World Families Forums - Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family

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)
| | |-+  Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family  (Read 142804 times)
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #325 on: September 08, 2012, 05:14:46 PM »

Couple this with yesterday's three papers from Tyler-Smith, Wei and Xue indicating an "extreme" expansion of R1b into Europe ~5 -10 KYA.

The initial dating by Tyler-Smith and colleagues of said expansion was 5-8 KYA = c. 4500 BC.* I dare say it occurred to him that this did not fit the Neolithic as he expected it to and the date has been revised upwards to c. 5500 BC. That still does not fit the European Neolithic (7000 BC +) very well. Plus no R1b has turned up in Neolithic remains. G2a is dominant.

Other geneticists have realised what this means. They published recently in Trends in Genetics. It means that R1b spread across Europe post-Neolithic. I spoke to one of the authors recently. He confirmed his view that R1b did not arrive in western Europe until the Copper/Bronze Age.    

*Barbara Arredi, Estella S. Poloni and Chris Tyler Smith, The Peopling of Europe, Chapter 13 in  Michael Crawford (Ed): Anthropological Genetics, Theory, Methods and Applications; Cambridge University Press 2007.


I understand there were three papers. One dealing with the Complete Genomics data set, another with the 1000 Genomes Dataset and the third which consolidates both papers and summarises the big picture. This could explain different estimates. The date in the published abstract is 5 - 10 KYA.
In any event I have seen the full range of age estimates from many papers Myres, Busby, Balleresque etc. that I generally take them with a pinch of salt.
Regarding R1b and aDNA we will eventually find it as sampling increases and I expect the BEAN project to turn up something interesting.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 05:18:36 PM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #326 on: September 08, 2012, 05:29:23 PM »

It will certainly be interesting to study the Beaker folk's autosomal DNA in relation to European prehistory, as R1b makes its first appearance with them on the European scene. Were they the people who brought North European/East Eurasian-like ancestry into Iberia, or did the pre-existing I folk already possess it?

Heber - the problem is that these autosomal studies can only guess what their results actually mean. What they are calling North European just means that there is more of this "component" now in north Europe than south Europe. If you look at Patterson et al 2012's other conclusions, you will see:
 
Quote
Nearly complete replacement of the indigenous Mesolithic southern European populations by Neolithic migrants and admixture between the Neolithic farmers and the indigenous Europeans in the north.

So according to their calculations Northern Europe has rather more "Mesolithic" DNA. That actually fits the mtDNA data for the NE (more U5) and the genome comparison of the two Spanish Mesolithic men with modern-day Europeans. They were more like northern Europeans. How did this arise? It is partly true that more hunter-gatherers actually survived in NE Europe after the arrival of farmers. But also yet more hunter-gatherers arrived later in the NE (Uralic-speakers), and yet more "Mesolithic" DNA arrived with Indo-Europeans, as they were the result of a mixture of hunter-gatherer and farming stock living close to the border with Asia. Both they and the Uralic speakers had some Central Asian DNA. 

It is this mixture that Patterson and team has detected arriving in Spain in the Copper Age.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 05:32:54 PM by Jean M » Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #327 on: September 08, 2012, 05:45:23 PM »

Or as Dienekes indicates, Mesolithic Iberians were already like North Europeans so you don't need a "reflux" explanation, just a migration out of Iberia.
Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #328 on: September 08, 2012, 05:47:30 PM »

LOL! Ingenious but somehow silly. Why would a migration out of Iberia look like a migration into it? Why did the Mesolithic Spanish chaps not resemble modern Iberians? I'll tell you. Because Patterson et al are right about one thing. The hunter-gatherers in Iberia were submerged by farmers in the Neolithic. A migration of out of Iberia in the Copper or Bronze Age of people descended from Neolithic farmers would not look like modern "northern Europeans" at all.  

But you see what I mean about people just guessing what these results mean!
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 05:59:23 PM by Jean M » Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #329 on: September 08, 2012, 06:32:53 PM »

some say Pastoralists built Stonehenge...does this include R1b subclades?
http://www.sciencenews.org/view//id/343984/title/Herders%2C_not_farmers%2C_built_Stonehenge
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


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

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


Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #330 on: September 08, 2012, 08:11:08 PM »

That article is based on the Stevens and Fuller paper from Antiquity: Did Neolithic farming fail? The case for a Bronze Age agricultural revolution in the British Isles.

