairly close together in age which suggests a rapid spread.  Still, I think the Danube corridor as a general area is basically where L11 diffused from.  Couple that with an L23* interclade estimate for the Caucasus around 4200 BC and this looks very much like a copper age movement.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #52 on: April 22, 2011, 06:54:40 PM »

It certainly seems that the hobbiest doing the calculations are pointing towards the Copper Age.  If it was literally in the 3000-2000BC period that L11 happened then we do have the problem that current mainstream archaeological theory would place the two main mega-cultures of that period as originating at opposite ends of Europe and spreading in opposite directions i.e. beaker and corded ware.  It cant be both as under the current mainstream theories the two dont really have a common root.  There is also ancient DNA evidence linking R1a and corded ware.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #53 on: April 22, 2011, 06:59:54 PM »

`i have a question.  I like the idea that R1* was proto-IE or an immediate ancestor of it.  I know R1* is dated to originate far too early BUT surely the R1* period existed until the SNPs defining R1b and R1a occurred.  When would that have been?  In other words what is our best guess of the period that R1* lasted?  Would the tail end of the R1* period have been closer in time to the estimated age of proto-IE?
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #54 on: April 22, 2011, 07:22:18 PM »

  It now appears that  the 14 member@67, SE Europe U106* group now has the higher variance, although it is mostly Italian members in the calculation.  Really most of these geographic groups are fairly close together in age which suggests a rapid spread.  Still, I think the Danube corridor as a general area is basically where L11 diffused from.  Couple that with an L23* interclade estimate for the Caucasus around 4200 BC and this looks very much like a copper age movement.

A higher variance for U106* in southeast Europe is indeed important news. I think most have generally claimed that U106 has the highest variance in Poland, and propose it originated somewhere in the Baltic area. That may be because no one ever analyzes U106 by its various subclades, since most contend that it is monolithic. Italian U106 have always been explained as a result of the Germanic invasions of northern Italy.

Personally I always thought that Ken's arguments quoted above make a great deal of sense, and that P312 and U106 very likely originated in the same area (possibly somewhere along the lower Danube) and followed the same route into Europe. However it seems clear that the distribution of U106 today is much narrower than that of P312, so at some point their paths must have diverged.

I believe Jean M. identifies P312 with the Beakers and U106 with Corded Ware. Personally I remain unconvinced.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2011, 04:15:21 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #55 on: April 22, 2011, 07:48:56 PM »

`i have a question.  I like the idea that R1* was proto-IE or an immediate ancestor of it.  I know R1* is dated to originate far too early BUT surely the R1* period existed until the SNPs defining R1b and R1a occurred.  When would that have been?  In other words what is our best guess of the period that R1* lasted?  Would the tail end of the R1* period have been closer in time to the estimated age of proto-IE?

An R1* period would probably be the Upper Paleolithic.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #56 on: April 22, 2011, 08:00:40 PM »

It certainly seems that the hobbiest doing the calculations are pointing towards the Copper Age.  If it was literally in the 3000-2000BC period that L11 happened then we do have the problem that current mainstream archaeological theory would place the two main mega-cultures of that period as originating at opposite ends of Europe and spreading in opposite directions i.e. beaker and corded ware.  It cant be both as under the current mainstream theories the two dont really have a common root.  There is also ancient DNA evidence linking R1a and corded ware.

Not necessarily.  L11 or other R1b people could be linked to an incoming migration of steppe people into eastern Hungary.  This would not be the earlier western beaker range nor Corded-ware.  However, there may have been an  infusion of steppe people into the development of eastern Beaker which may be the one that entered Britain and Scandinavia from the Rhine.  This movement may be mostly L11, P312, and maybe L21 types, although the confidence interval is too wide to say anything certain. 
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 23, 2011, 01:02:03 PM »

It certainly seems that the hobbiest doing the calculations are pointing towards the Copper Age.  If it was literally in the 3000-2000BC period that L11 happened then we do have the problem that current mainstream archaeological theory would place the two main mega-cultures of that period as originating at opposite ends of Europe and spreading in opposite directions i.e. beaker and corded ware.  It cant be both as under the current mainstream theories the two dont really have a common root.  There is also ancient DNA evidence linking R1a and corded ware.
The TMRCA for R1 is 18,500 ypb. That is according to Karafet et al, 2008. They used what they called a "novel" method of counting SNP's versus STR variance. This estimate is not subject to the vagaries of having representative samples for STR variance based age estimates, nor is it subject to STR mutation rate arguments. R1 and R2 folks seem to be found out in Central Asia. Must be home during the late Paleothic Age and perhaps most of the Mesolithic Age.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #58 on: April 25, 2011, 10:59:29 AM »

