World Families Forums - Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA

ARCHIVAL COPY
Home Help Search Login Register

WorldFamilies has changed our Forum Operating system and migrated the postings from the prior system. We hope that you’ll find this new system easier to use and we expect it to manage spammers much better. If you can’t find an old posting, please check our Legacy Forum to see if you can see the old posting there.
+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: Maliclavelli)
| | |-+  Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 17 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA  (Read 118878 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #275 on: May 23, 2012, 08:16:29 PM »

BTW, Anthony says that by about 2500 BC, PIE was a dead language. All of the ancient R1a finds are well after that and pretty far east, with the exception of the father and son at the Corded Ware site at Eulau, Germany, dated to about 2600 BC, and the pair of probable R1a in the Lichtenstein Cave in Germany, dated to about 1300 BC.

Finding Scythians or possible Tocharians who were R1a does not prove that the original PIE people were exclusively R1a or even mostly R1a. It proves that there were some Scythians and maybe-Tocharians who were R1a.

As far as I know, no ancient y-dna has been recovered from any remains found in western kurgans.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 08:17:45 PM by rms2 » Logged

intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #276 on: May 23, 2012, 08:46:34 PM »

I guess people will never stop trying to connect IE and R1b no matter how much evidence has been presented against it.

Care to list them here, because I haven't seen any evidence/proof.

Haha seriously? Nobody has connected R1a and IE. The connection is clear. Why should I argue with a theory embraced by no one but Western Europeans. Whats the difference between accepting that theory and the garbage out of india theory? Both motivated by racism and nationalism. But neither supported by science. IE comes from the steepe and is connected with R1a not R1b.

Tone down your rhetoric please or demonstrate how the idea that there is a connection between R1b and Indo-European languages is "motivated by racism and nationalism".

By the way, when it comes to R1b and Indo-European languages "[t]he connection is clear". The overwhelming majority of the population of Europe speak an Indo-European language, and R1b is the most common European y haplogroup.

And? R1b peaks in West Europe while PIE is from East Europe. And anyways so what? There are a bunch of Ydna H carriers speaking Indo-European languages. Based on this logic one would think ydna J2 carriers are the original Indo-Iranians and not R1a-Z93+ carriers.
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #277 on: May 23, 2012, 08:51:52 PM »

I think the idea that R1a was the sole source of initial IE and R1b the recievers is questionable.  I also am not sure what the fetish some people have to be related to a backwards culture of late hunters turning into wandering violent cattle men bashing each other on the heads with hammer axes after borrowing most of the stuff that dragged them out the dark ages from the farmers who had towns and sophisticated societies etc.  All sounds a bit wrong headed to me.

What the proto-IE were was not steppes hunters but a mix of hunters who had taken on a lot from more advanced societies around them.  It was only after some sort of input from the farming workd that PIE society developed.  If you want some sort of pure R1a society in the steppes (if it ever existed) then you need to go back to the days when they were hunters and the PIE culture had not formed.  PIE is not a steppes hunters thing.  It clearly is a hybrid of influences.  Without the farmers it could not have existed.

I also wonder why people fetishish these hunters anyway like they were some sort of uber-men.  They didnt look too uber-men like when the Bug-Dniester culture were swept aside by the allegedly flower power loving tree hugging Cucutene Trypole people as they expanded east.  Bottom line is these guys were nothing but simple hunters borrowing ideas from farmers with a society nothing like PIE society until the farmer people made crucial inputs.  If ideas travel with people then you can be sure the genes of farming groups were mixed in.  By the time PIE evolved there had been a very very long period of interaction.

I also think we have to wonder about the idea that even the PIE core was R1a-dominated.  The Anatolian branch is thought by some serious linguists to be an offshoot from what was to become the PIE area before PIE had fully formed and it seems that only R1b could have been involved in that given the lack of R1a in Anatolia (that is if you believe languages and genes spread together).  That could put R1b in the area of PIE even before PIE had fully formed.

Finally, there is no certainty that L23 and downstream was actually the farming language.  The only map I have seen of L23* variance actually places higher variance in an arc from around Armenia through the west side of the Black Sea, along the top of the latter and into Romania.  There is a possibility that the more southerly groups in the PIE world could have been R1b and headed into Anatolia and Romania from an intermediate point along the north coasts of the Black Sea or adjacent.   .  