Quote
This paper rewrites the early history of Britain, showing that while the cultivation of cereals arrived there in about 4000 cal BC, it did not last. Between 3300 and 1500 BC Britons became largely pastoral, reverting only with a major upsurge of agricultural activity in the Middle Bronze Age. This loss of interest in arable farming was accompanied by a decline in population, seen by the authors as having a climatic impetus. But they also point to this period as the time of construction of the great megalithic monuments, including Stonehenge. We are left wondering whether pastoralism was all that bad, and whether it was one intrusion after another that set the agenda on the island.

But in fact we already knew that some of the building phases of Stonehenge fall into the Bell Beaker period. And we know that R1b has been found at a Bell Beaker site in Germany. So we can join the dots. The paper is more of interest for the way it firms up the issue of the collapse of arable farming.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 08:14:31 AM by Jean M » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #331 on: September 08, 2012, 08:40:24 PM »

LOL! Ingenious but somehow silly. Why would a migration out of Iberia look like a migration into it? Why did the Mesolithic Spanish chaps not resemble modern Iberians? I'll tell you. Because Patterson et al are right about one thing. The hunter-gatherers in Iberia were submerged by farmers in the Neolithic. A migration of out of Iberia in the Copper or Bronze Age of people descended from Neolithic farmers would not look like modern "northern Europeans" at all. 

But you see what I mean about people just guessing what these results mean!

Ok, I was trying to stay out of this, but it seems to me a lot of stuff is being thrown around indiscriminately. First of all, if we are to assume that more mt-DNA U5=more Mesolithic ancestry, then what do you make of Basques, because they have the same levels of U5 as NE Europeans. Second of all, the conclusion of the paper was as follows:

Quote from: Patterson.et.al

Interpretation in light of ancient DNA


Ancient DNA studies have documented a clean break between the genetic structure of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Europe and the Neolithic first farmers who followed them. Mitochondrial analyses have shown that the first farmers in central Europe, belonging to the Linear Pottery culture (LBK), were genetically strongly differentiated from European hunter-gatherers (BRAMANTI et al., 2009), with an ‘affinity’ to present day Near Eastern and Anatolian populations (HAAK et al., 2010). More recently, new insight has come from analysis of ancient nuclear DNA from three hunter-gatherers and one Neolithic farmer who lived roughly contemporaneously at about 5000 years B.P. in what is now Sweden (SKOGLUND et al., 2012). The farmer’s DNA shows a signal of genetic relatedness to Sardinians that is not present in the hunter-gatherers who have much more relatedness to present-day northern Europeans. These findings suggest that the arrival of agriculture in Europe involved massive movements of genes (not just culture) from the Near East to Europe and that people descending from the Near Eastern migrants initially reached as far north as Sweden with little mixing with the hunter-gatherers they encountered. However, the fact that today, northern Europeans have a strong signal of admixture of these two groups, as proven by this study and consistent with the findings of (SKOGLUND et al., 2012), indicates that these two ancestral groups subsequently mixed.


Combining the ancient DNA evidence with our results, we hypothesize that agriculturalists with genetic ancestry close to modern Sardinians immigrated into all parts of Europe along with the spread of agriculture. In Sardinia, the Basque country, and perhaps other parts of southern Europe they largely replaced the indigenous Mesolithic populations, explaining why we observe no signal of admixture in Sardinians today to the limits of our resolution. In contrast, the migrants did not replace the indigenous populations in northern Europe, and instead lived side-by-side with them, admixing over time (perhaps over thousands of years). Such a scenario would explain why northern European populations today are admixed, and also have a rolloff admixture date that is substantially more recent than the initial arrival of agriculture in northern Europe. (An alternative history that could produce the signal of Asian-related admixture in northern Europeans is admixture from steppe herders speaking Indo-European languages, who after domesticating the horse would have had a military and technological advantage over agriculturalists (ANTHONY, 2007). However, this hypothesis cannot explain the ancient DNA result that northern Europeans today appear admixed between populations related to Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans (SKOGLUND et al., 2012), and so even if the steppe hypothesis has some truth, it can only explain part of the data.)


So here are the set of assumptions made by the authors in order to reach the conclusions they reached based upon ancient DNA:


1-That the three Swedish Hunter-Gatherers were similar to Mesolithic European Hunter-Gatherers, but thankfully enough we have now two truly Mesolithic Iberian Hunter Gatherers, and the chaps aren’t similar genetically so far to the Swedish Hunter-Gatherers.


