World Families Forums - Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 28, 2014, 10:42:12 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)
| | |-+  Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.  (Read 15608 times)
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2153


« Reply #50 on: June 02, 2011, 01:47:05 AM »

It couldn't be said better:

"These haplogroup G comments on the new ancient DNA samples were intended for the Diekenes site, but apparently there is some problem in the posting there.

I am sorry, but I see nothing that can be accurately deduced from this testing other than closely related G2a persons were in France abt 5000 yrs ago., as will be explained -- though there may or may not be a connection to Sardinia.

The markers chosen for testing the skeletons correspond generally to what is placed in the YHRD database and also allow comparisons to prior testing elsewhere, but a worse selection for G persons could not be found. The particular values obtained can today be found within practically any G2a subgroup, and in the G project I would have to categorize the samples as G2a but unknown as to subgroup. There was no testing of DYS425. Perhaps 80% of European G2a persons today belong to G2a3 and virtually all have a certain DYS425 value. Other large G2a groups have specific shared values at DYS388, DYS568 where unusual mutations have occurred. In addition, the authors seem stuck in the 2005-2007 period when there were just a few G SNPs available. There were many more in the 2008 YCC update, and many more today. A few more SNP tests would resolve plenty of issues.

The authors use a phylogenetic network to show these skeleton samples as a separate position among G persons. An article on E1b several years ago showed that such networks using a small number of markers (as here in the skeleton study) actually display different haplogroups on the same branch and also intermixed throughout the display of branches. A useful network should have each haplogroup on a different branch. In the G project samples, we were not able to get clean separation of G subhaplogroups at 37 markers, and the 67-marker networks are not perfect for this either but a definite improvement. Many of the markers used in the skeleton study just wobble around a midpoint of values in G2a men, and do not help establish branching. It was probably the DYS390=23 value in the skeleton studies that caused it to cluster separately, and this can vary within most any G2a subgroup.

The only significance I can see in the skelton marker values is that DYS390=23 is not common within G2a samples, but is the norm in the skeletons of France. These skeletons are likely from related persons as indicated by the authors. The only locale in which I have seen unusual amounts of haplogroup G DYS390=23 is Sardinia in the data of the the Contu and Ghiani Sardinian studies several years ago. The haplogroup I persons are indicating some relationship of the haplo I results in the skeleton study to Sardinian samples. But the relationship of the G samples to Sardinia could be entirely concidental since DYS390 is not a a very slowly mutating marker. The available Sardinian G samples show a diversity and value combinations not seen elsewhere among G persons in Europe, including a number with the uncommon double DYS19 values. (Seen in both Contu and Ghiani) The samples from Contu were tested also in the isolated central highlands which was populated before the arrival of the Phoenicians. The archeologists do not believe there was any settlement of this highlands area by any of the later Sardinian conquerors beginning with the Phoenicians. (Zei's haplogroup study of Sardinia, 2003) This highlands area in the Contu study data show the same unusual diversity of G samples and similarity to the lowlands, possibly indicating in all locales a long presence on the island and pre-Phoenician.
In the earliest comments on haplo G about a decade ago by scholars, it was was mentioned that haplo G probably arrived in Europe during the Neolithic period. This comment survives today in a number of descriptions of G at various web sites. It was apparently intended from these comments -- I presume -- that persons in Europe today are likely descended from Neolithic emigrants, but the persons who originally made these comments never offered any evidence as to when G arrived in Europe -- just opinions. The several ancient DNA studies since then have failed to test for critical SNPs or markers that could answer whether there is a relationship to modern G men. So it is just as plausible that these ancient skeletons represent very early settlers (as probably also in the Sardinian highlands) who may or may not have modern descendants. Already on the blogs and discussion groups nonsensical comments are being posted that this study lays to rest any idea that modern persons are descended from groups arriving after the Neolithic period.

Comparisons within the project's 67-marker European and Asian samples -- using the standard methodologies -- suggest a separation from the west Asian region far after the the lifetime of the French skeletons. But the skeletons are the key to saying whether this timeline is valid or not. And they have not been tested in a manner to say yes or no. Ray Banks, Administrator, Haplogroup G Project"


« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 03:55:24 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #51 on: June 02, 2011, 04:31:12 AM »

Here is another interesting thought:

Did the Bell Beaker folks skip over the Basques?  What does the archaeology found in old Aquitanian (Basque ancestral) regions tell us?


