PDA

View Full Version : How did R1a subclades enter into Germanic cultures?



TigerMW
08-09-2013, 11:41 PM
... As for your suggestion that the Proto-Germanic population could have originated from the region located east of Germany (like Pomerania , NE Poland or Lithuania), I don’t see anything that would strongly support such view. Firstly, there is no archaeological culture that would have spread from that region to Northern Germany and Jutland during any time within a period of 2500-700 BC, i.e. before the first undoubtedly Germanic culture (Jastorf) is attested in Germany and Denmark, unless you derive the Proto-Germanic population from the early Corded Ware migrants (which seems to be very unlikely for some previously discussed reasons). Secondly, it seems likely that the Bell Beaker culture that reached Germany and Scandinavia about 2500-2000 BC (and was most likely very rich in R1b) was somehow associated with the Pra-Germanic speakers and there is no evidence of any presence of Bell Beakers on the SE Baltic shore (either prior to the BB arrival to Germany or after it).


One potentially eastern element in the mix during the period of proto-German close to the Iron Age was the house urn culture of central-east Germany which is thought to be related to the Pomeranian culture which in turn may descend from Lusatian culture. I have wondered in the past about the DNA aspect of this group. Nothing certain though...

I am speculating in ways to reconcile with some of the genetic and linguistic information that I am aware of.

What I meant to convey is that a Pre-Germanic (not Proto) population came from the areas on the east side of Germany and along the Baltic.

Most people seem to think that Proto-Germanic was formed in the Jastorf Culture, which was a "was an Iron Age material culture in what is now north Germany, spanning the 6th to 1st centuries BC." "The culture evolved out of the Nordic Bronze Age, through influence from the Halstatt culture farther south." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture

The presumption, I guess, due to lack of non-IE place names, is that the Nordic Bronze Age area was the likely Pre-Germanic staging point. If it was, then I will argue (speculatively) that U106 was not the primary Pre-Germanic IE dialect carrier. My reasoning is that if so, U106 would have had to leak over into the Isles and along the Atlantic during the Nordic Bronze Age. I can see no genetic evidence that U106 reached these areas in that timeframe. Hence, if the Nordic Bronze Age zone really was the primary Pre-Germanic IE dialect holder, the genes of the speakers would have had a lot of P312. The spread of P312 in the Scandinavian Peninsula supports that possibility.

However, U106 was somewhere and I'm going to suppose it was a critical player in Jastorf and since because it seems to have eventually prevailed in the formation of Proto-Germanic. Again, since I can't find U106 in the Isles and along the Atlantic, I start to look south and east pre-Jastorf. This actually matches some genetic evidence with shows additional diversity for U106 east of Northern Germany and also supports the fact that U106 diversity in the Scandinavian Peninsula is actually relatively low.

When you look south and southeast immediately preceding Jastorf you have to consider the Lusatian Culture, which "existed in the later Bronze Age and early Iron Age (1300 BCE – 500 BCE)" in "today's Poland, parts of Czech Republic and Slovakia, parts of eastern Germany". The Lusatian Culture had "close contacts with the Nordic Bronze Age" and had "Hallstatt and La Tène influences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture

As you can see, I'm starting with the premise (that could admittedly be wrong) that the U106 genetic evidence simply is what it is and represents a parsimonious movement from the east/southeast moving towards the Baltic and along into Northern Germany and neck of Jutland before finally bursting both north and west.

There is one other correlation that adds a little weight. Ken Nordtvedit is now saying I1 is older in the proximity of Lithuania. I don't know if there is any archaeological sense to this, but I think I1 was a little ahead of and to the north of U106 as they integrated in the Jastorf area. I would think I1 had already mixed with P312 to some degree by that time U106 met up with them. I1 did a better job of reaching the Atlantic early than U106!

I don't know enough about R1a subclades but I think it somehow was stronger on the northeast side of U106 but I don't think it was as early in the Scandinavian mix as was P312 and I1. My reasoning is that it doesn't seem like R1a did a good job of reaching the Atlantic early, similar to U106.

However, at the same time if we look around Ireland and Scotland it appears that I1 and R1a were more likely associated with Viking incursions than U106. U106 in places like Ireland and Scotland looks like English (vast majority). There is not much of fringe element to U106. I think the Vikings who hit the Celtic areas were from the north. As far as Danelaw, U106 types of Danes do make a lot of sense. As far as France, it doesn't look like the Norseman there were from the Jutland. There is a lot more of the I1 in Bretagne. U106 just didn't seem to get west/southwest of Calais.

Sorry. That's a bit long winded and I can't say it is anything other than an attempt to try to explain the Y distributions.

T101
08-10-2013, 02:44 AM
When you look south and southeast immediately preceding Jastorf you have to consider the Lusatian Culture, which "existed in the later Bronze Age and early Iron Age (1300 BCE – 500 BCE)" in "today's Poland, parts of Czech Republic and Slovakia, parts of eastern Germany". The Lusatian Culture had "close contacts with the Nordic Bronze Age" and had "Hallstatt and La Tène influences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture

I just don't see it.

Again with U106 and Poland you are looking at the sink and not the spout. Starting with the Eastern Germanic tribes, the Frankish Marches, to the medieval Ostsiedlung, to the 19th century "Drang nach Osten" and beyond there has been wave after wave of German expansion into Baltic and Slavic lands which has inflated the diversity of U106 in Poland.

The Lusatian culture is neither genetically nor linguistically Germanic. It's Baltic... with yes... cultural influences from the Nordic Bronze Age, and the Celtic regions to the South. Not a hotbed for U106. As Michal pointed out previously on this thread "there is no archaeological culture that would have spread from that region to Northern Germany and Jutland during any time within a period of 2500-700 BC, i.e. before the first undoubtedly Germanic culture (Jastorf)".

The Lusatian Culture furthermore emerged from the Trzciniec culture( a culture which most everyone attests to the Balto-Slavic people). In the Bronze age, the Baltic sphere extended from the mouth of the Oder River, to the whole Vistula river basin, to the Upper Dnieper, and out to the Urals. Z280 is the primary Baltic marker not U106, and lo and behold, there is a massive explosion of at least 20 or more Z280 clades during the period of 1000 - 500 BCE.