2- That the Swedish Farmer was someone similar to Middle Eastern populations, and her genome was fully representative of Neolithic immigrant from the Middle East. This is yet another leap of faith, because the farmer gal was most similar to modern day Sardinians, not Anatolians, not folks from Cyprus, not Druze, so I’m on the bandwagon on the farmer being more similar to Sardinians, not really buying it for it being proof of massive movement of genes from the Near East to Europe.


3- In the Skoglund.et.al study Basques appear to be 65% Gok farmer, but that is assuming that the Finns represent the Mesolithic Europeans, and the Druze represent the Neolithic Europeans, see Figure S18 of the study for more details.


4- Even the CEU and the French appear to be ~50% Gok-like per table-S15. In fact the minimum amount of Gok-like happens on the Russians.


Now it turns out that while the Mesolithic Spanish chaps aren’t closest to modern day Iberians, they are in fact closer to modern day Iberians than they are to Finns, as per Figure-3 and Figure-S3 of Sanchez-Quito.et.al.2012. Also if we are to take the Dodecad K12b results at face value, then using the Oracle tool this is the genetic distance of modern European populations to the Mesolithic Iberians:


> DodecadOracle(c(0,0,0,0,45,41.6,0,10.3,0,0,0,1),k=45)
      [,1]                     [,2]     
 [1,] "British_Isles_D"        "15.0083"
 [2,] "British_D"              "15.5824"
 [3,] "Cornwall_1KG"           "15.6183"
 [4,] "Kent_1KG"               "15.6601"
 [5,] "English_D"              "15.8028"
 [6,] "CEU30"                  "15.9031"
 [7,] "French_D"               "16.3117"
 [8,] "Irish_D"                "16.3181"
 [9,] "French"                 "16.5142"
[10,] "Orcadian"               "16.5484"
[11,] "Dutch_D"                "16.7126"
[12,] "Orkney_1KG"             "16.7215"
[13,] "Argyll_1KG"             "17.5029"
[14,] "Mixed_Germanic_D"       "17.6445"
[15,] "Norwegian_D"            "20.687"
[16,] "German_D"               "21.1393"
[17,] "Swedish_D"              "23.3724"
[18,] "Cataluna_1KG"           "24.1348"
[19,] "Galicia_1KG"            "25.1992"
[20,] "Cantabria_1KG"          "25.5842"
[21,] "Spanish_D"              "26.0354"
[22,] "Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG"    "26.2402"
[23,] "Extremadura_1KG"        "26.3443"
[24,] "Spaniards"              "26.4142"
[25,] "Portuguese_D"           "26.4208"
[26,] "Valencia_1KG"           "27.3909"
[27,] "Baleares_1KG"           "27.4964"
[28,] "Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG" "27.5349"
[29,] "Aragon_1KG"             "27.5717"

[30,] "Hungarians"             "27.6812"
[31,] "Murcia_1KG"             "29.0618"
[32,] "Canarias_1KG"           "30.6531"
[33,] "Andalucia_1KG"          "30.9693"

[34,] "N_Italian_D"            "32.0387"
[35,] "Pais_Vasco_1KG"         "32.5157"
[36,] "North_Italian"          "32.7267"
[37,] "Polish_D"               "36.2155"
[38,] "Romanians"              "37.5155"
[39,] "Bulgarians_Y"           "39.1224"
[40,] "O_Italian_D"            "39.2311"
[41,] "TSI30"                  "39.2552"
[42,] "Bulgarian_D"            "39.568"
[43,] "French_Basque"          "39.9123"
[44,] "Mixed_Slav_D"           "40.2361"
[45,] "Ukranians_Y"            "40.3803"


So, Northeastern Europeans aren’t closer to the Iberian Mesolithic chaps than Spanish populations, and yet assuming that the Swedish HG represent European Mesolithic HG, it would seem as if the Finns should have come out as the closest folks to the Iberian Mesolithic HG, yet they do not even appear in the list of the 45 closest populations.


PS: The Mesolithic Spanish chaps were only two folks, and only 0.5 to 1.34% of their genome has been sequenced thus far, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 08:46:38 PM by JeanL » Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #332 on: September 09, 2012, 02:16:14 AM »

@jeanL

Those are very good points. I'll respond to them as they are numbered.

1) They seem to be similar... but it doesn't even matter if the "North European" grouping for meso Iberians and h/g Gotlanders is superficial. The point is that meso Iberians, as designated by "North European", are significantly different from the otzi neolithic types, designated by "southern". The combining of these two components tells the timing of when these different types of people mixed.