Bell Beaker culture is present all along the Basque Country. In fact it brings the first important cultural change to the region since Paleolithic times. Neolithic in the Basque country is very late (c.4000 BC) and it doesn´t bring important cultural changes, people still live mainly in caves and epipaleolithic microlithic industry remains the same, it is only with the arrival of Bell Beaker that all that changes, we start to see small villages, ceramic and lithic industry changing radically, first metal working, individual burials...
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:32:32 AM by IALEM » Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #52 on: June 02, 2011, 06:40:18 AM »


There is some talk about lactose from remains found at Treilles

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/05/no-cheese-for-neolithic-humans-in-france-/1

An excavation of a southern French burial site from about 3,000 B.C. shows that the modern humans who expanded into the area from the Mediterranean lived in patrilocal communities and did not have the genetic mutation that allowed later Europeans to digest fresh milk.

Scientists analyzed DNA extracted from the bones of 53 people buried in Cave I of the Treilles, located in the Grands Causses region at Saint-Jean-et-Saint-Paul, Aveyron in France. They were able to get useful information from 29 of those samples, 22 men, two women ad five for whom it was impossible to determine . Most of them appeared to be closely related, with two of them having a 99.9979% probability of being father and son and two others having a 99.9985% probability of being siblings.

The researchers were able to deduce from their findings that the peoples in this region of France were of a genetic type more closely related to Basque and Spanish populations than current western European populations. They were also more closely related to peoples in Cyprus, Portugal, Turkey, Italy and Lebanon.

None of them carried the gene for lactase persistence that is believed to have first evolved around 5,500 BC in Central Europe and which allowed humans to drink fresh milk after they are weaned.

The absence of the genetic variation probably shows that the Treilles people most likely came from agricultural-pastoral Mediterranean cultures that drank fermented milk and had an economy based on sheep and goat farming.

The paper is published in this week's edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #53 on: June 02, 2011, 01:30:26 PM »

Here is another interesting thought:

Did the Bell Beaker folks skip over the Basques?  What does the archaeology found in old Aquitanian (Basque ancestral) regions tell us?


Bell Beaker culture is present all along the Basque Country. In fact it brings the first important cultural change to the region since Paleolithic times. Neolithic in the Basque country is very late (c.4000 BC) and it doesn´t bring important cultural changes, people still live mainly in caves and epipaleolithic microlithic industry remains the same, it is only with the arrival of Bell Beaker that all that changes, we start to see small villages, ceramic and lithic industry changing radically, first metal working, individual burials...

Just to make sure I have it straight, you are talking about current Spanish/French Basque Country, right?

Isn't it thought that the Basques are descendants of Aquitanian people slightly more to the north (in France) than Basque Country?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 01:31:11 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 02, 2011, 01:40:04 PM »

....
None of them carried the gene for lactase persistence that is believed to have first evolved around 5,500 BC in Central Europe and which allowed humans to drink fresh milk after they are weaned.....
Is there agreement that lactase persistence originated in Central Europe. I thought it was a little more to the east.

Jean Manco thinks that the true milk drinking (not cheese eating) took off at about the same time, but in far SE Europe along the Sea of Marmara and into Anatolia.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/secondary.shtml#dairy

In her scenario, the LBK and Cardial Wares were in their prime expansion in Central and Western Europe while the milk drinking dairymen were building up steam in far SE Europe.  It looks like the pots used for milk drinking don't show up in Central and Western Europe until the Late Neolithic.

Alan, you've mentioned the middle Neolithic expansions.  Any large late Neolithic expansions in Western and Northern Europe?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 01:40:48 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 5023


« Reply #55 on: June 02, 2011, 08:04:23 PM »

So, if R1b does not show up in the known major Neolithic cultures of Europe, it must mean either that 1) R1b was present, but in Mesolithic-level, hunter-gatherer groups or 2) R1b arrived later, perhaps as Bronze Age Indo-European pastoralists.

If the answer is #1, then R1b should show up in later farming communities at some point.

If it is #2, how will we know it? Thus far, no R1b has been found in steppe sites believed to be Indo-European.

