World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: rms2 on May 28, 2011, 01:36:03 PM



Title: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on May 28, 2011, 01:36:03 PM
The Case for Euphratic (http://www.science.org.ge/2-3/Gordon%20Whitteker.pdf)

Quote from: Whittaker, Gordon
 ABSTRACT. It will be argued that the cuneiform writing system, the Sumerian and Akkadian lexicon, and the place names of Southern Mesopotamia preserve traces of an early Indo-European language, indeed the earliest by more than a millennium. Furthermore, this evidence is detailed and consistent enough to reconstruct a number of features of the proposed Indo-European language, Euphratic, and to sketch an outline of Euphratean cultural patterns. The Case for Euphratic © 2008 Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci.

Quote from: Cunliffe, Barry
While it is only fair to say that large areas remain unresolved, there is a growing consensus, at least among a significant group of archaeologists, that the most appropriate context for the introduction of the Indo-European languages into Europe is the spread of the Neolithic way of life. In other words, the language originated among the early food producers of south-west Asia and thereafter spread through Europe, one branch following the route through the Balkans to the Great Hungarian Plain and then westwards through the deciduous forest zone of Middle Europe, the other spreading westwards through the Mediterranean to the Atlantic shores of Iberia. In both these zones Indo-European was swept quickly forwards in the fifth millennium as the language of the colonizing farmers. Europe Between the Oceans, p. 138

So let's discuss this relative to genetics and try to stay on topic. I've read Anthony, Mallory, Renfrew, and some Gamkrelidze and Ivanov on the topic of the origin and spread of Indo-European. I can't say that any of them delivered for me what I would regard as a knockout blow in favor of their particular arguments. There is a lot of detail involved, and a lot of very specialized linguistic information. It's confusing. Add to that the genetic jumble and you have the ultimate Gordian Knot.

That said, the one thing that seems to me to strongly - very strongly - commend the Neolithic Farmer hypothesis of Renfrew, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov is the impact of the Neolithic Revolution. It provides what certainly looks like the solution to the puzzle. In it you have a powerful vector for the spread of language and culture.

The Kurgan hypothesis has a lot to commend it, too, but where it falls short, it seems to me, is in explaining how Indo-European spread all the way to the Atlantic. It seems especially weak on the genetic front, when R1a is claimed as the paramount Indo-European y-haplogroup.

If the steppe people spread Indo-European, where are their remains in western Europe? If they only started the ball rolling, what was the mechanism for the transmission of Indo-European farther and farther west? What was the incentive for the non-IE natives to adopt Indo-European language and culture? Maybe I am missing something, but, with the Kurgan hypothesis, I just don't see it. Steppe culture seems to wither on the fringes of Eastern Europe. Where does it show itself in the West as the vector of Indo-European?

Were R1b to be found among some of the Kurgan peoples of the steppe, I would find the Kurgan argument a lot more plausible, since one can find so much R1b in the West.

Anyway, now there is Gordon Whittaker's new paper on Euphratic as a possible very early Indo-European language stemming from just where Renfrew, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov argue Indo-European originated: eastern Anatolia.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli on May 28, 2011, 04:25:21 PM
The spread of the Cardial people from Italy is dated at least at 7700 YBP (I think they carried IE languages and R1b hg. and were autochthonous agriculturalists). Euphratic is dated at not more than 6000YBP. There are more than 1000 years for spreading some of these peoples from the Balkans to Middle East. As I have said in another thread, the links of Euphratic with Latin and Italian language (see what is said about donnola in the paper) is very strong. I’d wait to conclude something renfrewly.



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on May 28, 2011, 05:01:37 PM
Gioiello,

I don't think R1b or the Indo-European languages first arose in Italy. I didn't start this thread to rehash that. Of course, you are free to post what you want.

Unless I am mistaken, the oldest M269 is in Anatolia and the Near East. The SNPs and haplotypes then progress in age (meaning they get younger) north and west from there.

You are the only person I know of who has advanced the idea that Italy was the original home for both R1b and Indo-European in Europe. In addition, you put M269 (or M343?) there during the Younger Dryas, which requires a throwback to the bad old days of Zhivotovsky and exaggerated haplogroup ages (a thing that would balloon the age of y haplogroup I, for example, way beyond reason).


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: MHammers on May 28, 2011, 05:07:36 PM
I still think Anthony proposes the better argument on how IE spread as far as the time-frame.  I don't see any solid evidence for Tocharian coming out of SW Asia.  However, that doesn't mean his exact routes happened the way he mentions.  He doesn't attribute the spread of IE with the Maikop culture as it opened the trans-caucasian trade networks with eastern Anatolia and Mesopotamia.  Perhaps there is a tie-in with Euphratic here.

As for R1b becoming the most frequent in western Europe, I think they had to have something to do with the spread of IE languages.  This also doesn't mean they had to have come from the first steppe pastoralists.  

Let's say R1b is a primary hg in contact the Pontic steppe cultures.  First, it has to arrive there.  I see two possibilities.  One is from SW Asia in the neolithic, through the Caucasus around Dagestan.  The other also, from SW Asia with the neolithic farmers of SE Europe.  This one ends up in west Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria.  The steppe people were described primarily as robust, large headed, dolicho- and mesocephalic people with distinctly broad faces.  However, there was some integration with the incoming neolithics.  These are basically cro-magnon-like traits carried over from the mesolithic.  This seems more like hg I2 men as the dominant steppe y-hg. This works against R1b, if it entered in the neolithic or later.  

Still R1b has to be in contact with the pastoralists for some time in order to work with Anthony's model and imo to take advantage of the secondary products revolution.  This gives them an edge over the farmers who arrived earlier like hg's F, G2a, etc.    R1b seems more like a later wave of neolithic people who fused with the indigenous steppe people in order to  bring about the development of IE.  There were two known large incursions of steppe people as far as Hungary.  The steppe people themselves may not have penetrated farther, but a "kurganized" proto-Beaker R1b people did perhaps as a reaction to steppe intruders.

Here is a Hungarian study on craniometry of the Hungarian plain from the Koros culture to the Celts from Debrecen University.  

http://ganymedes.lib.unideb.hu:8080/dea/bitstream/2437/78936/4/ertekezes.pdf

I can't read Hungarian, but I could pick out the supplemental data starting around page 180 for male crania.  There are about 5 or 6 Yamnaya crania or what the author labels Okkersiros (Ochre-grave).  They seem to be a mixed lot, though it's hard to tell with a limited set of dimensions recorded.  It doesn't suggest a large wave of predominantly cro-magnon-like horse raiders based on the limited data, which lends support to gracile farmers becoming "Indo-Europeanized".  Whoever they were they did build thousands of mounds in eastern Hungary.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on May 28, 2011, 05:26:37 PM
You still don't have a real convincing methodology for the transmission of Indo-European all the way from the steppe to the Atlantic. The Beaker folk are now thought to have originated in Iberia. So, you would have to have them or their culture get to the Hungarian Plain, get Indo-Europeanized there by the Yamnaya people, and then move back west, Indo-Europeanizing everybody they meet along the way.

It is also not necessary for the Tocharians to have spread from SW Asia. They could have come from the steppe after its people learned their Indo-European via the influx of farmers into the Balkans. In other words, the steppe people were Indo-Europeanized by contact with Neolithic farmers and not the other way around. This could have happened early, so that horse and wheel terms appear early on but not so much in archaic forms of Indo-European like the Anatolian languages.

I think the skull forms on the steppe become important only if one first assumes that is where Indo-European originated.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on May 28, 2011, 05:33:16 PM
You still don't have a real convincing methodology for the transmission of Indo-European all the way from the steppe to the Atlantic. The Beaker folk are now thought to have originated in Iberia. So, you would have to have them or their culture get to the Hungarian Plain, get Indo-Europeanized there by the Yamnaya people, and then move back west, Indo-Europeanizing everybody they meet along the way.

. . .


Unless, like Jean, you bring Stelae People from the Black Sea to Iberia by boat.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on May 28, 2011, 06:28:50 PM
Personally I have never felt the Kurgan model or its variants really feels right.  It just feels extremely convoluted and involves many many leaps of faith.  The spread of farming hypothesis has a convincing simplicity.  I certainly dont think that trying to date the dispersal of IE though vocab is safe and I do recall that experts in the field have stated as much.  

Eurphratic is an incredibly interesting idea.  The archaeology and ancient history of Iraq is one of the advanced core being overrun by invasion from the periphery until they in turn became more advanced and were again overrun by less advanced martial people from the marginal peripheries. It seems to have been a bit of a cycle.  When I heard that the basis of the idea of Euphratic is this very phenomenon, only pushing it back further and saying that Sumerian itself was due to peripheral people conquering an IE core, it rang true to me.  

For those interested in the area there is a wonderful  book called Ancient Iraq by Georges Roux the late French historian.  You will see what I mean about the repeated toppling of the advanced core by the periphery in Mesopotamia/Summer. Obviously it doesnt actually touch on this new theory as the last edition was in the early 90s.  Still, its a rare example of a small book that really leaves you with an understanding of that part of the ancient world.



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on May 28, 2011, 06:43:46 PM
You still don't have a real convincing methodology for the transmission of Indo-European all the way from the steppe to the Atlantic. The Beaker folk are now thought to have originated in Iberia. So, you would have to have them or their culture get to the Hungarian Plain, get Indo-Europeanized there by the Yamnaya people, and then move back west, Indo-Europeanizing everybody they meet along the way.

It is also not necessary for the Tocharians to have spread from SW Asia. They could have come from the steppe after its people learned their Indo-European via the influx of farmers into the Balkans. In other words, the steppe people were Indo-Europeanized by contact with Neolithic farmers and not the other way around. This could have happened early, so that horse and wheel terms appear early on but not so much in archaic forms of Indo-European like the Anatolian languages.

I think the skull forms on the steppe become important only if one first assumes that is where Indo-European originated.

Whittaker includes a lot of vocabulary in the paper, and there are some interesting similarities with IE languages. If Euphratic is indeed IE, that would fall more in line with Neolithic farmers spreading it, hence R1b's connection.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: MHammers on May 28, 2011, 10:46:34 PM
You still don't have a real convincing methodology for the transmission of Indo-European all the way from the steppe to the Atlantic. The Beaker folk are now thought to have originated in Iberia. So, you would have to have them or their culture get to the Hungarian Plain, get Indo-Europeanized there by the Yamnaya people, and then move back west, Indo-Europeanizing everybody they meet along the way.

It is also not necessary for the Tocharians to have spread from SW Asia. They could have come from the steppe after its people learned their Indo-European via the influx of farmers into the Balkans. In other words, the steppe people were Indo-Europeanized by contact with Neolithic farmers and not the other way around. This could have happened early, so that horse and wheel terms appear early on but not so much in archaic forms of Indo-European like the Anatolian languages.

I think the skull forms on the steppe become important only if one first assumes that is where Indo-European originated.

What I'm saying is that the  Beaker package is an end result of a process that started much earlier, not that they originated in Hungary from Yamnaya settlers.  I can't really equate Beaker with Yamnaya in a direct sense.  The people who would become Bell Beakers were already in place or were in the process of being pushed west by pastoralists.  There is evidence of warfare in southern France starting around 3500 with an marked increase of arrow wounds on skeletal remains.  True, the earliest Beaker dates are in SW Europe and there was an expansion from there.  For R1b it may have been a partial back migration to  the east.  I think most will agree that R1b comes from the east or southeast initially.

The Tocharian branch is supposed to have left the steppe around 3700 from the Repin culture near the Volga.  PIE was 800 years old or so at this time in the steppe theory.  There is no record of Tripolye farmer settlements east of the Dnieper which they didn't reach until about 4000.  Any contact between those two groups could have occurred though it is speculative at this point.

I haven't read much about Euphratic.  Are you looking at it as some kind of pre-proto IE language?  If so, I suppose it could have been brought by later waves of farmers around 5000 along with R1b and lactose tolerance to Romania or west Ukraine.  With this, the timing is still close enough for Anthony's model of diffusion by pastoralist societies.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli on May 29, 2011, 02:55:04 AM
Rich, I don’t know if you have read my about 5 thousand letters, probably I have read your more than 10 thousand ones.
Yes, the theory of an Italian Refugium is mine. I have brought many proofs and I’ll continue to bring till someone won’t have falsified it. So far it is a theory like many others in this struggle.
Of course during the Younger Dryas we had some R1b1* in Italy.
Re. my hypothesis that the African R1b1* could have come from Italy (or Spain) and not Middle East, the great Fulvio Cruciani wrote to me that he couldn’t say yes or not, but that he would have taken in consideration it. Now he has revolutionized the A tree. I hope that he does something also on this.
Certainly by the 1000 Genomes Project has come out that the most ancient R-U152-s were in Tuscany and not elsewhere.
The R1b1b2 in the Eastern Countries are demonstrating to be different (by own SNPs) from the Western ones, then they aren’t mostly the ancestors of our subclades (and they are above all Armenian, then from Indo-Europeans come from the Balkans and not born in the East). I think having demonstrated this when I individuated the cluster which generated the Western R1b1b2, that with YCAII=18-23.
I have read the paper on Euphratic and that language was the ancestor of Latin more than other Indo-European branch. The satem languages didn’t yet exist then.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli on May 29, 2011, 04:57:48 AM
@ secherbernard

Many thanks for the paper of Balanovsky et al. "Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus” http://secher.bernard.free.fr/DNA/CaucasusRegion_Balanovsky_2011.pdf.
I have quoted some passages which demonstrate clearly that:

1)   R1b1b2 isn’t from Middle East nor from East Europe (Kurgans, Maykop etc.), but from Western Europe (Italy I think)
2)   The authors use the genealogical mutation rate with many hairsplittings. Nobody denies that it may be worth in the short time, but it isn’t worth in the long one.


Similarly, two different haplotype clusters within R1b1b2-M269 (Supplementary Figure 1) were found in the Lezghins (30%) and in Ossets-Digor (16%). These concentrations of (presumably European) haplogroups R1a*-M198(xM458), R1a1a7-M458 and R1b1b2-M269 found in few locations in the Caucasus might indicate independent migrations from Europe that were too small to make any significant impact on Caucasus populations (page 16).

The Indo-European-speaking Ossets were outliers in the Caucasus linguistic tree, and the genetic tree also placed them separately, with slight similarity to the Abkhaz. Generally, the tree based on genetic distances mirrored the linguistic tree in its overall pattern and in most details (page 17).

The age for the four major haplogroups in individual populations obtained by using SD estimator (Supplementary Table 3) are close to the Neolithic epoch, and might be interpreted as signs of population expansion due to the shift to a farming economy(page 20).

Although occupying a boundary position between Europe and the Near East, all four
major Caucasus haplogroups show signs of a Near Eastern rather than European origin (Figure 2, Supplementary Figure 1). These four haplogroups reach their maximum (worldwide) frequencies in the Caucasus (Table 2, Figure 2). They are either shared with Near East populations (G2a3b1-P303 and J2a4b*-M67(xM92)) or have ancestral lineages present there (G2a1*-P16(xP18) and J1*-M267(xP58)). Typical European haplogroups are very rare (I2a- P37.2) or limited to specific populations (R1a1a-M198; R1b1b2-M269) in the Caucasus (page 22).

It should be mentioned here that, for the BATWING tree (which does not require
identifying the clusters), applying the genealogical rate underestimates the dates, while applying evolutionary rates overestimates the dates (page 23).



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on May 29, 2011, 08:06:57 AM
Personally I have never felt the Kurgan model or its variants really feels right.  It just feels extremely convoluted and involves many many leaps of faith.  The spread of farming hypothesis has a convincing simplicity.  I certainly dont think that trying to date the dispersal of IE though vocab is safe and I do recall that experts in the field have stated as much . . .

That's my feeling, too. It seems to me Anthony's argument against the Neolithic Farmer hypothesis is mainly linguistic, i.e., that PIE isn't old enough to have come to Europe with the farmers, etc. But I don't think he should be so sure about that. Linguistic dating for Indo-European is iffy at best.

As it is, the oldest attested IE languages are the Anatolian, and even Anthony points out their archaic nature, going so far as to say they could be classed as a sort of "Pre-Proto-Indo-European" group.

Now Euphratic appears to  move Indo-European in that neck of the woods back even further.

As I mentioned before, there just doesn't seem to be anything the steppe people had to offer that would serve as a real powerhouse driving force for the spread of Indo-European. Where is the evidence that they did? How did their supposed elite dominance in the Lower Danube Valley translate into a march of Indo-European all the way to the Atlantic?

Farming and animal husbandry, on the other hand, represent a real revolution - the Neolithic Revolution - in the way human beings acquired and stored food, the staff of life itself. Its progress to the farthest reaches of Europe is well attested.

If it was indeed accompanied by a major influx of new people, especially males, then it could have very well been the vehicle for the spread of Indo-European.

Sure makes a lot of sense, or seems to.





Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Heber on May 29, 2011, 09:26:28 AM
You still don't have a real convincing methodology for the transmission of Indo-European all the way from the steppe to the Atlantic. The Beaker folk are now thought to have originated in Iberia. So, you would have to have them or their culture get to the Hungarian Plain, get Indo-Europeanized there by the Yamnaya people, and then move back west, Indo-Europeanizing everybody they meet along the way.

. . .


Unless, like Jean, you bring Stelae People from the Black Sea to Iberia by boat.
Anthony emphasised the maritime migration route from the earliest settlement of the Greek Islands using Byblos boats to the later Phoenician voyages beyond the Pillars of Hercules and settlement near Tartessian. The Megalithic builders 4,500 -3,500 BC traded along the Atlantic Facade including Brittany and Ireland.
He made the point that a round trip from Black Sea to the Pillars of Hercules and back again could easily be accomplished in the Summer sailing season using the favorable currents of the Meditteranean. He also pointed out that Neolithic people could navigate the great rivers of Europe from the Black Sea to the Atlantic coast in less than six months.  Coastal hopping and river navigation probably happened a lot quicker than agricultural diffusion.










Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on May 29, 2011, 07:39:28 PM
Personally I have never felt the Kurgan model or its variants really feels right.  It just feels extremely convoluted and involves many many leaps of faith.  The spread of farming hypothesis has a convincing simplicity.  I certainly dont think that trying to date the dispersal of IE though vocab is safe and I do recall that experts in the field have stated as much . . .

That's my feeling, too. It seems to me Anthony's argument against the Neolithic Farmer hypothesis is mainly linguistic, i.e., that PIE isn't old enough to have come to Europe with the farmers, etc. But I don't think he should be so sure about that. Linguistic dating for Indo-European is iffy at best.

As it is, the oldest attested IE languages are the Anatolian, and even Anthony points out their archaic nature, going so far as to say they could be classed as a sort of "Pre-Proto-Indo-European" group.

Now Euphratic appears to  move Indo-European in that neck of the woods back even further.

As I mentioned before, there just doesn't seem to be anything the steppe people had to offer that would serve as a real powerhouse driving force for the spread of Indo-European. Where is the evidence that they did? How did their supposed elite dominance in the Lower Danube Valley translate into a march of Indo-European all the way to the Atlantic?

Farming and animal husbandry, on the other hand, represent a real revolution - the Neolithic Revolution - in the way human beings acquired and stored food, the staff of life itself. Its progress to the farthest reaches of Europe is well attested.

If it was indeed accompanied by a major influx of new people, especially males, then it could have very well been the vehicle for the spread of Indo-European.

Sure makes a lot of sense, or seems to.





It just feels at present that the Kurgan model doesnt convince east of east-central Europe.  The bottom line is unless it is currently being interpreted wrongly or what happens was different from what is being inferred from the remains, we do not have any culture that links the steppes with most of western Europe. It will probably take ancient DNA to prove otherwise.  Until such a time, I think linking the beakers with either the spread of R1b or of IE is very counterintuitive.  Lets put it this way.  R1b seems to have spread from an origin point in or near the fertile cresent, probably passed through Asia Minor into the SE of Europe and seems likely (although this has been the hardest part to totally prove) passed through central Europe in L11 form branching north and west  If we set aside the chronology and dating and just look at the origin area, apparent route of spread and its huge impact it is hard to not be struck by the amazing similarity with what in pre-DNA days archaeologists were saying about the spread of farming.  To try and march beakers with R1b, its origin point, its route, its impact etc just seems very unlikely to me.  Lets put it this way, if beakers are the origin of R1b then the art of inference using archaeological data is in big trouble.   

The main doubt I still have is whether R1b spread in the first wave of farmers into Europe or trickled in a little later in some secondary spread from the early dairying area of NW Turkey.  This seemed to spread from there across the Dardanelles first.  From there dairying had spread as far as Britain by 4000BC and must have first passed through central Europe.  I suspect that involved some human element, perhaps the element that changed LBK cultures into (still partly LBK_derived) middle Neolithic cultures. 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on May 29, 2011, 08:25:42 PM
This is a very nice recent article summarising current thinking on the whole spread of farming, dairying etc.  NB its a three parter- click links at bottom of each page

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,723310,00.html

Whether R1b is part of this revolution is a matter of debate


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on May 29, 2011, 08:33:45 PM

Anthony emphasised the maritime migration route from the earliest settlement of the Greek Islands using Byblos boats to the later Phoenician voyages beyond the Pillars of Hercules and settlement near Tartessian. The Megalithic builders 4,500 -3,500 BC traded along the Atlantic Facade including Brittany and Ireland.
He made the point that a round trip from Black Sea to the Pillars of Hercules and back again could easily be accomplished in the Summer sailing season using the favorable currents of the Meditteranean. He also pointed out that Neolithic people could navigate the great rivers of Europe from the Black Sea to the Atlantic coast in less than six months.  Coastal hopping and river navigation probably happened a lot quicker than agricultural diffusion.

You know, I've read that book from cover to cover a couple of times, and I recall the mention of boats, but not as a vehicle for the spread of Indo-European, and not with any real emphasis. But my memory could be faulty. I'll have to go back and reread that section.

Which Bronze Age culture came into western Europe from the Black Sea in boats in enough strength to have spread Indo-European?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on May 29, 2011, 08:48:05 PM
This is a very nice recent article summarising current thinking on the whole spread of farming, dairying etc.  NB its a three parter- click links at bottom of each page

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,723310,00.html

Whether R1b is part of this revolution is a matter of debate

Interesting article.

Once y dna can be consistently had from ancient remains, the picture will become a lot clearer.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: OConnor on May 30, 2011, 06:07:21 PM
I had asked before if it was possible the Phoenicians may have brought R1b1b2 to Spain. It seems haplo group J was suggested some place as "Phoenician Proper".

Is it possible R1b1b2+ came with the Phoenicians?..or is the time-line out of the question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia

I imagine L21 needed more time to spread?


Anthony emphasised the maritime migration route from the earliest settlement of the Greek Islands using Byblos boats to the later Phoenician voyages beyond the Pillars of Hercules and settlement near Tartessian. The Megalithic builders 4,500 -3,500 BC traded along the Atlantic Facade including Brittany and Ireland.
He made the point that a round trip from Black Sea to the Pillars of Hercules and back again could easily be accomplished in the Summer sailing season using the favorable currents of the Meditteranean. He also pointed out that Neolithic people could navigate the great rivers of Europe from the Black Sea to the Atlantic coast in less than six months.  Coastal hopping and river navigation probably happened a lot quicker than agricultural diffusion.

You know, I've read that book from cover to cover a couple of times, and I recall the mention of boats, but not as a vehicle for the spread of Indo-European, and not with any real emphasis. But my memory could be faulty. I'll have to go back and reread that section.