Look it you name the bet. I will bet the house and pool :) against U106 originating in Poland in the Lusatian Culture... whoa well maybe some johnnie walker black

And btw this is a thread on where R1a originated not R1b! Mr. Moderator... Lol!

TigerMW
08-10-2013, 04:31 AM
... Again with U106 and Poland you are looking at the sink and not the spout. Starting with the Eastern Germanic tribes, the Frankish Marches, to the medieval Ostsiedlung, to the 19th century "Drang nach Osten" and beyond there has been wave after wave of German expansion into Baltic and Slavic lands which has inflated the diversity of U106 in Poland.

You can say the diversity isn't useful in this case and you may be right, but that doesn't make make the reverse true by any means. I'm not sure where you think U106 originated, but even with multiple waves, how do you get a target area more diverse than the source? I admitted I was speculating, but at least I'm citing some relevant genetic evidence and the diversity is greater to the east of Germany than it, or in England and particularly in the Scandinavian Peninsula.


The Lusatian culture is neither genetically nor linguistically Germanic. It's Baltic... with yes... cultural influences from the Nordic Bronze Age, and the Celtic regions to the South.

I don't know, but I hadn't read that Lusatian was proven to be Baltic speaking. That would be good to know if it was. What is the evidence? Not who said so, but what is the evidence? This is why I'm posting. To learn something.


As Michal pointed out previously on this thread "there is no archaeological culture that would have spread from that region to Northern Germany and Jutland during any time within a period of 2500-700 BC, i.e. before the first undoubtedly Germanic culture (Jastorf)".
I don't know about large archaeological attested movements, but Lusitanin and Jastorf are at least adjacent and overlapping too from I what I see. The light green Lusatian area looks like it pretty runs in through parts of the German language area so I would be surprised if there wasn't some influence and timing wise it was immediately preceding. Remember we are talking about Y DNA flow, not necessarily complete population replacements.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/KulturaLuzycka_1.png/450px-KulturaLuzycka_1.png


The Lusatian Culture furthermore emerged from the Trzciniec culture( a culture which most everyone attests to the Balto-Slavic people). !

I don't think it is quite so simple since we really don't know what people in the Lusatian Culture spoke or the Trzciniec. No one wrote things down back then, unfortunately.
"The Lusatian culture developed as the preceding Trzciniec culture experienced influences from the middle Bronze Age Tumulus Bronze Age, essentially incorporating the local communities into the socio-political network of Iron Age Europe. It forms part of the Urnfield systems found from eastern France, southern Germany and Austria to Hungary and the Nordic Bronze Age in northwestern Germany and Scandinavia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture

We have the Tumulus involved too which was preceded by Unetice which was preceded by Beakers. We don't know how the Y DNA and languages flowed through these zones and timeframes. Perhaps U106 and R1a met in the Lusatian?


And btw this is a thread on where R1a originated not R1b! Mr. Moderator... Lol!

Fair enough. I apologize. I knew I was in for trouble for speculating and being long-winded at the same time. I did at least mention R1a in the post. The real problem is I just don't know R1a diversity and branching well enough to add it in to the mix. I'm hoping folks like you will plug in R1a or do what you did and make alternative statements, but then hopefully back them up with evidence.

I'm hopeful that the distribution of R1a, U106 and I1 can tell us something about the Germanic formation and what went before it Y DNA wise. Elements of P312 probably have to be included too. I'm not sure if Nc1 does though. It sure didn't follow on the Germanic expansions west and southwest that I can see.

How do you think R1a became part of Germanic groups? and why doesn't R1a and U106, and I1 for that matter nicely line up in some of there expansions?

TigerMW
08-10-2013, 04:46 AM
I got off track on another topic so I started this up. There are two posts I moved over and they don't focus like they should on R1a but they set up a little background for this....

Were R1a subclades the primary carriers of the Centum IE dialect that was Pre-Germanic?

I haven't heard a strong advocacy for saying R1a was the Pre-Germanic IE dialect carrier, but maybe I haven't heard from that side yet. Was R1a in Europe primarily just Baltic or Slavic speaking? We know there was a lot of Baltic influence on the formation and development of Germanic languages.

Where and how did R1a enter into the Germanic cultures and where and how did it mix in with I1 and R1b-U106?

Did they meet in the northern areas of Germany as the Jastorf Culture formed? or did R1a reach the Scandinavian Peninsula during the Nordic Bronze Age, meet up with I1 and possibly U106 and P312 then move south into the Jastorf?

How come the Germanic expansions show fairly uneven mixes of these main clades depending on the geography?

alan
08-10-2013, 01:09 PM
I got off track on another topic so I started this up. There are two posts I moved over and they don't focus like they should on R1a but they set up a little background for this....

Were R1a subclades the primary carriers of the Centum IE dialect that was Pre-Germanic?

I haven't heard a strong advocacy for saying R1a was the Pre-Germanic IE dialect carrier, but maybe I haven't heard from that side yet. Was R1a in Europe primarily just Baltic or Slavic speaking? We know there was a lot of Baltic influence on the formation and development of Germanic languages.

Where and how did R1a enter into the Germanic cultures and where and how did it mix in with I1 and R1b-U106?

Did they meet in the northern areas of Germany as the Jastorf Culture formed? or did R1a reach the Scandinavian Peninsula during the Nordic Bronze Age, meet up with I1 and possibly U106 and P312 then move south into the Jastorf?

How come the Germanic expansions show fairly uneven mixes of these main clades depending on the geography?

I suppose the default answer would be that R1a arrived with corded ware and the battle axe cultures further north. Perhaps with R1a surviving better where it was less competed with by R1b bell beaker groups. So it could have had a presence in what would be the Germanic world from 2800BC or so but largely decline in the area of beaker overlap. If I had to guess, based on patchy knowledge, I would say somewhere like Sweden and northern Norway might have been refuges for R1a to avoid to heavy competition from R1b. Perhaps from pockers of survival like that it flowed about a little in the Nordic Bronze Age network although I suspect it largely remained in areas of Scandinavia north of the Baltic judging by its apparent low level in some of the Germanic groups spreading south and west who ultimately probably trace their roots back to the Proto-Germanic iron age core around north Germany and Denmark. There is the climatic aspect too that would have created a scenario for peoples from Sweden and Norway to want to push south in the Iron Age. Although its much older than proto-Germanic and in the pre-Germanic period I tend to see U106 as the main R-driver of Germanic west and south. The situation might have been different among groups who had roots in Sweden etc like Goths and others. On balance though I think the zone that proto-Germanic expanded from was U106 dominated.

