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 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family  (Read 146004 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #350 on: September 09, 2012, 01:17:24 PM »

I would also add that it is also interesting that Aquitania was the location of a strong Cardial outpost slightly seperated from the Portugese and Med. groups probably having come up rivers from the Med. to Biscay.  That is another hint that Basque may originate in the Cardial element along with Sardinian and perhaps also Etruscan.  
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #351 on: September 09, 2012, 01:21:10 PM »

Yes I know all about the Cardial Ware in Aquitania and mention it in my text.

Etruscan has nothing to do with Basque, as far as anyone can tell. The Etruscans arrived from Anatolia long after the Neolithic - around 1200 BC.

To be frank the constant attempts to link non-Indo-European languages of Europe together seem mainly to be based on the false premise that there would be only one Neolithic language in Europe. Most unlikely.

The relationship of R1b and various languages is certainly not simple and straightforward. Things will get clearer eventually as we get more aDNA. For the moment I'm using logical deduction.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 01:29:37 PM by Jean M » Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #352 on: September 09, 2012, 01:26:44 PM »

@jeanL

In all the data you've just shown, brana is significantly closer to the h/g Swedish than to otzi and the sardinians. (I was a little off in that the h/g Swedish were partly described by the "atlanto-med" component and even more so for brana).

The relative similarity between the brana and h/g Swedes is very obvious in the first chart. It is less obvious in the second chart but that is probably because of the "east asian" in brana, which probably eats up the "North European".

So all the points stay them same. Brana (mesolithic iberian) is very different from otzi (likely a neolithic replacer for western Europe).

However, given that brana has more "atlanto-med" than h/g Swedes AND modern Northwest Europeans have the most "brana", I now strongly suspect that "atlanto-med" is actually part European mesolithic. Is this the point you wanted to make? But again, the possible mesolithic component in "atlanto-med" would not be centered in meso iberia, but meso southeast Europe.

I hope my terms made sense...
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 01:37:55 PM by princenuadha » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #353 on: September 09, 2012, 01:27:42 PM »

Jean, in relation to your quickly deleted post, I have done nothing but archaeology for a period crossing 4 decades.  I dont need to be lectured on pots are not people etc. Granny, sucking eggs and all that.  In fact the very point of my post is that pots and people are not the same so I dont know where you are coming from at all.  You need to read it again and please accept people are going to have their own ideas and not just shout down dissenters from your own model.  I appreciate all that you do and the great help you give a lot of people but I wish you would be more tolerant of other views.  
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #354 on: September 09, 2012, 01:30:59 PM »

@ Alan

Forgive me for getting a shade exasperated. As you realise, you were not meant to read that.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #355 on: September 09, 2012, 01:31:22 PM »

Yes I know all about the Cardial Ware in Aquitania and mention it in my text.

Etruscan has nothing to do with Basque, as far as anyone can tell. The Etruscans arrived from Anatolia long after the Neolithic - around 1200 BC.

To be frank the constant attempts to link non-Indo-European languages of Europe together seem mainly to be based on the false premise that there would be only one Neolithic language in Europe. Most unlikely.

Why do you assume me mentioning Cardial in Aquitania is aimed at you or your text like I was implying you dont know about it.  I am sure you are well aware of it. 

I totally agree with the last paragraph but a language family in one culture like Cardial or at least the western part of it who remained in touch slowing down differentiation is possible.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 01:32:43 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #356 on: September 09, 2012, 01:39:58 PM »

@ Alan

Forgive me for getting a shade exasperated. As you realise, you were not meant to read that.

Cheers.  Thats OK.  Passion for ideas can do that. 

I just like to boot around a few thoughts and have no problem if they are critiqued and shown to be misplaced.  I look on putting ideas out there and possibly getting them shot down as a good way of ruling stuff in or out.  I am not hard and fast on anything as there are too many variable to be certain. I thought my ideas were fairly in line with the date of the spread of pots and beaker proto-package from west to east, the early beaker physical type and the contrast with the later beaker types and full package etc.  I actually thought that was not too distant from your own (well informed) ideas but with the difference that I dont see it as the R1b vector and the pre-beaker copper age east-west flow.  I know that is a significant difference but there is common ground on the 2 stage beaker model as per Sion.  Anyway vive la difference 
Logged
Maliclavelli
Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2189


« Reply #357 on: September 09, 2012, 01:43:20 PM »



[Message Deleted]
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 03:23:06 PM by Terry Barton » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-Z2110


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #358 on: September 09, 2012, 01:48:04 PM »

I totally agree with the last paragraph but a language family in one culture like Cardial or at least the western part of it who remained in touch slowing down differentiation is possible.