Which Bronze Age culture came into western Europe from the Black Sea in boats in enough strength to have spread Indo-European?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2011, 12:00:01 AM
Personally I have never felt the Kurgan model or its variants really feels right.  It just feels extremely convoluted and involves many many leaps of faith.  The spread of farming hypothesis has a convincing simplicity.  I certainly dont think that trying to date the dispersal of IE though vocab is safe and I do recall that experts in the field have stated as much . . .

That's my feeling, too. It seems to me Anthony's argument against the Neolithic Farmer hypothesis is mainly linguistic, i.e., that PIE isn't old enough to have come to Europe with the farmers, etc. But I don't think he should be so sure about that. Linguistic dating for Indo-European is iffy at best.

As it is, the oldest attested IE languages are the Anatolian, and even Anthony points out their archaic nature, going so far as to say they could be classed as a sort of "Pre-Proto-Indo-European" group.

Now Euphratic appears to  move Indo-European in that neck of the woods back even further.

....Farming and animal husbandry, on the other hand, represent a real revolution - the Neolithic Revolution - in the way human beings acquired and stored food, the staff of life itself. Its progress to the farthest reaches of Europe is well attested.

If it was indeed accompanied by a major influx of new people, especially males, then it could have very well been the vehicle for the spread of Indo-European.
....
I'm open to a Euphratic/IE/Neolithic idea and that being a carrier for R-M269 but I don't understand the Euphratic/IE link.

Are you saying that Euphratic has the full PIE word set? We know that Anthony classified Anatolian as pre-IE for a reason.

To call one thing (Neolithic) a real revolution while to say another (Bronze Age/IE culture) is not, is a matter of degrees and subjectivity. I recognize that the Cunliffe recognizes the LBK and the Cardial Wares and significant people moving cultural expansions.  He did not categorize the middle Neolithic expansions in the same manner.

I recognize and accept that the Neolithiic expansions are a real possibility as the primary carrier for R-M269 across Europe. There is also an uncanny correlation to R-M269 in Europe to Centum IE languages.

However, I don't see how the IE languages might have been spread by the Neolithic advances. I suppose I have been convinced by Anthony that he put a fence around the timeframe and geography that PIE was spoken. It may be possible that a Euphratic language spoken in Iraq was pre-IE. However, the IE languages found in Europe are derived from PIE and have words that only would have only been found within the perimeter that Anthony laid out.

This does not mean that Neolithic peoples didn't speak a pre-IE or a sister to IE language. This also does not mean that R-M269 couldn't have spread with the Neolithic.

I just don't think that linking a pre-IE Euphratic language to the Neolithic advances enhances the probability that the IE languages we now speak got to Europe through the Neolithic advances.  I'm open this, but I don't understand how that could be so at this time. As I said, I suppose I have been convinced by Anthony whereas I wasn't be Renfrew. Of course, Anthony wrote with knowledge of Renfrew's work. Has anyone provided a scholarly challenge to Anthony, taking the Neolithic case up for PIE?

Perhaps the Neolithic advances and R1b spread together through Europe with pre-IE, rather than "Turkic" (as Klyosov says.) That made for a large group of potential subjects to a Bronze Age true-IE cultural advance. The farmers could understand the metal working people/pastoralists, but they just needed to pickup a few of their words and ideas. This actually appears along the lines of Klyosov's theory (EDIT: I have say that is only remotely so), it's just that he has it wrong in that R1b spoke pre-IE, not Turkic (or whatever version of it he is trying to articulate.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm very open to the Euphratic/IE/Neolithic idea. I just don't get it yet.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: MHammers on May 31, 2011, 02:33:31 AM
After looking at the paper, I don't see a strong connection to the neolithic other than common geography. 

Whittaker's case is based on words in early cunieform texts of the Uruk period c. 3350 BC.  There are some loan words and suffixes which is interesting with noted connections to Celtic, Germanic, Thracian (proto?), and West Tocharian.   This is contemporary with the Maikop trans-caucasian period (c.3900-2500).  I think it is much more likely that IE vocabulary was coming out of the caucasus and into Mesopotamia via Maikop traders.  The archaeological evidence supports the connection between these two regions.  Also, in Anthony's theory Tocharian branches off about 3700, proto-Germanic 3300, and proto-Italo-Celtic 3100.  Actually Whittaker is compatible with Anthony's work.

On the other hand, if it is a proto-language for IE from the neolithic then we have a large gap of time to account for where languages like Celtic did little branching.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2011, 03:44:03 PM
More Ancient DNA Y chromsome results from the Neolithic.

R1b turns up AWOL again, but this time it's missing from Cardial Wares territory.

"Ancient DNA reveals male diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean route" by Lucan et al.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-autosomal-dna.html

Quote from: Dienekes
G2a was also one of the haplogroups represented in a small sample from Neolithic Central Europe. I think we can now safely say that G2a may have been the main Neolithic link that ties the farmers that went north across the Balkans to Central Europe, and those that followed the western, maritime route to the Western Mediterranean. The unambiguous West Asian origin of this lineage should put to rest any ideas about Neolithic farmers in the Western Mediterranean being descended from indigenous Mesolithic foragers.

I-P37.2 is also quite interesting, as it is tied to the Balkans, but also modern Southwestern Europe (it is especially frequent in Sardinia in its derived M26+ form). ISOGG tells me that:

    I2-M438 et al includes I2* which shows some membership from Armenia, Georgia and Turkey; I2a-P37.2, which is the most common form in the Balkans and Sardinia. I2a1-M26 is especially prevalent in Sardinia. I2b-M436 et al reaches its highest frequency along the northwest coast of continental Europe. I2b1-M223 et al occurs in Britain and northwest continental Europe. I2b1a-M284 occurs almost exclusively in Britain, so it apparently originated there and has probably been present for thousands of years.

If these aren't signals of a maritime pioneer colonization that followed the maritime route along the Mediterranean and Atlantic, I don't know what is.

What is absent is also quite interesting as what is present. The absence of E1b1b is consistent with my theory about the Bronze Age Greek expansion of that haplogroup in Europe that has been tied to the historical Greeks of the West Mediterranean.

R-M269 which, because of its apparent young Y-STR age has been tied by some to either the Mediterranean or Central European Neolithic is conspicuous absently from both at the moment. It may yet surface in a Neolithic context, but its absence this late from a region where, today, it is abundant only adds to its mystery. The absence of J2 is equally mysterious, as this is another putative Neolithic lineage which has failed to appear so far in a Neolithic context, while its J1 sister clade did make an appearance in much later aboriginals from the Canary Islands.

Here is where R1b was AWOL the first time, an LBK site:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/near-eastern-origin-of-european.html

Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the odds of R-M269 being the "lead" carrier in the great LBK (Linear Pottery) and Impressed Wares (Cardial Pottery) expansions are diminishing.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: MHammers on May 31, 2011, 04:07:07 PM
More Ancient DNA Y chromsome results from the Neolithic.

R1b turns up AWOL again, but this time it's missing from Cardial Wares territory.

"Ancient DNA reveals male diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean route" by Lucan et al.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-autosomal-dna.html

Quote from: Dienekes
G2a was also one of the haplogroups represented in a small sample from Neolithic Central Europe. I think we can now safely say that G2a may have been the main Neolithic link that ties the farmers that went north across the Balkans to Central Europe, and those that followed the western, maritime route to the Western Mediterranean. The unambiguous West Asian origin of this lineage should put to rest any ideas about Neolithic farmers in the Western Mediterranean being descended from indigenous Mesolithic foragers.

I-P37.2 is also quite interesting, as it is tied to the Balkans, but also modern Southwestern Europe (it is especially frequent in Sardinia in its derived M26+ form). ISOGG tells me that:

    I2-M438 et al includes I2* which shows some membership from Armenia, Georgia and Turkey; I2a-P37.2, which is the most common form in the Balkans and Sardinia. I2a1-M26 is especially prevalent in Sardinia. I2b-M436 et al reaches its highest frequency along the northwest coast of continental Europe. I2b1-M223 et al occurs in Britain and northwest continental Europe. I2b1a-M284 occurs almost exclusively in Britain, so it apparently originated there and has probably been present for thousands of years.

If these aren't signals of a maritime pioneer colonization that followed the maritime route along the Mediterranean and Atlantic, I don't know what is.

What is absent is also quite interesting as what is present. The absence of E1b1b is consistent with my theory about the Bronze Age Greek expansion of that haplogroup in Europe that has been tied to the historical Greeks of the West Mediterranean.

R-M269 which, because of its apparent young Y-STR age has been tied by some to either the Mediterranean or Central European Neolithic is conspicuous absently from both at the moment. It may yet surface in a Neolithic context, but its absence this late from a region where, today, it is abundant only adds to its mystery. The absence of J2 is equally mysterious, as this is another putative Neolithic lineage which has failed to appear so far in a Neolithic context, while its J1 sister clade did make an appearance in much later aboriginals from the Canary Islands.

Here is where R1b was AWOL the first time, an LBK site:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/near-eastern-origin-of-european.html

Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the odds of R-M269 being the "lead" carrier in the great LBK (Linear Pottery) and Impressed Wares (Cardial Pottery) expansions are being diminished.

This is going to spur a lot of discussion (and speculation) for the next several months.  Whether a neolithic or copper age entry into Europe, it's very interesting that no R1b would show up in 3000 BC southern France where it is a majority today.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2011, 04:54:37 PM
This is going to spur a lot of discussion (and speculation) for the next several months.  Whether a neolithic or copper age entry into Europe, it's very interesting that no R1b would show up in 3000 BC southern France where it is a majority today.
Did you notice Dienekes' comments on two other haplogroups?

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-autosomal-dna.html
Quote from: Dienekes
The absence of E1b1b is consistent with my theory about the Bronze Age Greek expansion of that haplogroup in Europe....
The absence of J2 is equally mysterious, as this is another putative Neolithic lineage which has failed to appear so far in a Neolithic context.

I think this is speculative, but if Dienekes is right, E1b1b1 is a late "Greek" newcomer. J2, along with T, is what Spencer Wells (National Genographic) calls "Mediterranean Trader" (aka Phoenician.)

Perhaps, the "Old Europe" Neolithic settlements did eventually deteriorate to be replaced as the dominant horizon just like those before it.
.... or perhaps the population didn't drop much, but some Y DNA lineages were diminished or exterminated.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli on May 31, 2011, 04:56:13 PM
Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the odds of R-M269 being the "lead" carrier in the great LBK (Linear Pottery) and Impressed Wares (Cardial Pottery) expansions are being diminished.
This is going to spur a lot of discussion (and speculation) for the next several months.  Whether a neolithic or copper age entry into Europe, it's very interesting that no R1b would show up in 3000 BC southern France where it is a majority today.

Let's wait. The mtDNA was practically the same of to-day, then no introgression after then,  and Oetzi is knocking at the door.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on May 31, 2011, 06:22:55 PM
Mike-I never knew about Euphratic until a week ago so I have no real idea what its implications are.  One thing in re-reading a little of Renfrew reminded me of recently was his warning not to trust vocab too much to reconstruct dispersals.  It would be easy enough for groups to move off but remain in enough contact through wide networks for words and innovations to spread.  There were some very big networks in the Neolithic that could easily have (potentially patchily) spread words, ideas etc.  

I do wonder if there was a longish period between dispersal and the evolution of the dispersed groups into distinct dialects.  If there was such a period it may be very hard to distinguish words which came with the people and words that spread later by contact networks between the related but dispersed IE peoples.  Dienekes in his blog points out that the date most talked about is really the split up of PIE but does not tell us anything about how long the period between the beginning of PIE and its end was.  Strong contact networks (even if they were relay fashion) could have not only moved new words about in a way that cannot be distinguished from inherited words but it may have prolonged a period and geographical spread of PIE.  It may not be right to see PIE as a pre-dispersal localised kernel. 

I just feel Anthony puts far too much weight on recontructing fundementals based on the presence or absence of words in IE dialects.  One thing is clear is that IE languages were very odd and quirky in terms of which words were kept in common from PIE and which ones were dropped, even down to IE having kept some words for one part of the body but not having a shared word for another.  Some dialects just dropped words for everyday things.  It astonishes me the way in languages native words for everyday things, emotions etc are sometimes inexplicably replaced by borrowed words from another language.  The fact the word is a borrowing from a later language tells us nothing about the thing the word describes as it long predates the local arrival of that language.  

I also think archaeology, until a very large amount of sampling is done, can only be said to provide the terminus anti quem or the date before which something must have arrived/com into being.  To move from that to saying that the oldest example of something discovered to date is indeed providing the origin point and date is a leap of faith whose odds only shorted as volume of excavation increases.  

So, although I am far from an expert and barely keep up on this subject to be honest, I do think the way Anthony uses a very few specific items from linguistics and archaeology to support his thesis looks a bit of a house of cards.  There is a lot of wriggle room left I suspect.  How the various states of PIE, Anatolian and Euphratic work when the wriggle room is fully acknowledged (rather than Anthony's attempt to claim a knockout blow) I dont know.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2011, 07:00:17 PM
... I just feel Anthony puts far too much weight on recontructing fundementals based on the presence or absence of words in IE dialects
He may, that's why I'm interesting any counter-arguments to his "fencing in" of the PIE homeland. It's quite a big area, but it does not include the Near East and Anatolia.
To his credit, his logic on how he created the boundary limits for a PIE "most recent common ancestor" language is clear. He tracks words in IE languages that are derived from a single base that would only be logical in a given set of territory limits and timeframes. To me, it is as convincing as the reconstructed PIE concept itself.  You look at enough examples and you can see Sir William Jones only discovered the obvious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jones_(philologist)
Yes, I'm convinced by the whole PIE concept and Anthony limits for a PIE home-land, but I would certainly change my mind if I heard a good argument against either that directly counter-acts the "pro" argument logic.

I guess the best counter-argument is Renfrew's warning not to place too much value on the spread of words as it could be network oriented. If that is the case, even though the people (including possibly R1b) spread from the Near East in the Neolithic, they had a stronger trade/exchange network with the Steppes since the IE languages all picked up a set of derived words from the PIE homeland they didn't get from the Near East.

Is the converse of Anthony's PIE home-land true?  Are there derived words in separate Western Centum IE languages that could have only come from a Near Eastern Euphratic or an Anatolian language?

Quote from: alan trowel hands
.... I do think the way Anthony uses a very few specific items from linguistics and archaeology to support his thesis looks a bit of a house of cards.  There is a lot of wriggle room left I suspect.  How the various states of PIE, Anatolian and Euphratic work when the wriggle room is fully acknowledged (rather than Anthony's attempt to claim a knockout blow) I dont know.
I don't see how his positioning of Anatolian is unclear. It was a pre-PIE derivative. It does not contain the some of the same derived words found in PIE descendants to the west and north (and back to India for that matter). It makes sense it was an early "break-away" before those words developed (were needed to describe new things.)

I think his work on horse bones, riding accessories, etc. is very credible as I think is his argument for a PIE homeland.

I agree with you that Anthony's whole bit about the proposed routes and timing of the Italo-Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic branches is highly speculative and could be said to be built on a "house of cards."  He seems open in describing those routes and timeframes as "could have been" or "possibly was", etc.  Who knows? As RMS2 says, I think, Anthony's trail/link to Western Europe is hard to follow and seems to grow cold. Jean M has answers for this but they are not well recognized at this time. http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeangenetics.shtml

I have same linkage problem of tying R-M269 to the Neolithic.  It's true, that R-M269 is at the start of the trail and at the end of the trail, but the Neolithic routes don't line up with the phylogeny. Also the timing doesn't line up either, although we can always argue R-M269 subclade TMRCA's are built on a house of cards... and they could be. ... but then you also have the mysterious ancient DNA evidence that hasn't showed yet. It may.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not sure of anything. I just take this position because I'm going with "the genes don't lie" concept first and then seeing if the "outweigh" arguments like "high frequency fringe Atlantic R1b must indicate Paleothic" or "high frequency Europe R1b must indicate riding with Neolithic population explosion" have more logic than just their heavy weight.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on May 31, 2011, 07:18:10 PM
You also have to wonder if R1b was not swept up along with these G folk in the early farming wave that passed through SW Asian, Asia minor etc, then where on earth was R1b holed up in that period? Phylogeny strongly points to SW Asia after all but yet it was not swept along with the Neolithic SW Asian G folk???  


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2011, 07:36:19 PM
Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the odds of R-M269 being the "lead" carrier in the great LBK (Linear Pottery) and Impressed Wares (Cardial Pottery) expansions are being diminished.
This is going to spur a lot of discussion (and speculation) for the next several months.  Whether a neolithic or copper age entry into Europe, it's very interesting that no R1b would show up in 3000 BC southern France where it is a majority today.

Let's wait. The mtDNA was practically the same of to-day, then no introgression after then,  and Oetzi is knocking at the door.
What do you think Oetzi will tell us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otzi_the_Iceman

He's a citizen of the Copper Age, born about 3300 BC, found up in the mountains. Doesn't sound like a classic farmer.
Quote
This degree of mobility is not characteristic of other Copper Age Europeans. Ruff proposes that this may indicate that Ötzi was a high-altitude shepherd
He'd been eating deer meat, but also possibly bread.

If he comes out as R1b what does that mean? He might have just been an early pioneer for an incoming IE people.  It certainly doesn't prove he was in the Alps during the Neolithic advances or the Mesolithic.  It doesn't disprove that either.  So what will Otzi tell us?  Are you thinking he'll be some kind of R-M269+ L23- guy?  Even if he is, that doesn't mean the R-L23 L11+ guys that swept across Europe descended from him. They could still have come from further east.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on May 31, 2011, 07:40:53 PM
... I just feel Anthony puts far too much weight on recontructing fundementals based on the presence or absence of words in IE dialects
He may, that's why I'm interesting any counter-arguments to his "fencing in" of the PIE homeland. It's quite a big area, but it does not include the Near East and Anatolia.
To his credit, his logic on how he created the boundary limits for a PIE "most recent common ancestor" language is clear. He tracks words in IE languages that are derived from a single base that would only be logical in a given set of territory limits and timeframes. To me, it is as convincing as the reconstructed PIE concept itself.  You look at enough examples and you can see Sir William Jones only discovered the obvious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jones_(philologist)
Yes, I'm convinced by the whole PIE concept and Anthony limits for a PIE home-land, but I would certainly change my mind if I heard a good argument against either that directly counter-acts the "pro" argument logic.

I guess the best counter-argument is Renfrew's warning not to place too much value on the spread of words as it could be network oriented.
Quote from: alan trowel hands
.... I do think the way Anthony uses a very few specific items from linguistics and archaeology to support his thesis looks a bit of a house of cards.  There is a lot of wriggle room left I suspect.  How the various states of PIE, Anatolian and Euphratic work when the wriggle room is fully acknowledged (rather than Anthony's attempt to claim a knockout blow) I dont know.
I don't see how his positioning of Anatolian is unclear. It was a pre-PIE derivative. It does not contain the some of the same derived words found in PIE descendants to the west and north (and back to India for that matter). It makes sense it was an early "break-away" before those words developed (were needed to describe new things.)

I think his work on horse bones, riding accessories, etc. is very credible as I think is his argument for a PIE homeland.

I agree with you that Anthony's whole bit about the proposed routes and timing of the Italo-Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic branches is highly speculative and could be said to be built on a "house of cards."  He seems open in describing those routes and timeframes as "could have been" or "possibly was", etc.  Who knows? As RMS2 says, I think, Anthony's trail/link to Western Europe is hard to follow and seems to grow cold. Jean M has answers for this but they are not well recognized at this time. http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeangenetics.shtml

I have same linkage problem of tying R-M269 to the Neolithic.  It's true, that R-M269 is at the start of the trail and at the end of the trail, but the Neolithic routes don't line up with the phylogeny. Also the timing doesn't line up either, although we can always argue R-M269 subclade TMRCA's are built on a house of cards... and they could be. ... but then you also have the mysterious ancient DNA evidence that hasn't showed yet. It may.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not sure of anything. I just take this position because I'm going with "the genes don't lie" first concept and then seeing if the "outweigh" arguments like "high frequency fringe Atlantic R1b must indicate Paleothic" or "high frequency Europe R1b must indicate riding with Neolithic population explosion" have more logic than just their heavy weight.

He may be right.  However, I dont think that the way the absence of certain words being portrayed as open-shut evidence as it being an early break away is likely as water tight as is being suggested.  There could be a number of scenarios to explain that other than early fission.  I dont have the expertise or the time to brush up sufficiently on the subject to be really helpful on this matter but I will be very surprised if his arguement is not subject to attempts to rebut it  in the near future.   I just remember too many warnings in previous studies about using this kind of comparative vocab approach as the kingpin of  a model. PIE just seems to have been retained or lost in IE languages in the oddest and often inexplicable way.  Presence or absence of a few words just should never be more than supporting evidence.  Maybe it is a fashion going full circle but I was pretty amazed when I read Anthony's book to see the technique being applied as the crux of his arguement.  It6 went against the feeling of limitations of this approach that had been expressed in previous publications on this subject.  


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2011, 08:15:43 PM
....  I just remember too many warnings in previous studies about using this kind of comparative vocab approach as the kingpin of  a model. PIE just seems to have been retained or lost in IE languages in the oddest and often inexplicable way.  Presence or absence of a few words just should never be more than supporting evidence.  Maybe it is a fashion going full circle but I was pretty amazed when I read Anthony's book to see the technique being applied as the crux of his arguement.  It6 went against the feeling of limitations of this approach that had been expressed in previous publications on this subject.  
Okay. Thanks for responding.  Yes, I'd like to see a direct rebuttal to Anthony or just a plain better head to head argument on the "PIE home-land".


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on May 31, 2011, 08:48:54 PM
The use of bronze represented a revolution, but not to the extent farming and animal husbandry did. I think that is indisputable.

Maybe I am forgetting something, but I do not recall that steppe people are credited with spreading bronze metallurgy to the rest of Europe. It, too, came from the Near East.

I agree with Alan about Anthony putting too much faith in his linguistic timetable for Indo-European.

It seems to me the steppe people could have acquired their IE from farmers and introduced words for horse riding terminology.

But I don't know what is right either.

I suppose it could turn out that we have things all bass-ackwards, and R1b really did spend the last Ice Age in Iberia. Who knows?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on May 31, 2011, 08:58:53 PM
More Ancient DNA Y chromsome results from the Neolithic.

R1b turns up AWOL again, but this time it's missing from Cardial Wares territory.

"Ancient DNA reveals male diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean route" by Lucan et al.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-autosomal-dna.html

Quote from: Dienekes
G2a was also one of the haplogroups represented in a small sample from Neolithic Central Europe. I think we can now safely say that G2a may have been the main Neolithic link that ties the farmers that went north across the Balkans to Central Europe, and those that followed the western, maritime route to the Western Mediterranean. The unambiguous West Asian origin of this lineage should put to rest any ideas about Neolithic farmers in the Western Mediterranean being descended from indigenous Mesolithic foragers.

I-P37.2 is also quite interesting, as it is tied to the Balkans, but also modern Southwestern Europe (it is especially frequent in Sardinia in its derived M26+ form). ISOGG tells me that:

    I2-M438 et al includes I2* which shows some membership from Armenia, Georgia and Turkey; I2a-P37.2, which is the most common form in the Balkans and Sardinia. I2a1-M26 is especially prevalent in Sardinia. I2b-M436 et al reaches its highest frequency along the northwest coast of continental Europe. I2b1-M223 et al occurs in Britain and northwest continental Europe. I2b1a-M284 occurs almost exclusively in Britain, so it apparently originated there and has probably been present for thousands of years.