Because the study doesn't distinguish meso iberians from h/g gotlanders, they don't know where the "North European" came from, local or foreign. However, they do admit this limitation. While I suspect both foreign and local "NE" were a part of the admixture "event", I think the former was much more important. If the latter were more important, I would certainly have expected this mixture "event" to have occured in iberia before it occurred in Sweden, not the reverse! I also think most of the local meso iberians were far outbred/outnumbered by the neolithics.

2) You're right, we don't know where these neolithic types came from..But we can pretty surely say that they didn't come from iberia or scandinavia.

And given the relative closeness of meso iberia and Scandinavia, its harder to imagine a group as different as the neolithics comming from Europe. If they did come from Europe I would have to place them in Southeastern Europe. But that's a big if!

3) .

4) ?

Ok, so here's your good stuff. I agree that western meso did survive. But, as previously stated, I don't think there was enough of it in iberia to explain this admixture "event". I also agree that meso iberian, indicated by "Northwest European", should be seen as a better proxy of meso European, than it currently is. The other groups peaking in NE Europe probably have some recent east Asian in them.

Northeastern Europeans aren’t closer to the Iberian Mesolithic chaps

I love how 'chaps' is spreading, very fetch!
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 02:35:10 AM by princenuadha » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #333 on: September 09, 2012, 06:09:08 AM »

First of all, if we are to assume that more mt-DNA U5=more Mesolithic ancestry, then what do you make of Basques, because they have the same levels of U5 as NE Europeans.

The Basques have as high a Mesolithic element as North East Europeans. Indeed there seems to be a direct connection, as U5b (found in Basques) appears to have radiated from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge in the Mesolithic and U5b is the most common mtDNA haplogroup found in the Saami.

The confusion has come from treating the Basques as though they must be 100% this or 100% that. Either/or 100% Mesolithic or 100% Neolithic or 100% Copper Age incomers. The Basques appear to be a mixed population, like all modern European populations. They are not a relic population, 100% descended from Mesolithic ancestors around the Pyrenees. Once we accept that, the other affinities of the Basques make sense.  
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 06:41:22 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #334 on: September 09, 2012, 06:16:29 AM »

.. we have now two truly Mesolithic Iberian Hunter Gatherers, and the chaps aren’t similar genetically so far to the Swedish Hunter-Gatherers.

We should not expect an exact match. The two from Sweden are from a Pitted Ware site. Pitted Ware is an intrusion into Sweden long after farming arrived there with the TRB (from the Balkans c. 4000 BC). Pitted Ware is an extension westwards of the Comb Ceramic and Pit-Comb Ware tradition, which is the most likely culture to represent Proto-Uralic speakers. They would have more of an Asian element than Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Iberia.

So of course do the modern-day Finns, who should not be taken as a simple proxy for the Mesolithic of the whole of Europe, though they certainly will be a lot closer than most European populations today.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 06:29:17 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #335 on: September 09, 2012, 06:55:38 AM »

2- That the Swedish Farmer was someone similar to Middle Eastern populations, and her genome was fully representative of Neolithic immigrant from the Middle East. This is yet another leap of faith, because the farmer gal was most similar to modern day Sardinians, not Anatolians, not folks from Cyprus, not Druze

3- In the Skoglund.et.al study Basques appear to be 65% Gok farmer

The Basques, Sardinians and GOK farmer actually represent (in varying degrees) Europe just before the Indo-European expansions, not early Neolithic Europe or the Levant, which did not have dairy farming. The Basques and Sardinians both appear to have a strong element of a people from the Balkans which arrived c. 4000 BC. The GOK farmer was part of a wave from the Balkans c. 4000 BC which brought lactase persistence.  

One difference between the Sardinians and Basques is that the former are low in LP, and the latter are high. Another is that the latter are high in R1b. The two are not an exact genetic match, whatever similarities they may have.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 07:27:15 AM by Jean M » Logged
dodelo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #336 on: September 09, 2012, 07:32:35 AM »

That article is based on the Stevens and Fuller paper from Antiquity: Did Neolithic farming fail? The case for a Bronze Age agricultural revolution in the British Isles.

