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 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 17 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA  (Read 116179 times)
Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #300 on: May 24, 2012, 11:49:41 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?

I believe a good part of the R1a presence among Iranians may have arrived with the Indo-Iranians.  So, we are speaking here between two and three millennia ago.  Although not perfectly related, there is reason to believe R1a frequencies in many Indo-Iranian groups may be connected with the Dodecad K12b "North European" component, and its related components in Eurogenes.*

As for the Hittites, I would say there is no better extant candidate population than the Alawites.  Their homeland was former Hittite territory.  They are even referred to as Hittites in Turkish ("Eti"), by the Anatolian Turks.  

I am not saying that the Alawites are the undiluted specimens of the ancient Hittites.  But, from among the modern populations, in my opinion, no population makes a better case for being descended from the Hittites.

*Compare my Dodecad K12b component values, for instance, with those of Iranians:

Code:
Hum Irn
21.1 28.8 Gedrosia
0 2.1 Siberian
0 0 Northwest_African
0 0.6 Southeast_Asian
9.1 5.6 Atlantic_Med
0 6 North_European  <-----
0.2 3.6 South_Asian
0 0.1 East_African
18.4 12.4 Southwest_Asian
0.5 0.5 East_Asian
50.6 40.3 Caucasus
0 0 Sub_Saharan
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 11:52:00 AM by Humanist » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #301 on: May 24, 2012, 11:50:57 AM »

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

Heavens no! :)
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #302 on: May 24, 2012, 12:03:38 PM »


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.


Thanks, Jean L.

This must be the pertinent part of "Demographic history of Canary Islands male gene-pool: replacement of native lineages by European" by Fregel et al - 2009.
Quote from: Fregel
Compared to the original natives, the 17th–18th century historical sample mainly differs by harboring lower frequencies of NW African haplogroups (p < 0.05), such as E-M81 (11.9% vs 26.7%), E-M78 (11.9% vs 23.3%) and J-M267 (11.9% vs 16.7%), and higher frequencies for European haplogroups (p < 0.001) like R-M269 (42.9% vs 10.0%) or R-M173, (9.5% vs 0.0%). A notable exception was I-M170 because it was not detected in the historical sample, despite being moderately frequent in the aborigines (6.7%).
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/181

Polako, is this how you are getting "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."  Are you assuming that 10% of R-M269 in that population must be native versus an incursion?
Logged

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

Posts: 186


« Reply #303 on: May 24, 2012, 12:07:21 PM »

... 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.


Wasn't the Andronovo horizon formed by Yamna people? Not a single R1b or any other west eurasian ydna besides R1a. If there was so much admixture why haven't scythians showed anything indicating that?
Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #304 on: May 24, 2012, 12:59:15 PM »

... 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.


Wasn't the Andronovo horizon formed by Yamna people? Not a single R1b or any other west eurasian ydna besides R1a. If there was so much admixture why haven't scythians showed anything indicating that?

Yes, near the eastern range of Yamnaya.  There were westward migrations into the Danube corridor and all the way to Hungary, but this was when Cucuteni-Tripolye was still around and before Andronovo in the east.  If there is any R1b in Yamnaya it would most likely be in this western migration.  It was a large horizon that extended into places where it is completely logical to expect a presence of R1b.  

This doesn't mean R1b, nor R1a for that matter, were the original steppe hunter-gatherers.  PIE seems to be a language developed from among the intrusive Sredny Stog culture from the Volga region, the foragers already there, and likely neolithic influences from the south and west.  This could've involved many haplogroups.  This is 2000 or so years before R1a in Eulau.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 03:10:55 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #305 on: May 24, 2012, 01:16:39 PM »

Wasn't the Andronovo horizon formed by Yamna people? Not a single R1b or any other west eurasian ydna besides R1a. If there was so much admixture why haven't scythians showed anything indicating that?

The Bell Beaker Culture was also derived from Yamna. Why is there no R1a1a in Bell Beaker? The answer seems to be that people at the eastern end of the Pontic Caspian steppe were predominantly R1a1a, while people around the Sea of Azov were predominantly R1b.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #306 on: May 24, 2012, 02:38:15 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.