Of course, I guess there is a possibility #3, i.e., that R1b arrived with a later wave of agriculturalists from the Near East or someplace.



Have there been steppe sites associated with Yamnaya that have been tested? I thought both R1a and R1b have been found in graves dating from the Bronze Age so far. Maybe I am wrong.

I am going with #2, but did IE spread from the Near East? Euphratic?

I don't recall if any Yamnaya sites have yielded ancient y-dna, but there have been a couple of steppe sites that have, as well as that Corded Ware site in Germany. It's all been a thrill for the R1a guys thus far and nuts to us.

I could look up the details and post them, but I've got to get off the computer in a couple of minutes. I think Jean Manco's Ancient Eurasian DNA site has the details.



If you're referring to the Eulau site, I thought that the R1a1 there was related to one another - in other words, a single family.

For Corded Ware, yeah. That is right. It was one family, but it's all they got, and it wasn't R1b.

I keep hoping for something good, something real earthshaking, but we're still waiting.
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #56 on: June 03, 2011, 06:11:57 AM »

....
None of them carried the gene for lactase persistence that is believed to have first evolved around 5,500 BC in Central Europe and which allowed humans to drink fresh milk after they are weaned.....
Is there agreement that lactase persistence originated in Central Europe. I thought it was a little more to the east.

Jean Manco thinks that the true milk drinking (not cheese eating) took off at about the same time, but in far SE Europe along the Sea of Marmara and into Anatolia.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/secondary.shtml#dairy

In her scenario, the LBK and Cardial Wares were in their prime expansion in Central and Western Europe while the milk drinking dairymen were building up steam in far SE Europe.  It looks like the pots used for milk drinking don't show up in Central and Western Europe until the Late Neolithic.

Alan, you've mentioned the middle Neolithic expansions.  Any large late Neolithic expansions in Western and Northern Europe?

There is an issue of the definition of early, middle and late being different in different areas.  I tend to think of the first main wave into Europe represented by the Balkans cultures, LBK and Cardial as 'early'.  The succeeding period is 'middle'.  However, I am not sure there is any uniform definition of where middle passes into late.  I tend to think og the middle Neolithic as the period after LBK and Cardial when successor cultures spread farming to the vast swathes of Europe that was not settled in the Early Neolithic.   There was a massive expansion of farming settlement into areas no previously settled in the middle Neolithic including most of France, most of Iberia, the British Isles, the northern European plain, much of north Italy etc.  I dont think it possible to overestimate the profound expansion in farming that happened in the middle Neolithic.

As for the origins of this expansion, its a very complex situation.  Certainly looking at north-west and central Europe there were a bunch of cultures which are generally seen as descending from LBK but perhaps with additional elements.  The Neolithic of the British Isles and the TRB/Funnel Beaker culture between them spread farming throughout northern Europe.  They are handy examples of Middle Neolithic cultures simply because they are discussed in books about the Early Neolithic (there are no similar books on the middle Neolithic in English) by dint of also being the local Early Neolithic in those areas.  My understanding is that the latest idea on TRB is that it descends from late Lengyel culture of Poland.  Lengyel in turn is generally thought to largely be descended from LBK.  I think generally speaking the Neolithic of the British Isles is seen as originating in largely LBK-descended north French/Low countries middle Neolithic cultures.  

Unfortunately the middle Neolithic of western Europe is a subject that it difficult to find published books on.  There basically isnt one.  I have tried to scour the net for info and looked at a few more general books but I still dont know as much as I would want. What I certainly have noticed in the roots of most of the north and central European middle Neolithic cultures tends to be considered as coming from the LBK.  However, they were significantly different from LBK and many innovations had occurred.  The most crucial were agricultural and settlement innovations which are the key to the fact that middle Neolithic farmers were able to settled where early Neolithic farmers would not.  I think unfortunately the issue of how much of this was slow evolution of LBK groups into the middle Neolithic cultures and how much is due to some sort of infiltration of a new human element is not clear.  