I see what Mike is driving at though. Some are saying U106 variance is higher in the east and relatively late in the west so was there a point where it spread into the main area where proto-Germanic developed. I am wary about the variance evidence although I am convinced it was not west of the Denmark-north Germany area until the Germanic expansions. It is simplest IMO to see it as a derived from a beaker period L11* line that arrived somewhere like Denmark or adjacent although the variance date does throw some issues with this. I have trouble in seeing L11 splitting and going two directions back in the pre-beaker copper age. A split like that would have had to have occurred much further east than I would generally be comfortable with. The evidence as it stands would most likely suggest that L51 arose in the Tyrol area. L11 and probably P312 as well would appear to me most likely to have originated somewhere in the western Alps. So, I do not see some sort of bifurking in the pre-beaker period as likely. C

ulturally too I dont see much of a common thread between what headed into the north or east-central area of Europe and what headed into the Alps in the pre-beaker copper age. If they had a common thread its no further west that the Carpathians and north Balkans-steppe interface area. That is way too far east for a bifurking of L11 IMO, certainly based on the clade distribution of the area. So, in short I see L11's most likely starting point in the Alps somewhere. So, whatever took an L11* clade ancestral to U106* east and north seems likely to have come from that directions to me. The beaker culture seems most likely to me. The corded ware groups also reached the western Alps a century or two before the bell beaker culture so I suppose in theory that was a possible contact point where Alpine lineages could have spread back through the corded ware world east. However, I am not sure corded ware culture was the sort of culture that operated like Beaker and allowed this sort of mobility. On balance I think U106 is derived from L11* lineages, perhaps mixed with others, who spread east in the beaker period. Kromsdorf could even have been L11*. Its later history could be complex with the evolution of various cultures in central Europe like urnfield groups etc and I dont think its possible to unravel that period without ancient DNA.

There was some sort of R1b as well as R1a and I found at the urnfield Lichtenstein cave in north-west Germany. with twelve showing haplotypes related to I2b2 (at least four lineages), two to R1a (probably one lineage), and one to R1b predicted haplogroups. Has anyone ever had a crack at the probabilities of the subclades for this - I suspect not given that something like only 12 markers were used.

Michał
08-10-2013, 02:35 PM
What I meant to convey is that a Pre-Germanic (not Proto) population came from the areas on the east side of Germany and along the Baltic.

This means that you still suggest that the Proto-Germanic population (in Northern Germany and Jutland) originated from a previous Pra-Germanic population residing somewhere east of Germany, yet you haven’t provided any archaeological data that would support such hypothetical migration from east to west (or north-west) within a period of 2500-700 BC.




The presumption, I guess, due to lack of non-IE place names, is that the Nordic Bronze Age area was the likely Pre-Germanic staging point. If it was, then I will argue (speculatively) that U106 was not the primary Pre-Germanic IE dialect carrier. My reasoning is that if so, U106 would have had to leak over into the Isles and along the Atlantic during the Nordic Bronze Age.

Firstly, on what basis do you assume that in case R1b-U106 was a part of the Nordic Bronze Age, it would have had to leak over to the Isles?

Secondly, how would you exclude that such small R1b-U106 leakage took place? (Many people are actually arguing that a very small proportion of British R1b-U106 is of pre-Anglo-Saxon origin, although I don’t think this is well supported).




I can see no genetic evidence that U106 reached these areas in that timeframe. Hence, if the Nordic Bronze Age zone really was the primary Pre-Germanic IE dialect holder, the genes of the speakers would have had a lot of P312. The spread of P312 in the Scandinavian Peninsula supports that possibility.

The presence of P312 in Scandinavia does not exclude the possibility that R1b-U106 has already been there during the Nordic Bronze Age (or even long before that). Also, you say you don't see any evidence that R1b-U106 was present in Scandinavia before the Iron Age, but what is your evidence that P312 was there since at least the Nordic Bronze Age (or since the arrival of the Bell Beakers, as your hypothesis would make P312 the only R1b branch possibly associated with the Scandinavian Bell Beaker group)?




However, U106 was somewhere and I'm going to suppose it was a critical player in Jastorf and since because it seems to have eventually prevailed in the formation of Proto-Germanic. Again, since I can't find U106 in the Isles and along the Atlantic, I start to look south and east pre-Jastorf. This actually matches some genetic evidence with shows additional diversity for U106 east of Northern Germany and also supports the fact that U106 diversity in the Scandinavian Peninsula is actually relatively low.

Both R1b as a whole and U106 as one of its major branches were not native to Scandinavia (as they have arrived there from Northern Germany), so why should we expect finding most R1b-U106 diversity in Scandinavia and not in Germany or in the NE part of the continental Europe?

As for the “additional diversity of U106 east of Northern Germany”, could you please name a single subclade of R1b-U06 (older than 2500 years) that seems to be specific for Poland or Eastern Europe?

I absolutely agree with T101 when he writes that “with U106 and Poland you are looking at the sink and not the spout. Starting with the Eastern Germanic tribes, the Frankish Marches, to the medieval Ostsiedlung, to the 19th century "Drang nach Osten" and beyond there has been wave after wave of German expansion into Baltic and Slavic lands which has inflated the diversity of U106 in Poland.”




When you look south and southeast immediately preceding Jastorf you have to consider the Lusatian Culture, which "existed in the later Bronze Age and early Iron Age (1300 BCE – 500 BCE)" in "today's Poland, parts of Czech Republic and Slovakia, parts of eastern Germany". The Lusatian Culture had "close contacts with the Nordic Bronze Age" and had "Hallstatt and La Tène influences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture

Those “close contacts” between the Lusatian culture and the above-mentioned neighboring cultures do not indicate any significant population movement (which would be required to support any significant migration of R1b-U106 from Poland to Germany).