I am not saying that at all.  I am following some version of the Kurgan idea for now as I think that the evidence is currently favouring that.  I am not some sort of obstinate person who will not move with evidence because it doesnt agree with what I thought when the evidence is different. I press hard when there is doubt and am not easily satisfied until things are clear cut.  I do like taking reverse positions to test models. and was trained to do that.

 I am not trying to state that IE originated in Anatolia in my post.  What I am saying is there was a non-R1a group in the PIE area before PIE had fully formed and they may have exited that area and headed into Anatolia after a period in an intermediate location.

The point is  the Anatolian branch was clearly in the PIE area from a very early stage and separated off and they are very unlikely to be R1a and much more likely to have been L23*.  So Anatolian shows R1b was in the soon-to-be PIE mix at an early stage and undoubtedly contributed to creating the reconstructed PIE society.  IIf R1b was more farming associated and was the in the mix of Anatolian or some proto-proto-IE society it kind of demonstrates that R1b was not some late addition to some already developed PIE language and society but was in the mix while it was still developing.  This would hardly be surprising given that farming influences were seeping into the steppes for well over a 1000 years before the currently favoured earliest date of PIE.  That takes nothing away from the lR1a element which was clearly also very important.  As to the location of Anatolian, the majority view is that they were not in Anatolia and were some sort of fission from the PIE area a little before PIE had fully developed.  I think that on balance R1b and R1a were in the area where PIE was developing before it had taken its reconstructed PIE form both in linguistic and terms of the final reconstructed PIE society.  

 Without them (assuming that R1b people were indeed farmers) the steppes peoples would have remained hunter gatherers. The farming aspect was crucial.  Without them there would be no PIE society as reconstructed.  
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 03:05:08 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #307 on: May 24, 2012, 02:49:57 PM »

Wasn't the Andronovo horizon formed by Yamna people? Not a single R1b or any other west eurasian ydna besides R1a. If there was so much admixture why haven't scythians showed anything indicating that?

The Bell Beaker Culture was also derived from Yamna. Why is there no R1a1a in Bell Beaker? The answer seems to be that people at the eastern end of the Pontic Caspian steppe were predominantly R1a1a, while people around the Sea of Azov were predominantly R1b.

I am willing to be persuaded on that idea but it still feels unclear.  is the main source for this Harrison and Heyd or are there other papers that flesh this out.  I am totally open minded on this and maybe I should re-read H&H but it didnt feel like a closed case. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #308 on: May 24, 2012, 02:58:55 PM »

Going back to the idea of the R1a and R1b languages at the potential contact period between farmers and steppe foragers, I am not a linguist but I doubt that there original languages were respectively say 5500BC were as different as proto-proto-PIE (for want of a better word) and afro-asiatic, semitic etc.  I would imagine the languages were rather closer albeit distant cousins.  Put it this way 6000 years after PIE its easy to spot that all IE languages are related.  This could have also been true when the two R1 peoples reconnected after maybe a similar period os separation around 5500BC (ish).  I think it might have been rather like an Iranian meeting a Romance speaker today and certainly not two groups from utterly different language families.  There may then be a third language that has been lost (or several/many).  It seem the sort of PIE vs Afro-Asiatic divide is more the sort of divide you might expect between R and J peoples or something like that. 
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #309 on: May 24, 2012, 03:10:50 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.

I am not saying that at all.  I am following some version of the Kurgan idea for now as I think that the evidence is currently favouring that.  I am not some sort of obstinate person who will not move with evidence because it doesnt agree with what I thought when the evidence is different. I press hard when there is doubt and am not easily satisfied until things are clear cut.  I do like taking reverse positions to test models. and was trained to do that.

 I am not trying to state that IE originated in Anatolia in my post.  What I am saying is there was a non-R1a group in the PIE area before PIE had fully formed and they may have exited that area and headed into Anatolia after a period in an intermediate location.

The point is  the Anatolian branch was clearly in the PIE area from a very early stage and separated off and they are very unlikely to be R1a and much more likely to have been L23*.  So Anatolian shows R1b was in the soon-to-be PIE mix at an early stage and undoubtedly contributed to creating the reconstructed PIE society.  IIf R1b was more farming associated and was the in the mix of Anatolian or some proto-proto-IE society it kind of demonstrates that R1b was not some late addition to some already developed PIE language and society but was in the mix while it was still developing.  This would hardly be surprising given that farming influences were seeping into the steppes for well over a 1000 years before the currently favoured earliest date of PIE.  That takes nothing away from the lR1a element which was clearly also very important.  As to the location of Anatolian, the majority view is that they were not in Anatolia and were some sort of fission from the PIE area a little before PIE had fully developed.  I think that on balance R1b and R1a were in the area where PIE was developing before it had taken its reconstructed PIE form both in linguistic and terms of the final reconstructed PIE society.  

