World Families Forums - R1 and Proto-Indo-European

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 28, 2014, 01:26:12 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 7264 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: March 05, 2011, 08:00:05 PM »

Just thought I would re-open the whole PIE thing.

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".

Just picture a map showing the distribution of R1 and then mentally superimpose that on a map of early PIE distribution. It's R1 as a whole that corresponds with Indo-European, not merely R1a.

That's all I have time for right now.
Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2011, 12:48:51 PM »

Just thought I would re-open the whole PIE thing.

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".

Just picture a map showing the distribution of R1 and then mentally superimpose that on a map of early PIE distribution. It's R1 as a whole that corresponds with Indo-European, not merely R1a.

That's all I have time for right now.

What is the oldest, attested PIE-language? Or, I should say what is considered to be such?
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2011, 05:39:39 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".
Just picture a map showing the distribution of R1 and then mentally superimpose that on a map of early PIE distribution. It's R1 as a whole that corresponds with Indo-European, not merely R1a....

The Wikipedia "Proto-Indo-Europeans" (PIE) article associates the expansion of IE with R1a and shows this map of R1a Y DNA distribution -> R1a map.
... but this article doesn't indicate a link with R1b Y DNA distribution which is this map -> R1b map.

The reasoning for this seems to be the authors track Spencer Well's interpretation plus this map of Indo-European migrations from 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan hypothesis. See the Kurgan IE expansion map. According to this, the IE languages have not reached the Isles, Benelux, Iberia and most of France by 1000 BC.

The Wikipedia "Centum-satem isogloss" article shows the general distribution of Centum IE languages and Satem IE languages -> 500 BC Centum (blue/green) and Satem (red/orange) languages map. As you can see the by 500 BC, the R1b to Centum and R1a to Satem correlations appear to be quite strong.

Timing seems to be the issue that Wikipedia (and conventional wisdom) have for considering R1b's potential role in IE expansions. The "Indo-European languages" article has different maps but portray basically the same thing:
1500 BC IE language map
500 BC IE language map

Notice how the 1500 BC distribution show no IE languages reaching much into France, Iberia, the Low Countries or the British Isles but by 500 BC the picture has changed completely.

R1b's representative in along the Atlantic is R-L11 and it is quite plentiful there. We think the TMRCA for R-L11 is about 2000-3000 BC so you would think that R-L11 would have been in place in the west* before IE expanded there, at least according to the Kurgan hypothesis as expressed by Wikipedia.   On the other hand, R1a is quite scarce on the western fringes of Europe.  In my opinion, the implication would be that R-L11 is from Central Europe and learned IE from R1a there, before exploding westward in some dramatic fashion in a late period, say perhaps with the Hallstatt culture.

My understanding of the Hallstatt and La Tene Cultures is they don't have evidence of such a dramatic cultural take-over.  

IMHO, it seems more likely that Wikipedia's current depiction of IE language expansion, which is conventional wisdom, is wrong!

Probably IE languages reached early Western Europe much earlier than 1000 BC.  Are the Bell Beakers proto-Celts? or Italo-Celts of some kind.  How about the Unetice, Urnfield or Tumulus Cultures? These are all earlier than 1000 BC.

R1b, perhaps R-L23, picked up in IE in SW Asia/Caucasus and brought it with him to Western Europe through one or more of these Bronze Age culture.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2011, 06:24:13 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2011, 06:22:43 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".
Just picture a map showing the distribution of R1 and then mentally superimpose that on a map of early PIE distribution. It's R1 as a whole that corresponds with Indo-European, not merely R1a....

The Wikipedia "Proto-Indo-Europeans" (PIE) article associates the expansion of IE with R1a and shows this map of R1a Y DNA distribution -> R1a map.
... but this article doesn't indicate a link with R1b Y DNA distribution which is this map -> R1b map.

The reasoning for this seems to be the authors track Spencer Well's interpretation plus this map of Indo-European migrations from 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan hypothesis. See the Kurgan IE expansion map. According to this, the IE languages have not reached the Isles, Benelux, Iberia and most of France by 1000 BC.

The Wikipedia "Centum-satem isogloss" article shows the general distribution of Centum IE languages and Satem IE languages.
500 BC Centum (blue/green) and Satem (red/orange) languages map
As you can see the by 500 BC, the R1b to Centum and R1a to Satem correlations appear to be quite strong.