Quote
This paper rewrites the early history of Britain, showing that while the cultivation of cereals arrived there in about 4000 cal BC, it did not last. Between 3300 and 1500 BC Britons became largely pastoral, reverting only with a major upsurge of agricultural activity in the Middle Bronze Age. This loss of interest in arable farming was accompanied by a decline in population, seen by the authors as having a climatic impetus. But they also point to this period as the time of construction of the great megalithic monuments, including Stonehenge. We are left wondering whether pastoralism was all that bad, and whether it was one intrusion after another that set the agenda on the island.

There is a copy in the Mini-Library > Archaeology > Copper-Bronze > Bell Beaker

But in fact we already knew that some of the building phases of Stonehenge fall into the Bell Beaker period. And we know that R1b has been found at a Bell Beaker site in Germany. So we can join the dots. The paper is more of interest for the way it firms up the issue of the collapse of arable farming.

 Is the mini library accessible to all ?
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #337 on: September 09, 2012, 08:00:15 AM »

Is the mini library accessible to all ?

It is not open access, for copyright reasons. Access to it is strictly limited for the same reasons. Please forgive my mentioning it here, where there are some users. I must stop doing that.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 08:10:10 AM by Jean M » Logged
dodelo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #338 on: September 09, 2012, 08:27:40 AM »

Is the mini library accessible to all ?

It is not open access, for copyright reasons. Access to it is strictly limited for the same reasons. Please forgive my mentioning it here, where there are some users. I must stop doing that.

OK ,thank you .
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #339 on: September 09, 2012, 09:33:40 AM »

2- That the Swedish Farmer was someone similar to Middle Eastern populations, and her genome was fully representative of Neolithic immigrant from the Middle East. This is yet another leap of faith, because the farmer gal was most similar to modern day Sardinians, not Anatolians, not folks from Cyprus, not Druze

3- In the Skoglund.et.al study Basques appear to be 65% Gok farmer

The Basques, Sardinians and GOK farmer actually represent (in varying degrees) Europe just before the Indo-European expansions, not early Neolithic Europe or the Levant, which did not have dairy farming. The Basques and Sardinians both appear to have a strong element of a people from the Balkans which arrived c. 4000 BC. The GOK farmer was part of a wave from the Balkans c. 4000 BC which brought lactase persistence.  

One difference between the Sardinians and Basques is that the former are low in LP, and the latter are high. Another is that the latter are high in R1b. The two are not an exact genetic match, whatever similarities they may have.

1. Some see links between the Sardinian and Basque languages.

2. Sardinian is seen as very much a Neolthic isolate

3. Basques are a mix of Neolithic and Mesolithic

4. Both Basques and Sardinian lack the copper age west Asian element that Dienkes talks about a lot
 
So, that seems to make the only common denomenator the Neolithic element (and lack of the copper age west Asian element).  That tends to make me want to conclude that the Basque language is a refuge of the Neolithic language of south-west Europe, not a Mesolithic or Palaeolithic one AND that the R1b element (dominant though it is) is somehow didnt have the impact on autosomal DNA that it did elsewhere, perhaps explaining why the Neolithic language survived and the IE languages associated with the centum languages elsewhere in Europe didnt catch on.  I recall someone posting a beaker distribution map that showed that beaker was pretty lacking in much of the pyrenees except around the Med. end.  Perhaps the dominant DF27 and L21 elements arrived later in the Basque area in the late beaker period and in Bronze Age and its take off was late.  I understand that the variance is low for the Basque R1b and tends to be explained away by bottlenecks etc.  Perhaps it simply is young and derived from a small amount of individuals who at some point took off in a big way but too late to change the language. 
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #340 on: September 09, 2012, 11:19:34 AM »

@ Alan

My own conclusions are rather different. I mention the Blasco Ferrer claim of a link between Basque and Sardinian, but point out that this does not necessarily mean a linguistic flow between the two. They could have a common origin elsewhere. That origin is certainly not Palaeolithic or Mesolithic. Sardinia was not settled until the Neolithic.The whole idea of a linguistic survival anywhere in Europe from so long ago seems over-optimistic. There are common features between Sardinians and the Basques, both genetic (I2a1a-M26) and archaeological (Cardial Ware). So we might want to picture the same Neolithic language, but I don't think I do.