 Without them (assuming that R1b people were indeed farmers) the steppes peoples would have remained hunter gatherers. The farming aspect was crucial.  Without them there would be no PIE society as reconstructed.  

This is nonsense. R1b is 15% of Anatolian lineages and R1a is 7%. By your faulty logic J2a is really the PIE lineage. You are indeed trying to take something away from R1a by placing PIE in an area with lesser amounts of R1a so you say R1a received PIE from superior R1b carriers who civilized R1a carriers.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #310 on: May 24, 2012, 03:12:39 PM »

One other thought is that premise of much of these discussions is that languages spread with genes.  If R1b was not an early part of the PIE world then the premise falls at the first hurdle.  R1b is pretty well the most likely smoking gun for IE in all of western Europe after all.  
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #311 on: May 24, 2012, 03:14:59 PM »

Going back to the idea of the R1a and R1b languages at the potential contact period between farmers and steppe foragers, I am not a linguist but I doubt that there original languages were respectively say 5500BC were as different as proto-proto-PIE (for want of a better word) and afro-asiatic, semitic etc.  I would imagine the languages were rather closer albeit distant cousins.  Put it this way 6000 years after PIE its easy to spot that all IE languages are related.  This could have also been true when the two R1 peoples reconnected after maybe a similar period os separation around 5500BC (ish).  I think it might have been rather like an Iranian meeting a Romance speaker today and certainly not two groups from utterly different language families.  There may then be a third language that has been lost (or several/many). It seem the sort of PIE vs Afro-Asiatic divide is more the sort of divide you might expect between R and J peoples or something like that.  
There is no such divide. J2a peaks among non afroasiatic speakers and has nothing to do with Afroasiatic especially since it is more characteristic of Anatolians, Armenians, Caucasians, Iranians and NW South Asians where there is no evidence of Afro Asiatic languages being spoken there. J1 is more diverse in Iran, Anatolia and the Caucasus. There is no reason to connect J as a whole to Afro Asiatic. At best certain clades of J1 are related to the spread of Semitic in certain area. Both J1 and J2 are likely to have originated in an area encompassing the South Caucasus, Anatolia and Western Iran. This is also where R1b comes from.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 03:17:26 PM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #312 on: May 24, 2012, 03:15:52 PM »

One other thought is that premise of much of these discussions is that languages spread with genes.  If R1b was not an early part of the PIE world then the premise falls at the first hurdle.  R1b is pretty well the most likely smoking gun for IE in all of western Europe after all.  

Doesn't mean R1b is the source pf PIE in Eastern Europe.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #313 on: May 24, 2012, 03:42:35 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.

I am not saying that at all.  I am following some version of the Kurgan idea for now as I think that the evidence is currently favouring that.  I am not some sort of obstinate person who will not move with evidence because it doesnt agree with what I thought when the evidence is different. I press hard when there is doubt and am not easily satisfied until things are clear cut.  I do like taking reverse positions to test models. and was trained to do that.

 I am not trying to state that IE originated in Anatolia in my post.  What I am saying is there was a non-R1a group in the PIE area before PIE had fully formed and they may have exited that area and headed into Anatolia after a period in an intermediate location.

The point is  the Anatolian branch was clearly in the PIE area from a very early stage and separated off and they are very unlikely to be R1a and much more likely to have been L23*.  So Anatolian shows R1b was in the soon-to-be PIE mix at an early stage and undoubtedly contributed to creating the reconstructed PIE society.  IIf R1b was more farming associated and was the in the mix of Anatolian or some proto-proto-IE society it kind of demonstrates that R1b was not some late addition to some already developed PIE language and society but was in the mix while it was still developing.  This would hardly be surprising given that farming influences were seeping into the steppes for well over a 1000 years before the currently favoured earliest date of PIE.  That takes nothing away from the lR1a element which was clearly also very important.  As to the location of Anatolian, the majority view is that they were not in Anatolia and were some sort of fission from the PIE area a little before PIE had fully developed.  I think that on balance R1b and R1a were in the area where PIE was developing before it had taken its reconstructed PIE form both in linguistic and terms of the final reconstructed PIE society.  