It certainly seems that the hobbiest doing the calculations are pointing towards the Copper Age.  If it was literally in the 3000-2000BC period that L11 happened then we do have the problem that current mainstream archaeological theory would place the two main mega-cultures of that period as originating at opposite ends of Europe and spreading in opposite directions i.e. beaker and corded ware.  It cant be both as under the current mainstream theories the two dont really have a common root.  There is also ancient DNA evidence linking R1a and corded ware.
The TMRCA for R1 is 18,500 ypb. That is according to Karafet et al, 2008. They used what they called a "novel" method of counting SNP's versus STR variance. This estimate is not subject to the vagaries of having representative samples for STR variance based age estimates, nor is it subject to STR mutation rate arguments. R1 and R2 folks seem to be found out in Central Asia. Must be home during the late Paleothic Age and perhaps most of the Mesolithic Age.

Mike, what I am interested in is not so much how old R1* is but more the issue of how later R1* existed before R1b and R1a emerged.  I suppose its another way of asking when the SNPs that moved us from R1* to R1b and R1a occurred.   Certainly R1* happened a long time ago but was there a large gap in time between R1* emerging and R1b and R1a emerging.  I ask mainly because I wonder if the latest stages of R1* prior to the emergence of R1a and R1b is late enough to bring us close to proto-IE or perhaps an immediate ancestor of it. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #59 on: April 25, 2011, 11:58:40 AM »

It certainly seems that the hobbiest doing the calculations are pointing towards the Copper Age.  If it was literally in the 3000-2000BC period that L11 happened then we do have the problem that current mainstream archaeological theory would place the two main mega-cultures of that period as originating at opposite ends of Europe and spreading in opposite directions i.e. beaker and corded ware.  It cant be both as under the current mainstream theories the two dont really have a common root.  There is also ancient DNA evidence linking R1a and corded ware.
The TMRCA for R1 is 18,500 ypb. That is according to Karafet et al, 2008. They used what they called a "novel" method of counting SNP's versus STR variance. This estimate is not subject to the vagaries of having representative samples for STR variance based age estimates, nor is it subject to STR mutation rate arguments. R1 and R2 folks seem to be found out in Central Asia. Must be home during the late Paleothic Age and perhaps most of the Mesolithic Age.

Mike, what I am interested in is not so much how old R1* is but more the issue of how later R1* existed before R1b and R1a emerged.  I suppose its another way of asking when the SNPs that moved us from R1* to R1b and R1a occurred.   Certainly R1* happened a long time ago but was there a large gap in time between R1* emerging and R1b and R1a emerging.  I ask mainly because I wonder if the latest stages of R1* prior to the emergence of R1a and R1b is late enough to bring us close to proto-IE or perhaps an immediate ancestor of it.  

I don't have any inclinations on R1* existence and language prior the origination of R1a and R1b (M343) other than R1 appeared to be out in what Spencer Wells calls the "Eurasian heartland" - Central Asia. http://www.pnas.org/content/98/18/10244.long

I think it is worth considering that R1b, R1a and R1* may have literally lived in the same tribe or confederation of tribes for quite a while.  It is just that it seems apparent that the bottleneck survivor/founder that was predominate in the band where the Satem innovations occurred must have been R1a.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 11:59:01 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #60 on: April 25, 2011, 01:01:39 PM »

Mike, what I am getting at is when did the SNPs that define R1a and b appear?  Presumably up to that point the R1 population was an R1* one.  

Perhaps they did settle among each other for a long time before dispersing.  One think I do wonder about is the idea that R1a was real proto-IE but R1b is afro-asiatic.  I would have at least thought that both would have had languages in the same family, even if only distantly related. 
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 01:05:44 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #61 on: April 25, 2011, 03:38:34 PM »

 It is just that it seems apparent that the bottleneck survivor/founder that was predominate in the band where the Satem innovations occurred must have been R1a.


Are we certain PIE developed on the steppe then? For all we know, R1a is associated with Indo-Iranian on the steppe, not those early breakaways like Anatolian which is a Centum language.