In contrast to T101, I wouldn’t definitely exclude that at least the Western part of the Lusatian culture included some R1b-U106 members who spoke a dialect related to Pra-Germanic, but, again, we need to distinguish between a potential Pra-Germanic dialect (i.e. a language ancestral to Proto-Germanic) and some peripheral dialects of the hypothetical Pra-Germanic continuum that never got a chance to significantly expand and become a nucleus of a new family of languages. It seems quite obvious that Jastorf shows much stronger “generic” relationship with the Nordic Bronze Age than with the Lusatian Culture.

BTW, most archaeologists seem to accept the view that the Lusatian culture was a broad cultural horizon rather than a single strongly unified culture and included several quite independent local variants showing different ancestral origin (and probably speaking different languages, including some Baltic dialects, as suggested by T101).




As you can see, I'm starting with the premise (that could admittedly be wrong) that the U106 genetic evidence simply is what it is and represents a parsimonious movement from the east/southeast moving towards the Baltic and along into Northern Germany and neck of Jutland before finally bursting both north and west.

What you really need to make your hypothesis plausible (before we get some aDNA data that should settle the whole question for all) is to provide some strong evidence for that putative population movement from Poland to Germany and Jutland (I guess sometime between 1400 and 700 BC, according to your scenario).




There is one other correlation that adds a little weight. Ken Nordtvedit is now saying I1 is older in the proximity of Lithuania. I don't know if there is any archaeological sense to this, but I think I1 was a little ahead of and to the north of U106 as they integrated in the Jastorf area. I would think I1 had already mixed with P312 to some degree by that time U106 met up with them. I1 did a better job of reaching the Atlantic early than U106!

It seems that the age of I1 has been previously underestimated, so if one believes that I1 in Europe is older than 6.5 kybp (as has been recently suggested by Terry Drobb), this would allow for spreading of I1 to Scandinavia with PWC before R1a and R1b got there (which makes a lot of sense in my opinion). This also means that we don’t need to assume that the MRCAs of I1-M253 and R1b-U106, respectively, have lived together or very close to each other.




I don't know enough about R1a subclades but I think it somehow was stronger on the northeast side of U106 but I don't think it was as early in the Scandinavian mix as was P312 and I1. My reasoning is that it doesn't seem like R1a did a good job of reaching the Atlantic early, similar to U106.

Firstly, I don’t think it is justified to claim that neither R1b-U106 nor any of the Germanic-associated clades of R1a (Z284 and L664) did a good job of reaching the Atlantic early. Please just take a look at the distribution of those three clades and keep in mind that we have no data suggesting that any of them came to NE Europe later than R1b-P312. Instead, it seems that the opposite is true (especially in the case of both R1a clades).

Secondly, neither of those two Germanic-associated subclades of R1a is significantly present in Central or Eastern Europe, which speaks quite strongly against your hypothesis that R1b-U106 was accompanying by R1a (I guess L664 and/or Z284) when coming to NE Europe from the East (from the Lusatian culture???). Of course, all R1a subclades that are very common in Central and Eastern Europe (like M458 and Z280) are only occasionally seen in most Germanic-speaking populations (of course except East Germany where Slavic population dominated between about 650 and 1000 AD), so this again does not support any Pra-Germanic or Proto-Germanic movement from Poland to Germany.

Michał
08-10-2013, 02:43 PM
Where and how did R1a enter into the Germanic cultures and where and how did it mix in with I1 and R1b-U106?
My impression is that the most likely answers to your questions have been already provided in some previous discussions on this forum. For example, here are two of my posts on this subject:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades&p=8038#post8038
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades/page4&p=8275#post8275

If you disagree with my opinions expressed in those posts, please let me know which part of my reasoning you find wrong or totally unsupported.




How come the Germanic expansions show fairly uneven mixes of these main clades depending on the geography?
It would be really strange if despite all those multiple migrations in different directions, all Germanic populations in different parts of Europe would preserve the same composition of two, three or four major clades. For example, please take a look at the huge Y-DNA diversity between different Slavic-speaking populations (like Poles, Slovenians, Macedonians and Russians). This is all despite the fact that they are supposed to have originated (at least partially) from the same ancestral Proto-Slavic population and their languages can be derived from a common ancestral language spoken only about 1500 years ago. Yet the proportions between the three major Slavic-associated haplogroups, like R1a-M458, I2a1b and R1a-Z280 (not to mention some “local substratum-derived” haplogroups), are completely different in each case.

alan
08-10-2013, 10:44 PM
Does the branching of pre-Germanic also not better fit a closer connection to Celto-Italic? Its really hard to see close branching groups having such radically different routes to the same place as a copper age spread along the Alpine forleland and connecting up with beaker culture for Celto-Italic and a corded ware route from the around the Carpathian area would seem to imply to me. Its easier to envisage them sharing a cultural group. As the idea of a corded ware origin for beaker seems very much on the ropes these days that would seem to point to both sharing a beaker origin. I have read before that even non-IE words seem to be shared between Germanic, Celtic and Italic. I really dont see the issue with beaker as a route for pre-Germanic. P312 and L11* lineages immediately ancestral to U106 could have headed east with beaker. The impact of beaker in the north Germanic world is being talked up a lot more these day and there were elements even in Poland. Plenty of opportunities for an L11* lineage in that sort of area to give rise to U106 in the end of the beaker period, contribute to Bronze Age cultures and then to really explode in the Iron Age.

I am not sure about the Nordic Bronze Age but certainly beaker is seen as the cultural basis of most Early Bronze Age cultures in the isles including Wessex, Armorica, various north French cultures, varous cultures in the Low countries, Unetice in central Europe and others. I have heard people comment that these groups lose their distinctive beaker craniology in the successor cultures but IMO that means nothing because a reemergence of older local cranial types is pretty inevitable if beaker people married whoever was around locally. It doesnt imply a change if y lines IMO.

TigerMW
08-12-2013, 07:41 PM
My impression is that the most likely answers to your questions have been already provided in some previous discussions on this forum. For example, here are two of my posts on this subject:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades&p=8038#post8038
...
It would be really strange if despite all those multiple migrations in different directions, all Germanic populations in different parts of Europe would preserve the same composition of two, three or four major clades...