Finally, and this is a real question rather than a rhetorical one, is the concept of R1a and R1b people belonging to really radically separated language families like some sort of pre-PIE on the one hand and Afro-Asiastic viable?  How deep do linguists calculate the common ancestor of those language branches?

Finally, we often talk about the hypothesis that R1b spread with some mega-advantage of lactose persistence developed by them perhaps being linked to dairying evolving in NW Anatolia before 6000BC and entering SE Europe before 5000BC. If this is all true then surely an steppes hunters would have been at a tremendous selective disadvantage in starting regular milk use far later?    

How do you know the steepe didn't have pure R1a societies? Given the lack of R1b in Andronovo, Scythians, the Tarim Basin samples it seems the steepe was entirely R1a till a relatively late date. R1b-M269 has almost zero presence in Central Asia.

And trying to portray R1a speakers as some sort of backwards individuals stealing idea from their superior R1b neighbors isn't wrongheaded? The R1a carriers were advanced in their own ways. The R1b supremacy is getting old.

And regarding the bolded section: And now trying to make R1b the entire PIE group by putting its origins in Anatolia is ok but when people say R1a made up the entire PIE core it is apparently wrong.

The Yamna study should settle this debate once it comes out.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 08:58:01 PM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #278 on: May 23, 2012, 08:57:44 PM »

I guess people will never stop trying to connect IE and R1b no matter how much evidence has been presented against it.

Care to list them here, because I haven't seen any evidence/proof.

Haha seriously? Nobody has connected R1a and IE. The connection is clear. Why should I argue with a theory embraced by no one but Western Europeans. Whats the difference between accepting that theory and the garbage out of india theory? Both motivated by racism and nationalism. But neither supported by science. IE comes from the steepe and is connected with R1a not R1b.

Tone down your rhetoric please or demonstrate how the idea that there is a connection between R1b and Indo-European languages is "motivated by racism and nationalism".

By the way, when it comes to R1b and Indo-European languages "[t]he connection is clear". The overwhelming majority of the population of Europe speak an Indo-European language, and R1b is the most common European y haplogroup.

And? R1b peaks in West Europe while PIE is from East Europe. And anyways so what? There are a bunch of Ydna H carriers speaking Indo-European languages. Based on this logic one would think ydna J2 carriers are the original Indo-Iranians and not R1a-Z93+ carriers.

No one knows for certain where the PIE Urheimat was.

Even if it was in Eastern Europe, it is pretty evident that R1b came from the east and moved west. It did not originate in Western Europe.

Care to back up your accusation that the idea that there is a connection between R1b and PIE is "motivated by racism and nationalism"?
Logged

intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #279 on: May 23, 2012, 09:02:09 PM »

I guess people will never stop trying to connect IE and R1b no matter how much evidence has been presented against it.

Care to list them here, because I haven't seen any evidence/proof.

Haha seriously? Nobody has connected R1a and IE. The connection is clear. Why should I argue with a theory embraced by no one but Western Europeans. Whats the difference between accepting that theory and the garbage out of india theory? Both motivated by racism and nationalism. But neither supported by science. IE comes from the steepe and is connected with R1a not R1b.

Tone down your rhetoric please or demonstrate how the idea that there is a connection between R1b and Indo-European languages is "motivated by racism and nationalism".

By the way, when it comes to R1b and Indo-European languages "[t]he connection is clear". The overwhelming majority of the population of Europe speak an Indo-European language, and R1b is the most common European y haplogroup.

And? R1b peaks in West Europe while PIE is from East Europe. And anyways so what? There are a bunch of Ydna H carriers speaking Indo-European languages. Based on this logic one would think ydna J2 carriers are the original Indo-Iranians and not R1a-Z93+ carriers.

No one knows for certain where the PIE Urheimat was.

Even if it was in Eastern Europe, it is pretty evident that R1b came from the east and moved west. It did not originate in Western Europe.

Care to back up your accusation that the idea that there is a connection between R1b and PIE is "motivated by racism and nationalism"?

It came from Anatolia not from Eastern Europe.