Timing seems to be the issue for Wikipedia (and conventional wisdom) for considering R1b's potential role in IE expansions. The "Indo-European languages" article has the following:

1500 BC IE language map
500 BC IE language map

Notice how the 1500 BC distribution show no IE languages reaching much into France, Iberia, the Low Countries or the British Isles but by 500 BC the picture has changed completely.

R1b's representative in along the Atlantic is R-L11 and it is quite plentiful there. We think the TMRCA for R-L11 is about 2000-3000 BC so you would think that R-L11 would have been in place in the west before IE expanded there, at least according to the Kurgan hypothesis as expressed by Wikipedia.   On the other hand, R1a is quite scarce on the western fringes of Europe.  In my opinion, the implication would be that R-L11 is from Central Europe and learned IE from R1a there, before exploding westward in some dramatic fashion in a late period, say perhaps with the Hallstatt culture.

My understanding of the Hallstatt and La Tene Cultures is they don't have evidence of such a dramatic cultural take-over.  

IMHO, it seems more likely that Wikipedia's current depiction of IE language expansion, which is conventional wisdom, is wrong!

Probably IE languages reached early Western Europe much earlier than 1000 BC.  Are the Bell Beakers proto-Celts? or Italo-Celts of some kind.  How about the Unetice, Urnfield or Tumulus Cultures? These are all earlier than 1000 BC.

R1b, perhaps R-L23, picked up in IE in SW Asia/Caucasus and brought it with him to Western Europe through one or more of these Bronze Age cultures.
 

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.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2011, 06:58:28 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?


« Last Edit: March 06, 2011, 08:47:40 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2011, 08:29:12 PM »

I think the most ancient form of Indo-European is Anatolian. The Hittites and the possible IE speakers of Troy would have been primarily R1b, not R1a. There are also Caucasian loanwords in early IE, so if I took a gander I would say PIE formed somewhere in the Caucasus.

This would mean that IE diffused from R1b territory north to the Pontic Steppe where it met R1a. But even this is fishy because PIE could have arisen in a hybrid R1a-R1b population in that area.

All I know is that Satem is primarily associated with R1a, and Centum with R1b. So maybe PIE was associated with R1* populations? Or is that too early?

Satem is younger, so its spread to India has nothing to do with the original speakers of IE, IMO.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2011, 08:59:11 PM »

I think the most ancient form of Indo-European is Anatolian. The Hittites and the possible IE speakers of Troy would have been primarily R1b, not R1a.
My memory of David Anthony's book ("The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World") is that Hittite is probably considered pre-Indo-European as there are some words that are considered part of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) that aren't in the Hittite's language... but that is a matter of definition. The idea is that Hittite broke off before the full PIE word set came about.

Quote from: NealtheRed
...All I know is that Satem is primarily associated with R1a, and Centum with R1b. So maybe PIE was associated with R1* populations? Or is that too early?
Yes, I think that R1 before the existence of R1b and R1a is too young.  Karafet (2008) has R1's TMRCA at 18,500 ybp (16500 BC). David Anthony has logic to put a fence around PIE as somewhere about the 4000-3500 BC. R1b (M343) should have been around by then and I think R1a too.   R-M269 is a different story.  That TMRCA may not have been around yet... but that's about the right timeframe for him.

Quote from: NealtheRed
...Satem is younger, so its spread to India has nothing to do with the original speakers of IE, IMO.
I agree, because my understanding is that Satem involves innovations to IE not found in Centum languages.  In effect Centum is like the "all other" or "asterisk" paragroup of IE languages.  I don't really understand this though.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2011, 09:00:35 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2011, 10:14:44 PM »

I think the most ancient form of Indo-European is Anatolian. The Hittites and the possible IE speakers of Troy would have been primarily R1b, not R1a.
My memory of David Anthony's book ("The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World") is that Hittite is probably considered pre-Indo-European as there are some words that are considered part of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) that aren't in the Hittite's language... but that is a matter of definition. The idea is that Hittite broke off before the full PIE word set came about.


Quote from: NealtheRed
...All I know is that Satem is primarily associated with R1a, and Centum with R1b. So maybe PIE was associated with R1* populations? Or is that too early?
Yes, I think that R1 before the existence of R1b and R1a is too young.  Karafet (2008) has R1's TMRCA at 18,500 ybp (16500 BC). David Anthony has logic to put a fence around PIE as somewhere about the 4000-3500 BC. R1b (M343) should have been around by then and I think R1a too.   R-M269 is a different story.  That TMRCA may not have been around yet... but that's about the right timeframe for him.