If these aren't signals of a maritime pioneer colonization that followed the maritime route along the Mediterranean and Atlantic, I don't know what is.

What is absent is also quite interesting as what is present. The absence of E1b1b is consistent with my theory about the Bronze Age Greek expansion of that haplogroup in Europe that has been tied to the historical Greeks of the West Mediterranean.

R-M269 which, because of its apparent young Y-STR age has been tied by some to either the Mediterranean or Central European Neolithic is conspicuous absently from both at the moment. It may yet surface in a Neolithic context, but its absence this late from a region where, today, it is abundant only adds to its mystery. The absence of J2 is equally mysterious, as this is another putative Neolithic lineage which has failed to appear so far in a Neolithic context, while its J1 sister clade did make an appearance in much later aboriginals from the Canary Islands.

Here is where R1b was AWOL the first time, an LBK site:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/near-eastern-origin-of-european.html

Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the odds of R-M269 being the "lead" carrier in the great LBK (Linear Pottery) and Impressed Wares (Cardial Pottery) expansions are diminishing.

Interesting. The lack of R1b in Neolithic France is definitely mysterious, but it's not like they are getting big samples.

Hmmm . . .


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Humanist on May 31, 2011, 09:34:46 PM
I think this is speculative, but if Dienekes is right, E1b1b1 is a late "Greek" newcomer. J2, along with T, is what Spencer Wells (National Genographic) calls "Mediterranean Trader" (aka Phoenician.)

That is interesting.  The Druze, if I am not mistaken, based on the frequencies reported in the "Genetic Refugium" study, are roughly a quarter R-M269?  See Vince V's post here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2008-05/1210268886 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2008-05/1210268886)

As you know, Mike, based on our recent discussions over at DNA-Forums, R-M269 is also approximately a quarter of the Assyrian Y-DNA frequency.  I do not know the complete details of the Druze origins, but I do know they have been a closed community for the last 1000 years.  Given the geographic separation of the two populations, not to mention the even more ancient linguistic, religious, etc. divisions, the similar R-M269 frequencies in both may suggest a greater presence in the ancient Near East of R-M269.  At least, I should say, as it pertains to the Levant and Mesopotamia.  

The similar frequencies of Haplogroup T reported in Mendez et al (specifically PS21) for both the Druze and Assyrians, in my opinion, should also be noted: Mendez et al.
frequencies: http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Mendez_Haplo_T.jpg (http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Mendez_Haplo_T.jpg)
Mendez et al. PC plot of the "kinship R matrix" (note the position of the Assyrians and Druze): http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/pca_ydna_4611.jpg (http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/pca_ydna_4611.jpg)

On that same note, I am not sure if any of you folks caught the recent posts by Dienekes on his "Zombie" ADMIXTURE analyses methods, but something of interest may have been revealed, in the reporting of the Druze ADMIXTURE proportions (populations with at least 20% "Southwest Asian"):

Code:
POP W_Asia Nw_Afri S_Euro Ne_Asi Sw_Asi E_Asia N_Euro W_Afri E_Afri S_Asia
KSA 12.2 0.8 3.9 0.1 76.7 0.1 0.2 1.4 2.6 2
EGY 19.1 7.7 15.3 0.1 38.9 0.1 0 4.1 14.7 0
JOR 31.3 3.8 19.2 0.3 33.9 0.2 0.3 2.4 7.3 1.3
SYR 37.2 1.4 19 0.4 33.1 0.5 1.1 1.6 2.7 3
PAL 29.6 3.6 28.1 0.1 28.8 0.2 0.5 1.7 6.9 0.5
EAF 1.6 3.2 1.9 0 26.5 0 0 0 66.9 0
DRZ 37.4 1.1 34.4 0 24.8 0.1 0.6 0 1.2 0.3
ASY 51 0 23 0 24 0 0 0 0 1.8
MAN 50.4 0 21.4 0.3 24 0 0 0 0 3.9
CYP 39.1 0.3 35.5 0 23.7 0.1 1.2 0 0.1 0
ASJ 27 2 35 0.6 21 0.8 15 0 0.1 0.1

Man=the lone S Iraqi Mandaean (DOD460)

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-zombies-ancestral-north-indians.html (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-zombies-ancestral-north-indians.html)






Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on May 31, 2011, 10:03:00 PM
Would the supposed lack of R-M269 in the Neolithic mean it came later?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 31, 2011, 11:54:16 PM
Would the supposed lack of R-M269 in the Neolithic mean it came later?
It could, but the main precept of the two ancient DNA sites is that one is LBK Neolithic and one is Impressed Wares Neolithic.

There could have been hunter-gatherer's living in different communities up the mountain side or somewhere and R1b could have been there.

It could be R-M269 was there in some Neolithic communities, but was a minority or for some reason just not found yet.

It could be, as you ask, R-M269 just plain came later. 



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 01, 2011, 03:48:18 AM
@ Mikew3
"So what will Otzi tell us?  Are you thinking he'll be some kind of R-M269+ L23- guy? "

Of course this is what I hope, but I'd be glad also if he was an haplotype thought more recent from the know-all of the mutation rate.
I would remember that also hg. G2a. present massively in Spain, as I have said many times in the past, has 2 center of irradiation in Italy (one in Sardinia if I remember well) and those Spaniards could have come from Italy with the Cardial Pottery men. The presence of I-M26 (pretty 40% in Sardinia) could be a sign.
As I have said many times, aDNA will resolve all the questions.

Certainly two mtDNA K1a (mine) and that of Oetzi (K1o) is a good sign.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: secherbernard on June 01, 2011, 04:20:48 AM
This is the full Lacan paper: http://secher.bernard.free.fr/DNA/PNAS-2011-Lacan-1100723108.pdf


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: IALEM on June 01, 2011, 10:23:22 AM
Many thanks!


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: IALEM on June 01, 2011, 10:28:20 AM

I suppose it could turn out that we have things all bass-ackwards, and R1b really did spend the last Ice Age in Iberia. Who knows?
I can´t resist to say, once again, that the last Ice Age refugium in Europe was the FrancoCantabrian, not Iberia. Cantabria takes just a small fringe of Northern Iberia, while by far the main Paleolithic center of population in the Magdalenian period is Central France, the regions of Dordogne and Périgord in particular. All that talking about an Iberian refugium has no archaeological support, in fact we know that Central Iberia was a population desert at the time.
IMO if R1b is really Paleolithic in Europe we should check Central France genetics, not Iberia.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 01, 2011, 10:51:11 AM
I suppose it could turn out that we have things all bass-ackwards, and R1b really did spend the last Ice Age in Iberia. Who knows?
.....
IMO if R1b is really Paleolithic in Europe we should check Central France genetics, not Iberia.
I think Myres ignored much of France but they did look at the SE France location of Vacluse.  Too bad, we really don't have a good study of France.  I'm putting together an "all" P312 spreadsheet so we can re-look at variance and keep tabs on Z196 testing.

On another front, I have good news.  Even though I argue vehemently in some cases, I really don't see any alternatives that really line up beautifully for R-M269's expansion across Europe. I just really don't know ....... but smarter foks than I have figured this out.  After looking at both Haak's LBK (Germany) and Lucan's Cardial Wares (La Trielle) ancient DNA reports, and tying that back to wave surfing models (Klopfstein); Rokus, our Dutch voice, has resolved matters.
Quote from: Rokus
Paleogenetic evidence so far reveals Neolithic G that indeed fits the Neolithic profile according to the predictions of Klopfstein....

OK, so this problem I considered solved now with the finds of La Treille, that again failed to produce R1b, only much more Hg G!

None of this R1b "wave of advance" pattern is related to actual movements of people, it must have formed on top of a Neolithic substratum that was already in place. The advance of R1b was exclusive linked to selective processes on genes that were especially favourable among males (-biased) and those sharing a Late Neolithic culture: when cattle became part of the Neolithic package and the consumption of dairy products from animal husbandry became important. This required fast genetic change, that still left its marks in current YDNA distributions.

MHammers, didn't your TMRCA inter-clade estimates kind of back up what Rokus is saying about Hg G?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 01, 2011, 12:24:35 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?

If so, keep that in mind when you look at the French vs French Basque charts in the following article.

"European man of many faces: Cain vs. Abel" by Razib Khan in Gene Expressions at
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/european-man-of-many-faces-cain-vs-abel/

Kahn makes a couple of interesting points that I can personally relate to in my experiences with farmers, ranchers and hunter-gatherer descendants (Native Americans.) I can trace my own genealogies to people with direct interaction in Mesolithic to Neolithic expansion and as I said I know of the stories and see the descendants of these interactions.
Quote from: Kahn
The original farmers seem to have expanded rather slowly initially out of the Middle East. Not only did they perfect the biological character of their crops, they probably perfected the customs and traditions which would go along with farming. A complex suite of explicit rules and implicit norms. Perhaps it was not so easy to simply copy the farming lifestyle? Or, perhaps more interestingly, the hunter-gatherers by and large did not want to copy the farming lifestyle?

Even though I agree that farming is a very transformational type change, a revolution if you want to call it, I don't think it relates to rapid change. It is plodding, with fits and starts in bouts with the new environment.

On the other hand, R-L11's expansion in Europe seems quite rapid. This all could add up to slow start out of the Near East, a burst during the LBK and Cadial, then a pause and retooling before secondary bursts.  This is possible but it still seems like R-L11 burst all in all directions all at once.  Just a thought.

Anyway, I don't know what to make of the French vs French Basque autosomal picture.  Go to the link above. and look at that chart.

Orange=Southwest Asian
Green=South European
Blue=West Asian
Quote from: Kahn
The green element is nearly 100% in Sardinia, and drops off to nearly nothing somewhere around Iran. The light blue component is modal around the Caucasus, though is widely distributed, from Spain to Bengal (yeah, that’s me!) to Sweden. A simple model would be that the light blue arrived with Neolithic agriculturalists, as the Basques are the descendants of the original Ice Age Europeans. But this may not be correct, and our impression of the Basques may be totally false. It is not out of the question now that the Basque culture may have arrived via the ancient leap-frogging of agriculture from fertile regions around the Mediterranean before the seafarers passed into the Atlantic and swept around the western fringe of Iberia. What we may be seeing is a palimpsest of agriculturalists, where the Basques simply lack the last layer.

The Basques didn't get the "West Asian" (which is modal with the Caucasus) but the French did.

Younger P312 clades have definitely penetrated the Basques, but does this mean P312 was all across Europe then and then as Klyosov would say, someone (i.e. R1a1) brought IE to them and converted them?  Or does this mean only a few P312 men penetrated a Neolithic culture (the Basques) and their "West Asian" genes were just washed out because of their few numbers although their Y DNA did not.  Doesn't quite seem right, but it doesn't seem right that there were two kinds of P312 interacting unless there is a major division in that Z196 was early and non-IE whereas U152 and L21 did pick up the IE somehow.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: MHammers on June 01, 2011, 02:46:07 PM
Quote from: Rokus
Paleogenetic evidence so far reveals Neolithic G that indeed fits the Neolithic profile according to the predictions of Klopfstein....

OK, so this problem I considered solved now with the finds of La Treille, that again failed to produce R1b, only much more Hg G!

None of this R1b "wave of advance" pattern is related to actual movements of people, it must have formed on top of a Neolithic substratum that was already in place. The advance of R1b was exclusive linked to selective processes on genes that were especially favourable among males (-biased) and those sharing a Late Neolithic culture: when cattle became part of the Neolithic package and the consumption of dairy products from animal husbandry became important. This required fast genetic change, that still left its marks in current YDNA distributions.
MHammers, didn't your TMRCA inter-clade estimates kind of back up what Rokus is saying about Hg G?
Here are some age estimates I ran back in February for G2a.  Please note many of these are probably not fully deep clade tested.  Still the ages  are more mesolithic to neolithic in time range, unlike the younger rapid succession of R1b.  I tend to agree with what Rokus is saying here.

Since we now know G2a3 was present in the LBK of Germany during the neolithic, I decided to run some calculations on G2a3 types using Ken's Generations5 calculator.
The data comes from the FTDna Haplogroup G project.

The following are intraclade ages using mostly G2a3a, G2a3a1, G2a3b, and G2a3b1 as a proxy for a neolithic pattern.  Some of the haplotypes were not as fully tested as I would have liked, so that should be taken into account when considering the ages.

G2a3b and G2a3b1(nothing further downstream) - all locations - G=324/17 or 9720+/-510 ybp - n=154

G2a3b and G2a3b1(nothing further downstream) - Europe only - G=313/16 or 9390+/-480 ybp - n=145

G2a3b1+(all downstream) -all locations - G=366/22 or 10980+/-660 ybp - n=220

G2a3b1+(all downstream) -Europe only - G=356/21 or 10680+/-630 ybp - n=207

G2a3a+ - all locations - G=372/20 or 11160+/-600 ybp - n=36

G2a3a+ - Europe only - G=260/18 or 7800+/-540 ybp - n=24

G2a3b1a1a (for comparison) - G=109/12 or 3270+/-360 ybp - n=34

Here's an interclade for G2a3 using G2a3a, G2a3a1, G2a3b and G2a3b1 (nothing further downtstream) - G=529/135 or 15870+/-4050 ybp

As you can see these ages are much older than what we're getting for R1b.  G2a3 seems to originate in SW Asia sometime during the upper paleolithic and was probably important to the transition to agriculture there.   The Europe only sample for G2a3b and G2a3b1 are in line with a neolithic entry for SE Europe around 7000 BC and the Europe only for G2a3a is very close to LBK in Central Europe.  The LBK aDNA was at least G2a3, but I'm not sure exactly what, if any, downstream snp's were tested.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: MHammers on June 01, 2011, 02:51:06 PM
I think what is the most interesting here is the lack of lactose persistence in these people.  Since there has been no lactose peristence found in LBK and now this late neolithic Treilles group, does this suggest that the gene was also not with the first farmers of the British Isles around 4000 BC?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 01, 2011, 06:09:48 PM
Quote from: Rokus
Paleogenetic evidence so far reveals Neolithic G that indeed fits the Neolithic profile according to the predictions of Klopfstein....

OK, so this problem I considered solved now with the finds of La Treille, that again failed to produce R1b, only much more Hg G!

None of this R1b "wave of advance" pattern is related to actual movements of people, it must have formed on top of a Neolithic substratum that was already in place. The advance of R1b was exclusive linked to selective processes on genes that were especially favourable among males (-biased) and those sharing a Late Neolithic culture: when cattle became part of the Neolithic package and the consumption of dairy products from animal husbandry became important. This required fast genetic change, that still left its marks in current YDNA distributions.
MHammers, didn't your TMRCA inter-clade estimates kind of back up what Rokus is saying about Hg G?
Here are some age estimates I ran back in February for G2a.  Please note many of these are probably not fully deep clade tested.  Still the ages  are more mesolithic to neolithic in time range, unlike the younger rapid succession of R1b.  I tend to agree with what Rokus is saying here.

Since we now know G2a3 was present in the LBK of Germany during the neolithic, I decided to run some calculations on G2a3 types using Ken's Generations5 calculator.
The data comes from the FTDna Haplogroup G project.

The following are intraclade ages using mostly G2a3a, G2a3a1, G2a3b, and G2a3b1 as a proxy for a neolithic pattern.  Some of the haplotypes were not as fully tested as I would have liked, so that should be taken into account when considering the ages.

G2a3b and G2a3b1(nothing further downstream) - all locations - G=324/17 or 9720+/-510 ybp - n=154

G2a3b and G2a3b1(nothing further downstream) - Europe only - G=313/16 or 9390+/-480 ybp - n=145

G2a3b1+(all downstream) -all locations - G=366/22 or 10980+/-660 ybp - n=220

G2a3b1+(all downstream) -Europe only - G=356/21 or 10680+/-630 ybp - n=207

G2a3a+ - all locations - G=372/20 or 11160+/-600 ybp - n=36

G2a3a+ - Europe only - G=260/18 or 7800+/-540 ybp - n=24

G2a3b1a1a (for comparison) - G=109/12 or 3270+/-360 ybp - n=34

Here's an interclade for G2a3 using G2a3a, G2a3a1, G2a3b and G2a3b1 (nothing further downtstream) - G=529/135 or 15870+/-4050 ybp

As you can see these ages are much older than what we're getting for R1b.  G2a3 seems to originate in SW Asia sometime during the upper paleolithic and was probably important to the transition to agriculture there.   The Europe only sample for G2a3b and G2a3b1 are in line with a neolithic entry for SE Europe around 7000 BC and the Europe only for G2a3a is very close to LBK in Central Europe.  The LBK aDNA was at least G2a3, but I'm not sure exactly what, if any, downstream snp's were tested.


I have to say those dates plus the presence in early Neolithic remains is building a strong case that the dating is approximately correct.  If it is then L11 just cant be early Neolithic. 

The only other possibility (and Capelis forthcoming paper will be interesting) is that the variance dating is significantly too young.  However, if L11 is really early Neolithic  then these G2 clades would surely have to then be very old ones relating to some sort of upper Palaeolithic spread into Europe from some sort of eastern refugia.

Even if Capeli doesnt change the picture, the case for R1b being missing from the main two European early Neolithic cultures will only be proved when we have much more than one sample from each and the sample if from enough different sites to eliminate the possibility of chance distorting things.  I would still contend that the middle Neolithic period (perhaps c. 5000-4000BC) might provide a good horizon for the spread of R1b.   There does seem to me to be a correlation between the areas of very elevated R1b and places where farmers first settled the land in the middles Neolithic after LBK. 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 01, 2011, 08:10:18 PM

I suppose it could turn out that we have things all bass-ackwards, and R1b really did spend the last Ice Age in Iberia. Who knows?
I can´t resist to say, once again, that the last Ice Age refugium in Europe was the FrancoCantabrian, not Iberia. Cantabria takes just a small fringe of Northern Iberia, while by far the main Paleolithic center of population in the Magdalenian period is Central France, the regions of Dordogne and Périgord in particular. All that talking about an Iberian refugium has no archaeological support, in fact we know that Central Iberia was a population desert at the time.
IMO if R1b is really Paleolithic in Europe we should check Central France genetics, not Iberia.


I realize that, actually. "Iberia" is just quicker to type.

By the way, I don't really think R1b was in the Franco-Cantabrian region during the last Ice Age.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 01, 2011, 08:16:50 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.



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on June 01, 2011, 08:29:14 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?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 01, 2011, 08:29:38 PM
Here's a kind of sidebar note.

When I first got involved in genetic genealogy, it was claimed that the G2a in Europe was the product of the Alans and Sarmatians having ridden roughshod across the plains in the wake of the general Roman decline.

Doesn't look that way now.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 01, 2011, 08:33:30 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.



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on June 01, 2011, 08:43:26 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli 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"




Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: IALEM 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...


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: OConnor 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh 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?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh 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?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. 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.    


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. 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. 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. 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!!


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Jdean 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed 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?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh 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?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh 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.  




Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 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 . . .


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: embPA 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


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on June 04, 2011, 05:01:42 PM

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.  


The highest concentrations of lactase persistence are in Western/Northwestern Europe, and it decreases as one moves south and east. Coincidentally or not, R1b levels match this pattern as well.

I think that such a gene was spread by nomadic pastoralists. This brings to mind an area of very high concentrations of lactase persistence - the Scottish Highlands. Folks practiced transhumance, and I believe it is still done in both the Highlands and in Ireland.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: A.D. on June 04, 2011, 05:17:14 PM
I came across some thing about  large scale drought at about 4000 and 2200 BC covering the whole  med. I didn't get much but it was to do with the Atlantic conveyor, The dissertation of N.Africa leading to the population of the nile delta etc. Could this also caused large population movement into/out of or around in Europe or the Steppes. Possibly crop failure led to the increase of lactose persistence. Milk drinkers may have survived in greater proportions. Moved to more grass land regions and prospered.
My thinking is these kind of disasters cause 'refugees' and disperse rather than move some where on a settled mass.   


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 04, 2011, 06:32:22 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

Thanks! It will take me awhile to work my way through it again, but I found the stuff on lactase persistence.

Individual M9 (the "M" is for male) is the apparent R1b. On page 198 you can see the little chartlet on him. The "LAK C/C" indicates that he was homozygotic at 13910 with two Cs, meaning he was lactose intolerant. You need at least one T there to be lactase persistent. A C/T or T/T at 13910 means one is lactase persistent.

Regarding the two "R1a" individuals, M10 and M11, who were apparently father and son, as far as I can tell, they were not SNP tested (evidently no one was). The idea that they were R1a is a guess based on a 12-marker haplotype. The haplotypes of the 19 males from whom y-dna was obtainable are shown on page 93. The shared haplotype of M10 and M11 is "Y5" on that chart. It seems to me the notion that they were R1a hangs on a slender thread, i.e., that they have 19=15, 439=11, and 390=25. Someone tell me if I am missing something, but those two could just as easily be R1b, because there are plenty of R1b men who have those marker values. I don't see anything startlingly R1a about their haplotype.

Anyway, M10 and M11 also have little chartlets on page 198, where you can see that both of them have "LAK C/T" and thus were lactase persistent.

I see one individual, M18, also shown on page 198, who has a "LAK T/T" entry, but they were not able to extract any y-dna from him, although I guess they could tell he was a male, since they gave him the magic "M" designation.



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on June 04, 2011, 07:40:04 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

Thanks! It will take me awhile to work my way through it again, but I found the stuff on lactase persistence.

Individual M9 (the "M" is for male) is the apparent R1b. On page 198 you can see the little chartlet on him. The "LAK C/C" indicates that he was homozygotic at 13910 with two Cs, meaning he was lactose intolerant. You need at least one T there to be lactase persistent. A C/T or T/T at 13910 means one is lactase persistent.

Regarding the two "R1a" individuals, M10 and M11, who were apparently father and son, as far as I can tell, they were not SNP tested (evidently no one was). The idea that they were R1a is a guess based on a 12-marker haplotype. The haplotypes of the 19 males from whom y-dna was obtainable are shown on page 93. The shared haplotype of M10 and M11 is "Y5" on that chart. It seems to me the notion that they were R1a hangs on a slender thread, i.e., that they have 19=15, 439=11, and 390=25. Someone tell me if I am missing something, but those two could just as easily be R1b, because there are plenty of R1b men who have those marker values. I don't see anything startlingly R1a about their haplotype.

Anyway, M10 and M11 also have little chartlets on page 198, where you can see that both of them have "LAK C/T" and thus were lactase persistent.

I see one individual, M18, also shown on page 198, who has a "LAK T/T" entry, but they were not able to extract any y-dna from him, although I guess they could tell he was a male, since they gave him the magic "M" designation.



Yeah, I don't see why they would designate the samples as belonging to R1a with just three STR values. Even if they were R1a, the distribution of lactase persistence clearly matches the trail of R1b in Europe.

Jean M writes on her blog that R1a-R1b populations must have been mixing for some time in order for the LP gene to become so dominant in them. Nevertheless, LP appears to have come from the Near East, and the initial spread I believe from R1b.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 04, 2011, 08:23:46 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

Thanks! It will take me awhile to work my way through it again, but I found the stuff on lactase persistence.