It certainly seems likely to me that the whole milk drinking thing may have been a significant element. Milk drinking had reached the English channel by at least the late 5th millenium BC as its traces on pot residue have been found in Britain apparently among the first farmers there.  So, the genes to successfully do this had clearly infiltrated through middle Neolithic Europe, probably on a SE to NW trajectory.  So, clearly 'new blood' DID filter into these late/post LBK groups that formed into the middle Neolithic cultures of temperate Europe.  However, I cant say that this has left a handy wave-like archaeological cultural trace.  My impression is more that new blood infiltrated among the LBK people in some sort of low key way with low visibility.  One thought that strikes me is that early milk drinking pastoralists may have lived in the margins, uplands etc and be very hard to find.  In general the story of the middle Neolithic is about expansion into what had been considered undesirable land to the older LBK groups.  

Certainly a entry into SE Europe then a middle Neolithic spread though central Europe to the north-west would explain its absence in early Neolithic LBK groups and also its absence in the middle Neolithic SW French Neolithic sample.  Whether this is linked to the absence of R1b I dont know. However, there are striking parallels.  As long as beaker culture is seen as an our-of-Iberia spread it will remain a hopeless mismatch for R1b.  I Suppose deep down I am kind of hoping that the Capeli paper shunts dates back by 30% or something like that and the focus on beaker culture (which is peculiar to the hobbiest community) might lessen. Unless something like Jean is suggesting (which would require ancient DNA evidence) is the case or new discoveries alter the picture then a lot of time is being wasted focussing on beakers.  The middle Neolithic alternative model also has the advantage of it being a period where the great expansion spatially into much of the avoided land of Europe creates a demographic horizon that might be reflected in the DNA.  

One note of caution though.  I would not 100% give up on the idea of R1b being in Europe based on a few family cemeteries who probably represent a single family and therefore descent from one man potentially.  I think we need a lot more results from as many separate locations before any conclusions can be drawn.    
« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 06:12:44 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2011, 06:32:17 AM »

So, if R1b does not show up in the known major Neolithic cultures of Europe, it must mean either that 1) R1b was present, but in Mesolithic-level, hunter-gatherer groups or 2) R1b arrived later, perhaps as Bronze Age Indo-European pastoralists.

If the answer is #1, then R1b should show up in later farming communities at some point.

If it is #2, how will we know it? Thus far, no R1b has been found in steppe sites believed to be Indo-European.

Of course, I guess there is a possibility #3, i.e., that R1b arrived with a later wave of agriculturalists from the Near East or someplace.



Have there been steppe sites associated with Yamnaya that have been tested? I thought both R1a and R1b have been found in graves dating from the Bronze Age so far. Maybe I am wrong.

I am going with #2, but did IE spread from the Near East? Euphratic?

I don't recall if any Yamnaya sites have yielded ancient y-dna, but there have been a couple of steppe sites that have, as well as that Corded Ware site in Germany. It's all been a thrill for the R1a guys thus far and nuts to us.

I could look up the details and post them, but I've got to get off the computer in a couple of minutes. I think Jean Manco's Ancient Eurasian DNA site has the details.



If you're referring to the Eulau site, I thought that the R1a1 there was related to one another - in other words, a single family.

For Corded Ware, yeah. That is right. It was one family, but it's all they got, and it wasn't R1b.

I keep hoping for something good, something real earthshaking, but we're still waiting.

testing large, likely family, cemeteries is interesting in terms of reconstructing social structures, kinship groupings etc but its not very useful in terms of getting a representative sample of yDNA from prehistoric Europe. What would be better would be one or two individuals from as many separate locations as possible rather than testing a lot  of people at one location.  However, it may be a case of beggars cant be choosers and the conditions for yDNA preservation are too rare to pick and chose. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #58 on: June 03, 2011, 10:25:41 AM »



testing large, likely family, cemeteries is interesting in terms of reconstructing social structures, kinship groupings etc but its not very useful in terms of getting a representative sample of yDNA from prehistoric Europe. What would be better would be one or two individuals from as many separate locations as possible rather than testing a lot  of people at one location.  However, it may be a case of beggars cant be choosers and the conditions for yDNA preservation are too rare to pick and chose.  


That's the problem with the state of ancient y-dna testing as it now is. We can only get lucky now and then and have to settle for it.

Just the same, R1a has shown up among the allegedly Tocharian Tarim mummies of NW China, in remains of the allegedly Tocharian Androvo culture in Siberia, and at that Corded Ware site at Eulau in Germany.