Quote from: NealtheRed
...Satem is younger, so its spread to India has nothing to do with the original speakers of IE, IMO.
I agree, because my understanding is that Satem involves innovations to IE not found in Centum languages.  In effect Centum is like the "all other" or "asterisk" paragroup of IE languages.  I don't really understand this though.

I did read that Hittite is considered by some academes to split off from ProtoIE early on, but the Anatolian branch - in general - is the earliest attested IE language branch. It arrived to Anatolia either through the Caucasus or through the Balkans, both of which could be entry points of R1b in Europe.

I don't think there was an R1a substratum in Western Europe before the arrival of R1b. If there was, and an R1b invasion wiped out any remnants, I could only surmise that the language of the invaders superseded that of the previous inhabitants.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2011, 10:15:06 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2011, 03:32:23 AM »

Quote from: NealtheRed
...I did read that Hittite is considered by some academes to split off from ProtoIE early on, but the Anatolian branch - in general - is the earliest attested IE language branch. It arrived to Anatolia either through the Caucasus or through the Balkans, both of which could be entry points of R1b in Europe.
Jean M mentions this in her articles. I think the key word is "wagon".  The Hittites had the word for "horse" but not "wagon" and "wagon" is one of the 70 or so reconstructed PIE words.

That leaves me with the opportunity to recommend reading Jean's brief, but well thought out articles.  She updates them frequently.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeans.shtml
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeangenetics.shtml
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/bellbeaker.shtml
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ironage.shtml

Quote from: NealtheRed
...I don't think there was an R1a substratum in Western Europe before the arrival of R1b. If there was, and an R1b invasion wiped out any remnants, I could only surmise that the language of the invaders superseded that of the previous inhabitants.
Anatole K thinks R1a was actually in Europe prior to R1b and I agree it is  possible.  We know R1a was found at Eulau which is in the south of Germany in the Corded Ware culture.  That's not that far from France and R1a is lightly scattered in Western Europe.  Some of it, albeit it small amount, might have been there early.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 02:46:30 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2011, 10:11:55 AM »

Quote
We know R1a was found at Eulau which is in the south of Germany in the Corded Ware culture.

Yes but Corded Ware people were probably speaking a form of IE.

By the way - thanks for the commendation. Much appreciated.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 10:12:32 AM by Jean M » Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2158


« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2011, 03:09:57 PM »

1)   From these maps I think it is clear that R1b corresponds to Centum languages and R1a to Satem ones.
2)   Indo-European cannot be come from East, otherwise we don’t understand which haplogroup carried it.
3)   Satem languages derive from the Centum ones and not the other way around.
4)   Then IE was born in Central Europe and has been carried to East by the most ancient form of R1b, i.e. R-M269 and upstream subclades.
5)   From Central-East Europe the Satem languages was carried to East above all by R1a. The origin of these subclades of R1 are more ancient than IE as we know. Probably IE and Etruscan-Rhaetian-Camun are linked at the level of the Younger Dryas.
6)   As you know I think that this happened in the Italian Refugium.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2011, 04:37:25 PM »

Quote from: NealtheRed
...I did read that Hittite is considered by some academes to split off from ProtoIE early on, but the Anatolian branch - in general - is the earliest attested IE language branch. It arrived to Anatolia either through the Caucasus or through the Balkans, both of which could be entry points of R1b in Europe.
Jean M mentions this her articles. I think the key word is "wagon".  The Hittites had the word for "horse" but not "wagon" and "wagon" is one of the 70 or so reconstructed PIE words.

That leaves me with the opportunity to recommend reading Jean's brief, but well thought out articles.  She updates them frequently.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeans.shtml
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeangenetics.shtml
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/bellbeaker.shtml
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ironage.shtml

Quote from: NealtheRed
...I don't think there was an R1a substratum in Western Europe before the arrival of R1b. If there was, and an R1b invasion wiped out any remnants, I could only surmise that the language of the invaders superseded that of the previous inhabitants.
Anatole K thinks R1a was actually in Europe prior to R1b and I agree it is  possible.  We know R1a was found at Eulau which is in the south of Germany in the Corded Ware culture.  That's not that far from France and R1a is lightly scattered in Western Europe.  Some of it, albeit it small amount, might have been there early.

Thanks for those links, Mike; and thank you, Jean for providing that knowledge. What I gather from the readings is a hybrid R1a-R1b component to the development of Indo-European. How R1a ended up dominating Eastern Europe and R1b Western Europe is still a little baffling. It seems Scandinavia has an even split of R1a-R1b - Proto-Germanic?