Individual M9 (the "M" is for male) is the apparent R1b. On page 198 you can see the little chartlet on him. The "LAK C/C" indicates that he was homozygotic at 13910 with two Cs, meaning he was lactose intolerant. You need at least one T there to be lactase persistent. A C/T or T/T at 13910 means one is lactase persistent.

Regarding the two "R1a" individuals, M10 and M11, who were apparently father and son, as far as I can tell, they were not SNP tested (evidently no one was). The idea that they were R1a is a guess based on a 12-marker haplotype. The haplotypes of the 19 males from whom y-dna was obtainable are shown on page 93. The shared haplotype of M10 and M11 is "Y5" on that chart. It seems to me the notion that they were R1a hangs on a slender thread, i.e., that they have 19=15, 439=11, and 390=25. Someone tell me if I am missing something, but those two could just as easily be R1b, because there are plenty of R1b men who have those marker values. I don't see anything startlingly R1a about their haplotype.

Anyway, M10 and M11 also have little chartlets on page 198, where you can see that both of them have "LAK C/T" and thus were lactase persistent.

I see one individual, M18, also shown on page 198, who has a "LAK T/T" entry, but they were not able to extract any y-dna from him, although I guess they could tell he was a male, since they gave him the magic "M" designation.



Yeah, I don't see why they would designate the samples as belonging to R1a with just three STR values. Even if they were R1a, the distribution of lactase persistence clearly matches the trail of R1b in Europe.

Jean M writes on her blog that R1a-R1b populations must have been mixing for some time in order for the LP gene to become so dominant in them. Nevertheless, LP appears to have come from the Near East, and the initial spread I believe from R1b.

Honestly, I don't know the answer. It's complicated. It looks like lactase persistence originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, but right now part of the problem is proving where R1b came from.

Half of the problem is mtDNA. It could be that T-13910 had a female origin and spread more by means of the distaff side at first than otherwise.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on June 04, 2011, 11:30:21 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

Thanks! It will take me awhile to work my way through it again, but I found the stuff on lactase persistence.

Individual M9 (the "M" is for male) is the apparent R1b. On page 198 you can see the little chartlet on him. The "LAK C/C" indicates that he was homozygotic at 13910 with two Cs, meaning he was lactose intolerant. You need at least one T there to be lactase persistent. A C/T or T/T at 13910 means one is lactase persistent.

Regarding the two "R1a" individuals, M10 and M11, who were apparently father and son, as far as I can tell, they were not SNP tested (evidently no one was). The idea that they were R1a is a guess based on a 12-marker haplotype. The haplotypes of the 19 males from whom y-dna was obtainable are shown on page 93. The shared haplotype of M10 and M11 is "Y5" on that chart. It seems to me the notion that they were R1a hangs on a slender thread, i.e., that they have 19=15, 439=11, and 390=25. Someone tell me if I am missing something, but those two could just as easily be R1b, because there are plenty of R1b men who have those marker values. I don't see anything startlingly R1a about their haplotype.

Anyway, M10 and M11 also have little chartlets on page 198, where you can see that both of them have "LAK C/T" and thus were lactase persistent.

I see one individual, M18, also shown on page 198, who has a "LAK T/T" entry, but they were not able to extract any y-dna from him, although I guess they could tell he was a male, since they gave him the magic "M" designation.



Yeah, I don't see why they would designate the samples as belonging to R1a with just three STR values. Even if they were R1a, the distribution of lactase persistence clearly matches the trail of R1b in Europe.

Jean M writes on her blog that R1a-R1b populations must have been mixing for some time in order for the LP gene to become so dominant in them. Nevertheless, LP appears to have come from the Near East, and the initial spread I believe from R1b.

Honestly, I don't know the answer. It's complicated. It looks like lactase persistence originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, but right now part of the problem is proving where R1b came from.

Half of the problem is mtDNA. It could be that T-13910 had a female origin and spread more by means of the distaff side at first than otherwise.

Interesting you mention the female component to this. That explains LP's emergence in both R1b and R1a populations.

Yet I still think R1b tribes introduced it.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 05, 2011, 06:36:26 AM
The thing about the T 13910 allele is that it spreads easily (like warm butter). All that is required is for one parent to give down a T, and - voila! - you're a milk drinker.

It is certainly widespread in R1b populations now, but just how it started and spread to the northwest is a mystery. Some connection to R1b would seem to make sense, but who knows, really?

FTDNA should add a test for 13910 to its Factoid menu. I think it would sell. It could also be interesting to collect the data on C/C, C/T, and T/T.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 05, 2011, 06:42:03 AM

. . .

Jean M writes on her blog that R1a-R1b populations must have been mixing for some time in order for the LP gene to become so dominant in them. Nevertheless, LP appears to have come from the Near East, and the initial spread I believe from R1b.

If you think about it, lactase persistence is far less dominant in predominantly R1a populations than it is in predominantly R1b populations.

Eastern Europe is less lactase persistent than western Europe, especially northwestern Europe.

I don't think lactase persistence is prevalent in India, although I could be wrong about that.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 05, 2011, 06:51:45 AM

. . .

Jean M writes on her blog that R1a-R1b populations must have been mixing for some time in order for the LP gene to become so dominant in them. Nevertheless, LP appears to have come from the Near East, and the initial spread I believe from R1b.

If you think about it, lactase persistence is far less dominant in predominantly R1a populations than it is in predominantly R1b populations.

Eastern Europe is less lactase persistent than western Europe, especially northwestern Europe.

I don't think lactase persistence is prevalent in India, although I could be wrong about that.

Here is an article on lactase persistence in India:

Frequency of lactose malabsorption among healthy southern and northern Indian populations by genetic analysis and lactose hydrogen breath and tolerance tests (http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/1/140.abstract).

Quote
Results: Volunteers from southern and northern India were comparable in age and [gender - WFN won't allow the s-x word]. The LTT result was abnormal in 88.2% of southern Indians and in 66.2% of northern Indians (P = 0.001). The lactose HBT result was abnormal in 78.9% of southern Indians and in 57.1% of northern Indians (P = 0.003). The CC genotype was present in 86.8% and 67.5% (P = 0.002), the CT genotype was present in 13.2% and 26.0% (P = 0.036), and the TT genotype was present in 0% and 6.5% (P = 0.03) of southern and northern Indians, respectively. The frequency of symptoms after the lactose load (47.4% compared with 15.6%; P < 0.001) and peak concentrations of breath hydrogen (88.5 ± 71.9 compared with 55.4 ± 61.9 ppm; P = 0.003), both of which might indicate the degree of lactase deficiency, were higher in southern than in northern Indians.

Conclusion: The frequency and degree of LM is higher in southern than in northern Indian healthy populations because of genetic differences in these populations
.


You can see that India is not particularly lactase persistent, even in the mostly R1a North, although it is more lactase persistent in the North than in the South.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 05, 2011, 07:36:33 AM
Here is an interesting abstract of an article:

Comparison of lactase persistence polymorphism in ancient and present-day Hungarian populations (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21490/abstract).

Quote
Abstract

The prevalence of adult-type hypolactasia varies ethnically and geographically among populations. A C/T–13910 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) upstream of the lactase gene is known to be associated with lactase non-persistence in Europeans. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of lactase persistent and non-persistent genotypes in current Hungarian-speaking populations and in ancient bone samples of classical conquerors and commoners from the 10th–11th centuries from the Carpathian basin; 181 present-day Hungarian, 65 present-day Sekler, and 23 ancient samples were successfully genotyped for the C/T-13910 SNP by the dCAPS PCR-RFLP method. Additional mitochondrial DNA testing was also carried out. In ancient Hungarians, the T-13910 allele was present only in 11% of the population, and exclusively in commoners of European mitochondrial haplogroups who may have been of pre-Hungarian indigenous ancestry. This is despite animal domestication and dairy products having been introduced into the Carpathian basin early in the Neolithic Age. This anomaly may be explained by the Hungarian use of fermented milk products, their greater consumption of ruminant meat than milk, cultural differences, or by their having other lactase-regulating genetic polymorphisms than C/T-13910. The low prevalence of lactase persistence provides additional information on the Asian origin of Hungarians. Present-day Hungarians have been assimilated with the surrounding European populations, since they do not differ significantly from the neighboring populations in their possession of mtDNA and C/T-13910 variants. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2011. © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Interesting that the nomadic, conquering Magyars out of the Eurasian steppe were not lactase persistent. Lactase persistence in ancient Hungary was connected with the native population.

Unfortunately, I can't get the whole article to read.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 05, 2011, 07:56:14 AM
Sorry to be turning this thread into the lactase persistence corner, but here is a really interesting article:

Lactase persistence genotypes and malaria susceptibility in Fulani of Mali (http://www.malariajournal.com/content/10/1/9)

Quote
Results

Among 79 Dogon only one heterozygote of the lactase enhancer polymorphism was detected, whereas all others were homozygous for the ancestral C allele. Among the Fulani, the main European polymorphism at locus C/T-13910 was by far the most common polymorphism, with an allele frequency of 37%. Three other single-nucleotide polymorphisms were found with allele frequencies of 3.7%, 1.9% and 0.6% each. The novel DNA polymorphism T/C-13906 was seen in six heterozygous Fulani. Among the Fulani with lactase non-persistence CC genotypes at the C/T-13910 locus, 24% had malaria parasites detectable by microscopy compared to 18% for lactase persistent genotypes (P = 0.29). Pooling the lactase enhancer polymorphisms to a common presumptive genotype gave 28% microscopy positives for non-persistent and 17% for others (P = 0.11)
.

What is interesting is that the Chadic-speaking Fulani have a fairly high frequency of R-V88 (downstream of P25 but not P297), as well as lactase persistence on the European allele, T-13910.

Hmmm . . .


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 05, 2011, 08:25:25 AM
What is interesting is that the Chadic-speaking Fulani have a fairly high frequency of R-V88 (downstream of P297 but not M269), as well as lactase persistence on the European allele, T-13910.
Hmmm . . .

upstream


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on June 05, 2011, 09:26:23 AM
Here is an interesting abstract of an article:

Comparison of lactase persistence polymorphism in ancient and present-day Hungarian populations (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21490/abstract).

Quote
Abstract

The prevalence of adult-type hypolactasia varies ethnically and geographically among populations. A C/T–13910 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) upstream of the lactase gene is known to be associated with lactase non-persistence in Europeans. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of lactase persistent and non-persistent genotypes in current Hungarian-speaking populations and in ancient bone samples of classical conquerors and commoners from the 10th–11th centuries from the Carpathian basin; 181 present-day Hungarian, 65 present-day Sekler, and 23 ancient samples were successfully genotyped for the C/T-13910 SNP by the dCAPS PCR-RFLP method. Additional mitochondrial DNA testing was also carried out. In ancient Hungarians, the T-13910 allele was present only in 11% of the population, and exclusively in commoners of European mitochondrial haplogroups who may have been of pre-Hungarian indigenous ancestry. This is despite animal domestication and dairy products having been introduced into the Carpathian basin early in the Neolithic Age. This anomaly may be explained by the Hungarian use of fermented milk products, their greater consumption of ruminant meat than milk, cultural differences, or by their having other lactase-regulating genetic polymorphisms than C/T-13910. The low prevalence of lactase persistence provides additional information on the Asian origin of Hungarians. Present-day Hungarians have been assimilated with the surrounding European populations, since they do not differ significantly from the neighboring populations in their possession of mtDNA and C/T-13910 variants. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2011. © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Interesting that the nomadic, conquering Magyars out of the Eurasian steppe were not lactase persistent. Lactase persistence in ancient Hungary was connected with the native population.

Unfortunately, I can't get the whole article to read.

Yes, I perused this article before and wondered about the decreasing cline of LP as one moves east in Europe. Hungarians particularly have a high concentration of R1a1, and no doubt much of it comes with the Magyars (non-IE speaking, by the way).

However, some of the highest levels of LP can be found amongst populations like the Dutch or the Irish and Scots.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 05, 2011, 04:01:38 PM
One thing that the British Isles, Holland and Scandinavia have in common is that traces of milk on their pots have been noted from the very inception of their Neolithic periods.  That is not true of a lot of the other countries, including the whole Med. and much of central Europe.



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: MHammers on June 05, 2011, 08:31:10 PM
One thing that the British Isles, Holland and Scandinavia have in common is that traces of milk on their pots have been noted from the very inception of their Neolithic periods.  That is not true of a lot of the other countries, including the whole Med. and much of central Europe.



Do you know if there were any cultural links or common antecedents between the British Neolithic and the Funnelbeaker culture who had lactose persistence?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: OConnor on June 06, 2011, 01:23:55 AM
Do we know that these people were drinking the raw milk?
Or were they collecting it to make butter? and or cheese?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: A.D. on June 06, 2011, 08:42:03 AM
News on BBC to day about Neolithic states that there was a technological building and if I picked it up correct population explosion within a few generations in Britain. I didn't hear any thing about invasion or migration but I only caught some of it. This appears to have happened some time after the start of the Neolithic. It's probably the same thing JeaMn has been talking about for ages But they made it sound new.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: A.D. on June 06, 2011, 09:39:23 AM
I think this is the relevant link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13647544


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 06, 2011, 03:37:15 PM
Yeah I read that article about the Neolithic.  It slightly contradicts another recent study of early Neolithic dates that suggested a simultaneous entry into south-central England and south-east Scotland.  I understand the guys of it is there was a short pioneer phase for 200 years restricted to lowland England where presumably some adaptation happened before they expanded into the rest of the isles suddenly in 2 or 3 generations.  The time difference of 2-300 years would barely be detectable using variance etc so I am not sure this makes much difference.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 06, 2011, 07:23:33 PM
What is interesting is that the Chadic-speaking Fulani have a fairly high frequency of R-V88 (downstream of P297 but not M269), as well as lactase persistence on the European allele, T-13910.
Hmmm . . .

upstream

I apologize. V88 is downstream of P25 but parallel to P297.

But it is not upstream of P297, because that would make P297 downstream of V88, in other words, a descendant of V88, which it is not.

I have edited my original message to correct the error.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 06, 2011, 07:45:17 PM
An interesting thing about the Fulani is that, while they have a frequency of R-V88 of about 54%, on the mtDNA side their lineages are mostly African.

A 2006 study did find about 8.1% Eurasian mtDNA among them, however.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/the-mtdna-of-fulani-nomads/ (http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/the-mtdna-of-fulani-nomads/)

So, did they begin to acquire their relatively high (37%) level of lactase persistence from a female ancestor or a male ancestor?

Male seems more likely, given the higher frequency of y-dna R-V88 than of Eurasian mtDNA lineages.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 07, 2011, 12:13:16 AM
Don't forget that I hypothesized that R-V88 had migrated to North Africa from Italy (or Spain) via sea and not via Middle East and that Fulvio Cruciani promised  by a letter to investigate this hypothesis. But as I and the most part of Italians are lactose intolerant and mostly hg. R, probably this mutation has nothing to do with ancient R, perhaps with some subclade of it in Central Europe or other.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Jean M on June 07, 2011, 06:56:14 AM
Cruciani et al did not say that R1b-V88 migrated to Africa from Italy or Spain. There is no evidence of any such thing. They envisaged a Neolithic migration of V88 from the Levant to North Africa and then south via the Sahara.  


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Jean M on June 07, 2011, 07:00:27 AM
The lactase persistence found in African pastoralists come from different mutations than those common in Europeans. There is a small patch of 13910T in Sub-Saharan Africa however.  Is that in the Fulani? I quote from myself:

There have been at least six separate mutations which cause the lactase switch-off to fail. Lactase-persistence genes of East African origin are 13907G and 14010C. A compound allele (13915G and 3712C) found in Saudis and East Africans probably originated in the Middle East. A rarer lactase-persistence allele (13913C) was discovered in two cases in Italy, and subsequently reported in Cameroon, Sudan, Ethiopia, and the Bedouin population in Saudi Arabia. The dominant mutation in Western Eurasia and South Asia is 13910T (rs4988235(T)). This allele is found within different haplotype backgrounds i.e. the stretches of DNA code either side of it. One of these is common, as we shall see, but the others (which originate from the same ancestral haplotype) are found only in populations living on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. So the allele probably originated in that area. The 22018A (rs182549(C)) mutation was first recognised in Finns. While it generally correlates with 13910T in Europeans, it can appear as an independent cause of lactase-persistence, for example in Pakistanis and notably in the Kazaks of Northern China.

The haplotype containing these two alleles (13910T and 22018A) is common in Northern European-derived populations (77% in European Americans). It is also largely identical over nearly 1 cM. Such lengthy stretches of DNA indicate recent origin; older DNA has had more time to be broken up by recombination each generation. The haplotype could not have risen quickly to such high frequency without the aid of natural selection. Todd Bersaglieri and colleagues calculated that strong selection occurred within the past 5,000–10,000 years, consistent with an advantage to lactase persistence in the setting of dairy farming. Even more recent estimates (1,625–3,188 years ago) were obtained for a Scandinavian population, suggesting stronger and more recent selection there.

See the original for references and a map of the distribution of 13910T: Indo-European genetics: LP (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeangenetics.shtml#lactose)


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 07, 2011, 07:38:48 AM
The study of the Fulani I cited a few posts back shows their lactase persistence comes from the European or Eurasian T-13910 allele and not the other, African varieties.

Could their relatively high (37%) level of LP be connected to their high frequency of R-V88? Maybe not, but it is an interesting question.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 07, 2011, 10:14:21 AM
Cruciani et al did not say that R1b-V88 migrated to Africa from Italy or Spain. There is no evidence of any such thing. They envisaged a Neolithic migration of V88 from the Levant to North Africa and then south via the Sahara.  

I don't think I am doing anything unsuitable in publishing this letter of Prof. Fulvio Cruciani which is the response to the first two posts of this thread sent to one of his colleagues, Prof. Rosaria Scozzari.
This isn’t in recognition of me, but of everyone of us who has something to say on this matter, who did exams at his own expense putting the results at everybody’s disposal. Prof. Cruciani (and his colleagues) is one of the most esteemed researcher worldwide, and not like many others who either for ideology or other have written papers that I, but others too, have enjoyed myself to dissect and practically to thwart. His V-series has given fundamental contributions to deepen the origin of many haplogroups, above all E and R, because he practises the science, and this science (like every other one) is made by proofs, in this case by new fundamental SNPs. After there are the interpretations, and for this it isn’t said that the specialist is advantaged. Who of us knows a dozen of languages (ancient and modern ones), has cultivated Glottology, History, Geography and many other disciplines perhaps he too has something to say.

Caro Gioiello,
Rosaria Scozzari mi ha girato la sua email.
I vari post sui blog di antropologia rappresentano per noi una ricca fonte di informazioni su cui riflettere.
Circa le tue ipotesi riportate in questa mail, non mi sento né di contraddirle, ne di appoggiarle, ma le terrò in considerazione.
Spero che in futuro si arrivi ad una comprensione più chiara del nostro passato attraverso gli studi sulla diversità genetica.
Cordiali saluti
Fulvio Cruciani

Fulvio Cruciani, PhD
Dipartimento di Biologia e Biotecnologie "Charles Darwin"
Sapienza Università di Roma
P.le Aldo Moro 5
00185  Rome, Italy
(…)

(Dear Gioiello,
Rosaria Scozzari forwarded to me your email.
Many posts on anthropology blogs are for us a rich source of information to be minded.
Re. your hypotheses reported in your mail, I don’t feel either to contradict them or to support, but I’ll take them in consideration.
Hope that in the future we’ll be able to reach a clearer understanding of our past by studies on genetic diversity.
Kind Regards,
Fulvio Cruciani)

From Worldfamilies, thread: That E1b1b1a from the Italian refugium, January 20, 2011, 08:30:24 AM


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Jean M on June 07, 2011, 11:03:37 AM
The study of the Fulani I cited a few posts back shows their lactase persistence comes from the European or Eurasian T-13910 allele and not the other, African varieties.
Sorry! I was coming in at the end of this discussion and should have read the whole thread.  That certainly is interesting and could change my ideas. At the moment I visualise R1b involved in the start of dairy farming around the Sea of Marmara and moving from there onto the steppe. I have followed Enattah in proposing the origin of  T-13910 on the steppe. It is rare in the Near East and most of Anatolia. However it could have first occurred among dairy farmers close to the Sea of Marmara and so spread into Europe in a first wave up the Danube into Funnel Beaker, prior to a second wave with IE. http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/secondary.shtml
In that case R1b V88 might have left for North Africa from Anatolia, rather than the Levant. 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Jean M on June 07, 2011, 12:01:41 PM
OK I have now updated my section on LP (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeangenetics.shtml#lactose) to work in the new paper on the Fulani. Thanks for posting it. I think it is all coming together.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli on June 07, 2011, 02:24:16 PM
Once, discussing with Ken Nordtvedt, who thought that Sardinian I-M26 came from Spain and not from Italy, I asked if he would have preferred to swim to Sardinia from Spain or from Italy. He said he preferred his yacht. The same I ask to you. Do you think that it was easier to reach Africa from Italy (or Spain) or from Anatolia? Remember that the centre of diffusion to Africa of R-V88 is Tunisia and not Egypt.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 07, 2011, 07:04:43 PM
I don't know whether they were Neolithic Farmers or horse-riding pastoralists from the steppe, but I still think that somehow R1b-something-or-other was the driving force behind the spread of centum Indo-European languages, to the West, anyway.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: IALEM on June 08, 2011, 10:08:44 AM
EDITED
According to Dr. D. Infante.INTOLERANCIA A LA LACTOSA: EN QUIÉN Y POR
QUÉ .(Anales de Pediatría 2008) 72,4% of the Spanish population is CC-13910. Previous studies on lactase intolerance in Spain reported much lower levels of intolerance. The main study by  Vázquez C. Malabsorción de los hidratos de carbono en el niño: Malabsorción de la lactosa. An Esp Ped 1975;8:166-78. found 14,8% of intolerance in a sample of 715 individuals form severals regions Anyway no other study, including regional ones, found levels superior to 40%. The article by D. Infante is very technical and I don´t quite understand it, but the conclusion seems to be that the relation between lactose intolerance and CC-13910 mutation is not that direct


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: IALEM on June 08, 2011, 11:36:30 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...

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?
Sorry I missed your post.
No, I am talking about the area around the Pyrenees, north and south, more or less the area of the ancient Aquitani. You may be mislead by the Bell beaker extension map in the Wiki page, but in fact there are Bell beaker sites along the whole area of ancient Aquitani, in fact the Spanish side of the Pyrenees received the Bell Beaker culture not from the first wave from Western Iberia, but from a second wave traversing from north to south along the Atlantic coast.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 08, 2011, 03:28:28 PM
No, I am talking about the area around the Pyrenees, north and south, more or less the area of the ancient Aquitani. You may be mislead by the Bell beaker extension map in the Wiki page, but in fact there are Bell beaker sites along the whole area of ancient Aquitani, in fact the Spanish side of the Pyrenees received the Bell Beaker culture not from the first wave from Western Iberia, but from a second wave traversing from north to south along the Atlantic coast.
That's very interesting. Is there some place that describes these Bell Beaker waves?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 08, 2011, 07:46:59 PM
Has anyone mentioned the new paper by Dolgopolsky on the PIE homeland question?

You can get it with a link provided at Dienekes' Anthropology Blog:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/ (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/)

Scroll down quite a ways to find it (May 29, 2011).