I don't know of any alleged early Indo-European or IE offshoot sites that have yielded any ancient R1b.

The Lichtenstein Cave had one R1b dated to around 1,000 BC, but that was a strange, non-IE sort of place, with bones deposited in a cave, most of them some kind of I2, as I recall, with a couple of R1a (a father and son, I think).

That's the oldest R1b find I know about.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 10:26:41 AM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #59 on: June 03, 2011, 10:49:50 AM »



testing large, likely family, cemeteries is interesting in terms of reconstructing social structures, kinship groupings etc but its not very useful in terms of getting a representative sample of yDNA from prehistoric Europe. What would be better would be one or two individuals from as many separate locations as possible rather than testing a lot  of people at one location.  However, it may be a case of beggars cant be choosers and the conditions for yDNA preservation are too rare to pick and chose.  


That's the problem with the state of ancient y-dna testing as it now is. We can only get lucky now and then and have to settle for it.

Just the same, R1a has shown up among the allegedly Tocharian Tarim mummies of NW China, in remains of the allegedly Tocharian Androvo culture in Siberia, and at that Corded Ware site at Eulau in Germany.

I don't know of any alleged early Indo-European or IE offshoot sites that have yielded any ancient R1b.

The Lichtenstein Cave had one R1b dated to around 1,000 BC, but that was a strange, non-IE sort of place, with bones deposited in a cave, most of them some kind of I2, as I recall, with a couple of R1a (a father and son, I think).

That's the oldest R1b find I know about.
I agree. When people say "ancient DNA will resolve this" I get a little frustrated because we don't even think we have good representative surveys of modern populations, let alone the handful of aDNA available.  I don't see mass successful Y aDNA testing anytime soon. I hope I'm wrong.

On Lichenstein, I don't know how to tell what's IE or not since these guys weren't writing much down, but at least Wikipedia's articles classify Lichenstein as Urnfield of the late Bronze Age.

If you trace it backwards, Urnfield came from Tumulus, Tumulus came from Unetice and here we go again - Unetice came from the Beakers.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #60 on: June 03, 2011, 05:53:38 PM »



testing large, likely family, cemeteries is interesting in terms of reconstructing social structures, kinship groupings etc but its not very useful in terms of getting a representative sample of yDNA from prehistoric Europe. What would be better would be one or two individuals from as many separate locations as possible rather than testing a lot  of people at one location.  However, it may be a case of beggars cant be choosers and the conditions for yDNA preservation are too rare to pick and chose.  


That's the problem with the state of ancient y-dna testing as it now is. We can only get lucky now and then and have to settle for it.

Just the same, R1a has shown up among the allegedly Tocharian Tarim mummies of NW China, in remains of the allegedly Tocharian Androvo culture in Siberia, and at that Corded Ware site at Eulau in Germany.

I don't know of any alleged early Indo-European or IE offshoot sites that have yielded any ancient R1b.

The Lichtenstein Cave had one R1b dated to around 1,000 BC, but that was a strange, non-IE sort of place, with bones deposited in a cave, most of them some kind of I2, as I recall, with a couple of R1a (a father and son, I think).

That's the oldest R1b find I know about.

However, R1a really has only turned up exactly where it was expected to, in the steppes, corded ware in Germany etc.  It essentially proved the hunches that people had for R1a anyway.  The equivalent for R1b would definately be beaker burials.  Why beaker burials have been untested to date, I am at a loss to explain.  

We had better hope R1b didnt arrive in the period c. 1500BC-700BC when a lot of Europe was happily cremating all the potential DNA evidence!!
« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 05:54:08 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #61 on: June 03, 2011, 07:42:59 PM »

It may just be my lack of understanding or ignorance, but I am not impressed with ancient DNA testing as of late.

We find a single family and claim that they are the sole inheritors of an era of history. That's like pulling a sample of 5 people out of a target population of 500,000, and those 5 people are a related, nuclear family. Does this sound like good science?

It sounds ridiculous.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 07:44:25 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #62 on: June 03, 2011, 08:12:20 PM »

It may just be my lack of understanding or ignorance, but I am not impressed with ancient DNA testing as of late.