 Without them (assuming that R1b people were indeed farmers) the steppes peoples would have remained hunter gatherers. The farming aspect was crucial.  Without them there would be no PIE society as reconstructed.  

This is nonsense. R1b is 15% of Anatolian lineages and R1a is 7%. By your faulty logic J2a is really the PIE lineage. You are indeed trying to take something away from R1a by placing PIE in an area with lesser amounts of R1a so you say R1a received PIE from superior R1b carriers who civilized R1a carriers.

lol I never said that and I didnt place PIE anywhere.  In fact I followed a broadly steppes model. I didnt say anything specific about location.  However, if you push me for comment on location I will. Lets put it this way the most favoured theory is that Anatolian broke off from proto-proto-PIE by a western route through the Balkans to Anatolia.  I think the evidence of Anatolian (not Anatolia) is important.  They appear to have been participating in the development towards PIE yet are thought to have been westerly placed.  I think the whole development of proto-IE is a lot more nuanced than the simple R1a v R1b tone in this thread.

I also said its not even clear that R1b was 'the farmers'.  They could also have been some people holed up in some corner around the Black Sea and had nothing to do with early farming.  An alternative theory would be L23* was also in the steppes and intruded into Anatolia from north of the Black Sea.    The L23* variance map shows as high variance to the north as it does in Anatolia or the Aegean. In fact its quite low around that sea.  As for upstream of L23* I dont think we are on safe grounds at all with M269* etc.  I have been told the north Mesopotamian variance peak is not safe when it is examined in detail.

I also think the fact that both R1 peoples may have not been separated for a drastically long period (something that is unknown) makes the idea that they were from completely different language families very dubious anyway.  Anatolian or proto-PIE might be perhaps 7000 years old??? Its only 6000 years since the reconstructed PIE time favoured by the majority.  I think the R1b and R1a peoples probably were rather closer in language than is portrayed.  Even if R1b was a farming 'old Europe' or Anatolian group they would have had some contract from perhaps as long as 8000 years ago.  At the contact period (which is far older than PIE) even if they had been separated since the Younger Dryas they were still only around 3000 years separated, only half of the time depth that separates modern IE languages today from PIE.  

So I think we need to stop treating the R1 terrible twins as some sort of utter aliens from each other.  At the point of re-contact a 3000 years separation would have been no more than the separation depth of  Welsh and Irish Insular Celtic languages today.  

20-20 vision for the splinter of differences and blindness for the plank of wood that is similarities has been a bad force in this world IMO.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #314 on: May 24, 2012, 03:49:22 PM »

One other thought is that premise of much of these discussions is that languages spread with genes.  If R1b was not an early part of the PIE world then the premise falls at the first hurdle.  R1b is pretty well the most likely smoking gun for IE in all of western Europe after all.  

Doesn't mean R1b is the source pf PIE in Eastern Europe.

I didnt say that.  Not everyone is into some sort of black and white R1a vs R1b winner takes all type imagining of this.  I think you are reading other peoples attitudes in a way that says more about your own than others.  The only person coming across as wanting exclusivity to IE is you. 

It was probably a combination of both.  Remember too while the time depth and location of PIE can be narrowed down by palaeolinguistics its not that specific. PIE language and society as reconstructed is an end game not the process.  It reflects a period 2000 years into the contract between(some)  steppes hunters and (some) farmers.   
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #315 on: May 24, 2012, 03:54:29 PM »

Doesn't mean R1b is the source pf PIE in Eastern Europe.

And therein lies the problem...nobody says it was.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #316 on: May 24, 2012, 04:05:09 PM »

I am willing to be persuaded on that idea but it still feels unclear.  is the main source for this Harrison and Heyd or are there other papers that flesh this out.  I am totally open minded on this and maybe I should re-read H&H but it didnt feel like a closed case.  