Quote
Dolgopolsky on the two homelands of PIE

A classic study of the problem, which makes the two most important linguistic points:

    1. Lexical borrowing between PIE and Kartvelian/Semitic languages places the early PIE homeland in the Near East
    2. The maximum dialectal diversity within IE in the Balkans places the secondary PIE homeland in Southeastern Europe

I haven't had a chance to read the whole paper yet.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on June 08, 2011, 10:10:14 PM
Has anyone mentioned the new paper by Dolgopolsky on the PIE homeland question?

You can get it with a link provided at Dienekes' Anthropology Blog:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/ (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/)

Scroll down quite a ways to find it (May 29, 2011).

Quote
Dolgopolsky on the two homelands of PIE

A classic study of the problem, which makes the two most important linguistic points:

    1. Lexical borrowing between PIE and Kartvelian/Semitic languages places the early PIE homeland in the Near East
    2. The maximum dialectal diversity within IE in the Balkans places the secondary PIE homeland in Southeastern Europe

I haven't had a chance to read the whole paper yet.

This is a very interesting journal article. It disagrees with the PIE homeland being north of the Black Sea in the steppe, and rather argues for an Anatolian homeland due to PIE lexicon similarities with surrounding Semitic, Southern Caucasian and Sumerian dialects.

Dolgopolsky argues that the steppe is rather the homeland of the Indo-Iranian dialects of IE, which splintered off from PIE after migrants moved from Anatolia through the Balkans.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: GoldenHind on June 08, 2011, 10:25:16 PM
I don't know whether they were Neolithic Farmers or horse-riding pastoralists from the steppe, but I still think that somehow R1b-something-or-other was the driving force behind the spread of centum Indo-European languages, to the West, anyway.

On this point at least, we are in full agreement.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: IALEM on June 09, 2011, 04:40:19 AM
No, I am talking about the area around the Pyrenees, north and south, more or less the area of the ancient Aquitani. You may be mislead by the Bell beaker extension map in the Wiki page, but in fact there are Bell beaker sites along the whole area of ancient Aquitani, in fact the Spanish side of the Pyrenees received the Bell Beaker culture not from the first wave from Western Iberia, but from a second wave traversing from north to south along the Atlantic coast.
That's very interesting. Is there some place that describes these Bell Beaker waves?
The classical study of the Reflux theory is SANGMEISTER, E. 1963: “La civilisation du vase campaniforme”.
Actes du Premier Colloque Atlantique (Brest, 1961): Les civilisations atlantiques du
néolithique á l´Age du Fer: 25-56. Rennes
There are many variants to this theory you can check in any monography about Bell beaker.
The main point is that there is a great difference between the early  Maritime Bell beaker and the late Palmela Bell beaker, the first originated in Portugal and radiated from West to East in Iberia, the second coming from France into Iberia


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 11, 2011, 07:56:47 AM
I don't know whether they were Neolithic Farmers or horse-riding pastoralists from the steppe, but I still think that somehow R1b-something-or-other was the driving force behind the spread of centum Indo-European languages, to the West, anyway.

On this point at least, we are in full agreement.

What, are we arguing about everything else? ;-)

When it comes to this PIE thing, I just don't know any of the answers.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: A.D. on June 14, 2011, 05:13:09 PM
Yeah I read that article about the Neolithic.  It slightly contradicts another recent study of early Neolithic dates that suggested a simultaneous entry into south-central England and south-east Scotland.  I understand the guys of it is there was a short pioneer phase for 200 years restricted to lowland England where presumably some adaptation happened before they expanded into the rest of the isles suddenly in 2 or 3 generations.  The time difference of 2-300 years would barely be detectable using variance etc so I am not sure this makes much difference.

Would a sudden influx of a large number over a short time have more impact than over a short time. Wouldn't a sudden influx lead to replacement and one over a longer time tend towards assimilation.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: llew_james on June 16, 2011, 08:35:56 PM


Whittaker includes a lot of vocabulary in the paper, and there are some interesting similarities with IE languages. If Euphratic is indeed IE, that would fall more in line with Neolithic farmers spreading it, hence R1b's connection.

Euphratic could be a sister language to Indo-European!


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: llew_james on June 16, 2011, 09:18:12 PM
I think this is the relevant link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13647544

This bit is interesting:
Collective violence

One interpretation of these events is that once the initial "pioneer" phase of the Neolithic period was over, independent groups of people came over from the continent and set up villages across Britain and social structures began to form.

These social structures led to the construction of the enclosures for people to gather and possibly for chieftains to emerge and amass power.

The new dating suggests that there was more collective violence once the enclosures were built. Several of them, particularly in western Britain, were attacked by large numbers of people with showers of arrows, and enclosures' ramparts were burned down.

This indicates that the enclosures created a hierarchy that was being contested in some way.



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on June 17, 2011, 06:51:13 PM


Whittaker includes a lot of vocabulary in the paper, and there are some interesting similarities with IE languages. If Euphratic is indeed IE, that would fall more in line with Neolithic farmers spreading it, hence R1b's connection.

Euphratic could be a sister language to Indo-European!

Indo-European is the language family. Euphratic is supposedly a member of that family, not another separate family to which Indo-European is somehow related.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Heber on July 05, 2011, 08:33:37 AM
Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the odds of R-M269 being the "lead" carrier in the great LBK (Linear Pottery) and Impressed Wares (Cardial Pottery) expansions are being diminished.
This is going to spur a lot of discussion (and speculation) for the next several months.  Whether a neolithic or copper age entry into Europe, it's very interesting that no R1b would show up in 3000 BC southern France where it is a majority today.

Let's wait. The mtDNA was practically the same of to-day, then no introgression after then,  and Oetzi is knocking at the door.
What do you think Oetzi will tell us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otzi_the_Iceman

He's a citizen of the Copper Age, born about 3300 BC, found up in the mountains. Doesn't sound like a classic farmer.
Quote
This degree of mobility is not characteristic of other Copper Age Europeans. Ruff proposes that this may indicate that Ötzi was a high-altitude shepherd
He'd been eating deer meat, but also possibly bread.

If he comes out as R1b what does that mean? He might have just been an early pioneer for an incoming IE people.  It certainly doesn't prove he was in the Alps during the Neolithic advances or the Mesolithic.  It doesn't disprove that either.  So what will Otzi tell us?  Are you thinking he'll be some kind of R-M269+ L23- guy?  Even if he is, that doesn't mean the R-L23 L11+ guys that swept across Europe descended from him. They could still have come from further east.


They have sequenced Otzi's full genome and found a few interesting facts. The era of full genome ancient DNA is upon us.


"Less than 2 hours before he hiked his last steps in the Tyrolean Alps 5000 years ago, Ötzi the Iceman fueled up on a last meal of ibex meat. That was the conclusion of a talk here last week at the 7th World Congress on Mummy Studies, during which researchers—armed with Ötzi's newly sequenced genome and a detailed dental analysis—also concluded that the Iceman had brown eyes and probably wasn't much of a tooth brusher".

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/the-icemans-last-meal.html?ref=hp


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on July 05, 2011, 08:59:36 AM
Wow!

Now that they have sequenced Ötzi's entire genome, it's time for them to release the results, or at least to tell us what his y haplogroup was.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: OConnor on July 05, 2011, 11:47:38 AM
My guess is it will happen on the anniversary of his finding.


The mummy was found in September 1991 in the Ötztal Alps, near Hauslabjoch on the border between Austria and Italy.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on July 05, 2011, 07:23:29 PM
My guess is it will happen on the anniversary of his finding.


The mummy was found in September 1991 in the Ötztal Alps, near Hauslabjoch on the border between Austria and Italy.

You are probably right. I have some news on this subject, but I'm starting a separate thread on it.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 30, 2011, 04:21:53 PM
I was thinking there, we should probably not let semantics regarding what is Proto IE blind us to the fact that Anatolian may be older and Euphratic older still.  Regardless of whether  they are called pre-proto IE or whatever it still points to the roots of that language family being south of the Black Sea and close to the area of the rise of agriculture. 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli on July 30, 2011, 04:49:20 PM
I have written a lot about this: the Euphratic reconstructed is a centum language, has overcome the Laryngeal phase and is very close to Latin and Italian heritage (see the case of the word “donnola”).
It was a very old prejudice that light came from East.
To day I have had the results of an Italian American from Tuscan ancestry who is R0a2, haplogroup I spoke a lot about on many forums, also against illustrious geneticists who believed to have found the proofs that Etruscans came from East.
Read what FTDNA writes now about this haplogroup, which was believed Middle Eastern par excellence:

“Mitochondrial haplogroup R0a (formerly known as pre-HV1) is a
primarily European haplogroup that was present in Europe beginning
approximately 20,000 years ago. It occurs in very low frequency
throughout Europe, and some descendant lineages of the original
haplogroup R0a appear in the Near East as a result of migration
. It
was probably one of the original mitochondrial haplogroups in Europe,
and likely pre-dates the occurrence of farming in Europe. Future work
will better resolve the distribution and historical characteristics of
this haplogroup”.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 31, 2011, 06:03:30 AM
I was thinking there, we should probably not let semantics regarding what is Proto IE blind us to the fact that Anatolian may be older and Euphratic older still.  Regardless of whether  they are called pre-proto IE or whatever it still points to the roots of that language family being south of the Black Sea and close to the area of the rise of agriculture. 

If true proto-IE is an offshoot subset of an older pre-proto IE then all the IE languages are  descended from one off-shoot of the older root language. IF the pre-proto IE language was indeed located in the Iraq/Anatolia area then where was the secondary point where proto-IE formed and jumped off from.  Also, how and why did the PPIE language reach the PIE secondary jump off point?  IMO, at that stage it would surely have to be a folk migration.  My own guess is that PIE arose in either NW Anatolia or extreme SE Europe among either the first farmers or those very early dairy pastoralists that have been identified there and that from there the language spread east and west.  Probably the spread west was a little earlier, extensive and a folk movement.  The spread east may have come from the same PIE core in SE Europe but been a little later and perhaps with a far lesser genetic impact.  Of course that would mean that R1a was not originally IE. 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Maliclavelli on July 31, 2011, 06:51:34 AM
It isn’t said that Euphratic (if all this story will be believable) expanded to East (from an hypothetical origin also in South Balkans) as a first expansion. It is dated at the 4th millennium BC and certainly Hittite separated long before.
The expansion of the Cardial agriculturalists from Italy to West, I think autochthonous and Indo-European (or Proto-IE) speaking, began about 7500 BC. There are more than 3500 years for an expansion from same places near Italy or the Balkan peninsula of a people centum language speaking to Middle East.
The following history with the cases of Mitanni (a satem language speaking people) and other peoples demonstrates that it can have happened.
The wandering of Tocharians to Central Asia demonstrates this could have happened too.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2011, 07:20:05 AM
I have been re-reading both Mallory and Anthony lately (I sit and read early in the morning poolside at a local park while my daughter is taking her swimming lessons there). Their arguments for the Pontic-Caspian and against Anatolia are pretty powerful.

The standard glottochronology, according to Anthony, shows that IE was beginning to fracture into its various son languages by about 3,000 BC. However, work with the Anatolian branch indicates it intersects with Proto-Anatolian about 3,400 BC. So, anyway, some of the earlier pre or proto sons were forming sometime in the late 4th millennium BC.

The son languages that formed earliest would have reflected the state of IE when they split away from it, and that was apparently the centum state. The western IE languages are all centum languages, so apparently they left the PIE homeland early and migrated west. Anatolian was also one of the early sons. It retained not only the centum form but also some other oddities that cause some linguists, according to Anthony, to place it in a special class of archaic IE.

Personally, I don't see how Indo-European languages could have spread so successfully all the way to the Atlantic without some substantial migration. I understand other mechanisms for language replacement, but they are unconvincing for such a large area and so thorough a change. So, I still think R1b was the primary vector for the introduction of IE to the west. But how, and where is the proof?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2011, 07:31:55 AM
Dienekes has something interesting on the Neolithic Demographic Transition (NDT) this morning: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/ (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/).

Unfortunately, access to the entire article requires an AAAS membership, but here's the abstract (again):

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/560.abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/560.abstract)

Quote
During the economic transition from foraging to farming, the signal of a major demographic shift can be observed in cemetery data of world archaeological sequences. This signal is characterized by an abrupt increase in the proportion of juvenile skeletons and is interpreted as the signature of a major demographic shift in human history, known as the Neolithic Demographic Transition (NDT). This expresses an increase in the input into the age pyramids of the corresponding living populations with an estimated increase in the total fertility rate of two births per woman. The unprecedented demographic masses that the NDT rapidly brought into play make this one of the fundamental structural processes of human history.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 31, 2011, 11:12:13 AM
If the really old forms of the branch really are south of the Black Sea as some suggest (predating proto-IE) then you would have to feel that the area to the north of the Black Sea was the receiver rather than the doner.  One possibility is that the early dairy farmers of NW Anatolia are the origin and their movement into Bulgaria etc spread PIE into Europe or PIE evolved there from Pre-PIE Anatolian settlers.  From there it could have spread with dairying west through middle Neolithic cultures, perhaps the origin of the centum branch.  It may have then spread to the east into the north of the Black Sea.  

This kind of middle Neolithic model falls between the first farmers and Kurgan type models.  The value of it is it means the spread west can be linked to the spread of dairying through middle Neolithic cultures from the extreme SE of Europe to the isles which is attested in archaeology rather than the usual complex house of cards that bringing steppes people to western Europe requires.  The movement east into the area north of the Black Sea could be seen as a separate process.  Perhaps that would explain the big split in IE.  That kind of model actual would close the gap between the early farmers and the Kurgan type models and it is possible that both are correct in some way and that there was one process that early spread IE west with dairying and that there was a second process that involved the steppes.  


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 31, 2011, 11:26:08 AM
Dienekes has something interesting on the Neolithic Demographic Transition (NDT) this morning: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/ (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/).

Unfortunately, access to the entire article requires an AAAS membership, but here's the abstract (again):

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/560.abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/560.abstract)

Quote
During the economic transition from foraging to farming, the signal of a major demographic shift can be observed in cemetery data of world archaeological sequences. This signal is characterized by an abrupt increase in the proportion of juvenile skeletons and is interpreted as the signature of a major demographic shift in human history, known as the Neolithic Demographic Transition (NDT). This expresses an increase in the input into the age pyramids of the corresponding living populations with an estimated increase in the total fertility rate of two births per woman. The unprecedented demographic masses that the NDT rapidly brought into play make this one of the fundamental structural processes of human history.

There is still a strong feeling that the spread of farming is THE demographic event in European prehistory.  That is why it is always tempting to link it to R1b.  Of course it may well be wishing for too much to have a simple correlation like that and perhaps high demographic impact (ultimately) was low visibility.  It cant be ruled out.  An example of this is M222.  It ended up very large after an expansion phase of over 100 years but it is archaeologically invisible.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: A.D. on July 31, 2011, 12:50:19 PM
I've being following this thread and others and Ive got a few questions and observations. I couldn't put together any kind of argument certainly on the DNA side of things, I'm not Knowledgeable enough. But here are a few thoughts Please point out if I'm way off' or just a little, as anything will help-

1-R1b  and R1a both originate in fairly close proximity probably around the Black Sea  Area.

2-Blue  eyes and lactose persistence come from this area at between 6000-10000 years ago.

3- the origins of IE are (by some) thought to have come from there too.

4- R1b and sub clads are not sa numerous in the area they are thought to have originated.

5-Dates suggested  for R1 in Europe range from the younger dryas to the iron-age


Ive mentioned this before but I got nothing back  around 7500 BC a population of !40,000 was displaced over 34 years. from the western side of the Black Sea with the collapse of the Bosphorus sill. There are traces thought to be of there descendants  in the Balkans.

What kind of affect would an influx into say Europe have on the DNA types in Europe.

I think I'm  right in saying this population didn't go any where on mass but rather spread going anywhere they could.

These people lived around a lake and had boats allowing contact

Could these people have carried both R1a and R1b R1a in higher proportions on the Eastern side and R1b on the western side.

The exodus could have lead some to take up a nomadic life style on the Steppe, others set off into the Med.  by boat,others over land into Europe.  

Could  these people or more likely their descendants  have had an impact on the spread of agriculture. For example they could have harvested wild wheat for bread then as population size grew over generations they needed to clear and plant to get a sufficient supply.

could any of this tie into the points above.

there seems to be a lot of coincidences and 140,000 seems to be a lot of people for that time.



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on July 31, 2011, 01:40:18 PM
The period around 7500 BC is too early for Indo-European, so, although I'm sure the flooding on the west side of the Black Sea around that time had a big effect on the people living in that area, I'm not sure its impact on language can be traced.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: A.D. on July 31, 2011, 04:41:06 PM
I was thinking pre-proto- IE ,I  mean  the very fist step towards IE.
I guess the idea i got was from the idea that the neolithic  in Britain started slowly then exploded later. There was a BBC article on this.
So I was wondering if the black sea exodus could have laid the foundations for the much later neolithic expansion for want of a better phrase.
This sounds rather haphazard, and that only seems to make it mo re interesting.
Another question is there a 'companion' mt-DNA  to any of the R1 sub clads (or any other for that matter)?  If we're  talking about migration of tribes,clans, families shouldn't there be some kind of 'pairing'. Or would that only be seen in ancient DNA?   


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: GoldenHind on July 31, 2011, 04:48:17 PM
Personally, I don't see how Indo-European languages could have spread so successfully all the way to the Atlantic without some substantial migration. I understand other mechanisms for language replacement, but they are unconvincing for such a large area and so thorough a change. So, I still think R1b was the primary vector for the introduction of IE to the west. But how, and where is the proof?

How about a few wagon loads of peaceful migrants bringing love, peace and flowers and free 'PIE as a second language' lessons?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: A.D. on July 31, 2011, 04:57:23 PM
How about a few wagon loads of peaceful migrants bringing love, peace and flowers and free 'PIE as a second language' lessons?
 
Wasn't  that  the 'In search of Mushrooms' 2009/10 BC Hawkwind tour? LOL


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: MHammers on July 31, 2011, 05:17:14 PM
I've being following this thread and others and Ive got a few questions and observations. I couldn't put together any kind of argument certainly on the DNA side of things, I'm not Knowledgeable enough. But here are a few thoughts Please point out if I'm way off' or just a little, as anything will help-

1-R1b  and R1a both originate in fairly close proximity probably around the Black Sea  Area.

2-Blue  eyes and lactose persistence come from this area at between 6000-10000 years ago.

3- the origins of IE are (by some) thought to have come from there too.

4- R1b and sub clads are not sa numerous in the area they are thought to have originated.

5-Dates suggested  for R1 in Europe range from the younger dryas to the iron-age


Ive mentioned this before but I got nothing back  around 7500 BC a population of !40,000 was displaced over 34 years. from the western side of the Black Sea with the collapse of the Bosphorus sill. There are traces thought to be of there descendants  in the Balkans.

What kind of affect would an influx into say Europe have on the DNA types in Europe.

I think I'm  right in saying this population didn't go any where on mass but rather spread going anywhere they could.

These people lived around a lake and had boats allowing contact

Could these people have carried both R1a and R1b R1a in higher proportions on the Eastern side and R1b on the western side.

The exodus could have lead some to take up a nomadic life style on the Steppe, others set off into the Med.  by boat,others over land into Europe.  

Could  these people or more likely their descendants  have had an impact on the spread of agriculture. For example they could have harvested wild wheat for bread then as population size grew over generations they needed to clear and plant to get a sufficient supply.

could any of this tie into the points above.

there seems to be a lot of coincidences and 140,000 seems to be a lot of people for that time.


Regarding #1, ultimately R1b and R1a have origins south of the steppe at some point.  I don't think they travelled together for much of their recent history as indicated by today's distinct east-west distribution.  I think they started to spiit up sometime in the mesolithic or early neolithic around Iran.  R1b chose SW Asia and Armenia, while R1a was oriented more towards the east Caspian and eventually the Urals.  This is based on the oldest ages and subclades for R1a found in this general region along with India/Pakistan, though I can't remember the name of that study.

One or both of them may have been important to the development of PIE.  In Anthony's model, PIE didn't come about until after contact with southern farmers.  With that said, all of the farmers could not haven been one monolithic Afro-asiatic speaking block.  There may be something to Euphratic as some kind of proto-language spoken predominantly by R1a/R1b populations south of the Caspian sea.  However, I haven't seen anything to connect it to anything as far back as the neolithic. The later Sumerians, just as well could have "borrowed" it from possible PIE speaking Maikop culture people in the same time period.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 02, 2011, 01:44:11 PM
The study of IE language origins was a real obsession with me many moons ago and I have been interested for the last 25 years.  However, its still under debate.  I dont think anyone can genuinely claim a knockout punch on this even if one side or the other does tend to try to give that impression.  I was for a long time a Kurgan theory (I use that term for brevity) supporter.  However, I just came to intuitively feel that there is something wrong with the model.  Its just so very very complex and involves an astonishing amount of shaky links and leaps of faith.  Its just pure intuition but I just came to feel that it doesnt ring true.  It fails the Occam's Razor test with bells on.  I am not going to give a justification or set out an argument for this as noone is capable of clinching this at present.  However, I just deep down have a horrible feeling that the idea of a north of the Black Sea origin of IE and its sweeping across from the east via steppe horsemen or Corded Ware etc is some kind of hangover from the assumptions and ideas of several generations ago.  

It just seems to me that invasions of steppe horsemen cultures always have made an impact about as far west as Hungary and only the most modest impact into western (or even central) Europe.  I find it very hard to believe in (and see no evidence for) a movement that penetrated west of eastern Europe which would have both imprinted its yDNA to the extent it did and was strong enough to have caused language change (some argue that language change normally only occurs with population replacement).  

It just feels like we have been given an inherited preference for the Kurgan type models and their other north of the Black Sea variants and we are straining every fibre to make this bring IE to the west.  Intuitively it just does not feel right.  It feels the answer has been decided in advance and justification of it is being retrospectively sought.  When clearcut evidence was not found complex non-intuitive model are wheeled out (no pun intended).  I am not an expert on eastern European copper age etc but I do know that its very hard to see evidence for any sort of movement into the west from a steppes source of the sort which would lead to a massive yDNA and linguistic change.

Euphratic is a fascinating idea. Sumerian is after all really a local Bronze Age (the Bronze Age was very early there) language.  From memory I think it is only attested from 3000 or 3500BC.  That is a very very long time after the appearance of farming.  Neolithic Mesopotamia and Bronze Age Sumer are not the same thing.  I would be wary of the idea of continuity based on archaeology because many archaeologists see essential continuity across vast periods.  There are for example a large majority who see mainly continuity of population in the British Isles from 4000BC to Roman times and beyond. They may or may not be right.  However, if the concept of continuity is being challenged in western Europe then it can be challenged in Mesopotamia too.

Mesopotamia has a long attested history of martial elements on the periphery invading the centre, changing the language but essentially taking over the machinery of the more sophisticated society they conquered.  If Sumerian itself had done this at some point pre-3000/3500BC then the alleged situation of a non-IE language with an IE substrate would be the result.  I think Euphratic is an incredibly exciting possibility.  Regardless of semantics, if the oldest IE-related language is placed in the sphere of contact and the next most archaic branch lay in Anatolia and the Centum languages lie western Europe then why are we looking north of the Black Sea where the known IE languages are of a derived form?  Could it not be that IE moved into Europe from somewhere around Mesopotamia in the Neolithic via Anatolia and had an early European base around Bulgaria and the Lower Danube and from there spread west in the 6th and 5th millenium and slightly later to the east with perhaps a limited reflux of the IE-ised steppes people into the eastern fringes of Europe.  That would make a lot more sense to me.  Might even explain the split in both the languages and the split in R.  Would certainly fit the phylogenic geography of R1b.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 02, 2011, 04:28:33 PM
I had a bit of a look into Mesopotamian cultures working back from the classic Sumerian ones.  I am a total novice in that area but it did seem to me that the Ubaid and Uruk early phases of Sumerian culture seem to have been southern Mesopotamian cultures based on irrigation polities extending power into a rather different northern Mesopotamia.  Could the origins of non-IE Sumerian relate to expansion of a group who originally were located on the southern extremity and perhaps could have even been of a different language group. 