The Eulau R1a was interesting but even if they did speak IE, what branch was it? Also, the small amounts of R1a in Western Europe could have travelled with a majority R1b population into the area. Like Jean mentions in the readings, it is not clear-cut. Yet R1* is clearly the largest factor in the dispersal of IE.

But where are the oldest forms of Indo-European found? Can we guess where Proto-IE emerged? I have a feeling it is in an area between majority R1a tribes and majority R1b tribes. But Jean mentions that R1b pastorialists could have picked up farming earlier than R1a nomads. Did these Caucasian R1b folks moving toward the Sea of Azov bring IE?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 04:39:18 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2011, 04:54:32 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?




I think the Basque issue is a giant red herring. There are a number of responses. Firstly, I believe they were a matrilocal society where the males moved in with the female's family (as opposed to the more usual reverse situation with patrilocal societies). The children then would naturally learn the language of their mothers. I'm sure there are a fair number of people of R1b ancestry in Finland who speak Finnish, which is another non IE language. That doesn't prove their Y line ancestors were non IE. Secondly, the Basques are not all R1b. There is no proof that the original Basque population was R1b.

How do we know when M269 got to Europe? If there are M-269* people in Europe, that doesn't prove they got there before the birth of M269 subclades. Has any R1b been found in ancient DNA in Europe dating to before the late neolithic?

I have always believed that the answer to R1b/IE question is found in Ireland. Ireland is almost entirely R1b- R1a is next to non-existant there.  Yet we know that the Irish have been speaking an IE language at least since the Bronze Age. The idea that IE was introduced to Ireland by R1a is ludicrous. While it doesn't prove when and where the Irish R1b acquired IE, it certainly demonstrates to my satisfaction that they spoke an IE language before their arrival in Ireland. Incidentally, the situation in Wales is basically the same- R1a is essentially non-existant.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 04:58:38 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2011, 08:12:33 AM »

The Eulau R1a was interesting but even if they did speak IE, what branch was it?

According to Underhill et al the haplotype of the R1a from Eulau matches most closely that of present-day Germanic-language speakers. That does not mean that the people at Eulau were speaking Proto-Germanic (which didn't evolve until about 500 BC), but they could be ancestral to the IE people who moved into Scandinavia.  

Quote
But where are the oldest forms of Indo-European found?

The oldest forms of IE that were written down are dead languages: Hittite and  Tocharian. Where they were spoken does not tell us where Proto-Indo-European was spoken. It just tells us that the speakers of these languages had broken away early from the mother-tongue, and moved far enough away to develop their own form of it.  

Quote
Can we guess where Proto-IE emerged?

Yes of course we can. On the eastern end of the European steppe.  Decades of study have gone into that question. I summarise the results in the first page to which Mike provided a link.  

Quote
Did these Caucasian R1b folks moving toward the Sea of Azov bring IE?

No. The R1b in the Near East and Africa is not connected to IE speakers, but to Afro-Asiatic, including Hebrew and Chadic.

By the way - we don't know for sure how R1b got onto the steppe. It could have been via the Caucasus, but I now incline towards it being brought by dairy-farmers from Western Anatolia across the Sea of Marmara and along the western Black Sea coast. Dairy farming was evidently part of the PIE lifestyle. They had words for it.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 08:16:20 AM by Jean M » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2011, 08:48:28 PM »

The Eulau R1a was interesting but even if they did speak IE, what branch was it?

According to Underhill et al the haplotype of the R1a from Eulau matches most closely that of present-day Germanic-language speakers. That does not mean that the people at Eulau were speaking Proto-Germanic (which didn't evolve until about 500 BC), but they could be ancestral to the IE people who moved into Scandinavia.  

Quote
But where are the oldest forms of Indo-European found?

The oldest forms of IE that were written down are dead languages: Hittite and  Tocharian. Where they were spoken does not tell us where Proto-Indo-European was spoken. It just tells us that the speakers of these languages had broken away early from the mother-tongue, and moved far enough away to develop their own form of it.  

Quote
Can we guess where Proto-IE emerged?

Yes of course we can. On the eastern end of the European steppe.  Decades of study have gone into that question. I summarise the results in the first page to which Mike provided a link.  

Quote
Did these Caucasian R1b folks moving toward the Sea of Azov bring IE?

No. The R1b in the Near East and Africa is not connected to IE speakers, but to Afro-Asiatic, including Hebrew and Chadic.