We find a single family and claim that they are the sole inheritors of an era of history. That's like pulling a sample of 5 people out of a target population of 500,000, and those 5 people are a related, nuclear family. Does this sound like good science?

It sounds ridiculous.

I'm with you on this one, I get bored with the argument of 'where's your ancient DNA evidence'. We have plenty enough to go on via variance etc. without having to worry too much about that.

At the moment ancient DNA is a bit like trying to map the sky from the bottom of a well.
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #63 on: June 03, 2011, 09:08:54 PM »

I don't see how whoever wrote that bit in Wikipedia could call the Lichtenstein Cave "Urnfield".

The Urnfield Culture takes its name from the practice of cremating the body and depositing the ashes in an urn and burying it in a cemetery or "field" of such urns.

Depositing bones in a cave is not "Urnfield" practice by definition.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 09:09:09 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #64 on: June 03, 2011, 09:10:18 PM »

It may just be my lack of understanding or ignorance, but I am not impressed with ancient DNA testing as of late.

We find a single family and claim that they are the sole inheritors of an era of history. That's like pulling a sample of 5 people out of a target population of 500,000, and those 5 people are a related, nuclear family. Does this sound like good science?

It sounds ridiculous.

I wouldn't call it ridiculous. I would just say that, at present, it's very limited.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #65 on: June 03, 2011, 09:21:35 PM »

. . .

On Lichenstein, I don't know how to tell what's IE or not since these guys weren't writing much down, but at least Wikipedia's articles classify Lichenstein as Urnfield of the late Bronze Age.

If you trace it backwards, Urnfield came from Tumulus, Tumulus came from Unetice and here we go again - Unetice came from the Beakers.


Aside from the fact that the Lichtenstein Cave burial cannot be Urnfield (as I mentioned above), you touched on something important: not knowing what languages the people who left certain archaeological remains behind spoke.

That, in a nutshell, is why I think the Anatolian languages and Euphratic are so important. We have actual documentation for them, the oldest documentation for any IE languages. Of course, Euphratic has to be teased from Sumerian cuneiform, but it certainly appears to have existed.

It is curious that the oldest documented IE languages are also strangely archaic and appear - where? - in Anatolia.

I am not arguing for Anatolia as the IE homeland. I'm just pointing something out.

Also, what I meant about Lichtenstein being not very Indo-European is that the bones were deposited collectively in a cave, not singly under a tumulus or kurgan. As far as I know they were not positioned with the knees flexed, there was no deposit of ochre, no weapons or other grave goods, etc.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 09:30:46 PM by rms2 » Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #66 on: June 03, 2011, 09:41:59 PM »

. . .

On Lichenstein, I don't know how to tell what's IE or not since these guys weren't writing much down, but at least Wikipedia's articles classify Lichenstein as Urnfield of the late Bronze Age.

If you trace it backwards, Urnfield came from Tumulus, Tumulus came from Unetice and here we go again - Unetice came from the Beakers.


Aside from the fact that the Lichtenstein Cave burial cannot be Urnfield (as I mentioned above), you touched on something important: not knowing what languages the people who left certain archaeological remains behind spoke.

That, in a nutshell, is why I think the Anatolian languages and Euphratic are so important. We have actual documentation for them, the oldest documentation for any IE languages. Of course, Euphratic has to be teased from Sumerian cuneiform, but it certainly appears to have existed.

It is curious that the oldest documented IE languages are also strangely archaic and appear - where? - in Anatolia.

I am not arguing for Anatolia as the IE homeland. I'm just pointing something out.

Also, what I meant about Lichtenstein being not very Indo-European is that the bones were deposited collectively in a cave, not singly under a tumulus or kurgan. As far as I know they were not positioned with the knees flexed, there was no deposit of ochre, no weapons or other grave goods, etc.

In this Lichtenstein cave, researchers found both R1a and R1b, as well as I, right?

This thread is the first I have been exposed to Euphratic as a possible, early IE language. Is the theory a recent one?
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 #67 on: June 03, 2011, 10:08:23 PM »

. . .

On Lichenstein, I don't know how to tell what's IE or not since these guys weren't writing much down, but at least Wikipedia's articles classify Lichenstein as Urnfield of the late Bronze Age.