I am not too much into the use of physical characteristics to reconstruct prehistory but it is interesting that the Sumerians self-description is thought to mean 'the black haired people'.  That would seem odd if that was not somehow being used in contrast with those who were not.  Could the Euphratic archaic IE substrate in Sumerian be due to an iE population substrate in northern Mesopotamia that was overlaid by southern Mesopotamians with a more complex society based on the need for irrigation and large scale organisation in the south.  Could the IE homeland have lain in and around northern Mesopotamia or at least included it?  If that was the case then what archaeological cultures were included in that archaic IE (pre-PIE) world.  I have no idea as I am a novice in that area but its worth a bit of reading into. 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: OConnor on August 02, 2011, 05:37:26 PM
I am away off in left field compared with others with my suspicions of migration leading up to L21. I have no science to back up my suspicions.

I suspect Scandinavia is a key route from the east..People from north of the Black Sea.
Perhaps many passed through Finland to Norway, and then on to Scotland, the Orkneys, Greenland, England...and France. The later..France having recieve migration from Norwegian males with later snp's from the isles, as well as migrant L21 variations coming directly from Norway or proximities.
 



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: MHammers on August 02, 2011, 08:45:55 PM
The study of IE language origins was a real obsession with me many moons ago and I have been interested for the last 25 years.  However, its still under debate.  Idont think anyone can genuinely claim a knockout punch on this even if one side or the other does tend to try to give that impression.  I was for a long time a Kurgan theory (I use that term for brevity) supporter.  However, I just came to intuitively feel that there is something wrong with the model.  Its just so very very complex and involves an astonishing amount of shaky links and leaps of faith.  Its just pure intuition but I just came to feel that it doesnt ring true.  It fails the Occam's Razor test with bells on.  I am not going to give a justification or set out an argument for this as noone is capable of clinching this at present.  However, I just deep down have a horrible feeling that the idea of a north of the Black Sea origin of IE and its sweeping across from the east via steppe horsemen or Corded Ware etc is some kind of hangover from the assumptions and ideas of several generations ago.  

It just seems to me that invasions of steppe horsemen cultures always have made an impact about as far west as Hungary and only the most modest impact into western (or even central) Europe.  I find it very hard to believe in (and see no evidence for) a movement that penetrated west of eastern Europe which would have both imprinted its yDNA to the extent it did and was strong enough to have caused language change (some argue that language change normally only occurs with population replacement).  

It just feels like we have been given an inherited preference for the Kurgan type models and their other north of the Black Sea variants and we are straining every fibre to make this bring IE to the west.  Intuitively it just does not feel right.  It feels the answer has been decided in advance and justification of it is being retrospectively sought.  When clearcut evidence was not found complex non-intuitive model are wheeled out (no pun intended).  I am not an expert on eastern European copper age etc but I do know that its very hard to see evidence for any sort of movement into the west from a steppes source of the sort which would lead to a massive yDNA and linguistic change.

Euphratic is a fascinating idea. Sumerian is after all really a local Bronze Age (the Bronze Age was very early there) language.  From memory I think it is only attested from 3000 or 3500BC.  That is a very very long time after the appearance of farming.  Neolithic Mesopotamia and Bronze Age Sumer are not the same thing.  I would be wary of the idea of continuity based on archaeology because many archaeologists see essential continuity across vast periods.  There are for example a large majority who see mainly continuity of population in the British Isles from 4000BC to Roman times and beyond. They may or may not be right.  However, if the concept of continuity is being challenged in western Europe then it can be challenged in Mesopotamia too.

Mesopotamia has a long attested history of martial elements on the periphery invading the centre, changing the language but essentially taking over the machinery of the more sophisticated society they conquered.  If Sumerian itself had done this at some point pre-3000/3500BC then the alleged situation of a non-IE language with an IE substrate would be the result.  I think Euphratic is an incredibly exciting possibility.  Regardless of semantics, if the oldest IE-related language is placed in the sphere of contact and the next most archaic branch lay in Anatolia and the Centum languages lie western Europe then why are we looking north of the Black Sea where the known IE languages are of a derived form?  Could it not be that IE moved into Europe from somewhere around Mesopotamia in the Neolithic via Anatolia and had an early European base around Bulgaria and the Lower Danube and from there spread west in the 6th and 5th millenium and slightly later to the east with perhaps a limited reflux of the IE-ised steppes people into the eastern fringes of Europe.  That would make a lot more sense to me.  Might even explain the split in both the languages and the split in R.  Would certainly fit the phylogenic geography of R1b.

I agree partly with the steppe people not making it further west than Hungary.  There is support for this in physical anthropology studies.  The large dolichocephalic cro-magnon-like phenotype does seem to decrease significantly in frequency in the Bronze age in Central Europe.  
  
In the case of R1b, I think they were from pre-existing populations (a later wave of farmers?), that lived in an interaction sphere with the steppe and IE.  The final push of Yamnaya pastoralists into Hungary around 3000 may have started the big wave of R1b all the way to Iberia without R1b actually being from the steppe.  R1b just happened to speak IE and lived a similiar lifestyle from their long-term contact with pastoralists.  If R1b aDNA is found in western Europe (Briatain, France, Iberia) before 3000 BC, we may have to discard this model.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on August 02, 2011, 09:12:21 PM
R1b and R1a are both R1, so their points of origin cannot have been that widely separated.

I am not sure of the answer, but there are some real difficulties with the Neolithic Farmers theory, mostly having to do with the very early date for the entry of the first farmers from Anatolia or the Aegean into Greece, the low diversity of the Anatolian IE languages (they should be more diverse if they had begun in Anatolia, despite their obvious archaic nature), and a couple of other points that escape me at the moment.

A Neolithic Farmers vector for IE is neat because the Neolithic Revolution was so obviously impactful. A kurgan source just doesn't scream "THIS IS A BIG DEAL!" the way the spread of the Neolithic Revolution does.

Alan makes a good point about horse-folk from the steppe getting only to the Hungarian Plain and seeming to fizzle out. That has happened several times throughout the historical period. For one thing, when you hit a well-forested area, horseback transport, while still useful, is a bit more problematic, as is finding grassland for fodder.

On the other hand, Anthony and Mallory have some powerful arguments for their point of view.

I have said this before, but my main dog in this race is R1b. Since I am R1b (to make a long story short), that is my interest. Where did it come from? How did it get to where my ancestors were (in the British Isles somewhere) before they came to America?

I don't see how Indo-European languages could have spread all the way to the Atlantic and have been as successful as they obviously were without a substantial influx of speakers of Indo-European.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 03, 2011, 12:05:03 AM
....I don't see how Indo-European languages could have spread all the way to the Atlantic and have been as successful as they obviously were without a substantial influx of speakers of Indo-European.
I agree. I think we are hard pressed by a couple of concerns. One, the Neolithic was such a big deal that it seems like there must be a connection with R1b and its high frequency. A second concern is the trails leading from the mostly like PIE homeland seem to be fade out before hitting Western Europe.
However, at least as far as Y DNA goes, as Alan mentioned there are some very large and very young subclades like M222. I think L226 is another although not of the same magnitude. How did these groups become prolific in these more recent times? I think it is possible that the Y DNA expansion of R1b types just may be as recent as the Celtic expansions we commonly know of. We may not even need to go back to the Bell Beakers on the Atlantic.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 03, 2011, 09:25:38 AM
I must say though I found the Eurphratic papers very convincing.  Whatever it is defined as, it is interesting that the most archaic IE-related languages could follow the path Mesopotamia-Asia Minor-then the other centum languages.  The dialects in the area north of the Black Sea are less archaic.  An alien from space would look at that and conclude that the language spread south of the Black sea then into Europe in a largely westward trajectory and that the movement north of the Black Sea was secondary (perhaps later causing a reflux movement from the steppes back into eastern Europe). 

I am not personally a believer that dating through vocab etc is safe.  There are critics of the method and some basic problems spring to mind.  That method ignores the fact that once something is invented it could pass like lightning though the contact networks that are manifested by 'cultures' like TRB, Globular Amphorae, Corded Ware, beaker etc or combinations of more than one network.  Could we really distinguise between a word spread that way (at a times when the individual dialects might not have formed) and a word spread by the original migration of IE speakers? Usually loan words are identified by looking to see f they follow the rules of the dialect they are found in or not.  However, what if words for new stuff travelled across the IE world in the period before distinct dialects had formed?  Lets just say for example, if IE was spread by early milk pastoralists c. 5000BC into Europe, could we distinguise between a word they brought with them then and a word for some innovation they got through contact networks in 4000 or 3000BC? There were enough contact networks in the mid to late Neolithic to take ideas and words from the Atlantic to India relay style. 

My gut feeling is the Kurgan model is only the explanation for the IE-isation of part of the IE world and it was a secondary process relevant only to eastern Europe and parts of Asia.  I cant see it having much to do with most of the Centum world or with R1b.  If I had to bet about how this will pan out I would say there are two phases to IE-isation.  I would say IE was spoken primarily by R1b peoples located south of the Black Sea.  I would then think this spread with one of the early or more likely middle Neolithic waves of farmers that passed through SE Europe in a NW direction.  I would see the Indo-Europeanisation of the steppes as coming from the Lower Danube/Bulgaria etc area.  I see that as probably a later process than the one that spread IE west with R1b.  I would tend therefore to see R1a peoples as originally non-IE and receiving IE from R1b pastoralists.  I would then think this situation was further confused by a reflux of these IE-ised R1a peoples back into the east of Europe.  I basically see the Kurgans as a side show that only effected SE/east-central Europe although they may well have been the main factor in spreading it further east into Asia. 

Basically the Kurgan theory has always required very complex theorising to see it having an impact in western Europe and it feels almost impossible to see anything stemming from it that could possibly be expected to produce the genetic/linguistic stamp that we see in R1b and the centrum languages.  Certainly if it happened, it was a subtle low visibility process for such a resounding outcome.  It just does not feel right.  It just feels like being shoehorned into a preconceived model that just doesnt work for the west.  I dont doubt that much of the work looking into the spread from the steppes into the Lower Danube and also into central Asia, India etc is valid but I honestly feel in my bones that that is a separate story from the IE-isation of most of Europe.   I do think there is a strong case for the link of R1b and centum and so the geographical phylogeny of R1b could potentially be a proxy for the geography of the centum story.  That would suggest an origin somewhere around the area of the origin of farming and a spread through Asia Minor into SE Europe at some time after, and a spread from there mostly (perhaps not exclusively) west via a central European route.  To me, the fit is unexpectedly good between R1b phylogeny, IE language trees and at least some of the waves of farming influence coming from the middle east area, especially the spread of dairying from NW Asia Minor as an early although secondary phase.  It seems almost beyond coincidence to me.  Lets put it this way, if R1b and centum are not linked then the theory that genes and languages tend to spread together is dead.   


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: GoldenHind on August 03, 2011, 03:55:02 PM

It appears that the proto IE people had the use of wheeled vehicles, horses and metallurgy, none of which were introduced to Europe by the Neolithic farmers. When were they introduced to Europe, and by whom? Is this merely due to cultural diffusion?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 04, 2011, 01:22:44 PM

It appears that the proto IE people had the use of wheeled vehicles, horses and metallurgy, none of which were introduced to Europe by the Neolithic farmers. When were they introduced to Europe, and by whom? Is this merely due to cultural diffusion?

As I pointed out above, there are many who are not convinced that we can tell the difference between a share word from the PIE pre-dispersal era and a word that spread among already (at least partly) dispersed people still essentially speaking PIE somewhat later.  I am not convinced that the latest date before dispersal can be safely based on these words.  

Another thing is the arguments against IE spreading before the copper age tend to be focussed on the first farmers theory.  However, the spread of pastoralism from NW Anatolia to the Bulgaria area and on through western Europe through middle Neolithic cultures is rather different.  The spread from an early entry point into Europe around Bulgaria to the Atlantic may have largely been a process across the period 5000-4000BC. I am not sure the arguements marshalled against the early farming spread model would be so effective against the middle Neolithic pastoralists model which chronologically falls in between the early farmers and Kurgan models.

I like the middle Neolithic model because it would throw the focus on the Bulgaria area and would allow for a movement west from there across Europe and a separate movement east, possibly a little later.  In other words IE could have spread west from the Bulgaria area to the Atlantic c. 5000-4500BC with pastoralists who contributed to the formation of middle Neolithic cultures such as Funnel Beaker and several others.  The process would have SE European immediate roots but not steppe ones.  Perhaps that is the origin of both R1b and the Centum languages.  I think it fits better than either the early farmers or Kurgan models.  In such a model the steppes can be seen as another area where pastoralism came from the Bulgaria sort of direction although perhaps involving a less overwhelming migration and more influence on the R1a natives of the steppes.  Such a model moves the shift of focus to the Lower Danube/Bulgaria etc and makes both western Europe and the steppes recipients rather than doners of IE. 

I like that kind of model because it tallies with the spread of pastoralism, the phylogeny of R1b and perhaps with the phylogeny of the IE language.  In terms of deeper time, perhaps full PIE formed around Bulgaria c. 5000BC ish as an offshoot of the pre-PIE of Anatolian pastoralists which in turn was possibly a manifestation of an earlier spread from an even more archaic pre-pre-PIE Euphratic that existed in northern Mesopotamia.   To me that feels like it does tie in archaeology, the phylogenic geography  of R1b and the IE language tree.  It also seems within the confidence intervals of variance calculations.  That all seems a heck of a coincidence.  It could explain the great centum-satem split in IE.  

It would be incredibly exciting if the ancestral trail of R1b really is even roughly along the lines of Northern Mesopotamia c. 8000-6000BC-NW Anatolia c. 6000BC Bulgaria c. 5000BC-western Europe c. 4500BC.  


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 04, 2011, 06:51:44 PM
edited my last post somewhat as it was a bit confusing.  However, I think the basic idea is of the roots of IE being in Mesopotamia then spreading through Anatolia then from NW Anatolia crossing the Bosphorus to an area around Bulgaria before biforking to head both west into Europe and east towards the north side of the Black Sea. 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: A.D. on August 04, 2011, 10:05:10 PM
Has anyone checked out this site  http://www.proto-english.org/o3.html it seems a bit 'out there' but there's some interesting quotes about Celts speaking German and visa-versa.

 I noticed  Alan's dates  for Euphratic 8000- 6000 BC this is in the time span of the Black Sea flood. Could pre-pre-PIE have  been known  in Sumeria then boosted by refugees going to somewhere they Knew. rms2 talks about big events. I can't get passed 140,000 people displaced (not annihilated) and not having an impact. This event was slow enough to be planed. People would have had time scout far afield to look for land.

Another theory I came across was presented by Neal Oliver stating that Carnac French Megalith) was made by Mesolithic hunter gatherers (or there descendants) in response to in coming Neolithic farmers.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on August 05, 2011, 08:18:43 AM
Just my opinion, but I think that "Proto-English" site is whacky.

Sure, the Black Sea flood had an impact on many people - the ones living in the areas that were flooded. But that was so long ago its linguistic impact - if it had any - cannot be traced today.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 05, 2011, 12:09:04 PM
The Black Sea flood has been downgraded recently in scale (from an 80m rise to just a 30m one) and backdated to c. 7500BC.  All you can really say is it would have affected and perhaps displaced somewhat population groups focussed on the Black Sea shores.  Whether that affected R1b and R1a populations is hard to guess.  It kind of depends where they were located at the time.  It seems extremely likely that R1b was south of the Black Sea but may or may not have been close to its shores.  I have no idea where R1a would have been at the time. Does Anatole not believe R1a is oldest in the Balkans?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: GoldenHind on August 05, 2011, 04:46:57 PM

It appears that the proto IE people had the use of wheeled vehicles, horses and metallurgy, none of which were introduced to Europe by the Neolithic farmers. When were they introduced to Europe, and by whom? Is this merely due to cultural diffusion?

As I pointed out above, there are many who are not convinced that we can tell the difference between a share word from the PIE pre-dispersal era and a word that spread among already (at least partly) dispersed people still essentially speaking PIE somewhat later.  I am not convinced that the latest date before dispersal can be safely based on these words.  

Another thing is the arguments against IE spreading before the copper age tend to be focussed on the first farmers theory.  However, the spread of pastoralism from NW Anatolia to the Bulgaria area and on through western Europe through middle Neolithic cultures is rather different.  The spread from an early entry point into Europe around Bulgaria to the Atlantic may have largely been a process across the period 5000-4000BC. I am not sure the arguements marshalled against the early farming spread model would be so effective against the middle Neolithic pastoralists model which chronologically falls in between the early farmers and Kurgan models.

I like the middle Neolithic model because it would throw the focus on the Bulgaria area and would allow for a movement west from there across Europe and a separate movement east, possibly a little later.  In other words IE could have spread west from the Bulgaria area to the Atlantic c. 5000-4500BC with pastoralists who contributed to the formation of middle Neolithic cultures such as Funnel Beaker and several others.  The process would have SE European immediate roots but not steppe ones.  Perhaps that is the origin of both R1b and the Centum languages.  I think it fits better than either the early farmers or Kurgan models.  In such a model the steppes can be seen as another area where pastoralism came from the Bulgaria sort of direction although perhaps involving a less overwhelming migration and more influence on the R1a natives of the steppes.  Such a model moves the shift of focus to the Lower Danube/Bulgaria etc and makes both western Europe and the steppes recipients rather than doners of IE. 

I like that kind of model because it tallies with the spread of pastoralism, the phylogeny of R1b and perhaps with the phylogeny of the IE language.  In terms of deeper time, perhaps full PIE formed around Bulgaria c. 5000BC ish as an offshoot of the pre-PIE of Anatolian pastoralists which in turn was possibly a manifestation of an earlier spread from an even more archaic pre-pre-PIE Euphratic that existed in northern Mesopotamia.   To me that feels like it does tie in archaeology, the phylogenic geography  of R1b and the IE language tree.  It also seems within the confidence intervals of variance calculations.  That all seems a heck of a coincidence.  It could explain the great centum-satem split in IE.  

It would be incredibly exciting if the ancestral trail of R1b really is even roughly along the lines of Northern Mesopotamia c. 8000-6000BC-NW Anatolia c. 6000BC Bulgaria c. 5000BC-western Europe c. 4500BC.  


Putting the language issue aside for the moment, I am curious when current archaeological thought places the introduction of horses, wheeled vehicles and metallurgy into Europe. Obviously horses and wheeled vehicles would be connected. Is metallurgy thought to have come in at the same time and from the same direction? Are these thought to have been introduced by a migration of people, or are they thought to have been spread solely by cultural diffusion?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: authun on August 07, 2011, 08:24:45 AM
Is metallurgy thought to have come in at the same time and from the same direction? Are these thought to have been introduced by a migration of people, or are they thought to have been spread solely by cultural diffusion?

There is no consensus on this yet but there are some investigations which are current.

There are two aspects to the subject, 1. the knowledge of metal and metalworking and 2. the ability to identify, mine and process ores.

With regard to the process of ore mining, Dienekes reported on a current study on the Abergele area in North Wales. You may recall that this area has an incidence of E3b (correct me if I have incorrectly remembered this) in this copper mining area which is of the order of 30 times higher than other areas in the UK, or indeed western Europe.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/07/eastern-mediterranean-marker-in.html

Irrespective of the actual origin of these peoples, once ore bearing seams have been identified, it seems logical to me that someone wants to control it and that he wants specialist miners to extract it. One cannot easily persuade farmers to stop producing food and take up mining. On the other hand, those miners need feeding so they will have to trade something with the local farmers and locally produced farming tools seems an obvious item.

Another subject under investigation are the trade routes for processed metals. The Nordic Bronze Age for example was thought to be serviced by copper through a trade route with the tin producing Lusatian Culture and the copper coming ultimately from the Alpine region around Bischofshofen. However, analysis of the Fröslunda shields in Sweden, the largest find of this Herzsprung type, about 18 in total, shows that the copper is from a sulphide ore. Sweden is one of Europe's richest areas of sulphide minerals and the copper in Scandinavian bronzes from about 1600 BC onwards differs in character from that of earlier bronze and copper items that are based on the conventional continental copper ores. Whilst tools have been found in Sweden which are similar to mining tools found on the continent, no mines have been found in Sweden. There is now a programme to get the copper from more Nordic Bronze Age finds analysed and look into the possibility that Nordic bronze was a local phenomena.

You can see the tin producing areas on fig. 3 in Sources of Tin and the Beginnings of Bronze Metallurgy:

http://www.aditnow.co.uk/documents/personal-album-272/Sources-of-Tin-and-the-Beginnings-of-Bronze-Metallurgy.pdf

Interest started when it was discovered that the Nebra Sky Disc contained copper and gold from the British Isles and tin, probably, from the Erzgebirge. Previously it had been assumed that the copper was from Bischofshofen. The current nordic bronze project is by the University of Gothenburg, 'Extraction of copper in Sweden during the Bronze Age? Possibility, myth or reality?'. The abstract is given below:

"Since the work of Oscar Montelius on the Nordic Bronze Age, an established and
unques-tioned dogma has been that throughout the Bronze Age all copper in
Scandinavia was im-ported from central Europe. However, a new and original
Bronze Age culture, displaying a high level of technical and artistic mastery,
emerged in Scandinavia from about 1600 BC on-wards. This sudden rise and
continuation of the Nordic Bronze Age is an enigma that still lacks satisfactory
economic and social explanatory models. The traditional theories about
Scandinavian Bronze Age have never been tested by means of scientific methods."


http://www.historiskastudier.gu.se/english/research/extraction_of_copper_in_sweden_during_the_bronze_age+/

I have just returned from a trip Sweden and Denmark and the number of items, lurs, shields, swords etc is remarkable. It is hard to believe that the metals were imported. The quantity is simply too great. What would they have traded in return? Amber doesn't seem a credible commodity. How the knowledge of metallurgy entered Scandinavia is another mystery but the number of rock carvings with boats and chariots strongly suggests movements of peoples. These peoples knew how to extract copper from sulphide ores whereas most continental sources at that time were from arsenic ores.

But we will have to wait for the results of the studies.

cheers
authun







Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Heber on August 07, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
The cover story of the June 2011 National Geographic magazine features the extraordinary archaeological site of Göbekli Tepe in southern Turkey. Built some 11,600 years ago, it is revolutionizing theories on the development of agriculture, religion, and civilization.