... The presence of R1a-Z284 among the Proto-Germans is actually one of a few questions on which I used to disagree with JeanM, although she may have changed her view in the meantime. Based on the present distribution of Z284 in Europe, I would assume that this subclade of R1a was not present in any significant proportion among the Proto-Germans living in Denmark and Northern Germany (Jastorf culture), since if this was the case, we would see it spread with all known early migrations of different Germanic tribes, including not only the numerous Eastern Germanic tribes, but also Cimbri, Teutoni, different groups of Suebi (like Marcomani and Quadi), Longobards and Franks. I would also add the Anglo-Saxons to this list, although in their case the image may be significantly blurred by the more recent influx of the Scandinavian Vikings into Britain. Since many of those tribes are frequently believed to have originated in Scandinavia, including Denmark (Cimbri, Teutones, Vandals, Angles), Bornholm (Burgundians), Sweden (Longobards, Varini, Goths, Gepides) or even Southern Norway (Rugii), it seems that either the Scandinavian origin proposed for all those tribes is a myth or, alternatively, there was no R1a-Z284 in Southern Scandinavia at that time. It is of course possible that at least some of the above-mentioned tribes did not originate in Scandinavia, although it seems rather unlikely that none of them was born in Scandinavia (especially when including Denmark). Therefore, I would rather accept the view that R1a-Z284 was showing only peripheral location in Scandinavia through the entire period from the Bronze Age until the Early Middle Ages. When we take a look at the distribution of Z284 in Scandinavia, we will notice that it indeed shows the highest frequency in Central and North-Western Norway (and this is actually the only place in Scandinavia where R1a is the most frequent haplogroup), while its presence in South-Eastern Sweden and Denmark is much lower. Thus, I would assume that R1a-Z284 did not spread into other parts of Scandinavia (and to the rest of Europe) before the expansion of the Norse Vikings started in the second half of the first millennium AD. This is of course more or less consistent with the current distribution of R1a-Z284 in Iceland, Britain and along the coast of North-Western Europe.

All this leads us to another interesting question that is related to the very early history of R1a-Z284 in Scandinavia. Most people would agree that R1a-Z284 was likely brought to Scandinavia with the Battle Axe people (a subgroup of Corded Ware), although we still lack any aDNA data that would definitely confirm it. If the hypothesis suggesting a relatively late spread of R1a-Z284 with the Norse Vikings is true, it would mean that following the arrival of the R1a-Z284 people to Scandinavia they were shortly thereafter pushed up to the northern parts of Sweden and Norway, which was most likely associated with the arrival of the R1b (Bell Beaker) people around 2500-2000 BC.

Thank you, Michal. The part pf your post from the R1a origination thread that I emboldened is exactly what I meant when I asked "How come the Germanic expansions show fairly uneven mixes of these main clades depending on the geography?" I don't expect even or extremely consistent mixes of the subclades but in the case of R1a its very noticeable lack of presence where U106 or I1 is strong is what has caused my question.
R1a shows strongest in Norway and weakest in Denmark, according to the Old Norway Project. Not quite, but U106 almost seems inversely proportional.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Old_Norway_Project_Y_Hg_Map.jpg

R1a peaks seems to lay just east and just north of U106.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1a.gif
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S21.gif
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I1.gif

U106 is stronger through Benelux but it too drops off at Calais. R1a is stronger in the northern parts of the Isles where U106 isn't that much so.

I just keep thinking R1a is more Viking oriented of the two and U106 is more Anglo-Saxon"ish", western/continental oriented of the two. I1 is the most consistent of the three, being both Anglo-Saxon"ish"/continental contigents but the only type of Viking to hit Atlantic France much and SE Ireland.

newtoboard
01-04-2014, 02:29 AM
The Lusitian culture is basically a fusion of the Unetice culture and the Trzciniec culture. I do think that the Trzciniec culture was dominated by R1a and some sort of Balto Slavic language given it descends from Eastern Corded Ware cultures which could be considered Balto Slavic speaking on the simple fact that considering them to speak anything else leaves no place for Balto Slavs to descend from and account for an R1a dominated gene pool. Sure nobody wrote anything down back but it seems to be the mainstream view and nobody seems to question the association of other cultures with certain IE languages. Unetice mtDNA seemed pretty eastern itself so it wouldn't surprise me if the eastern influence was early on and not just during the time of the Tumulus culture. So I think it is reasonable to place Baltic within Lusitian. Not sure if Germanic can also fit there but that would likely suggest that the two languages developed very closely and should probably share more than the actually do. And once the Lusitian culture ends we have the West Baltic Barrow culture (whose Baltic identity is very likely) in its vicinity and there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest that this culture arrived from the East and doesn't share an ancestor with the Ponerenian culture. I could be wrong on all this though.

TigerMW
01-07-2014, 03:48 AM
The Lusitian culture is basically a fusion of the Unetice culture and the Trzciniec culture. I do think that the Trzciniec culture was dominated by R1a and some sort of Balto Slavic language given it descends from Eastern Corded Ware cultures which could be considered Balto Slavic speaking on the simple fact that considering them to speak anything else leaves no place for Balto Slavs to descend from and account for an R1a dominated gene pool. Sure nobody wrote anything down back but it seems to be the mainstream view and nobody seems to question the association of other cultures with certain IE languages. Unetice mtDNA seemed pretty eastern itself so it wouldn't surprise me if the eastern influence was early on and not just during the time of the Tumulus culture. So I think it is reasonable to place Baltic within Lusitian. Not sure if Germanic can also fit there but that would likely suggest that the two languages developed very closely and should probably share more than the actually do. And once the Lusitian culture ends we have the West Baltic Barrow culture (whose Baltic identity is very likely) in its vicinity and there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest that this culture arrived from the East and doesn't share an ancestor with the Ponerenian culture. I could be wrong on all this though.

That's very interesting to see the potential for fusion of elements of the Unetice culture with the Trzciniec.

The Unetice, accordiing to Desideri's study, had commonality of male types (dental-wise) between Unetice, Corded Ware and Eastern Bell Beaker peoples in the Czech geography. This provides a nice confluence for one type of L11 (U106) to enter into pre-Germanic, while another (P312) entered into pre-Italo-Celtic groups.