Yes Cardial Ware - I agree. Etruscan is not part of that package though, as far as can be deduced. Naturally there are those who want to see it as indigenous. As soon as you mention Etruscan round here you can bet on support for that notion. :) 
Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #359 on: September 09, 2012, 01:48:58 PM »

Yikes, all of our theories are clashing right now.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #360 on: September 09, 2012, 01:53:20 PM »

@ Maliclavelli

I have no certitudes to offer on this topic - just deductions, which are not based on U7a, though I do mention it as a side issue, perhaps wrongly. Who knows? Here is what I say:

Quote
The Etruscan language is not Indo-European. In fact it does not belong to any living language family, though it resembles two other extinct languages: Raetic, testified by inscriptions in the Alps, and a language spoken on the island of Lemnos in the Aegean Sea. Studies of mtDNA in ancient Etruscans indicate an origin in Anatolia, but at what time? Could that resemblance date back to the Neolithic? Archaeology and DNA studies of Tuscan cattle breeds suggests not. The ancestors of the Etruscans seem to have arrived in Italy around 1200 BC. Herodotus reported that the Etruscans were from Lydia...  The people they supplanted were Umbrians, as Herodotus tells us. Place-name evidence supports him.  
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 02:06:07 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #361 on: September 09, 2012, 01:56:42 PM »

Yikes, all of our theories are clashing right now.

I wouldn't worry about it. Happens all the time on forums such as this. It's actually quite helpful to me. I am taking U7a out of my text as I write! :)
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 02:10:34 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #362 on: September 09, 2012, 02:09:53 PM »

I totally agree with the last paragraph but a language family in one culture like Cardial or at least the western part of it who remained in touch slowing down differentiation is possible.

Yes Cardial Ware - I agree. Etruscan is not part of that package though, as far as can be deduced. Naturally there are those who want to see it as indigenous. As soon as you mention Etruscan round here you can bet on support for that notion. :) 

lol I thought that as soon as I posted it.  Well again, if I post something that some agree and others disagree with passionately its a good way to get the main arguements put out there. 

BTW I should point out that when I am saying Cardial I just mean in terms of distant ancestry, I dont mean there was a direct Cardial-Beaker sequence.  Clearly that would be wrong as other cultures intervened.  I also do believe some eastern pre-beaker elements must have made it to Iberia due to the copper working etc so I am not dismissing that idea at all.  I am just not sure in my own mind if this was R1b.  One chap in the right sort of time and place in the pre-beaker copper age of western Europe (the ice man chappy) was not but I am not mad enough to deduce anything from a single ancient chap. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #363 on: September 09, 2012, 02:15:38 PM »

Yikes, all of our theories are clashing right now.

Indeed but if we all agreed there wouldnt be much point in the forum.  It would be some sort of mutual reaffirmation back slapping society :0)
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #364 on: September 09, 2012, 02:36:42 PM »

In all the data you've just shown, brana is significantly closer to the h/g Swedish than to otzi and the sardinians. (I was a little off in that the h/g Swedish were partly described by the "atlanto-med" component and even more so for brana).

Well I wasn’t aiming for Oetzi, but in fact what I was trying to show was that the La Braña Mesolithic HG were more akin to NW Europeans, whereas the Swedish HG were more akin to NE Europeans. Also, something else I noticed was that the La Braña individual appears like a mixture of the Swedish HG and the Swedish farmer Gok4. Even in the MDS plots one could sort of visualize where the La Braña individuals would plot (on the border of the Brits), and how they would be equidistant between the Swedish HG and the Swedish farmer.

The relative similarity between the brana and h/g Swedes is very obvious in the first chart. It is less obvious in the second chart but that is probably because of the "east asian" in brana, which probably eats up the "North European".