Are not Greek and Armenian considered to be links between Indo-Aryan and Centum languages? These are both well within areas of some of the oldest R1b. Maybe I have the dating wrong, but is this something to consider?
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 #62 on: April 25, 2011, 04:01:08 PM »

Take a look at this 2 yr. old study by Underhill which I find interesting for R1a's connection to the development of IE languages.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/11/finally-structure-in-haplogroup-r1a.html

If you notice in the supplemental pdf, there is no R1a* or R1a1* in Russia or the north Caucacus, the places closest to where IE probably developed.  Most of it is R1a1a+.  However, when you look at the ages calculated for R1a1a*, it cannot be easily be associated with the earlier centum branch.

I converted Underhill's R1a1a* coalescent times (Zhiv. rate) for some key areas by dividing by 3 and then figuring in 30 yrs/gen instead of 25.

Western India - 6160 ybp or 4160 BC
Poland -5,200 ybp or 3,200 BC possibly Corded-ware? though not necessarily IE-speaking steppe people.
Caucasus-4758 ybo  or 2758 BC, early satem period?
Russia -3393 ybp clearly Satem, possibly proto-Balto-Slavic
Ukraine- 2886 ybp, proto-Slavic?

Could R1b have been the earlier centum speakers?  Even including the upper bounds of the SE distribution, the Caucasus sample is only around 6000 ybp.  Russia and Ukraine are less than 5000 ybp.  All too young for the development of PIE.  However, these are rough approximations.  Interclade ages at the 67 marker level would be more revealing and somewhat older.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 04:59:24 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #63 on: April 25, 2011, 05:52:19 PM »

Alan,

Here's something that might help answer your question.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeangenetics.shtml

Jean ties R1a to the Yangelskaya culture starting in 9000 BC around the south Caspian, but its range also extended to the south Urals.  Before 9000 BC, there was no agriculture in those areas and also there was the younger dryas event keeping people to the south.  My guess is that R1* men were sparsely populated hunter-gatherers in south central and southwest Asia and after the younger dryas, R1a* emerged around Iran.  R1b-M343 possibly in the south Caucasus.  I would look for the split around this time.  This also possibly takes Afro-asiatic out of the equation for R1b.  The Yangelskaya culture also ties in with the Underhill paper in my previous post where there is R1a* and R1a1* in Iran/south Caucasus and the oldest R1a1a* in Pakistan/India.  The oldest R1a1a* in Europe is in Poland with that paper.  I think R1a1a* entered Europe from the southern Urals, largely avoided the steppe, and became part of the northern forest cultures.  This is why R1a1a* can end up oldest in Poland (with Corded-ware) and yet be younger in Russia/Ukraine (Satem expansions and Indo-Iranians).
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #64 on: April 25, 2011, 08:45:21 PM »

Alan,

Here's something that might help answer your question.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeangenetics.shtml

Jean ties R1a to the Yangelskaya culture starting in 9000 BC around the south Caspian, but its range also extended to the south Urals.  Before 9000 BC, there was no agriculture in those areas and also there was the younger dryas event keeping people to the south.  My guess is that R1* men were sparsely populated hunter-gatherers in south central and southwest Asia and after the younger dryas, R1a* emerged around Iran.  R1b-M343 possibly in the south Caucasus.  I would look for the split around this time.  This also possibly takes Afro-asiatic out of the equation for R1b.  The Yangelskaya culture also ties in with the Underhill paper in my previous post where there is R1a* and R1a1* in Iran/south Caucasus and the oldest R1a1a* in Pakistan/India.  The oldest R1a1a* in Europe is in Poland with that paper.  I think R1a1a* entered Europe from the southern Urals, largely avoided the steppe, and became part of the northern forest cultures.  This is why R1a1a* can end up oldest in Poland (with Corded-ware) and yet be younger in Russia/Ukraine (Satem expansions and Indo-Iranians).

Thank you for providing the link to the Underhill paper, Mike. I can then see R1a1's homeland in South Asia, moving towards the Urals. Interestingly, the age estimates posited in the paper would conflict with R1a's sole development of PIE.
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 #65 on: April 26, 2011, 12:08:14 AM »

Thank you for providing the link to the Underhill paper, Mike. I can then see R1a1's homeland in South Asia, moving towards the Urals. Interestingly, the age estimates posited in the paper would conflict with R1a's sole development of PIE.