Harrison and Heyd do not make it easy for the reader, certainly. Their abstract coyly hints. The text is dense and detailed. They probably feel that the conclusion is obvious, but you are not the only one to complain that it isn't. I have already had to spell things out on this forum once, with page references, for another user who actually accused me of lying about it! I frankly don't feel like dragging this huge paper out again and repeating the exercise. But here are a few points off the top of my head.

  • The earliest anthropomorphic stelae are on the Crimea and adjacent steppe.
  • The stelae are associated with a Yamnaya package, many items of which are inherited by several cultures, including Bell Beaker.
  • There is no break at Sion between the Stelae People and the Bell Beaker People. On the contrary the Bell Beaker people keep up the monuments created by the Stelae People. Bell Beaker patterns appear on some anthropomorphic stelae.
  • The break actually comes between Bell Beaker phases. (The political shift.)

Further evidence was supplied by the inherited dental traits study. J. Desideri and M. Besse, Swiss Bell Beaker population dynamics: eastern or southern influences?, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3 (September 2010), pp. 157-173. It showed that in Southern France, Northern Spain and Western Switzerland, Bell Beaker people not only shared the graves and settlements of their Final Neolithic and Copper Age predecessors, but were actually related to them.
 
[Added] By the way Desideri has a larger study published: Jocelyne Desideri, When Beakers Met Bell Beakers An analysis of dental remains, BAR S2292 2011
    
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 04:16:47 PM by Jean M » Logged
Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #317 on: May 24, 2012, 04:22:38 PM »

I have been told the north Mesopotamian variance peak is not safe when it is examined in detail.

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source.  The Alawites and Druze have significant variance as well, I believe.  Though, I am not certain on that last point.
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #318 on: May 24, 2012, 04:25:20 PM »

I am willing to be persuaded on that idea but it still feels unclear.  is the main source for this Harrison and Heyd or are there other papers that flesh this out.  I am totally open minded on this and maybe I should re-read H&H but it didnt feel like a closed case.  

Harrison and Heyd do not make it easy for the reader, certainly. Their abstract coyly hints. The text is dense and detailed. They probably feel that the conclusion is obvious, but you are not the only one to complain that it isn't. I have already had to spell things out on this forum once, with page references, for another user who actually accused me of lying about it! I frankly don't feel like dragging this huge paper out again and repeating the exercise. But here are a few points off the top of my head.

  • The earliest anthropomorphic stelae are on the Crimea and adjacent steppe.
  • The stelae are associated with a Yamnaya package, many items of which are inherited by several cultures, including Bell Beaker.
  • There is no break at Sion between the Stelae People and the Bell Beaker People. On the contrary the Bell Beaker people keep up the monuments created by the Stelae People. Bell Beaker patterns appear on some anthropomorphic stelae.
  • The break actually comes between Bell Beaker phases. (The political shift.)

Further evidence was supplied by the inherited dental traits study. J. Desideri and M. Besse, Swiss Bell Beaker population dynamics: eastern or southern influences?, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3 (September 2010), pp. 157-173. It showed that in Southern France, Northern Spain and Western Switzerland, Bell Beaker people not only shared the graves and settlements of their Final Neolithic and Copper Age predecessors, but were actually related to them.
 
[Added] By the way Desideri has a larger study published: Jocelyne Desideri, When Beakers Met Bell Beakers An analysis of dental remains, BAR S2292 2011
    

Cheers.  I suppose I fell a need to flesh out a bit more about the Stelae People beyond the Stelae itself.  What other aspects other than the Stelae are characteristic of eastern roots?
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #319 on: May 24, 2012, 04:27:04 PM »

I have been told the north Mesopotamian variance peak is not safe when it is examined in detail.

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source.  The Alawites and Druze have significant variance as well, I believe.  Though, I am not certain on that last point.

The big problem is upstream of L23* everything seems incredibly uncertain.  M269* seems almost impossible to get a handle on. 
Logged
Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #320 on: May 24, 2012, 04:30:36 PM »

I have been told the north Mesopotamian variance peak is not safe when it is examined in detail.

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source.  The Alawites and Druze have significant variance as well, I believe.  Though, I am not certain on that last point.

The big problem is upstream of L23* everything seems incredibly uncertain.  M269* seems almost impossible to get a handle on. 