Most things support R1a and PIE but people especially R1b carriers are still trying to connect R1b and PIE. I get attacked for saying the PIE core is entirely R1a but Alan travel hands shifts the homeland to anatolia so he can make R1b (this would make J2 and G PIE ydnas too btw ) the PIE group and nobody says anything.
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #280 on: May 23, 2012, 09:05:04 PM »

Also how do people know thr Anatolian branch is an offshoot of PIE? And how do you know it didn't get there from somewhere else?
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #281 on: May 23, 2012, 09:06:50 PM »

Why does it matter? R1a and R1b predate IE languages. R1b originates in West Asia. IE languages developed with R1a carriers in Eastern Europe.

To be more accurate, PIE evolved from a hunter-gatherer language in contact with farming people on the border of Europe and Asia. The hunters acquired knowledge from farming neighbours who had brought that knowledge from West Asia.





 

Yes. It is a hunter gatherer language. It didn't come from Anatolian farmers. I disagree with their being mass scale admixture and the PIE core consisting of R1b and R1a. If that was true there should have been R1b among Tocharians, Scythians, Andronovo people, central asians. but there isn't. The steepe remained close to 100% R1a imo.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 09:11:44 PM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
polako
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #282 on: May 23, 2012, 10:00:25 PM »

No one knows for certain where the PIE Urheimat was.

Even if it was in Eastern Europe, it is pretty evident that R1b came from the east and moved west. It did not originate in Western Europe.

It doesn't matter where the PIE urheimat was for certain, because it sure as hell wasn't in the Mediterranean basin.

And European R1b is clearly a Mediterranean basin marker, showing a high correlation with autosomal influence from the south and southwest, and via ancient DNA also with seafaring cultures like the ancestors of the Guanches and Bell Beakers.

It's not proto-Indo-European, but most certainly pre-Indo-European in Western and West Central Europe.

So it's not a coincidence that R1b-M269 was present on pre-Indo-European Canary Islands (ie. the Guanches carried it). But R1a was only detected there after the Indo-Europeans had arrived.

And it's also not a coincidence that R1b was missing from all prehistoric remains linked to the Indo-Europeans, like the Corded Ware, Andronovo, and Tarim Basin. It only appears in Central European Urnfield, which is not surprising, because Central Europe was the contact zone between the non-Indo-European R1b Bell beakers and early Indo-European R1a Corded Ware folk.

-- MESSAGE SEGMENT DELETED -- Terry
« Last Edit: May 29, 2012, 08:10:37 AM by webmaster » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #283 on: May 23, 2012, 10:32:06 PM »


--QUOTE DELETED-- Terry


Stick to makin' goulash, Polako. You are living in a fantasy world when it comes to vicariously living through IE-speaking, R1b folk who have apparently done nothing but become the bane of your genealogical pursuits. Caveat lector, my friend.

In other words, get over it.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 11:58:20 AM by Terry Barton » Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #284 on: May 23, 2012, 11:36:54 PM »


Finally, there is no certainty that L23 and downstream was actually the farming language. The only map I have seen of L23* variance actually places higher variance in an arc from around Armenia through the west side of the Black Sea, along the top of the latter and into Romania.  There is a possibility that the more southerly groups in the PIE world could have been R1b and headed into Anatolia and Romania from an intermediate point along the north coasts of the Black Sea or adjacent.

Although not a terrible map, that would leave out some of the areas with the highest L23 diversity.  Namely, N Mesopotamia, to points west, along the Syrian-Turkish border.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 11:41:08 PM by Humanist » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #285 on: May 24, 2012, 01:28:23 AM »

....
And European R1b is clearly a Mediterranean basin marker, showing a high correlation with autosomal influence from the south and southwest, and via ancient DNA also with seafaring cultures like the ancestors of the Guanches and Bell Beakers.
Are you aware that variance for some forms of R1b (i.e. U106) are higher in Poland and the Baltic states than in the south.  R1b-U106 is a large chunk and I don't think you can say it is "clearly" Mediterranean... not even close. You may not be aware, but there is also a lot of R1b-P312 in Scandinavia. I also wouldn't call the large R1b-L21 group "clearly" Mediterranean since they barely seemed to have reached it.