If this scenario is close to being accurate, I see R1a1a as being only 1 of several hg's coming together for the development of PIE.  Even then I would put it mainly in the Samara culture(near sw Urals), Khvalynsk(middle Volga), and north Caspian neolithic cultures around 5500-4000 BC. Hg I2 may be more likely for Bug-Dneister and Dnieper-Donets foraging groups.  R1b, maybe in the form of M269 or L23, is arriving 5000-4500 from the Caucasian neolithic cultures.  Around 4500 with the early Sredny-Stog people is where these 3 main groups come together in the development of PIE and maybe Proto-Uralic.  Of course other hg's would be involved as well, but I don't know enough about their distributions to speculate.
This is one reason why R1b, I2, and Balkan neolithic hg's could be steppe/earlier Centum speakers and R1a forest cultures/eastern-oriented Satem speakers.
 
 

« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 12:09:58 AM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

llew_james
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #66 on: May 13, 2011, 07:24:09 PM »

Tocharian is a Centum IE language what is the haplogroup(s) found amongst  the Tocharians?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 07:28:09 PM by llew_james » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #67 on: May 13, 2011, 10:57:48 PM »

Tocharian is a Centum IE language what is the haplogroup(s) found amongst  the Tocharians?

No one knows for sure, since there are no living Tocharians. There was some ancient y-dna recovered from an Andronovo culture site, and some scholars (like David Anthony) think Andronovo may have been Tocharian. They got a few (I forget how many exactly) R1a, as I recall.

Of course, that proves little, since so few remains have yielded y-dna, and it says nothing about tribes that moved to the west.

Centum is the oldest form of IE. No one is arguing no R1a groups spoke it. It is just that the satem innovations occurred in the East, in the old stomping grounds, after the western tribes had moved out into Central and Western Europe.

The predominantly R1a tribes in the East adopted the satem innovations, but those innovations failed to spread to the west, which is mostly R-P310 (L11) (and subclades) and has very little R1a.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 16, 2011, 09:53:41 AM »

Take a look at this 2 yr. old study by Underhill which I find interesting for R1a's connection to the development of IE languages.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/11/finally-structure-in-haplogroup-r1a.html

If you notice in the supplemental pdf, there is no R1a* or R1a1* in Russia or the north Caucacus, the places closest to where IE probably developed.  Most of it is R1a1a+.  However, when you look at the ages calculated for R1a1a*, it cannot be easily be associated with the earlier centum branch.

I converted Underhill's R1a1a* coalescent times (Zhiv. rate) for some key areas by dividing by 3 and then figuring in 30 yrs/gen instead of 25.

Western India - 6160 ybp or 4160 BC
Poland -5,200 ybp or 3,200 BC possibly Corded-ware? though not necessarily IE-speaking steppe people.
Caucasus-4758 ybo  or 2758 BC, early satem period?
Russia -3393 ybp clearly Satem, possibly proto-Balto-Slavic
Ukraine- 2886 ybp, proto-Slavic?

Could R1b have been the earlier centum speakers?  Even including the upper bounds of the SE distribution, the Caucasus sample is only around 6000 ybp.  Russia and Ukraine are less than 5000 ybp.  All too young for the development of PIE.  However, these are rough approximations.  Interclade ages at the 67 marker level would be more revealing and somewhat older.
Anatole Klyosov has a new paper on all of this... or at least the R1b side of it. I don't think his position will be much different but he does allow for multiples paths into Europe.
Logged

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

Posts: 347


« Reply #69 on: May 16, 2011, 11:39:20 AM »

I'm looking forward to it.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #70 on: May 16, 2011, 07:29:42 PM »

I'm looking forward to it, too. Dr. Klyosov is a brilliant man and, actually, a pretty nice guy.

Last I heard from him, he had us pegged as Turks.

Actually that wouldn't be so bad.
Logged

intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #71 on: May 25, 2012, 08:41:46 PM »

... I still think it likely that R1b1b2 in some form was responsible for spreading IE to Western Europe, and I mean directly, too, not as part of a cultural wave first imparted to them by R1a "elites".
As I have said before, I have no doubt that most if not all of R1b-M269 was speaking an IE or proto-IE language by the time they arrived in western Europe. When and where they picked theat language up remains to my mind an open question.  I do think the probablity is that they were speaking the language while still located somewhere in the Pontic-Caspian area, and brought it to Europe in either the late Neolithic or early Bronze (or Copper) age.  I don't know that I necessarily believe there was a strict separation between R1a and R1b in that area.
Okay, I'm good with your opinion on this as you know.