Roserover
12-22-2014, 03:50 PM
From the newest report the R1a1a arrivals of Europe happen in 2000bp that's tosay iron stage. This meets to a famous event of weatern migaration of huns. In fact huns is with hp N,C but they carried away more half of them the Chinese of the defeated dianasty Zhou, which are not before long live in desert city "Sufang" or catched by a great battle ordered by one of "Li".

ADW_1981
12-22-2014, 04:04 PM
From the newest report the R1a1a arrivals of Europe happen in 2000bp that's tosay iron stage. This meets to a famous event of weatern migaration of huns. In fact huns is with hp N,C but they carried away more half of them the Chinese of the defeated dianasty Zhou, which are not before long live in desert city "Sufang" or catched by a great battle ordered by one of "Li".

Most likely only the R1a under the Z93 node came from Asia at such a late point in time.

parasar
12-22-2014, 04:13 PM
From the newest report the R1a1a arrivals of Europe happen in 2000bp that's tosay iron stage. This meets to a famous event of weatern migaration of huns. In fact huns is with hp N,C but they carried away more half of them the Chinese of the defeated dianasty Zhou, which are not before long live in desert city "Sufang" or catched by a great battle ordered by one of "Li".

Don/Tanais >3000ybp
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News&p=42230&viewfull=1#post42230

Eulau, Germany, 4600ybp

Roserover
12-22-2014, 05:15 PM
Most likely only the R1a under the Z93 node came from Asia at such a late point in time.

Yes, most of them, not including aniciet China. To tell you a truth, Most present chinese are no long the offspring of ancient Chinese, they are offspring of chinese
empirer, Chingishan, Kangxi, and nothern nations. Old Chinese are mostly O2a, for Han dynasty. R is very rear in China now, They are died in war.

vettor
12-22-2014, 05:25 PM
Yes, most of them, not including aniciet China. To tell you a truth, Most present chinese are no long the offspring of ancient Chinese, they are offspring of chinese
empirer, Chingishan, Kangxi, and nothern nations. Old Chinese are mostly O2a, for Han dynasty. R is very rear in China now, They are died in war.

In the wang paper of a year or so ago, R1a closest association was near D2 markers and R1b was closest to S1 markers ..........both eastern markers

Roserover
12-22-2014, 06:49 PM
.

I wonder these culture "cored ware, bell-beaker, etc" have been test on YDNA or just guess?

Generalissimo
12-23-2014, 01:25 AM
I wonder these culture "cored ware, bell-beaker, etc" have been test on YDNA or just guess?

These results were obtained with ancient DNA, not a crystal ball.


R1a, Corded Ware, late Neolithic, Germany (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/11/17/0807592105.abstract)

R1a, Urnfield, Bronze Age, Germany (dirkschweitzer.net/LichtensteinCaveAnalysis0804DS.pdf)

Hando
01-02-2015, 04:10 PM
I suppose the default answer would be that R1a arrived with corded ware and the battle axe cultures further north. Perhaps with R1a surviving better where it was less competed with by R1b bell beaker groups. So it could have had a presence in what would be the Germanic world from 2800BC or so but largely decline in the area of beaker overlap. If I had to guess, based on patchy knowledge, I would say somewhere like Sweden and northern Norway might have been refuges for R1a to avoid to heavy competition from R1b. Perhaps from pockers of survival like that it flowed about a little in the Nordic Bronze Age network although I suspect it largely remained in areas of Scandinavia north of the Baltic judging by its apparent low level in some of the Germanic groups spreading south and west who ultimately probably trace their roots back to the Proto-Germanic iron age core around north Germany and Denmark. There is the climatic aspect too that would have created a scenario for peoples from Sweden and Norway to want to push south in the Iron Age. Although its much older than proto-Germanic and in the pre-Germanic period I tend to see U106 as the main R-driver of Germanic west and south. The situation might have been different among groups who had roots in Sweden etc like Goths and others. On balance though I think the zone that proto-Germanic expanded from was U106 dominated.
Alan, who are you referring to by "its" and what "situation" do you mean?

vettor
01-02-2015, 04:50 PM
I thought Mr. hammer said that U106 originated in the Harz mountains and "split" in 2, with one group going south to austria and the other group heading for the netherlands. The R1a later migration could have caused the "split" .
In split , I also mean a lesser % appers in the area due to a large migration of another group

Hando
01-02-2015, 04:53 PM
My impression is that the most likely answers to your questions have been already provided in some previous discussions on this forum. For example, here are two of my posts on this subject:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades&p=8038#post8038
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades/page4&p=8275#post8275

If you disagree with my opinions expressed in those posts, please let me know which part of my reasoning you find wrong or totally unsupported.
I'm a little confused because in the first link to your post above you state "I would rather accept the view that R1a-Z284 was showing only peripheral location in Scandinavia through the entire period from the Bronze Age until the Early Middle Ages. When we take a look at the distribution of Z284 in Scandinavia, we will notice that it indeed shows the highest frequency in Central and North-Western Norway (and this is actually the only place in Scandinavia where R1a is the most frequent haplogroup), while its presence in South-Eastern Sweden and Denmark is much lower. Thus, I would assume that R1a-Z284 did not spread into other parts of Scandinavia (and to the rest of Europe) before the expansion of the Norse Vikings started in the second half of the first millennium AD. This is of course more or less consistent with the current distribution of R1a-Z284 in Iceland, Britain and along the coast of North-Western Europe."
But in your second post you state "I was not claiming that all Z284 people are descendants of the Scandinavians (or Norse Vikings for that matter), but only that the vast majority of them seem to be descendants of this particular subgroup of Germanic people."

so it seems like you are saying that Z284 was not really in Scandinavia, but in the second post you seem to saying a lot of Z284 was in fact from Scandinavia.