.... non-Indo-European R1b Bell beakers and early Indo-European R1a Corded Ware folks...

Is it proven the Bell Beaker folks were non-IE speaking, or that the Corded Ware were IE speaking?  It could be so, but if the Bell Beakers weren't IE speaking, it gets pretty hard to figure out how Italo-Celtic languages became so prevalent in the west.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 01:49:01 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #286 on: May 24, 2012, 01:46:22 AM »

... Yes. It is a hunter gatherer language. It didn't come from Anatolian farmers. I disagree with their being mass scale admixture and the PIE core consisting of R1b and R1a.

Are my brother and I a population with admixture? - the result of interbreeding between two or more previously isolated populations within a species.  Even if I had a new SNP my brother didn't have and he had one I didn't, we are still not admixture. We have the same ancestry.

R1b and R1a have a common R1 ancestor.  At some point, their lineages were one and the same.

If that was true there should have been R1b among Tocharians, Scythians, Andronovo people, central asians. but there isn't. The steepe remained close to 100% R1a imo.

Are you making the case that the Yamna horizon was a monolithic culture? Apparently so if you rely on the assumption that all expansions of Yamna groups had the same mix, which is what you are doing when you require R1b to be in every IE population.  Likewise, I don't see much R1a in the Celtics or Italics, yet they are IE.  It doesn't matter anyway, the Yamna were not a singular, monolithic group.  They were various groups of mobile people shifting across the very large Central Eurasian plain.
Logged

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

Posts: 239


« Reply #287 on: May 24, 2012, 01:49:02 AM »


--QUOTE DELETED--  Terry


Such a well spoken young boy. His mother must be proud.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 11:59:09 AM by Terry Barton » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #288 on: May 24, 2012, 04:03:34 AM »


I also think we have to wonder about the idea that even the PIE core was R1a-dominated ...  given the lack of R1a in Anatolia

While I agree with the general thrust of your views here, I must point out that R1a is found in Anatolia, albeit at a level (6.9%) below that of R1b-M269 (14.7%). R1a1a-M17 is higher in Eastern Turkey and its distribution significantly correlates with longitude across the nine regions (Cinnioglu 2004). The authors of course did not test for the new SNPs in R1a1a, and I'm afraid I am not sufficiently clued-up on STRs to take a guess at which subclades their sample fall into. However the R1a1a and Subclades Project  has three Turkish members of R1a* and one of Z93+. The latter could have arrived with Mitanni or Turks.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #289 on: May 24, 2012, 04:17:58 AM »

Are you making the case that the Yamna horizon was a monolithic culture? 

Anthony makes the point that it wasn't. That's why he uses the word "horizon". The package seems to have swept across the Pontic-Caspian steppe, influencing a whole bunch of small communities, each with its own flavour.
Logged
Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #290 on: May 24, 2012, 04:56:17 AM »


I also think we have to wonder about the idea that even the PIE core was R1a-dominated ...  given the lack of R1a in Anatolia

While I agree with the general thrust of your views here, I must point out that R1a is found in Anatolia, albeit at a level (6.9%) below that of R1b-M269 (14.7%). R1a1a-M17 is higher in Eastern Turkey and its distribution significantly correlates with longitude across the nine regions (Cinnioglu 2004).

Just a friendly note, from someone with ties to E Turkey (specifically, extreme SE Turkey). I do not ordinarily rely on R1a1 frequencies reported for Turkey.   In particular, E Turkey, given the population turnovers of the past century or two (e.g. Armenian, Pontic Greek, and Assyrian genocides).  And, extending as far back as 1000 years or so, with the known and/or presumed migrations of certain groups into the area.  