If you trace it backwards, Urnfield came from Tumulus, Tumulus came from Unetice and here we go again - Unetice came from the Beakers.


Aside from the fact that the Lichtenstein Cave burial cannot be Urnfield (as I mentioned above), you touched on something important: not knowing what languages the people who left certain archaeological remains behind spoke.

That, in a nutshell, is why I think the Anatolian languages and Euphratic are so important. We have actual documentation for them, the oldest documentation for any IE languages. Of course, Euphratic has to be teased from Sumerian cuneiform, but it certainly appears to have existed.

It is curious that the oldest documented IE languages are also strangely archaic and appear - where? - in Anatolia.

I am not arguing for Anatolia as the IE homeland. I'm just pointing something out.

Also, what I meant about Lichtenstein being not very Indo-European is that the bones were deposited collectively in a cave, not singly under a tumulus or kurgan. As far as I know they were not positioned with the knees flexed, there was no deposit of ochre, no weapons or other grave goods, etc.

In this Lichtenstein cave, researchers found both R1a and R1b, as well as I, right?

This thread is the first I have been exposed to Euphratic as a possible, early IE language. Is the theory a recent one?

Yes to all those questions.

The article I linked to in the opening post is, as far as I know, the opening round in the Euphratic argument.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 04, 2011, 12:09:05 AM »

. . .

On Lichenstein, I don't know how to tell what's IE or not since these guys weren't writing much down, but at least Wikipedia's articles classify Lichenstein as Urnfield of the late Bronze Age.
If you trace it backwards, Urnfield came from Tumulus, Tumulus came from Unetice and here we go again - Unetice came from the Beakers.

Aside from the fact that the Lichtenstein Cave burial cannot be Urnfield (as I mentioned above), you touched on something important: not knowing what languages the people who left certain archaeological remains behind spoke.

That, in a nutshell, is why I think the Anatolian languages and Euphratic are so important. We have actual documentation for them, the oldest documentation for any IE languages. Of course, Euphratic has to be teased from Sumerian cuneiform, but it certainly appears to have existed.

It is curious that the oldest documented IE languages are also strangely archaic and appear - where? - in Anatolia.

I am not arguing for Anatolia as the IE homeland. I'm just pointing something out.

Also, what I meant about Lichtenstein being not very Indo-European is that the bones were deposited collectively in a cave, not singly under a tumulus or kurgan. As far as I know they were not positioned with the knees flexed, there was no deposit of ochre, no weapons or other grave goods, etc.

I realize Wikipedia is just a compilation of other sources. Are there better more in depth articles on the Lichtenstein Cave?
Quote
The Lichtenstein Cave is an archaeological site near Dorste, Lower Saxony, Germany. The cave is 115 meters long and was discovered in 1972. Finds include the skeletal remains of 21 females and 19 males from the Bronze Age, about 3000 years old. In addition, about 100 bronze objects (ear, arm and finger rings, bracelets) and ceramic parts from the Urnfield Culture were found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtenstein_Cave

Anyone have any good articles on this? What's the speculation on why they were in the cave?
Logged

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

Posts: 2153


« Reply #69 on: June 04, 2011, 04:34:44 AM »

Looking closely at the median joining network, the case for the Northern Caucasus as the source of G2a almost anywhere else seems remote. Instead, the Northern Caucasus looks like a recipient of G2a from Mediterranean or the Middle East, and honestly, the Western Mediterranean looks like the best fit for a Northern Caucasus G2a source based on that network with the original G2a bearing men in the Northern Caucasus in this scenario probably arriving by sea, rather than overland from the Middle East, and the migration probably taking place at some time before R1b became common in the Mediterranean, but probably post-Neolithic revolution.

The network is also suggestive of the idea that the Trielles group may have had immediate antecedent in Italy and only more remote antecedents in Iberia.

This direction of migration is quite unexpected (Oh-Willeke).

All TMRCA estimates always produce ages of just 2000 to 5000 years. So apparently the world can trace its y-dna to just 2 or 3 dozen men that lived barely 3000 years ago. It's a little more likely that the entire theory of TMRCA is a piece of ssss (must I mean that all these spreadsheets are spreadshits?) And this study has found a sample that wasn't supposed to exist 5000 years ago, hell, not even 2500 years ago (Argiedude).