That is fine.  But, why is the variance specifically among north Mesopotamians suspect, according to your source?  Or, was it simply a general statement that you applied to all L23 variance figures? 
Logged

Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #321 on: May 24, 2012, 04:39:40 PM »

I have been told the north Mesopotamian variance peak is not safe when it is examined in detail.

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source.  The Alawites and Druze have significant variance as well, I believe.  Though, I am not certain on that last point.

Actually, it appears among Druze, R-M269 variance is not that great.  So, it is highest among the Alawites and Assyrians then, out of the three. 

Druze data (R-P25 haplotypes) from Shlush et al. 


Code:
393 390 19 391 385a 385b 426 388 439 389i 392 389ii Predictor.RU Probability
14 24 14 10 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b-M343          50%
14 24 14 10 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b-M343          50%
13 24 14 10 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b-M343          51%
13 24 14 10 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 28 P-M45          100%
14 24 14 13 xx xx 12 12 xx 14 13 30 R1b1b1-M73 89%

12 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 14 28 R1b1b2-M269 100%
12 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 98%
12 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 98%
12 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 98%
12 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 98%
12 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 98%
12 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 98%
12 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 98%
12 25 14 10 xx xx 11 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 95%
12 25 14 10 xx xx 11 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 95%
13 24 14 10 xx xx 10 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 62%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 30 R1b1b2-M269 81%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 30 R1b1b2-M269 81%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 88%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 10 12 xx 13 13 29 R1b1b2-M269 78%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 14 13 30 R1b1b2-M269 96%
13 24 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 14 13 30 R1b1b2-M269 96%
13 25 14 11 xx xx 12 12 xx 14 13 30 R1b1b2-M269 93%
14 24 14 10 xx xx 12 12 xx 14 13 30 R1b1b2-M269 95%
14 24 14 10 xx xx 12 12 xx 14 13 30 R1b1b2-M269 95%
14 24 14 10 xx xx 12 12 xx 14 13 32 R1b1b2-M269 84%
14 24 14 10 xx xx 12 12 xx 14 13 30 R1b1b2-M269 95%
14 24 14 10 xx xx 12 12 xx 14 13 30 R1b1b2-M269 95%
Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #322 on: May 24, 2012, 04:43:36 PM »

Cheers.  I suppose I fell a need to flesh out a bit more about the Stelae People beyond the Stelae itself.  What other aspects other than the Stelae are characteristic of eastern roots?

For me the Big Stuff is metallurgy and the Secondary Products Revolution. That's what transformed the economy of Europe. Of course the greater emphasis on the individual is important too. If you want the archaeological nitty-gritty, the paper presents eleven components of the Yamnaya Package on pp. 196-7 and goes on to  discuss which cultures adopted these. They include lockenringe (which were found with the Amesbury Archer) and corded decoration on pottery.    
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 04:56:48 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #323 on: May 24, 2012, 06:55:22 PM »

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source. 

Alan may be referring to my comment further up this thread that I don't try to use variance to pin-point origins that far back in time. There has been too much subsequent movement. For example it is estimated that over 4 million people were displaced within the Assyrian Empire. Whole communities were moved from one corner of the empire to another. That sort of thing blurs the details of older migrations. We may be left with a bit of a hint in very broad geographical outline. It is not impossible that L23 arose somewhere in the vicinity of northern Mesopotamia. I've just guessed that R1b was a bit further north in the mountain valleys and by-passed Mesopotamia to move into and across Anatolia.
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #324 on: May 24, 2012, 07:09:32 PM »

I do not believe L23 arose in N Mesopotamia, but I am curious why the variance among N Mesopotamians is "not safe," according to your source.

Alan may be referring to my comment further up this thread that I don't try to use variance to pin-point origins that far back in time. There has been too much subsequent movement. For example it is estimated that over 4 million people were displaced within the Assyrian Empire. Whole communities were moved from one corner of the empire to another. That sort of thing blurs the details of older migrations. We may be left with a bit of a hint in very broad geographical outline. It is not impossible that L23 arose somewhere in the vicinity of northern Mesopotamia. I've just guessed that R1b was a bit further north in the mountain valleys and by-passed Mesopotamia to move into and across Anatolia.

I think the region encompassing Armenia, Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran is the home to R1b along with G, J2a and J1.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 09:46:55 PM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 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 0.206 seconds with 18 queries.