Basque I suspect descends from a language of the Copper Age Balkans. It shares a feature with PIE which could arise from close contact over a long period of time, or even perhaps a common origin. You argued that when R1b and R1a split, they would have been speaking the same language. It is a good point. However I will leave all that sort of thing to linguists. At least one person has actually argued that Basque is Indo-European, which seems to be going too far altogether. Most linguists would not agree at all.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 11:24:03 AM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #341 on: September 09, 2012, 11:39:47 AM »

@ Alan

My own conclusions are rather different. I mention the Blasco Ferrer claim of a link between Basque and Sardinian, but point out that this does not necessarily mean a linguistic flow between the two. They could have a common origin elsewhere. That origin is certainly not Palaeolithic or Mesolithic. Sardinia was not settled until the Neolithic.The whole idea of a linguistic survival anywhere in Europe from so long ago seems over-optimistic. There are common features between Sardinians and the Basques, both genetic (I2a1a-M26) and archaeological (Cardial Ware). So we might want to picture the same Neolithic language, but I don't think I do.

Basque I suspect descends from a language of the Copper Age Balkans. It shares a feature with PIE which could arise from close contact over a long period of time, or even perhaps a common origin. You argued that when R1b and R1a split, they would have been speaking the same language. It is a good point. However I will leave all that sort of thing to linguists. At least one person has actually argued that Basque is Indo-European, which seems to be going too far altogether. Most linguists would not agree at all.

Jean, you are right that Cardial was what I was thinking.  In the case of the Basques the link could either be down to the epi-cardial elements of the area or perhaps true Cardial-descended groups displaced later (maybe by early beaker or even later) from further south.  I do agree that there are alternatives such as yours but the Cardial link is tempting.  Cardial of course was known in the Balkans western Adriatic coast so maybe both arguements are right!    
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 11:40:28 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #342 on: September 09, 2012, 11:44:18 AM »

2) You're right, we don't know where these neolithic types came from..But we can pretty surely say that they didn't come from iberia or scandinavia.

How can we be sure that the Gok4 types did not come from Iberia, or elsewhere in Southern Europe, perhaps Italy, as they are most similar to Sardinians.

And given the relative closeness of meso iberia and Scandinavia, its harder to imagine a group as different as the neolithics comming from Europe. If they did come from Europe I would have to place them in Southeastern Europe. But that's a big if!

What relative closeness? As far as I know the Swedish Neolithic HG do not look similar to the Iberian Mesolithic HG, in fact the former have an excess of Atlantid_Med component, whereas the latter have an double the North European than the former had. The Swedish Neolithic HG appear closest to Finns and Swedish on the MDS plots, whereas the Iberian Mesolithic HG appear closest to the UK folks.


« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 11:44:28 AM by JeanL » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #343 on: September 09, 2012, 11:50:02 AM »

How can we be sure that the Gok4 types did not come from Iberia, or elsewhere in Southern Europe, perhaps Italy, as they are most similar to Sardinians.

The Gok4 type is a farmer of the Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB), which appears from both archaeological links and physical similarity to be most similar to the people of the Late Neolithic cultures of the Balkans. These Balkan cultures were in collapse c. 4000 BC (due to climate change) when the TRB appears further north. So farmers seem to have been fleeing the Balkans up the Danube looking for greener pastures.   
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 11:52:20 AM by Jean M » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #344 on: September 09, 2012, 11:56:10 AM »

The confusion has come from treating the Basques as though they must be 100% this or 100% that. Either/or 100% Mesolithic or 100% Neolithic or 100% Copper Age incomers. The Basques appear to be a mixed population, like all modern European populations. They are not a relic population, 100% descended from Mesolithic ancestors around the Pyrenees. Once we accept that, the other affinities of the Basques make sense. 

Well that’s not what the authors of the latest study believe, i.e.:

Quote from: Patterson.et.al.2012
Combining the ancient DNA evidence with our results, we hypothesize that agriculturalists with genetic ancestry close to modern Sardinians immigrated into all parts of Europe along with the spread of agriculture. In Sardinia, the Basque country, and perhaps other parts of southern Europe they largely replaced the indigenous Mesolithic populations, explaining why we observe no signal of admixture in Sardinians today to the limits of our resolution.

So per the authors’ conclusions the Basques are nearly 100% derived from Neolithic farmers. Which is why I explained the assumptions that they made, and that even if we are to assume that Gok4, the Swedish farmer was 100% representative of incoming Neolithic farmers, then the Basques came out 65% Gok4-like in their genomes, as per the Skoglund.et.al.2012 study, Figure-S18.