My last update to the R1a1 frequency map for Near East "minority" groups: http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Map_Middle_East_R1a-2.jpg

The accompanying data:

Code:
Pop N R1a Language Source
Druze 366 1% Semitic Arabic Behar et al., Al-Zahery et al.
PalChri 44 2% Semitic Arabic Fernandes at al.*
Alawi 104 2% Semitic Arabic Donbak et al.*
Assyr 106 2% Semitic Aramaic Yepiskoposian et al.
IraqJ 79 0% Semitic Hebrew Behar et al.
IranJ 49 4% Semitic Hebrew Behar et al.
Armeni 1147 4% Indo-European Armenian Hererra et al., Weale et al.
NiqJews 99 4% Semitic Hebrew/Aramaic Nebel et al.
Yezidi 196 2% Indo-Iranian(IE) Kurmanji Yepiskoposian et al.
Maronit 196 0% Semitic Arabic/Aramaic Haber et al.
YemenJ 74 3% Semitic Hebrew/Arabic Behar et al.
Bakht 46 15% Indo-Iranian (IE) Luri Roewer et al.
S_Tlsh 18 6% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.
Gilak 43 14% Indo-Iranian (IE) Gilaki Roewer et al.
Mazan 46 7% Indo-Iranian (IE) Mazandarani Roewer et al.
N_Tlsh 43 0% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.
Tats 20 0% Indo-Iranian (IE) Tati Bertoncini et al.

Edit: But I should add that you are correct, in that there is some presence of R1a in Anatolia. 
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 05:25:34 AM by Humanist » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #291 on: May 24, 2012, 06:46:44 AM »

@ Humanist  - I couldn't agree more that we need to be very cautious in conclusions drawn from present DNA in Anatolia. There has been a huge turnover in population since 4000 BC. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #292 on: May 24, 2012, 09:07:48 AM »

So it's not a coincidence that R1b-M269 was present on pre-Indo-European Canary Islands (ie. the Guanches carried it). But R1a was only detected there after the Indo-Europeans had arrived...

Could you explain the specifics of your logic on this?  There many, many different people that came to the Canary Islands from N. Africans, to Spanish, to Phoenician, etc.  How do you know which groups brought what?  I know there has been DNA testing there but I can't find the paper.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 09:08:29 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #293 on: May 24, 2012, 09:12:02 AM »

@ Humanist  - I couldn't agree more that we need to be very cautious in conclusions drawn from present DNA in Anatolia. There has been a huge turnover in population since 4000 BC. 
To be honest, there have been pretty good population turnovers in much of Europe since 4000 BC, haven't there?  I know Turkey has seen a great deal of conflict in the last couple of hundred years but if we evaluate by ethnic group and region (rather than as monolithic) is the degree of caution required really any greater?
Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #294 on: May 24, 2012, 09:17:33 AM »


I also think we have to wonder about the idea that even the PIE core was R1a-dominated ...  given the lack of R1a in Anatolia

While I agree with the general thrust of your views here, I must point out that R1a is found in Anatolia, albeit at a level (6.9%) below that of R1b-M269 (14.7%). R1a1a-M17 is higher in Eastern Turkey and its distribution significantly correlates with longitude across the nine regions (Cinnioglu 2004).

Just a friendly note, from someone with ties to E Turkey (specifically, extreme SE Turkey). I do not ordinarily rely on R1a1 frequencies reported for Turkey.   In particular, E Turkey, given the population turnovers of the past century or two (e.g. Armenian, Pontic Greek, and Assyrian genocides).  And, extending as far back as 1000 years or so, with the known and/or presumed migrations of certain groups into the area.  

My last update to the R1a1 frequency map for Near East "minority" groups: http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Map_Middle_East_R1a-2.jpg

The accompanying data:

Code:
Pop N R1a Language Source
Druze 366 1% Semitic Arabic Behar et al., Al-Zahery et al.
PalChri 44 2% Semitic Arabic Fernandes at al.*
Alawi 104 2% Semitic Arabic Donbak et al.*
Assyr 106 2% Semitic Aramaic Yepiskoposian et al.
IraqJ 79 0% Semitic Hebrew Behar et al.
IranJ 49 4% Semitic Hebrew Behar et al.
Armeni 1147 4% Indo-European Armenian Hererra et al., Weale et al.
NiqJews 99 4% Semitic Hebrew/Aramaic Nebel et al.
Yezidi 196 2% Indo-Iranian(IE) Kurmanji Yepiskoposian et al.
Maronit 196 0% Semitic Arabic/Aramaic Haber et al.
YemenJ 74 3% Semitic Hebrew/Arabic Behar et al.
Bakht 46 15% Indo-Iranian (IE) Luri Roewer et al.
S_Tlsh 18 6% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.
Gilak 43 14% Indo-Iranian (IE) Gilaki Roewer et al.
Mazan 46 7% Indo-Iranian (IE) Mazandarani Roewer et al.
N_Tlsh 43 0% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.
Tats 20 0% Indo-Iranian (IE) Tati Bertoncini et al.