Very good you both! Some years ago, after having read a paper of Yunusbaev, I said that the center of hg. G was the Adriatic, and about the TMRCA I have written a lot on the mutations around the modal laughing of some know-all like Nordtvedt and Klyosov.
Very good you both and a third: me.

P.S. Watching the paper of Yunusbaev, the center of diffusion of hg. G (probably G2a) was Sardinia.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 10:43:01 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #70 on: June 04, 2011, 12:08:42 PM »

I remember reading the Lichtenstein Cave report awhile back. I don't recall the mention of Urnfield pottery pieces there, but, even if they were there, depositing bones in a cave is the antithesis of what made "Urnfield" Urnfield.

These were some people who may have gotten some Urnfield pottery but who were not practicing Urnfield religious and burial rites.

I do not see how they could be called Urnfielders.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #71 on: June 04, 2011, 12:12:55 PM »

Please, don't take this as meaning I'm dead set against an early/middle Neolithic expansion for R1b.

As Alan noted earlier about me once.... I like to "throw a cat in with the pigeons" every now and then.  With that in mind I like to challenge the Neolithic R1b theory just because it has so much "weight" to it in that it can justify genetic change via its significant population explanation. It's become obvious to myself that I distrust arguments based on one option "outweighing" another as that is almost like saying which argument has the strongest prejudice built in.

All that being said, one of the things I like about Klopstein et al's paper on gene wave surfing is it nicely explains how R1b could be at such a high frequency on the Atlantic fringe of Europe while actually having an origin far to the east. It all seems logical to me as it matches R1b's phylogenetic and variance patterns.

However, there is a fly in the ointment. Klopfstein et al. says "possible to distinguish between neutral mutations that have arisen in range expansions of populations with small or large densities, like in the case of human Paleolithic and Neolithic expansions in Europe."  Essentially, they are saying that wave surfing shouldn't apply to the Neolithic advance if you read it all. A general population expansion won't exhibit the wave surfing.

Roukus makes the conclusion that R1b must have had a biological advantage. The only one I can think of at the approximate time would be the milk drinking gene.  


Logged

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

Posts: 5023


« Reply #72 on: June 04, 2011, 12:19:04 PM »

Please, don't take this as meaning I'm dead set against an early/middle Neolithic expansion for R1b.

As Alan noted earlier about me once.... I like to "throw a cat in with the pigeons" every now and then.  With that in mind I like to challenge the Neolithic R1b theory just because it has so much "weight" to it in that it can justify genetic change via its significant population explanation. It's become obvious to myself that I distrust arguments based on one option "outweighing" another as that is almost like saying which argument has the strongest prejudice built in.

All that being said, one of the things I like about Klopstein et al's paper on gene wave surfing is it nicely explains how R1b could be at such a high frequency on the Atlantic fringe of Europe while actually having an origin far to the east. It all seems logical to me as it matches R1b's phylogenetic and variance patterns.

However, there is a fly in the ointment. Klopfstein et al. says "possible to distinguish between neutral mutations that have arisen in range expansions of populations with small or large densities, like in the case of human Paleolithic and Neolithic expansions in Europe."  Essentially, they are saying that wave surfing shouldn't apply to the Neolithic advance if you read it all. A general population expansion won't exhibit the wave surfing.

Roukus makes the conclusion that R1b must have had a biological advantage. The only one I can think of at the approximate time would be the milk drinking gene.  

As I recall, and I am pretty sure I recall correctly in this case, the oldest R1b find I know of, the one in the Lichtenstein Cave (circa 1,000 BC), did not possess the T-13910 marker that would have granted him lactase persistence.

The two R1a (father and son) and a few of the I2, did have it.

Of course, that's just one single R1b . . .
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #73 on: June 04, 2011, 12:48:21 PM »

I can't seem to find the Lichtenstein Cave report anywhere. I believe the original is in German, which I can read.

If anyone can find it, please post a link here.
Logged

embPA
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #74 on: June 04, 2011, 04:49:11 PM »

At the bottom of the Wikipedia article is a mention of the source, it's a 252 page dissertation, in German.

http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/diss/2006/schilz/schilz.pdf
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8 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 0.17 seconds with 18 queries.