Now, what’s interesting is that the authors ascribe the Northeast Asian affinity found in Northern European populations to a survival of Mesolithic ancestry, but in fact, that is assuming that the three Swedish HG are proxies for the European Mesolithic HG, so because the Swedish HG are East Asian shifted, then the explanation for the East Asian shift in Northern Europe is based upon that, and that’s why they discard the Steppe hypothesis.

Quote from: Patterson.et.al.2012
However, this hypothesis cannot explain the ancient DNA result that northern Europeans today appear admixed between populations related to Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans (SKOGLUND et al., 2012), and so even if the steppe hypothesis has some truth, it can only explain part of the data.)

But like I said, this is once more assuming that the three Swedish HG are proxy for Mesolithic Europeans, and that Gok4 farmer is proxy for Neolithic farmers from the Near East. But, since the Basques aren’t 100% Neolithic as they claim them to be, or at least not 100% “Gok-like”, and yet they do not appear mixed, then I do think that the explanation for the presence of the Northeast Asian element does point to the Steppe hypothesis and the IE languages. I would expect the HG living in the Steppes to be significantly more East Asian shifted than the West European HG, so if the PIE folks were a mixture of farmers+Steppe HG, then it would make complete sense that they were East Asian shifted.

So in a nutshell, perhaps part of the shift came from Meso-European survival, but perhaps the biggest share of the East Asian shift came from the PIE expansions during the Copper and Bronze ages.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 11:58:58 AM by JeanL » Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #345 on: September 09, 2012, 12:26:00 PM »

Quote from: jeanL
in fact the former have an excess of Atlantid_Med component, whereas the latter have an double the North European than the former had.

Wait, where did you see this? That would change things a lot!

But I'm pretty sure brana was "Northwest European", which is like a subset of "North European", and NOT "atlanto med" (otzi).
Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #346 on: September 09, 2012, 12:47:28 PM »

Quote from: jeanL
So per the authors’ conclusions the Basques are nearly 100% derived from Neolithic farmers. Which is why I explained the assumptions that they made,

No, they only said that the sardinians are fully descended from this "neolithic" replacement population.

In regards to the basque, they said that the basque country was fully replaced by this neolithic population (im not sure why they think that), which doesnt mean mesolithic types didn't come back. The implication of what you quoted is that the basque are admixed!
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #347 on: September 09, 2012, 01:02:54 PM »

Wait, where did you see this? That would change things a lot!
But I'm pretty sure brana was "Northwest European", which is like a subset of "North European", and NOT "atlanto med" (otzi).


K12b Results



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png

La Braña
Atlantid-Med: 45%
North European: 41.6%

Ajv52
Atlantid-Med: 13.3%
North European: 77.5%

Ajv52
Atlantid-Med: 20.6%
North European: 76.4%

MDLP5 Results



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wDvQLaC8DJM/T_KaHwZm-hI/AAAAAAAAE80/POcCBLDM8Ew/s1600/mdlp5.png

La Braña
Paleo-Mediterranean: 44.14%
West-Eurasian: 39.69%
East-Eurasian: 16.16%

Ajv52
Paleo-Mediterranean: 21.55%
West-Eurasian: 73.74%
South-Asian: 4.71%

Ajv52
Paleo-Mediterranean: 23.65%
West-Eurasian: 71.6%
East-Eurasian: 4.74%

MDS Plots

Skoglund.et.al.2012



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rl1bw36vh5E/T5WCj36-KyI/AAAAAAAAEyQ/IgbXJAn3FPo/s1600/skoglund.png

Sanchez-Quinto.et.al.2012



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-35pYfsnhd88/T-yeTCYGNSI/AAAAAAAAE64/LMV5iFcqBcU/s1600/brana.png


The implication of what you quoted is that the basque are admixed!

Then how do you explain this part of the study:

Quote from: Patterson.et.al.2012

In particular, we have presented evidence suggesting that the genetic history of Europe from around 5000 B.C. includes:

1. The arrival of Neolithic farmers probably from the Middle East.

2. Nearly complete replacement of the indigenous Mesolithic southern European populations by Neolithic migrants, and admixture between the Neolithic farmers and the indigenous Europeans in the north.

3. Substantial population movement into Spain occurring around the same time as the archaeologically attested Bell-Beaker phenomenon (HARRISON, 1980).

4. Subsequent mating between peoples of neighboring regions, resulting in isolation-by-distance (LAO et al., 2008; NOVEMBRE et al., 2008). This tended to smooth out population structure that existed 4,000 years ago.