Edit: But I should add that you are correct, in that there is some presence of R1a in Anatolia.  

I see the R1a proportions are highest in some of the Indo-Iranian populations (i.e. Gilaki, Bakhtiari, Mazandarani.) In what timeframes do we expect that they arrived in the Near East?

What groups above do you expect we would find remnants of the Hittites in?
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 09:21:16 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 425


« Reply #295 on: May 24, 2012, 09:29:33 AM »

I know there has been DNA testing there but I can't find the paper.

There you go Mike:

Demographic history of Canary Islands male gene-pool: replacement of native lineages by European
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #296 on: May 24, 2012, 09:38:38 AM »

To be honest, there have been pretty good population turnovers in much of Europe since 4000 BC, haven't there?  I know Turkey has seen a great deal of conflict in the last couple of hundred years but if we evaluate by ethnic group and region (rather than as monolithic) is the degree of caution required really any greater?

Hard to say exactly!  I think I'd be at least as cautious with Anatolia as with Eastern Europe, which has been so churned up over the last 6000 years that I almost threw up my hands and gave up. :)

It is not just the conflict of recent centuries we have to worry about in Anatolia. It is not just the influx of the Turks either. There is one long parade of IE-speaking people bursting upon the scene. We have the Anatolian-branch IE people maybe c. 3000 BC, who seem to have ousted some non-IE groups eventually, some of whom fled west along the Med to turn up in history as the Etruscans and Minoans. Then we have the Phrygian-Armenian migration from Thrace (1200 BC?) and  the Greek colonies. Anatolia was conquered by the Persian Achaemenid Empire during the 6th and 5th centuries BC . Then we have the Celts (Gauls) founding Galatia.

For a quick summary see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Antiquity

[Added] Forgot to mention the Cimmerians fleeing from the Scythians into Anatolia .

 
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 10:49:08 AM by Jean M » Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #297 on: May 24, 2012, 10:50:32 AM »

The Canary Islands R1b is only tested to M269 and most likely due to Spanish/Portuguese colonization. 
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #298 on: May 24, 2012, 11:06:59 AM »

The Canary Islands R1b is only tested to M269 and most likely due to Spanish/Portuguese colonization.  

The samples were taken from cemeteries (details below) prior to the Hispanic capture and colonisation of the islands 1402 AD+. There had been contact previously between the islanders and other people e.g. Greeks, Romans.  However it is perfectly possible that the R1b arrived with the first Berber people to colonise the islands c. 1000 BC, ancestors of the Guanches. Bear in mind that Bell Beaker goods and remains have been found in Morocco that date to before this.  

c. 1000 AD : Tenerife (2210 ± 60 to 1720 ± 60 BP), Gomera (1743 ± 40 to 1493 ± 40 BP), Hierro (1740 ± 50 to 970 ± 50 BP) and Gran Canaria (1410 ± 60 to 750 ± 60 BP).



 
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 11:07:20 AM by Jean M » Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #299 on: May 24, 2012, 11:19:42 AM »

The Canary Islands R1b is only tested to M269 and most likely due to Spanish/Portuguese colonization.  

The samples were taken from cemeteries (details below) prior to the Hispanic capture and colonisation of the islands 1402 AD+. There had been contact previously between the islanders and other people e.g. Greeks, Romans.  However it is perfectly possible that the R1b arrived with the first Berber people to colonise the islands c. 1000 BC, ancestors of the Guanches. Bear in mind that Bell Beaker goods and remains have been found in Morocco that date to before this.  

c. 1000 AD : Tenerife (2210 ± 60 to 1720 ± 60 BP), Gomera (1743 ± 40 to 1493 ± 40 BP), Hierro (1740 ± 50 to 970 ± 50 BP) and Gran Canaria (1410 ± 60 to 750 ± 60 BP).

Thanks for the clarification, ie., no demonstration of UP ancestry.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 17 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.164 seconds with 18 queries.