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/archaeology/photos/gobekli-tepe/

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/musi-photography

Who were the people who build this monument. Could they have been R1b-M269 or their ancestors. The Myres study places R1b-M269 in Anotolia at that period. I have plotted the Myres data by Age and Frequency and speculated on the possible migration paths of M269 to his decendants M222.

http://www.box.net/shared/3vxrpcxib9
http://www.box.net/shared/hxp8ie25yv
http://www.box.net/shared/f74c09ti18
http://www.box.net/shared/5q6v31vqcx

Gobekli Tepe would appear to have marked the transition from hunter gatherer to farming. It is located on the northern edge of the Fertile Crescent.
One of the oldest Neolithic Cities was nearby Catal Huyuk.
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/history.html
Some of the first evidence for plant domestication comes from Nevalı Çori, a settlement in the mountains scarcely 20 miles away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neval%C4%B1_%C3%87ori

"At first the Neolithic Revolution was viewed as a single event—a sudden flash of genius—that occurred in a single location, Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in what is now southern Iraq, then spread to India, Europe, and beyond. Most archaeologists believed this sudden blossoming of civilization was driven largely by environmental changes: a gradual warming as the Ice Age ended that allowed some people to begin cultivating plants and herding animals in abundance. The new research suggests that the "revolution" was actually carried out by many hands across a huge area and over thousands of years. And it may have been driven not by the environment but by something else entirely".

"Schmidt speculates that foragers living within a hundred-mile radius of Göbekli Tepe created the temple as a holy place to gather and meet, perhaps bringing gifts and tributes to its priests and crafts people. Some kind of social organization would have been necessary not only to build it but also to deal with the crowds it attracted".

"Over time, Schmidt believes, the need to acquire sufficient food for those who worked and gathered for ceremonies at Göbekli Tepe may have led to the intensive cultivation of wild cereals and the creation of some of the first domestic strains. Indeed, scientists now believe that one center of agriculture arose in southern Turkey—well within trekking distance of Göbekli Tepe—at exactly the time the temple was at its height. Today the closest known wild ancestors of modern einkorn wheat are found on the slopes of Karaca Dağ, a mountain just 60 miles northeast of Göbekli Tepe. In other words, the turn to agriculture celebrated by V. Gordon Childe may have been the result of a need that runs deep in the human psyche, a hunger that still moves people today to travel the globe in search of awe-inspiring sights".

"Some of the first evidence for plant domestication comes from Nevalı Çori (pronounced nuh-vah-LUH CHO-ree), a settlement in the mountains scarcely 20 miles away. Like Göbekli Tepe, Nevalı Çori came into existence right after the mini ice age, a time archaeologists describe with the unlovely term Pre-pottery Neolithic (PPN)".


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on August 07, 2011, 01:31:29 PM

. . .

With regard to the process of ore mining, Dienekes reported on a current study on the Abergele area in North Wales. You may recall that this area has an incidence of E3b (correct me if I have incorrectly remembered this) in this copper mining area which is of the order of 30 times higher than other areas in the UK, or indeed western Europe.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/07/eastern-mediterranean-marker-in.html

. . .

cheers
authun

I remember reading the report that contained that information on the E1b1b (old E3b) in Abergele. The sample size was small, as I recall. The Wikipedia article on Abergele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abergele) says it was 18. I don't recall, but that sounds right.

The elevated level of E1b1b (E-V13, really) there has been attributed to a Roman settlement and trading post near Abergele. I know those are weasel words, but I don't have a source. I just recall reading it somewhere. It wasn't the Wikipedia article. It might have been Steve Bird's article (cited by the Wikipedia article) in the Journal of Genetic Genealogy. Sorry.

I am not up on the latest E1b1b stuff, but I believe E-V13 is mainly a Balkan subclade.



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: authun on August 07, 2011, 02:04:15 PM
I am not up on the latest E1b1b stuff, but I believe E-V13 is mainly a Balkan subclade.

Yes, that's what I thought too. It's why I wrote 'Irrespective of the actual origin of these peoples'.

The Dienekes blog cites a BBC web page which uses the term eastern mediterranean, though the BBC web page refers to Grierson's study which states: "We have reason to suspect this because a previous investigation in North Wales reported a much higher than average presence of a DNA marker that is commonly found in people from the Balkans and Spain."

http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/copper-mines/index.html

You are correct that the original study, Weale et al sampled only 18 people in 2002 but the BBC article claims that since Grierson's study started in 2009, 500 people have been analysed with the 30% result.

best
authun


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on August 07, 2011, 03:30:08 PM
I am not up on the latest E1b1b stuff, but I believe E-V13 is mainly a Balkan subclade.

Yes, that's what I thought too. It's why I wrote 'Irrespective of the actual origin of these peoples'.

The Dienekes blog cites a BBC web page which uses the term eastern mediterranean, though the BBC web page refers to Grierson's study which states: "We have reason to suspect this because a previous investigation in North Wales reported a much higher than average presence of a DNA marker that is commonly found in people from the Balkans and Spain."

http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/copper-mines/index.html

You are correct that the original study, Weale et al sampled only 18 people in 2002 but the BBC article claims that since Grierson's study started in 2009, 500 people have been analysed with the 30% result.

best
authun

Now that's a substantial sample. Must be something to it: a little SE European colony in Wales.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: GoldenHind on August 07, 2011, 07:11:09 PM
Is metallurgy thought to have come in at the same time and from the same direction? Are these thought to have been introduced by a migration of people, or are they thought to have been spread solely by cultural diffusion?

There is no consensus on this yet but there are some investigations which are current.

There are two aspects to the subject, 1. the knowledge of metal and metalworking and 2. the ability to identify, mine and process ores.

With regard to the process of ore mining, Dienekes reported on a current study on the Abergele area in North Wales. You may recall that this area has an incidence of E3b (correct me if I have incorrectly remembered this) in this copper mining area which is of the order of 30 times higher than other areas in the UK, or indeed western Europe.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/07/eastern-mediterranean-marker-in.html

Irrespective of the actual origin of these peoples, once ore bearing seams have been identified, it seems logical to me that someone wants to control it and that he wants specialist miners to extract it. One cannot easily persuade farmers to stop producing food and take up mining. On the other hand, those miners need feeding so they will have to trade something with the local farmers and locally produced farming tools seems an obvious item.

Another subject under investigation are the trade routes for processed metals. The Nordic Bronze Age for example was thought to be serviced by copper through a trade route with the tin producing Lusatian Culture and the copper coming ultimately from the Alpine region around Bischofshofen. However, analysis of the Fröslunda shields in Sweden, the largest find of this Herzsprung type, about 18 in total, shows that the copper is from a sulphide ore. Sweden is one of Europe's richest areas of sulphide minerals and the copper in Scandinavian bronzes from about 1600 BC onwards differs in character from that of earlier bronze and copper items that are based on the conventional continental copper ores. Whilst tools have been found in Sweden which are similar to mining tools found on the continent, no mines have been found in Sweden. There is now a programme to get the copper from more Nordic Bronze Age finds analysed and look into the possibility that Nordic bronze was a local phenomena.

You can see the tin producing areas on fig. 3 in Sources of Tin and the Beginnings of Bronze Metallurgy:

http://www.aditnow.co.uk/documents/personal-album-272/Sources-of-Tin-and-the-Beginnings-of-Bronze-Metallurgy.pdf

Interest started when it was discovered that the Nebra Sky Disc contained copper and gold from the British Isles and tin, probably, from the Erzgebirge. Previously it had been assumed that the copper was from Bischofshofen. The current nordic bronze project is by the University of Gothenburg, 'Extraction of copper in Sweden during the Bronze Age? Possibility, myth or reality?'. The abstract is given below:

"Since the work of Oscar Montelius on the Nordic Bronze Age, an established and
unques-tioned dogma has been that throughout the Bronze Age all copper in
Scandinavia was im-ported from central Europe. However, a new and original
Bronze Age culture, displaying a high level of technical and artistic mastery,
emerged in Scandinavia from about 1600 BC on-wards. This sudden rise and
continuation of the Nordic Bronze Age is an enigma that still lacks satisfactory
economic and social explanatory models. The traditional theories about
Scandinavian Bronze Age have never been tested by means of scientific methods."


http://www.historiskastudier.gu.se/english/research/extraction_of_copper_in_sweden_during_the_bronze_age+/

I have just returned from a trip Sweden and Denmark and the number of items, lurs, shields, swords etc is remarkable. It is hard to believe that the metals were imported. The quantity is simply too great. What would they have traded in return? Amber doesn't seem a credible commodity. How the knowledge of metallurgy entered Scandinavia is another mystery but the number of rock carvings with boats and chariots strongly suggests movements of peoples. These peoples knew how to extract copper from sulphide ores whereas most continental sources at that time were from arsenic ores.

But we will have to wait for the results of the studies.

cheers
authun







Thanks.Welcome back. It sounds like this remains an open issue.

What about the introduction of horses and wheeled vehicles into Europe? Can you help with that question?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: GoldenHind on August 07, 2011, 07:14:56 PM
Is metallurgy thought to have come in at the same time and from the same direction? Are these thought to have been introduced by a migration of people, or are they thought to have been spread solely by cultural diffusion?

There is no consensus on this yet but there are some investigations which are current.

There are two aspects to the subject, 1. the knowledge of metal and metalworking and 2. the ability to identify, mine and process ores.

With regard to the process of ore mining, Dienekes reported on a current study on the Abergele area in North Wales. You may recall that this area has an incidence of E3b (correct me if I have incorrectly remembered this) in this copper mining area which is of the order of 30 times higher than other areas in the UK, or indeed western Europe.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/07/eastern-mediterranean-marker-in.html

Irrespective of the actual origin of these peoples, once ore bearing seams have been identified, it seems logical to me that someone wants to control it and that he wants specialist miners to extract it. One cannot easily persuade farmers to stop producing food and take up mining. On the other hand, those miners need feeding so they will have to trade something with the local farmers and locally produced farming tools seems an obvious item.

Another subject under investigation are the trade routes for processed metals. The Nordic Bronze Age for example was thought to be serviced by copper through a trade route with the tin producing Lusatian Culture and the copper coming ultimately from the Alpine region around Bischofshofen. However, analysis of the Fröslunda shields in Sweden, the largest find of this Herzsprung type, about 18 in total, shows that the copper is from a sulphide ore. Sweden is one of Europe's richest areas of sulphide minerals and the copper in Scandinavian bronzes from about 1600 BC onwards differs in character from that of earlier bronze and copper items that are based on the conventional continental copper ores. Whilst tools have been found in Sweden which are similar to mining tools found on the continent, no mines have been found in Sweden. There is now a programme to get the copper from more Nordic Bronze Age finds analysed and look into the possibility that Nordic bronze was a local phenomena.

You can see the tin producing areas on fig. 3 in Sources of Tin and the Beginnings of Bronze Metallurgy:

http://www.aditnow.co.uk/documents/personal-album-272/Sources-of-Tin-and-the-Beginnings-of-Bronze-Metallurgy.pdf

Interest started when it was discovered that the Nebra Sky Disc contained copper and gold from the British Isles and tin, probably, from the Erzgebirge. Previously it had been assumed that the copper was from Bischofshofen. The current nordic bronze project is by the University of Gothenburg, 'Extraction of copper in Sweden during the Bronze Age? Possibility, myth or reality?'. The abstract is given below:

"Since the work of Oscar Montelius on the Nordic Bronze Age, an established and
unques-tioned dogma has been that throughout the Bronze Age all copper in
Scandinavia was im-ported from central Europe. However, a new and original
Bronze Age culture, displaying a high level of technical and artistic mastery,
emerged in Scandinavia from about 1600 BC on-wards. This sudden rise and
continuation of the Nordic Bronze Age is an enigma that still lacks satisfactory
economic and social explanatory models. The traditional theories about
Scandinavian Bronze Age have never been tested by means of scientific methods."


http://www.historiskastudier.gu.se/english/research/extraction_of_copper_in_sweden_during_the_bronze_age+/

I have just returned from a trip Sweden and Denmark and the number of items, lurs, shields, swords etc is remarkable. It is hard to believe that the metals were imported. The quantity is simply too great. What would they have traded in return? Amber doesn't seem a credible commodity. How the knowledge of metallurgy entered Scandinavia is another mystery but the number of rock carvings with boats and chariots strongly suggests movements of peoples. These peoples knew how to extract copper from sulphide ores whereas most continental sources at that time were from arsenic ores.

But we will have to wait for the results of the studies.

cheers
authun







Thanks. Welcome back. It sounds like this remains an open issue. The extent of trading networks in Europe in the Bronze Age may well be greater than is currently envisaged.

What about the introduction of horses and wheeled vehicles into Europe? Can you help with that question? When, by whom, and whether connected with a migration or merely cultural diffusion?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: A.D. on August 07, 2011, 10:04:02 PM
This site has some good ideas on the introduction of horses and horse riding.

http://www.svincent.com/CrystalObelisk/DontEatThem/HorseHistoryEurope.html

A lot of the arguments revolve around  the size of riders and horses around 4,000 BC. If the skeletons I saw at New Grange are any thing to go by they could have rode an  Alsatian! This also means that they could have been 'over horsed ' by the tough native breeds (too strong, tough hill ponies).
I think horses were first domesticated some where around the steppe.
It also interests me that horse milk is drank as a food source by the Asiatic nomads even today. I wonder if the  drinking of cows milk (or goats) was a substitute for horse milk or visa-versa. Of course the wheel is a different matter. That depends on the terrain.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: OConnor on August 08, 2011, 05:19:22 AM
I wonder if the travois was in use in Europe, and/or Eurasia before the wheel ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travois



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: authun on August 08, 2011, 07:38:37 AM
What about the introduction of horses and wheeled vehicles into Europe? Can you help with that question?

Not much I'm afraid. JeanM is more informed on those questions.

The Trundholm Chariot however is a 2 wheeled chariot with spoked wheels drawn by a horse or pony. It is dated to the middle bronze age, circa 1400BC, though the dating is uncertain. One of the reasons for this is that chariots and spoked wheels are much later in europe. Before that they had ox carts and solid wheels. This makes the Trundholm Chariot several centuries too early.

On the other hand, rock carvings dating to the middle and bronze age in Scandinavia are numerous. They depicts spoked wheels, chariots, sun disks and ships. These, for example from Begby in Norway, are dated to 1800 BC

http://www.rockartscandinavia.se/images/billedarkiv_no/begby1.jpg
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/12850253.jpg

and Kiviksgraven in Sweden:

http://www.rockartscandinavia.se/images/billedarkiv_se/Kivik2.jpg

If you have a look at the video entitled the Bronze Age in Denmark (No. 12) on this page:

http://wn.com/nordic_bronze_age?upload_time=all_time&orderby=published

you'll get an idea of the level of skill that was around at that time. Most of the items are in the National Museum in Copenhagen. The film doesn't give and idea of the size and quantity of items however which is quite staggering.

cheers
authun


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: GoldenHind on August 09, 2011, 02:13:23 PM
Very interesting, thanks. It sounds as if the introduction of these things into Europe remains an archaeological mystery. I don't see how we can dismiss out of hand the possibility that horses, wheeled vehicles, metallurgy and the IE languages were all introduced during the Bronze age or shortly before by people entering Europe from the east. I find cultural diffusion an unconvincing explanation for their spread to Europe. One can imagine how possession of these things would establish an elite status which could result in a rapid population expansion. I'm not saying this scenario has been proved, merely that it shouldn't be ignored.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: authun on August 09, 2011, 04:46:08 PM
One can imagine how possession of these things would establish an elite status which could result in a rapid population expansion.

I'd go along with that and suggest that there were many elites, especially in Denmark. You can see the distribution of the bronze age griffzungen swords here:

http://www.braasch-megalith.de/docu0250-Griffzungen-Europa.jpg

If copper was extracted in Sweden and the tin came from the Erzgebirge, Denmark was in a position to control the trade with most of the rest of Scandinavia. The other route may have been from the Erzgebirge via Poland and the island of Gotland.

cheers
authun


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: GoldenHind on August 09, 2011, 06:57:10 PM
One can imagine how possession of these things would establish an elite status which could result in a rapid population expansion.

I'd go along with that and suggest that there were many elites, especially in Denmark. You can see the distribution of the bronze age griffzungen swords here:

http://www.braasch-megalith.de/docu0250-Griffzungen-Europa.jpg

If copper was extracted in Sweden and the tin came from the Erzgebirge, Denmark was in a position to control the trade with most of the rest of Scandinavia. The other route may have been from the Erzgebirge via Poland and the island of Gotland.

cheers
authun

Very interesting. I wonder why there is such a heavy concentration in northwest Jutland?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: authun on August 10, 2011, 04:02:21 AM
Very interesting. I wonder why there is such a heavy concentration in northwest Jutland?

I don't think we know. Control of trade with Norway, defensive geography and the fertility of cultivable land may all be factors.

I did find a page on the National Museum website about horses though. There is no evidence of horses before the 2nd millenium BC and the earliest horses appear to be associated with chariots only, not riding:

http://oldtiden.natmus.dk/udstillingen/bronzealderen/solvognen/hesten_i_bronzealderen/language/uk

cheers
authun


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Jean M on August 20, 2011, 07:12:00 PM
What about the introduction of horses and wheeled vehicles into Europe? Can you help with that question?

Not much I'm afraid. JeanM is more informed on those questions.

I have a map of the spread of chariots on Prehistoric transport: rolling along  (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/wheels.shtml)



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: GoldenHind on August 20, 2011, 08:24:22 PM
What about the introduction of horses and wheeled vehicles into Europe? Can you help with that question?

Not much I'm afraid. JeanM is more informed on those questions.

I have a map of the spread of chariots on Prehistoric transport: rolling along  (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/wheels.shtml)



Thanks very much. I also read the section on horse power. The suggestion of a possible connection between horses, wheeled vehicles and metallurgy was very interesting. I find it difficult to believe that this package was introduced independently of a population movement.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: authun on August 21, 2011, 06:37:19 AM
I find it difficult to believe that this package was introduced independently of a population movement.

The earliest rock carvings in Scandinavia are of the type found at Alta. These depict various animals such as reindeer and activities such as fishing and hunting.

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/norway/alta-rock-carvings

We then have rock carvings which include boats, wheels, chariots and horses. Many of the rock carvings appear to show horses on boats, such as this one at Tanum:

http://www.worldheritagesite.org/profiles/fotoos/2868.jpg

One possible interpretation is that the rock carvings were created by the indigenous population and the bronze age carvings tell of new people arriving in ships, people who had horses, wheels, chariots etc. They also brought in a new religion, the symbol of which was the sun disc.

I have been enquiring on Germanic-L about Scandinavian horses and from what I can glean, the male lineage does seem to be the Tarpan wild horse. The Przewalski wild horse appears to have been ruled out as a progenitor.

I think we will have to wait for the metalurgical analysis from the University of Gothenburg but, if it turns out that copper was mined in Sweden, it increases the liklihood of men moving into the area to exploit those resources.

cheers
authun


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 09, 2011, 04:09:03 PM
Well, at least we have a clear answer from Jean M on this.

I posted the two quotes in reply #1 of this thread and asked Jean.
Quote from: Mikewww
How do you assess Gordon Whittaker's perspective?

Quote from: JeanM
Seems to belong on the lunatic fringe.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on November 09, 2011, 11:04:38 PM
Well, Gordon Whittaker is writing peer-reviewed articles on the subject, so I do not dismiss his theories so easily.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 10, 2011, 01:19:24 AM
Well, Gordon Whittaker is writing peer-reviewed articles on the subject, so I do not dismiss his theories so easily.
I've read some of these linguistic theories but don't really understand them so I just can't judge.
All I can say is I understand the general idea of PIE and I was convinced by Anthony that the timeframe and area for PIE was logical. He gives a pretty broad area though and no one has been able to adequately explain the early Anatolian languages relationship to PIE.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on November 10, 2011, 12:44:52 PM
Well, Gordon Whittaker is writing peer-reviewed articles on the subject, so I do not dismiss his theories so easily.
I've read some of these linguistic theories but don't really understand them so I just can't judge.
All I can say is I understand the general idea of PIE and I was convinced by Anthony that the timeframe and area for PIE was logical. He gives a pretty broad area though and no one has been able to adequately explain the early Anatolian languages relationship to PIE.

Some theories suggest that by the time PIE had reached the Steppes, it was already quite old.  You also have to compromise the clear lack of Yamnaya movement in Western Europe. One can see a trail from the Steppes to Bulgaria, and then it mysteriously disappears.

How is that supposed to spread IE to the furthest corners or Europe, including Ireland?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: OConnor on November 10, 2011, 05:16:33 PM
Do you know what the earliest written language is
in Western Europe?


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Heber on November 10, 2011, 07:25:40 PM
Cece Moore posted detailed notes on the FTDNA annual conference on her blog:

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/11/family-tree-dnas-7th-international.html

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/11/family-tree-dnas-7th-international_09.html

I was very interested in Spencer Wells and Thomas Krahns contributions.
"Age of R1b still appears to be an issue. Although on the positive side ancient DNA is yielding interesting results.
• They are doing things with ancient DNA that 10 years ago was impossible, that they "wouldn't have dreamed of doing".
• A paper is coming next year on ancient DNA research "transecting time", including information on farmers replacing hunter gatherers in Central Germany and mtDNA Haplogroup U5, which Spencer called "the hunter-gatherer haplogroup". They found different frequencies of haplogroups from samples at different layers. He says that the debate about the age of R1b has not yet been resolved. Spencer commented that outstanding issues about STR mutation rates is "not helping" and that we still "have to figure out Y-STR mutation rates."

Interesting coorelation between Indo European languages and tested participants.
"2000 Caucasus language speakers were sampled, finding a "remarkable concordance between genetic contrasts and language groups."
Many new SNPs discovered from walk the Y and 1000 genomes project.
"• 366 participants, 125.8 million basepairs sequenced, 180,000 bp average coverage per participant, 450 undocumented new Y-SNPs have been found.

Peter Biggins and the DNA of the Three Collas:
Peter gave a thorough review of the FTDNA Clan CollaNull 425 Project. This clan is thought to have descended from the 3 Colla brothers who lived ca 400 AD in Ireland. There are quite a few different Irish surnames in this group. All members of this project are R-L21+ and every member who has tested has also been discovered to be R-DF21+.

So it looks like we can look forward to several interesting papers in the near future.




Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: GoldenHind on November 10, 2011, 08:19:37 PM
Cece Moore posted detailed notes on the FTDNA annual conference on her blog:

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/11/family-tree-dnas-7th-international.html

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/11/family-tree-dnas-7th-international_09.html

I was very interested in Spencer Wells and Thomas Krahns contributions.
"Age of R1b still appears to be an issue. Although on the positive side ancient DNA is yielding interesting results.
• They are doing things with ancient DNA that 10 years ago was impossible, that they "wouldn't have dreamed of doing".
• A paper is coming next year on ancient DNA research "transecting time", including information on farmers replacing hunter gatherers in Central Germany and mtDNA Haplogroup U5, which Spencer called "the hunter-gatherer haplogroup". They found different frequencies of haplogroups from samples at different layers. He says that the debate about the age of R1b has not yet been resolved. Spencer commented that outstanding issues about STR mutation rates is "not helping" and that we still "have to figure out Y-STR mutation rates."

Interesting coorelation between Indo European languages and tested participants.
"2000 Caucasus language speakers were sampled, finding a "remarkable concordance between genetic contrasts and language groups."
Many new SNPs discovered from walk the Y and 1000 genomes project.
"• 366 participants, 125.8 million basepairs sequenced, 180,000 bp average coverage per participant, 450 undocumented new Y-SNPs have been found.

Peter Biggins and the DNA of the Three Collas:
Peter gave a thorough review of the FTDNA Clan CollaNull 425 Project. This clan is thought to have descended from the 3 Colla brothers who lived ca 400 AD in Ireland. There are quite a few different Irish surnames in this group. All members of this project are R-L21+ and every member who has tested has also been discovered to be R-DF21+.

So it looks like we can look forward to several interesting papers in the near future.