Michał
01-02-2015, 08:59 PM
I'm a little confused because in the first link to your post above you state "I would rather accept the view that R1a-Z284 was showing only peripheral location in Scandinavia through the entire period from the Bronze Age until the Early Middle Ages. When we take a look at the distribution of Z284 in Scandinavia, we will notice that it indeed shows the highest frequency in Central and North-Western Norway (and this is actually the only place in Scandinavia where R1a is the most frequent haplogroup), while its presence in South-Eastern Sweden and Denmark is much lower. Thus, I would assume that R1a-Z284 did not spread into other parts of Scandinavia (and to the rest of Europe) before the expansion of the Norse Vikings started in the second half of the first millennium AD. This is of course more or less consistent with the current distribution of R1a-Z284 in Iceland, Britain and along the coast of North-Western Europe."
But in your second post you state "I was not claiming that all Z284 people are descendants of the Scandinavians (or Norse Vikings for that matter), but only that the vast majority of them seem to be descendants of this particular subgroup of Germanic people."

so it seems like you are saying that Z284 was not really in Scandinavia, but in the second post you seem to saying a lot of Z284 was in fact from Scandinavia.
I have never stated that they were "not really in Scandinavia". I was rather suggesting that after they arrived (either as Z284* or some kind of Y2395*) to Southern Scandinavia (most likely with the Corded Ware/Battle Axe culture) and then moderately expanded in Southern Sweden and Norway, they were subsequently pushed up to the North and North-West by the incoming Bell-Beaker population, and thus they have likely resided in NW Norway and in the neighboring regions of Central-North Sweden during the entire Bronze Age and Iron Age, without significantly contributing to the emergence of the Proto-Germanic culture in Northern Germany, Denmark and Southern Scandinavia (a culture that later expanded both north and south). As a consequence, the vast majority of modern sublineages of R1a- Z284 are likely to descend from the Medieval Norse Vikings who expanded from the above-mentioned "peripheral" region of Scandinavia only in the second half of the first millennium AD.

Hando
01-03-2015, 04:21 PM
From the newest report the R1a1a arrivals of Europe happen in 2000bp that's tosay iron stage. This meets to a famous event of weatern migaration of huns. In fact huns is with hp N,C but they carried away more half of them the Chinese of the defeated dianasty Zhou, which are not before long live in desert city "Sufang" or catched by a great battle ordered by one of "Li".

I'm sorry but I do not understand you. Are you saying that R1a1a entered Europe with the Huns 2,000 years ago? And that the Huns were N, C, so the R1a1a was actually from Chinese whom the Hun conquered and then brought to Europe? So you are saying R1a1a in Europe is Chinese from the Zhou dynasty?

Hando
01-03-2015, 04:32 PM
Yes, most of them, not including aniciet China. To tell you a truth, Most present chinese are no long the offspring of ancient Chinese, they are offspring of chinese
empirer, Chingishan, Kangxi, and nothern nations. Old Chinese are mostly O2a, for Han dynasty. R is very rear in China now, They are died in war.
Are you saying R1a entered Europe from China? And that there was a high frequency of R1a in ancient China, along with Han O2a? How and when did R1a enter China?

Roserover
01-06-2015, 02:46 PM
Are you saying R1a entered Europe from China? And that there was a high frequency of R1a in ancient China, along with Han O2a? How and when did R1a enter China?
I dont know when R1a apper in china, at least 5000-6000 years ago in Tarim? bu in fact the hp of ancient chinese difffer from the Tarim settlers. And why not we can't say they are original in china, Or we also can say European R1a origin in china no matter they are immigrent or not.

Roserover
01-06-2015, 03:00 PM
I dont believe the present results, The newest dependent results on Old culture of R1a evince that R1a arrives EU at 2000ybp. a shot of Urine can defaults the experimemt of Old culature
depent on soil but human bones.

AJL
01-06-2015, 03:13 PM
Are you saying R1a entered Europe from China?

Probably only if one is among the army of government-sanctioned Chinese propagandists (http://qz.com/311832/hacked-emails-reveal-chinas-elaborate-and-absurd-internet-propaganda-machine/).

Roserover
01-06-2015, 11:19 PM
In the history of China, there are two western emmigrations, One is the emmigration of huns, the other is emmigration of Mongorain.
At 100AD huns defeated the army of Han and about 700k soldiers joined the huns, mainly citizen of Chun and Zhou. Empirer of Han dynasty
migated all big families of Zhou (the families of Kings of Zhou) to the city Sufang that is near Huns, in the end its citizens joined huns all.
These peoples an the main strains of westerm emmigration.
The emmigation of mongol happen at 12 century, One is the defeated Han who moved to middle asia from the city Fan Hubei and joined Tortry, after years of fighting with Mongrain.
One part of them live in turtry now near the turky city of new Fan, one part of them went to india.
The other part of Chinese emmigration that time was the Han army in mongrain, they mainly settled in Ukrain and Russia.
These are Hp of the Chinese dynasties
Sang: Q
Zhou: R1a
Han:O2b
Liao: O3
Qing: O3

AJL
01-07-2015, 04:58 PM
In the history of China, there are two western emmigrations, One is the emmigration of huns, the other is emmigration of Mongorain.
At 100AD huns defeated the army of Han and about 700k soldiers joined the huns, mainly citizen of Chun and Zhou. Empirer of Han dynasty
migated all big families of Zhou (the families of Kings of Zhou) to the city Sufang that is near Huns, in the end its citizens joined huns all.
These peoples an the main strains of westerm emmigration.
The emmigation of mongol happen at 12 century, One is the defeated Han who moved to middle asia from the city Fan Hubei and joined Tortry, after years of fighting with Mongrain.
One part of them live in turtry now near the turky city of new Fan, one part of them went to india.
The other part of Chinese emmigration that time was the Han army in mongrain, they mainly settled in Ukrain and Russia.
These are Hp of the Chinese dynasties
Sang: Q
Zhou: R1a
Han:O2b
Liao: O3
Qing: O3

Really, the Zhou Dynasty were Uyghurs? Fascinating.

Roserover
01-08-2015, 07:32 AM
Really, the Zhou Dynasty were Uyghurs? Fascinating.

Zhou is dynasty of 3000ybp, when Uygur didn't come into being.

AJL
01-08-2015, 03:09 PM
Zhou is dynasty of 3000ybp, when Uygur didn't come into being.

Mh hm. But Uyghurs descend from other nomadic peoples of the Tarim Basin, such as the apparently Tocharian-speaking Caucasian mummies. The Zhou Dynasty, with all evidence I can see, did not.