Well, like I said on the K12b chartthe Swedish HG are all 70%+ North European, and it is their principal component, La Braña is 45% Atlantid_Med, and 41.6% North European, so they are more Atlantid_Med than North European, on the other hand Gok4(Swedish farmer) was 81% Atlantid_Med and 5.5% North European. On the MDLP5 chart what makes La Braña different from the Swedish HG wasn’t just the East Eurasian, but the fact that La Braña were 44.14% Paleo-Mediterranean, whereas the Swedish HG are only half of that ~22%, on the other hand the Swedish farmer was 66% Paleo-Mediterranean.

So all the points stay them same. Brana (mesolithic iberian) is very different from otzi (likely a neolithic replacer for western Europe).

I agree, but the La Braña individual is about as different from Gok4 (Swedish farmer) as he is from Avj (Swedish HGs).

However, given that brana has more "atlanto-med" than h/g Swedes AND modern Northwest Europeans have the most "brana", I now strongly suspect that "atlanto-med" is actually part European mesolithic.

Well, what we can say is that in the ~1000 SNPs used so far in the K12b run, La Braña does appear to be more Atlantid_Med than the Swedish HG in their ~20,000 SNPs analyzed. I would however say, that things could change a lot once the full genome is sequenced and the number of SNPs goes from ~20,000 to ~700,000. 

Is this the point you wanted to make? But again, the possible mesolithic component in "atlanto-med" would not be centered in meso iberia, but meso southeast Europe.
 

How so? Why would it be a Mesolithic component from Southeast Europe? Mind you, I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just curious.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 02:37:08 PM by JeanL » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #365 on: September 09, 2012, 02:44:57 PM »

@Alan

So according to your hypothesis, then any pre-Beaker y-DNA analysis in Iberia ought to yield a non-R1b result. It would be good then to see what the SJAPL site (circa 4000-3000 BC) in Alava which is located in the southernmost fringe of the Basque Country yields in terms of y-DNA.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 02:45:24 PM by JeanL » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #366 on: September 09, 2012, 02:58:00 PM »

@Alan

So according to your hypothesis, then any pre-Beaker y-DNA analysis in Iberia ought to yield a non-R1b result. It would be good then to see what the SJAPL site (circa 4000-3000 BC) in Alava which is located in the southernmost fringe of the Basque Country yields in terms of y-DNA.

Well I am not sure at all but there has always been doubt in my mind about the idea of R1b being located in the west in pre-copper age times.  Some interesting possibilities have been raised but any pre-beaker trail remains subtle and a matter of interpetation rather than self evident.  Ancient DNA would resolve this.  As you say pre-beaker copper age Iberian burials and of course early beaker period burials in the west and south Iberia, southern France area would help resolve this.  Goes without saying that we need a better range of yDNA, starting with at least a hanful of samples from seperate burial sites (i.e. not lots from the same potentially 'family' burial site)  from each culture.  That would be a starting point.  Not enough to prove absence but can certainly prove presence.
Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #367 on: September 09, 2012, 03:08:37 PM »

@Alan

So according to your hypothesis, then any pre-Beaker y-DNA analysis in Iberia ought to yield a non-R1b result. It would be good then to see what the SJAPL site (circa 4000-3000 BC) in Alava which is located in the southernmost fringe of the Basque Country yields in terms of y-DNA.

Well I am not sure at all but there has always been doubt in my mind about the idea of R1b being located in the west in pre-copper age times.  Some interesting possibilities have been raised but any pre-beaker trail remains subtle and a matter of interpetation rather than self evident.  Ancient DNA would resolve this.  As you say pre-beaker copper age Iberian burials and of course early beaker period burials in the west and south Iberia, southern France area would help resolve this.  Goes without saying that we need a better range of yDNA, starting with at least a hanful of samples from seperate burial sites (i.e. not lots from the same potentially 'family' burial site)  from each culture.  That would be a starting point.  Not enough to prove absence but can certainly prove presence.