However, there is no use avoiding the objections.

Well, the only strong objection I can really think of is:

1) R-L11 must not have been IE originally in Western Europe as the Basques spoke a non IE language and they have very high frequencies of R-L11.

This objection is kind of cherrypicking on one detail to argue against the much heavier evidence, but I would be interested in understanding what is the mostly likely sequence of events related to the Basques how they came to speak non IE while having high R-L11.

This could be second objection:
2) R-M269 is way too old in Western Europe so it must have gotten there ahead of IE languages.

I think the evidence is so strong on the aging of R-M269 subclades being younger rather than older that this is a weak objection but some do believe it. I definitely don't think you can you age to rule R-M269 as an IE carrier because of aging.

I hear this too.
3) R-M269 couldn't be an early IE carrier or it would be found in South-Central Asia too with the R1a folks and the Indo-Aryan speakers.

I don't think this is too strong of an argument either as there is a definite Centum/Satem split and the Satem side seems to have the R1a concentration (without much R1b) so it only makes sense that Indo-Aryan areas would be lacking R1b.  This is probably worth more argument though.


4) What else?




Once again what about R1a Tocharians? And how is it possible that there is zero R1b in South -Central Asia?
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #72 on: May 25, 2012, 09:00:05 PM »

Tocharian is a Centum IE language what is the haplogroup(s) found amongst  the Tocharians?

No one knows for sure, since there are no living Tocharians. There was some ancient y-dna recovered from an Andronovo culture site, and some scholars (like David Anthony) think Andronovo may have been Tocharian. They got a few (I forget how many exactly) R1a, as I recall.

Of course, that proves little, since so few remains have yielded y-dna, and it says nothing about tribes that moved to the west.

Centum is the oldest form of IE. No one is arguing no R1a groups spoke it. It is just that the satem innovations occurred in the East, in the old stomping grounds, after the western tribes had moved out into Central and Western Europe.

The predominantly R1a tribes in the East adopted the satem innovations, but those innovations failed to spread to the west, which is mostly R-P310 (L11) (and subclades) and has very little R1a.

Andronovo is not Tocharian. Afanasevo is. And the Tarim Basin samples were R1a.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasevo_culture
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 09:01:15 PM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #73 on: May 25, 2012, 09:06:33 PM »

We all know that.

Why dredge up an old thread that ended over a year ago?

Afanasievo and the Tarim Basin are pretty far east. Neither of them is touted as PIE. They are dated long after PIE would have been a dead language.

I think most of us would agree that IE was spread to the Indian subcontinent (including Pakistan, etc.) mainly by peoples among whom R1a was predominant.

But western Europe is even more thoroughly Indo-European than the Indian subcontinent.

Why is there so little R1a in western Europe?
Logged

intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #74 on: May 25, 2012, 09:17:53 PM »

We all know that.

Why dredge up an old thread that ended over a year ago?

Afanasievo and the Tarim Basin are pretty far east. Neither of them is touted as PIE. They are dated long after PIE would have been a dead language.

I think most of us would agree that IE was spread to the Indian subcontinent (including Pakistan, etc.) mainly by peoples among whom R1a was predominant.

But western Europe is even more thoroughly Indo-European than the Indian subcontinent.

Why is there so little R1a in western Europe?

I keep on hearing how old Anatolian is . Well Tocharian is pretty old too and was spread by R1a carriers.

I don't know what  you mean by thoroughly Indo-European. Baltic languages are more conservative than Western European languages, which deviate heavily from PIE in comparison, if you want to do down that route of making it a competition. Western Europe is pretty far West from the PIE homeland too btw. Places like Kazakhstan are def. closer.

And proto Indo-Iranian was spread by people with only R1a. Not predominant but they had nothing else. Only R1a-Z93+ tbh appears proto Indo-Iranian. 

Not even sure what the Indian subcontinent was brought into this for. Indo-Iranian is more North Central Asian and its differentiation into different branches is South Central Asian.

There is more R1a in Western Europe than R1b in Central Asia. Not to mention language families like Italo-Celtic and Germanic aren't Easdtern Euripean but they aren't Western European either. They are Central and Northern European anyways. Where R1a does exist.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 09:18:51 PM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
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 0.126 seconds with 18 queries.