Jean M. reported on another forum that Spencer Wells stills believes in a paleolithic origin  in Europe for R1b.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Humanist on November 10, 2011, 09:15:25 PM
"2000 Caucasus language speakers were sampled, finding a "remarkable concordance between genetic contrasts and language groups."

So it looks like we can look forward to several interesting papers in the near future

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/13/molbev.msr126.abstract

Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region

Oleg Balanovsky1,2,*,Khadizhat Dibirova1,*,Anna Dybo3,Oleg Mudrak4,Svetlana Frolova1,Elvira Pocheshkhova5,Marc Haber6,Daniel Platt7,Theodore Schurr8,Wolfgang Haak9,Marina Kuznetsova1,Magomed Radzhabov1,Olga Balaganskaya1,2,Alexey Romanov1,Tatiana Zakharova1,David F. Soria Hernanz10,11,Pierre Zalloua6,Sergey Koshel12,Merritt Ruhlen13,Colin Renfrew14,R. Spencer Wells10,Chris Tyler-Smith15,Elena Balanovska1 and The Genographic Consortium16

Abstract
Quote
We analyzed 40 SNP and 19 STR Y-chromosomal markers in a large sample of 1,525 indigenous individuals from 14 populations in the Caucasus and 254 additional individuals representing potential source populations. We also employed a lexicostatistical approach to reconstruct the history of the languages of the North Caucasian family spoken by the Caucasus populations. We found a different major haplogroup to be prevalent in each of four sets of populations that occupy distinct geographic regions and belong to different linguistic branches. The haplogroup frequencies correlated with geography and, even more strongly, with language. Within haplogroups, a number of haplotype clusters were shown to be specific to individual populations and languages. The data suggested a direct origin of Caucasus male lineages from the Near East, followed by high levels of isolation, differentiation and genetic drift in situ. Comparison of genetic and linguistic reconstructions covering the last few millennia showed striking correspondences between the topology and dates of the respective gene and language trees, and with documented historical events. Overall, in the Caucasus region, unmatched levels of gene-language co-evolution occurred within geographically isolated populations, probably due to its mountainous terrain.

Just like his bit on the Phoenicians (see Zalloua et al.), the Caucasian material is old news.  Unless they are coming out with their own, separate paper on the same material.   If they are, I certainly will not mind. 



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on November 10, 2011, 09:54:21 PM

 A paper is coming next year on ancient DNA research "transecting time", including information on farmers replacing hunter gatherers in Central Germany and mtDNA Haplogroup U5, which Spencer called "the hunter-gatherer haplogroup". . .

I guess my maternal great-grandma Nora Lancaster was the descendant of some tall, good-looking hunter-gatherer females. She passed their mtDNA on down through my grandmother and my mother to me, since I am U5a2.

Cowabunga! ;-)


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on November 10, 2011, 10:24:26 PM
Cece Moore posted detailed notes on the FTDNA annual conference on her blog:

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/11/family-tree-dnas-7th-international.html

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/11/family-tree-dnas-7th-international_09.html

I was very interested in Spencer Wells and Thomas Krahns contributions.
"Age of R1b still appears to be an issue. Although on the positive side ancient DNA is yielding interesting results.
• They are doing things with ancient DNA that 10 years ago was impossible, that they "wouldn't have dreamed of doing".
• A paper is coming next year on ancient DNA research "transecting time", including information on farmers replacing hunter gatherers in Central Germany and mtDNA Haplogroup U5, which Spencer called "the hunter-gatherer haplogroup". They found different frequencies of haplogroups from samples at different layers. He says that the debate about the age of R1b has not yet been resolved. Spencer commented that outstanding issues about STR mutation rates is "not helping" and that we still "have to figure out Y-STR mutation rates."

Interesting coorelation between Indo European languages and tested participants.
"2000 Caucasus language speakers were sampled, finding a "remarkable concordance between genetic contrasts and language groups."
Many new SNPs discovered from walk the Y and 1000 genomes project.
"• 366 participants, 125.8 million basepairs sequenced, 180,000 bp average coverage per participant, 450 undocumented new Y-SNPs have been found.

Peter Biggins and the DNA of the Three Collas:
Peter gave a thorough review of the FTDNA Clan CollaNull 425 Project. This clan is thought to have descended from the 3 Colla brothers who lived ca 400 AD in Ireland. There are quite a few different Irish surnames in this group. All members of this project are R-L21+ and every member who has tested has also been discovered to be R-DF21+.

So it looks like we can look forward to several interesting papers in the near future.




Jean M. reported on another forum that Spencer Wells stills believes in a paleolithic origin  in Europe for R1b.

I guess it is difficult to entertain new ideas about R1b if one was the initial impetus for its Paleolithic origins.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: GoldenHind on November 11, 2011, 09:24:16 PM

Deleted double post


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: GoldenHind on November 11, 2011, 09:26:48 PM
Cece Moore posted detailed notes on the FTDNA annual conference on her blog:

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/11/family-tree-dnas-7th-international.html

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/11/family-tree-dnas-7th-international_09.html

I was very interested in Spencer Wells and Thomas Krahns contributions.
"Age of R1b still appears to be an issue. Although on the positive side ancient DNA is yielding interesting results.
• They are doing things with ancient DNA that 10 years ago was impossible, that they "wouldn't have dreamed of doing".
• A paper is coming next year on ancient DNA research "transecting time", including information on farmers replacing hunter gatherers in Central Germany and mtDNA Haplogroup U5, which Spencer called "the hunter-gatherer haplogroup". They found different frequencies of haplogroups from samples at different layers. He says that the debate about the age of R1b has not yet been resolved. Spencer commented that outstanding issues about STR mutation rates is "not helping" and that we still "have to figure out Y-STR mutation rates."

Interesting coorelation between Indo European languages and tested participants.
"2000 Caucasus language speakers were sampled, finding a "remarkable concordance between genetic contrasts and language groups."
Many new SNPs discovered from walk the Y and 1000 genomes project.
"• 366 participants, 125.8 million basepairs sequenced, 180,000 bp average coverage per participant, 450 undocumented new Y-SNPs have been found.

Peter Biggins and the DNA of the Three Collas:
Peter gave a thorough review of the FTDNA Clan CollaNull 425 Project. This clan is thought to have descended from the 3 Colla brothers who lived ca 400 AD in Ireland. There are quite a few different Irish surnames in this group. All members of this project are R-L21+ and every member who has tested has also been discovered to be R-DF21+.

So it looks like we can look forward to several interesting papers in the near future.




Jean M. reported on another forum that Spencer Wells stills believes in a paleolithic origin  in Europe for R1b.

I guess it is difficult to entertain new ideas about R1b if one was the initial impetus for its Paleolithic origins.

I suspect academic about-faces are about as rare as hen's teeth. Once they go out on a limb and take a position, it seems they are highly unlikely to lose face by later admitting  they got it completely wrong.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on November 12, 2011, 04:28:53 PM
I suspect academic about-faces are about as rare as hen's teeth. Once they go out on a limb and take a position, it seems they are highly unlikely to lose face by later admitting  they got it completely wrong.

Especially after having taken that position in print, I imagine.

In one way this could work to our advantage.

Surely there must be some scrambling going on to get testable y-dna from some Paleolithic and Mesolithic remains in R1b hotspots.

I say bring it on. They'll either find some R1b and prove themselves right . . . or not.

Either way we'll get some real knowledge.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 12, 2011, 07:27:08 PM
I have just ordered this very new book on the prehistory of Anatolia.

http://www.archaeology.leiden.edu/organisation/publications/news/the-prehistory-of-asia-mino-bleda-during.html  

I have read a sample of it on Google books and its very interesting.  One thing I noted is that the NW corner of Anatolia, the area where dairy farming is thought to have arises, seems to have been Neolithicised through the hunter-gatherers around the SW Black Sea there adopting farming rather than migration.  In fact he thinks that much of Anatolia was Neolithicised by this method rather than migration from Mesopotamia.  The evidence is not open-shut but he has a point.  Anyway, that would suggest we should not see the NW Anatolians as the same as the Natufian derived Mesopotamians. Regardless it is interesting that these hunters that adopted farming in the NW of Anatolia and originated dairying seem to have been locally based in NW Anatolia since the Palaeolithic.  They seemed to be still using Mesolithic style microlithic tools up to 6000BC by which time farming had spread into Europe.  That seems to confirm to me the recent suggestion that Europe was settled by farmers initially by sea from the Levant rather than Anatolia.  Does make you wonder who these people in the NW of Anatolia were?  I am not saying they were necessarily R1b folks but whoever they were went from being marginal to having a major advantage c. 6000BC and their dairying economy could have allowed them to fan out in many directions and settle land that perhaps was not viable before dairying.    One direction was into Europe a little before 5000BC around Bulgaria but dairying spread far and wide in the following 1000 years. 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: MHammers on November 12, 2011, 08:43:14 PM
I suspect academic about-faces are about as rare as hen's teeth. Once they go out on a limb and take a position, it seems they are highly unlikely to lose face by later admitting  they got it completely wrong.

Especially after having taken that position in print, I imagine.

In one way this could work to our advantage.

Surely there must be some scrambling going on to get testable y-dna from some Paleolithic and Mesolithic remains in R1b hotspots.

I say bring it on. They'll either find some R1b and prove themselves right . . . or not.

Either way we'll get some real knowledge.

Unless they test the right snp's, some academics will hold onto the Iberian Paleo-R1b model.  Even if R1b is found in an bronze age kurgan, they can still claim it was in Europe during the ice age.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 12, 2011, 09:20:36 PM
The amazing thing is although it now seems certain R1b is far older outside Europe, there still seems to be a huge area that could be its homeland including Anatolian, the Caucuses, the steppes, SW Asia etc. 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: NealtheRed on November 13, 2011, 12:15:48 AM
I suspect academic about-faces are about as rare as hen's teeth. Once they go out on a limb and take a position, it seems they are highly unlikely to lose face by later admitting  they got it completely wrong.

Especially after having taken that position in print, I imagine.

In one way this could work to our advantage.

Surely there must be some scrambling going on to get testable y-dna from some Paleolithic and Mesolithic remains in R1b hotspots.

I say bring it on. They'll either find some R1b and prove themselves right . . . or not.

Either way we'll get some real knowledge.

I agree with you. If R1b happens to be found in Europe during Paleolithic times (I personally doubt this), that is fine with me. At least we will have some answers.

If R1b is found is some Bronze Age kurgan, and someone still dismisses it as a Paleolithic remnant, I am very skeptical of this field at that point.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 13, 2011, 08:43:23 AM
I suspect academic about-faces are about as rare as hen's teeth. Once they go out on a limb and take a position, it seems they are highly unlikely to lose face by later admitting  they got it completely wrong.

Especially after having taken that position in print, I imagine.

In one way this could work to our advantage.

Surely there must be some scrambling going on to get testable y-dna from some Paleolithic and Mesolithic remains in R1b hotspots.

I say bring it on. They'll either find some R1b and prove themselves right . . . or not.

Either way we'll get some real knowledge.

I agree with you. If R1b happens to be found in Europe during Paleolithic times (I personally doubt this), that is fine with me. At least we will have some answers.

If R1b is found is some Bronze Age kurgan, and someone still dismisses it as a Paleolithic remnant, I am very skeptical of this field at that point.

I cant understand people who decide what answer they want in advance and let this distort all their thoughts and interpretations.  Almost all periods and cultures are interesting.  When people take that approach they back themselves into corners and then the issue of pride kicks in and they end up refusing to accept reality. I think at all times the Occam's Razor approach should be applied.  Until some evidence emerges to say otherwise, it seems that M269 moved into Europe at some point in the Neolithic or Copper Age from somewhere in SW Asia or the southern fringe of easternmost Europe.  At present there is no clearcut archaeological trace of this and the best options vaguely in this timeframe are the spread of dairying from Anatolia and the beaker network although in neither case is the migrational story very clear.    


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: authun on November 13, 2011, 09:43:31 AM
I cant understand people who decide what answer they want in advance and let this distort all their thoughts and interpretations.

The idea that europe was repopulated at the end of the ice age by peoples from Iberia goes back a long way, well before genetic studies. When the studies started to appear and they showed lots of R1b in western europe and also amongst the Basques, it seemed to confirm it, especially as the Basques speak a non indo european language. It is therefore more a desire to confirm a long held view rather than deciding what answer they want.

The alternative, that the population and languages of europe are relatively recent and on a massive scale is actually quite mind boggling. It forces us to contemplate the demise of all those palaeolithic, mesolithic and early neolithic populations. Most archaeologists are trained to think in terms of one culture changing into another with some sort of link between them. So farmers arrived and the hunter gatherers learned from them. The question was always, on what scale did the new farmers settle? Once into the neolithic period, few have contemplated the possibility that the later neolithic is fundamentally different from the early neolithic. Whatever the initial scale of settlement in the early neolithic, most have assumed that the neolthic was continuous, just with different pottery styles and burial customs. There was no real reason to think otherwise. DNA always tried to fit into these scenarios. Now, DNA plus other scientific analyses are suggesting that things were more complex but, archaeology still wants to look for connections and is wary that the new sciences is a case of the horse pushing the cart, no pun on Anthony's book intended.

If, in order to understand the modern european population, one has to come to the conclusion that the paleolithic, mesolithic and early neolithic played only a minor role, one can see why strong objections are raised and understand the tendency amongst some to want to continue to look for an explanation which still links them all.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on November 13, 2011, 10:11:58 AM
That is true. I can remember reading about the post-Ice Age repopulation scenario long before genetic studies were possible. Old authors like H.G. Wells and, I think, Carleton Coon mention it and the idea that the Basques are a Paleolithic relic population.

Of course, aspects of that idea are no doubt true. It's just that it now seems likely that R1b was not involved.

I can remember arguing several years ago on Rootsweb that the Basque-Paleolithic-Relic idea was simply an old wineskin into which some were attempting to press the new wine of dna testing. Ellen Levy Coffman was saying the same thing.

Quote
Neither do men put new wine into old wineskins: else the wineskins break, and the wine runs out, and the wineskins perish: but they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.  - Matthew 9:17



Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on November 13, 2011, 10:45:01 AM

I cant understand people who decide what answer they want in advance and let this distort all their thoughts and interpretations. . .    

When I ordered my first 37-marker y-dna test, I had the idea that I was of Germanic descent, probably Anglo-Saxon, but possibly even Viking (which was my desire at the time, I will confess). I awaited a finding of y haplogroup I1a (as I-M253 was then known). I read all of Ken Nordtvedt's y-hap I stuff in anticipation of the blessed event.

When my "R1b1" result came in (that's as far as things went in May of 2006), I thought it still possible to salvage my imagined Teutonic heritage, especially when I heard the news about S21 (U106). I rushed to order what was then known as the "S-Series" from Ethnoancestry. When S21 (and all the other R1b esses of that time) crashed and burned on the unforgiving stone of my dna sample, I began to suspect the truth: my y-dna is not especially Germanic.

Well, you know the rest. I'm L21+ and very happy about it. The truth is better than any vaporous imagining, for the most part because it is true.

But giving up a cherished idea is an agonizing process. The evidence has to take form and solidify and become a hammer that smashes the old notions.

I don't think the hammer has quite materialized for some of these folks.

But then again, it might yet materialize in their hands instead of ours.

I must confess up front that I do have a preference in this case, just as I had when I was waiting for my first 37-marker test. It certainly seems more exciting to me to be descended from men who arrived during the Bronze Age and spread Indo-European languages than to be descended from old-west European Longue Duree natives who were, like the landscape, just kind of always there.

But I have experience abandoning my preferences when the evidence goes against them. If I have to do it again, it will probably just be easier.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 13, 2011, 10:45:10 AM
To be honest archaeologists had pretty firmly turned back in favour of the Neolithic being mainly immigrants rather than hunters adopting farming for most of Europe.  This reverse in opinion actually happened in the later 90s before DNA had produced much of any use.  Indeed, archaeologists had realised that the hunter involvement in the Neolithic was limited at exactly the same time as the DNA was suggesting the opposite (that R1b was Iberian hunter gatherer derived).  So, it was really the DNA interpretations that seem to have got that wrong.

The real shocker is if it is true that Europes DNA has a massive copper age element.  Noone in many decades in archaeology or indeed many of the DNA people saw that coming and the evidence for this is very new and DNA based.  


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 13, 2011, 10:47:48 AM
That is true. I can remember reading about the post-Ice Age repopulation scenario long before genetic studies were possible. Old authors like H.G. Wells and, I think, Carleton Coon mention it and the idea that the Basques are a Paleolithic relic population.

Of course, aspects of that idea are no doubt true. It's just that it now seems likely that R1b was not involved.

I can remember arguing several years ago on Rootsweb that the Basque-Paleolithic-Relic idea was simply an old wineskin into which some were attempting to press the new wine of dna testing. Ellen Levy Coffman was saying the same thing.

Quote
Neither do men put new wine into old wineskins: else the wineskins break, and the wine runs out, and the wineskins perish: but they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.  - Matthew 9:17



There is no doubt that the Magdallenian did see an out of Iberia/France palaeolithic spread into western Europe.  No doubt at all.  The problem was the striking and tempting correlation with R1b, Basque language, perhipheral location etc was a false correlation.  Actually a textbook example of one. 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 13, 2011, 11:46:18 AM
I have just ordered this very new book on the prehistory of Anatolia.

http://www.archaeology.leiden.edu/organisation/publications/news/the-prehistory-of-asia-mino-bleda-during.html  

I have read a sample of it on Google books and its very interesting.  One thing I noted is that the NW corner of Anatolia, the area where dairy farming is thought to have arises, seems to have been Neolithicised through the hunter-gatherers around the SW Black Sea there adopting farming rather than migration.  In fact he thinks that much of Anatolia was Neolithicised by this method rather than migration from Mesopotamia.  The evidence is not open-shut but he has a point.  Anyway, that would suggest we should not see the NW Anatolians as the same as the Natufian derived Mesopotamians. Regardless it is interesting that these hunters that adopted farming in the NW of Anatolia and originated dairying seem to have been locally based in NW Anatolia since the Palaeolithic.  They seemed to be still using Mesolithic style microlithic tools up to 6000BC by which time farming had spread into Europe.  That seems to confirm to me the recent suggestion that Europe was settled by farmers initially by sea from the Levant rather than Anatolia.  Does make you wonder who these people in the NW of Anatolia were?  I am not saying they were necessarily R1b folks but whoever they were went from being marginal to having a major advantage c. 6000BC and their dairying economy could have allowed them to fan out in many directions and settle land that perhaps was not viable before dairying.    One direction was into Europe a little before 5000BC around Bulgaria but dairying spread far and wide in the following 1000 years. 

Weirdly its one of three new books on prehistoric Anatolia that have come out in the last 2 years.  One of them out this year costs about £120 (something like $180?  I dont think I will be buying it any time soon! 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on November 13, 2011, 02:51:40 PM
Yeah, some of these books are outrageously priced, I guess because they don't appeal to the mass market.

I wish someone would come out with a new one on the Beaker Folk. Last time I looked, the most recent book on the subject dated from the early 1980s.

Btw, I just ordered an Amazon Kindle Touch to make it easier for me to read on the train to and from work each day.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 13, 2011, 06:06:32 PM
Yeah, some of these books are outrageously priced, I guess because they don't appeal to the mass market.

I wish someone would come out with a new one on the Beaker Folk. Last time I looked, the most recent book on the subject dated from the early 1980s.

Btw, I just ordered an Amazon Kindle Touch to make it easier for me to read on the train to and from work each day.

It s long been the case that archaeologists cant afford a lot of archaeological texts! I notice Cunlffe has had a tendency to bring out books at crazy prices.

I totally agree.  The beaker period desperately needs an overview book.  So much new data and rethinking has come out since the 80s but no overview text.  What I am wondering is what the knock on effect on some of the other old ideas is now that beakers are seen as being oldest in the south-west.  For example is there still any validity to the old groupings like Wessex-Middle Rhine etc? 


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: Heber on November 13, 2011, 07:51:59 PM

Btw, I just ordered an Amazon Kindle Touch to make it easier for me to read on the train to and from work each day.

Unfortunately we are unable to order the Kindle Fire in Europe. I have no idea why. It is an amazing specification at this price. I have become addicted to Kindle on Android in the last few months. You can preview pretty much any book, usually an entire chapter, in the entire collection of hundred of thousands and get a flavour for it before deciding to buy. All the good archaeology and anthropology books are there.

I believe Anatolia holds the key to the expansion of M269. The only problem is the dates. Was it 10K BCE or 5K BCE. If the former, as Myers states, then it corresponds to the period of Gobleki Tepe and the transition from hunter gatherer to farmer. What are the other candidate haplogroups for Gobleki Tepe?
As for R1b, did it come from the East or the West. Conventional wisdom says it came from the East, but could it have come from Magdelanean cultures? If not which haplogroup corresponds to the Magdelanean people's.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: seferhabahir on November 13, 2011, 08:48:09 PM
I believe Anatolia holds the key to the expansion of M269. The only problem is the dates. Was it 10K BCE or 5K BCE. If the former, as Myers states, then it corresponds to the period of Gobleki Tepe and the transition from hunter gatherer to farmer. What are the other candidate haplogroups for Gobleki Tepe?

In a long and drawn out debate between Anatole Klyosov and Dienekes Pontikos on the latter's blog site, Klyosov offered up the following: "theoretically, Gobekli could have been built by G, J2, E".


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: IALEM on November 14, 2011, 06:55:36 AM
When I was studying at the university back in the 80s professor Ignacio Barandiaran was teaching archaeology. He was convinced that
1) Neolithic was brought to Western Europe by inmigrants from Eastern Mediterranean area (at the time that was radical, diffusionism was at its peak)
2) Hunter-gatherers learnt Neolithic culture and fought back in the form of Bell Beaker culture, a basically nomad culture of pastoralist/traders that in the end got the upper hand, even destroying centers of Mediterranean cultures, like Los Millares (at the time that was extremely radical) I was fascinated by that theory and when I saw the basic superposition between R1b and Bell Beakers areas I thought that was it, the theory was right. Then genetic chronology apparently changed all that.
Personally I would like Barandiaran´s theory proved right in the end. OTOH if R1b is Bronze Age DNA could be a much more valuable tool to track prehistorical migrations, which would be a great help for archaeology.


Title: Re: Neolithic Farmers and the Spread of Indo-European, The Case for Euphratic, etc.
Post by: rms2 on November 14, 2011, 07:53:31 AM
When I was studying at the university back in the 80s professor Ignacio Barandiaran was teaching archaeology. He was convinced that
1) Neolithic was brought to Western Europe by inmigrants from Eastern Mediterranean area (at the time that was radical, diffusionism was at its peak)
2) Hunter-gatherers learnt Neolithic culture and fought back in the form of Bell Beaker culture, a basically nomad culture of pastoralist/traders that in the end got the upper hand, even destroying centers of Mediterranean cultures, like Los Millares (at the time that was extremely radical) I was fascinated by that theory and when I saw the basic superposition between R1b and Bell Beakers areas I thought that was it, the theory was right. Then genetic chronology apparently changed all that.
Personally I would like Barandiaran´s theory proved right in the end. OTOH if R1b is Bronze Age DNA could be a much more valuable tool to track prehistorical migrations, which would be a great help for archaeology.

That is an interesting idea. I had not thought of that. It makes sense, although it goes against the age estimations for R1b based on haplotype variance.

But everything seems up for grabs lately, doesn't it?