If you take the Archaeological, Linguistic, Cultural and Genetic evidence from "Celtic from the West" which linked Bell Beaker to Celtic Migrations and look at this additional DNA study From Patterson et Al. which place the influx to and expansion from Iberia by the Bell Beakers in the 3600 +/- 400 timeframe which corresponds to the findings of "Celtic from the West" we begin to see a convincing pattern emerging.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 03:39:44 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



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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #368 on: September 09, 2012, 03:41:24 PM »

I was looking again at RR's combined beaker and U152 map in and around Italy and it is interesting that although it looks like a good fit in north Italy, it is not so in Sardinia  and the south in general.  Sardinia actually has a significant beaker presence.  Is this evidence that the initial out of Iberia beaker network expansion phase was not R1b/west asian autosomal component driven? Is this suggestive that areas which were in the early beaker west-Med beaker network c. 3000-2700BC should not be looked at in the same way as areas which recieved later full developed beaker?  There was a relfux back to Iberia but it was not the same in distribution. 

http://www.u152.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59:u152-bell-beakers-and-urnfield-tradition-in-italy&catid=1:latest-news

I wonder if there were some areas that only recieved the beaker element in its initial west-east phase but not in the later phase of the developed beaker package of central Europe which also spread back torwards source.  The overlap between the two phases was not complete. 

When you add that the location of Sardinian and Iberian may have shared a similar language, shared a similar strong early beaker phase but not shared a similar P312 pattern then it is tempting to speculate that there is a disconnect between early west-east beaker and P312 or IE languages.  This of course is not an original idea.  The idea that the IE developed beaker people were not the same people as the early Iberian and west Med. beaker people has been knocking about for a century in a number of forms.  The skeletal evidence at Sion apparently supports the idea that the early beaker element that had reached as far as Sion were of Neolithic Med. stock while the later waves were different and included the famous craggy large chaps with plano-occipital (flattened rear - a better term than round headed) skulls. 

I would suggest that U152 (and L21) are clear relics of the secondary phase of the spread of the developed full package beaker culture from west-central Europe.  I also feel that despite its welling up in Iberia, DF27 probably belongs to this phase too but its harder to prove this as DF27* has a weird distribution. 


Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #369 on: September 09, 2012, 04:05:26 PM »

Quote from: jeanL
Even in the MDS plots one could sort of visualize where the La Braña individuals would plot (on the border of the Brits), and how they would be equidistant between the Swedish HG and the Swedish farmer

I'm pretty sure you cant simply translate the position on one map to the position on another. You could add dimensions...

 
Quote from: jeanL
the La Braña individual is about as different from Gok4 (Swedish farmer) as he is from Avj (Swedish HGs).

Stronly disagree here. If you got the component distances, you would find that brana is closer to the h/g than otzi after doing the math.

 
Quote from: jeanL
How so? Why would it be a Mesolithic component from Southeast Europe?


first, let me explain my reasoning for why I think otzi is part meso European.

The first assumption I make is that meso Europeans basically branched away from some homogeneous group, and that they only mixed with each other up to the neolithic. (I know that's not a great assumption). That would mean that meso Europeans are equally (or nearly so if my assumption is only a little off) related to the contemporaneous non Europeans. So if otzi is closer to brana than h/g swedes, then otzi must have some meso European.

Ok, so the reasoning I use to say that this theoretical x meso found in otzi/"atlanto-med" was not centered in meso iberia is as follows. The neolithic migration went from the near east, to the balkans, to Italy, and finally to Spain. Otzi and sardinians are about 100% "atlanto-med" and of this neolithic migration. For the mesolithic component in otzi to have been closest to the native iberian meso, would require that the balkans transfer little to no meso while Italy retains it's iberian meso like component during the neolithic. That alone would be a stretch. But even others have tied large scale migration to Italy from the east around the neolithic, leaving little room for western meso to dominate the meso that was there. That would suggest a good chunk of the meso in otzi, if its there, from the balkans.


« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 04:07:59 PM by princenuadha » Logged
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #370 on: September 09, 2012, 05:09:31 PM »

Well, "derive culturally" is not the same a "same origin". I mean, if you say BB in Western Iberia growth out of Yamnaya influences, then I think few people will agree  

Really. We have anthropomorphic stelae all the way from the steppe to Iberia and you don't think that scholars are capable of recognising this very obvious piece of evidence. You feel that the large number of cultural similarities between the Copper Age arrivals in Iberia and Yamnaya, listed by H and H, are going to be ignored by the world of scholarship. You feel that the papers discussing the similarity of motif on Bell Beaker pottery and on the stelae, and the fact that BB people were clearly related to those who made the stelae are going to be ignored. You feel that papers pointing out that Bell Beaker pottery in Iberia was encrusted with bone paste, a method first found on pottery in the Danube Basin, are going to be ignored. You feel in short that the huge body of evidence that has amassed is going to be ignored because it does not suit a certain agenda? Very interesting.


Wow, do I feel all that? I wasn´t aware. Certainly I didn´t say anything about any agenda.
Jean, I don´t have any feelings on this story, what I said, and keep saying is that, as today, you will not find much people in university supporting your idea, at least for what I know certainly not in Spain.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


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

razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #371 on: September 09, 2012, 05:13:37 PM »

I would suggest that U152 (and L21) are clear relics of the secondary phase of the spread of the developed full package beaker culture from west-central Europe.  I also feel that despite its welling up in Iberia, DF27 probably belongs to this phase too but its harder to prove this as DF27* has a weird distribution. 

I've found myself agreeing with you more than usually in the last day or two -- hope you keep at this line of thought about two "Beaker" phases separated by a good 500 years that don't look genetically very similar (and with R1b belonging to the later group, if any); and if that happened, perhaps the earlier group also didn't speak PIE (or some derivative thereof).

And I might add that the distribution of DF27* gets a lot less weird if it doesn't have to originate in Iberia and spread to the east, along with a popular pattern in Portuguese pottery.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #372 on: September 09, 2012, 05:21:08 PM »

..you will not find much people in university supporting your idea, at least for what I know certainly not in Spain.

Yes I was rather assuming that you were talking about Spanish academics. In fact I supposed that you were talking specifically about Basque academics. Strangely German, British, French, Irish and American academics are merrily publishing material that I cite in support.
Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #373 on: September 09, 2012, 05:21:57 PM »

I feel comfortable with Rich Rocca's "L51 from the West" with hotspots in the Rhone, Alps, Northern Sardinia, Tagus, Erne.
I feel comfortable with L23 in the Balkens where Neolithic farmers from Anatolia (M269) met horse mounted People from the Steppes (R1a).
I believe this weeks Tyler et Al paper supports an R1b-M269 Neolithic expansion from Anatolia circa 5 -10 KYA.
I believe this weeks Patterson et Al paper supports an R1b Bell Beaker expansion from Iberia circa 3.6 KYA.
This can only have been L11 which gave rise to P312 in Iberia and U106 in Central Europe using the River networks already established by L51.
I believe P312 later gave rise to DF27 and M167 in Iberia and U152 in the Alpine Region.
Another P312 clade migrated to the Isles along the Atlantic Facade as L21 and expanded rapidly in the Isles as DF13 under the the Gaelic Clan System
This migration path is illustrated below. Age estimates are approximate.
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/


« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 05:39:42 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



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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #374 on: September 09, 2012, 05:38:05 PM »

One thing I would tend to think is that their may have been a difference between the Meso groups in Europe anyway.  Its generally thought that western and west-central Europe hunters spread out initially with the Magdallenian refugia while other epigravettian groups spread from the east.  So in autosomal DNA terms they would not have been identical.  They probably had similar very deep roots but there was a large degree of seperation and different environments too.  I dont know if this corresponds to the divide in Atlantic-Baltic between NE European and Atlanto-Med or not but it seems a possibility to me.  The hunters may often have been a mix of both because Madgallenian is thought to have partly been the result of an injection of new people from central Europe to the east (Badegoulian) and of course after the LGM the two groups also may have overlapped across a significant part of northern Europe.  So,  I would expect a mix of western and eastern Meso elemetns in most areas (even the Finns and Basque are connected by MtDNA.  I dont follow the autosomal stuff much but is it feasible that both NE European and Atlantic Med. elements are Meso?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 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 0.159 seconds with 19 queries.