By the way - we don't know for sure how R1b got onto the steppe. It could have been via the Caucasus, but I now incline towards it being brought by dairy-farmers from Western Anatolia across the Sea of Marmara and along the western Black Sea coast. Dairy farming was evidently part of the PIE lifestyle. They had words for it.


If you surmise ProtoIE develops on the eastern part of the European steppe, are you implying that R1a is the original carrier of the language?

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 #15 on: March 09, 2011, 01:31:16 AM »

Some of you may have seen this a few months ago on Dienekes Dodecad Project,  but I think it provides another piece of the puzzle from an autosomal perspective.

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2010/12/fine-scale-admixture-in-europe.html

If you look at the admixture proportions on the spreadsheet for the Dagestani (NE Caucasus)component, it is higher in northwest European populations like Germans, French, Orcadians, Scandinavians, and White Utahns (probably a majority of whom are of British Isles descent and R1b P312+) though less so in the Baltic and southern Europeans like North Italians, Tuscans, Greeks, Cypriots, Sicillians, Sardinians, French Basque, and Spanish.  Basically, there is a trail of this component from the Caucasus, across the middle of Europe, to the British Isles.  Other eastern populations such as Iran, Turkey, Uygurs (maybe Tocharians brought this admixture?), Chuvash (Urals) and subpopulations in India had elevated levels of this component.  Also, they are places where IE speakers had/have a presence.  Here is another chart showing those populations, the Dagestani component is in black.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TRCqAreq3xI/AAAAAAAADEs/HoKzH9RfHLI/s1600/ADMIXTURE_15.png

Now, considering that M269* and L23* are found in some of these eastern populations, especially in Turkey, the Caucasus and the Urals, and that L51+ is the most common in Europe, I think there is a strong similiarity, at least for Europe and the Caucasus, with the Dagestani component and R1b variance/subclade stucture.  R1b-M73 men may have carried most of the component east across central Asia.   
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 01:46:03 AM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2011, 11:14:05 PM »

Some of you may have seen this a few months ago on Dienekes Dodecad Project,  but I think it provides another piece of the puzzle from an autosomal perspective.

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2010/12/fine-scale-admixture-in-europe.html

If you look at the admixture proportions on the spreadsheet for the Dagestani (NE Caucasus)component, it is higher in northwest European populations like Germans, French, Orcadians, Scandinavians, and White Utahns (probably a majority of whom are of British Isles descent and R1b P312+) though less so in the Baltic and southern Europeans like North Italians, Tuscans, Greeks, Cypriots, Sicillians, Sardinians, French Basque, and Spanish.  Basically, there is a trail of this component from the Caucasus, across the middle of Europe, to the British Isles.  Other eastern populations such as Iran, Turkey, Uygurs (maybe Tocharians brought this admixture?), Chuvash (Urals) and subpopulations in India had elevated levels of this component.  Also, they are places where IE speakers had/have a presence.  Here is another chart showing those populations, the Dagestani component is in black.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TRCqAreq3xI/AAAAAAAADEs/HoKzH9RfHLI/s1600/ADMIXTURE_15.png

Now, considering that M269* and L23* are found in some of these eastern populations, especially in Turkey, the Caucasus and the Urals, and that L51+ is the most common in Europe, I think there is a strong similiarity, at least for Europe and the Caucasus, with the Dagestani component and R1b variance/subclade stucture.  R1b-M73 men may have carried most of the component east across central Asia.   

Fascinating. The link between Western Europeans and Dagestan could reflect the route traveled by R1b from the Caucasus to Central Europe.
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 #17 on: March 10, 2011, 12:14:51 AM »

I think so, though women would have carried some of this admixture as well.  I don't think we can expect this to be an exact overlay to the R1b move into Europe, but it is interesting how well it matches places where L51+ is more frequent.  As for the eastern populations where this is found such as India, I suspect that would have been carried by J2 and R1a men since there is hardly any R1b there.  However, there is some R1b among the Chuvash and today's Uygurs.  What else is interesting is that today's Russians have only 4% despite living in relatively close proximity to the Caucasians.  Yet there is 11.2 in more geographically distant white Utahns and 10.2 in Scandinavians.  This make me think this admixture could be representative of a much older IE expansion model with the Caucasus and the nearby eastern steppe as a source.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2011, 09:43:16 PM »

I always found it interesting that the Uyghur population has some R1b. GoldenHind pointed out some time ago that a Talysh man had tested R1b1b2. These people are from Northern Iran, not far from Dagestan.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Arch Y.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2011, 01:58:22 AM »

Quote from: NealtheRed
...I did read that Hittite is considered by some academes to split off from ProtoIE early on, but the Anatolian branch - in general - is the earliest attested IE language branch. It arrived to Anatolia either through the Caucasus or through the Balkans, both of which could be entry points of R1b in Europe.
Jean M mentions this in her articles. I think the key word is "wagon".  The Hittites had the word for "horse" but not "wagon" and "wagon" is one of the 70 or so reconstructed PIE words.