Further, the populations of Sardinia and the Basque country today have been substantially less influenced by these events.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 01:07:41 PM by JeanL » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #348 on: September 09, 2012, 01:08:57 PM »

So per the authors’ conclusions the Basques are nearly 100% derived from Neolithic farmers. Which is why I explained the assumptions that they made, and that even if we are to assume that Gok4, the Swedish farmer was 100% representative of incoming Neolithic farmers, then the Basques came out 65% Gok4-like in their genomes,

65% is not the same as 100%. I have no idea why the authors of the study feel that the Mesolithic population of the Basque Country was completely replaced by Neolithic. I wonder if they understand that the Spanish Basque Country is not where the Basques originated? I wouldn't let it worry you anyway. Not with that U5b to tell the tale.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 01:14:46 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #349 on: September 09, 2012, 01:13:07 PM »

I know there is not agreement on this but it would be interesting to further think through the implications of Cardial being the origin of the Sardinians and a lot of the Basque ancestry too, as well as their languages.  

I note that bell beaker is known in Sardinia.  I dont know the details but if it was part of the early south-west beaker network that stretched from Portugal along the west Med. then that could be indirect evidence that the early west to east phase of the beaker culture was not related to R1b, west Asian autosomal DNA or the IE language and that those aspects were part of the second east-west etc phase of full package beaker.  This may make sense of the fact that the some of the area within or adjacent to the early bell beaker zone featured non-IE languages, Iberian and Basque included.  You could add Etruscan, some Scicillian languages to that too but I dont want to go through that debate. In fact all in all it is possible to argue that the early beaker network contains one of the strongest collections of non-IE (which I am aware does not always mean pre-IE) langauges noted in late anquiquity.  This would fit into a scenario wherebye the genetics, linguistics etc of the early beaker network is very different from the later one.  As has been noted there is a major change in the culture (creation of the full beaker package combining early beaker and central European tratis) and physical types and direction of flow in the later (actually middle) beaker culture.  In fact the question has to be raised is whether the early and later beaker people are the same people at all or whether the later beaker people are another group who traded and gained wives etc from the early beaker people (who were basically a west Med. culture and physical group).  A very new paper already discussed indicates a flow of north European autosomal genes perhaps dating to around 2000BC.  This again would fit the idea that the early beaker people were basically a west Med. group flowing east as far as Italy but the developed full package group were a different people genetically/physically with a distinct phenotype and a lot of central European cultural traits that the early beaker group didnt have.  I tend to think in a patrilineal society such as the developed beaker culture, trade and a flow of beaker wives into a non-early Beaker male group created the full developed beaker group whose flow included a huge expansion of the beaker culture into the northern half of Europe as well as a reverse movement back to Iberia.


IF that is anywhere near the reality then the original early beaker group may, as well as lacking the west Asian component, may have been non-R1b.  Maybe a Sardinian type people autosomally.  I understand the early beaker people do have a basic west Med and adjacent phenotype from the study of their remains and its only later in the developed beaker phase that the classic beaker phenotype appears along with eastern influences.  


I think this model does make sense of a few things.  it was always hard to archaeologically explain the Iberian languages.  After the Neolithic, two things stand out in the later area of Iberian languages - a strong early beaker element and a strong urnfield showing.  Both seem at odds with the non-IE survival there.  However, if this west to east early beaker culture of the west Med. was non-IE then it does make much more sense.  In fact, someone (may have been jean L but not sure) pointed out that the early beaker zone as defined by Muller and Willigen is strongly associated with non-IE languages (Iberian, Etruscan, west Scicillian ancient language, Sardinian etc.  This has been attempted to be explained away by raising the possibility that they are late non-IE arrivals but archaeology doesnt really provide much of an indication of this.  Perhaps the historic reference to an Anatolian origin for the Etruscans is correct but the actual period was the spread of Impression elements from southern Anatolia.  

In summary

Early beaker c. 3000BC-2600BC=an west Med. perhaps largely native Cardial-descent non-R1b group speaking the Neolithic languages descended from Cardial

Developed Beaker c. 2600BC onwards=a central European beakerised R1b group whose prior pre-beaker culture is yet to be confirmed but probably lay in west-central or maybe the NW Balkans where non-beaker groups could have traded, intermarried etc with early beaker elements and taken on characteristic of the early beaker culture while retaining some of their own.  They were likely a hybrid group of central European males with a beaker female component.  
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 24 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 0.176 seconds with 18 queries.