Maybe they used a different word for wagon, perhaps something closer to the chariot which the Hittites definitely had in their inventory. I'm not sure how wagon fits in with chariot as a word, but they probably had wagons and a word for it which I believe for us is "Carriage", "Car", etc. With so much construction around the rise of their empire, it would be nearly impossible to transport everything by chariot or by baskets for that matter. Rivers if sufficient flow is available could have provided a means of transport by raft, but I'm not sure about the reliability of water routes in Anatolia c.2500 BCE or if the climate was enough to make riverine transport practical by any means.

Arch
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2011, 08:55:43 PM »

The Hittites did indeed have words for wheeled vehicles. The point is that these words were not derived from the same common ancestor as words for wagon in other Indo-European languages.

So the ancestors of the Hittites had left the motherland before the wheeled vehicle was invented, and the PIE word for it.  
 
« Last Edit: March 15, 2011, 08:57:24 PM by Jean M » Logged
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2011, 01:51:57 PM »

should we look at the Hittites in the same light as a tribal migration. I'm not an expert but they seem to be more like a military take over by a small elite that appeared and disappeared suddenly (a civil war is one theory). Maybe an explosion of military  technology (probably bought in buy the new elite) rather than numbers of people.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2011, 08:38:53 PM »

Here is my thinking on the subject. Centum Indo-European languages are dominant in western Europe. Lactase persistence, believed to have originated on the Eurasian steppe, is at its worldwide peak in NW Europe. R1b, which probably originated in western Asia, perhaps in or near the steppe, is also dominant in western Europe.

Hard to believe all those factors are just co-incidents and that R1a was single-handedly responsible for the spread of Indo-European languages.
Logged

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2011, 10:29:19 AM »

If R1b was predominantly found among the SE European farmers, there was a period of interaction where cultures like Tripolye and Cernavoda-Ezero would have been able to acquire proto-IE from steppe populations.  This is roughly 4200-2800 BC.  Then Italo-Celtic could have split from proto-IE among the farmers, rather than being brought exclusively by Yamnaya settlers starting in 3100.  This is just one scenario.  On the other hand, there are significant amounts of L51- in the Caucasus and Ural regions, which can't be reconciled easily with the neolithic farmer R1b model.  Also, a handful of my FTDNA 12 marker near-matches show up in Uygurs, Kazakhs, and native Siberians, which work against the SE Europe farmer model.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2011, 11:02:57 AM »

If R1b was predominantly found among the SE European farmers, there was a period of interaction where cultures like Tripolye and Cernavoda-Ezero would have been able to acquire proto-IE from steppe populations.  This is roughly 4200-2800 BC.  Then Italo-Celtic could have split from proto-IE among the farmers, rather than being brought exclusively by Yamnaya settlers starting in 3100.  This is just one scenario.  On the other hand, there are significant amounts of L51- in the Caucasus and Ural regions, which can't be reconciled easily with the neolithic farmer R1b model.  Also, a handful of my FTDNA 12 marker near-matches show up in Uygurs, Kazakhs, and native Siberians, which work against the SE Europe farmer model.

The only issue I have with R1b Neolithic farmers learning PIE from R1a steppe folk is that R1b becomes solely associated with the spread of Centum, the older form of IE. We see Satem/Indo-Iranian being carried into South Asia by R1a carriers, but they are significantly outnumbered by R1b in Central/Western Europe.

One can find a dominant percentage of R1b in any European population that speaks a Centum-IE language. I would concede however that the Germanic branch may have been more hybrid R1a/R1b, with R1b speakers contributing the bulk of Centum IE phonology. Since Germanic is influenced by Balto-Slavic, this could explain R1a's Satem contribution.

I do not see how a dominant, Centum-speaking R1a population just changed its speech and decided to move east. While some surely moved west with R1b, it was not the dominant factor spreading Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



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 0.116 seconds with 19 queries.