Roserover
01-10-2015, 12:20 PM
Chinese cognate words with English

秣(/mo/厉兵秣马) mow
路(/lu/道路) road
市(/si/市集) city
色子(/daizi/) dice
铁(/tie/) steel
垱(/dang/) dam
剌(/nai,na/) knife
侯着(/hou/(抓住,等候)) hold
屯(/tun/屯子) -ton Hampton
县(/xian/) -shire Hanpshire
吮,咪(/mi,shun/) milk
鸡(/ji/) chick
歹(/dai/) die
棋(/qi/) chess
性 (/xing,sai/) sex
吃 (/qi,chi/) eat
泻 泄 (/xie/) shed shit
铸模(/mo/) mould
磨(/mo/磨担) mill
酸(/suan/) sour
涕 (/ti/) tear
眼 (/ran,yan/) eye
耳 (/er/) ear
There are many other cognate words I cant remember just now.

lgmayka
01-10-2015, 03:37 PM
Chinese cognate words with English
This thesis (http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp007_old_chinese.pdf) asserts that Old Chinese had a substantial Indo-European vocabulary.
---
Considering all these linguistic facts, the thesis presents itself that Old Chinese emerged as a mixed language, though spoken with Proto-Chinese native tongue, using mainly the Proto-Indo-European idiom which seems to have stretched from Mongolia to Europe during the third millennium B.C. in the northern part of the temperate zone.

Historically the emergence of Old Chinese should be connected with the founding of the Chinese Empire by Huang-ti, the Yellow Emperor, with whom the Chinese still identify themselves today.
...
Huang-ti is mentioned also as the founder of Chinese language in the Li-chi (Book of Rites). In the Chapter 23 Chi-fa (Rules of Sacrifices), which gives the reasons for worship of ancient sovereigns and heroes, we read: "Huang-ti gave hundreds of things their right names, in order to illumine the people about the common goods. And Chuan-hsu was able to carry on his work."

This points out the merit of Huang-ti for the standardization of Chinese language, which took a long time and was continued by his grandson and succesor Chuan-hsu. The aboriginal people had thus to learn new foreign words from the emperors. Probably thereby the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary became dominant in Old Chinese.
---

Hando
01-10-2015, 04:53 PM
This thesis (http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp007_old_chinese.pdf) asserts that Old Chinese had a substantial Indo-European vocabulary.
---
Considering all these linguistic facts, the thesis presents itself that Old Chinese emerged as a mixed language, though spoken with Proto-Chinese native tongue, using mainly the Proto-Indo-European idiom which seems to have stretched from Mongolia to Europe during the third millennium B.C. in the northern part of the temperate zone.

Historically the emergence of Old Chinese should be connected with the founding of the Chinese Empire by Huang-ti, the Yellow Emperor, with whom the Chinese still identify themselves today.
...
Huang-ti is mentioned also as the founder of Chinese language in the Li-chi (Book of Rites). In the Chapter 23 Chi-fa (Rules of Sacrifices), which gives the reasons for worship of ancient sovereigns and heroes, we read: "Huang-ti gave hundreds of things their right names, in order to illumine the people about the common goods. And Chuan-hsu was able to carry on his work."

This points out the merit of Huang-ti for the standardization of Chinese language, which took a long time and was continued by his grandson and succesor Chuan-hsu. The aboriginal people had thus to learn new foreign words from the emperors. Probably thereby the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary became dominant in Old Chinese.
---

The question is, do you or others believe this to be true?

Hando
01-10-2015, 04:55 PM
In the history of China, there are two western emmigrations, One is the emmigration of huns, the other is emmigration of Mongorain.
At 100AD huns defeated the army of Han and about 700k soldiers joined the huns, mainly citizen of Chun and Zhou. Empirer of Han dynasty
migated all big families of Zhou (the families of Kings of Zhou) to the city Sufang that is near Huns, in the end its citizens joined huns all.
These peoples an the main strains of westerm emmigration.
The emmigation of mongol happen at 12 century, One is the defeated Han who moved to middle asia from the city Fan Hubei and joined Tortry, after years of fighting with Mongrain.
One part of them live in turtry now near the turky city of new Fan, one part of them went to india.
The other part of Chinese emmigration that time was the Han army in mongrain, they mainly settled in Ukrain and Russia.
These are Hp of the Chinese dynasties
Sang: Q
Zhou: R1a
Han:O2b
Liao: O3
Qing: O3
The Han admixed with Huns and then migrated to Europe?
The Han migrated with the Mongols and then settled in Ukraine and Russia?
Are you sure about this? This is not what I studied.
I really believe there should be a "filter" to stop propaganda that will only confuse people who are just starting out. There is enough stuff to digest as it is.

KSDA
01-10-2015, 05:11 PM
Did someone test the remains or documented descendants of these emperors, or are these assertions?

Roserover
01-10-2015, 05:35 PM
This thesis (http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp007_old_chinese.pdf) asserts that Old Chinese had a substantial Indo-European vocabulary.
---
Considering all these linguistic facts, the thesis presents itself that Old Chinese emerged as a mixed language, though spoken with Proto-Chinese native tongue, using mainly the Proto-Indo-European idiom which seems to have stretched from Mongolia to Europe during the third millennium B.C. in the northern part of the temperate zone.

Historically the emergence of Old Chinese should be connected with the founding of the Chinese Empire by Huang-ti, the Yellow Emperor, with whom the Chinese still identify themselves today.
...
Huang-ti is mentioned also as the founder of Chinese language in the Li-chi (Book of Rites). In the Chapter 23 Chi-fa (Rules of Sacrifices), which gives the reasons for worship of ancient sovereigns and heroes, we read: "Huang-ti gave hundreds of things their right names, in order to illumine the people about the common goods. And Chuan-hsu was able to carry on his work."

This points out the merit of Huang-ti for the standardization of Chinese language, which took a long time and was continued by his grandson and succesor Chuan-hsu. The aboriginal people had thus to learn new foreign words from the emperors. Probably thereby the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary became dominant in Old Chinese.
---

If the stem vacubulary of IE is real the quoted paper is believable very high.

AJL
01-10-2015, 06:03 PM
I really believe there should be a "filter" to stop propaganda that will only confuse people who are just starting out. There is enough stuff to digest as it is.

Fortunately it is very easy to counter this user's propaganda with archeological, genetic, linguistic, and other evidence, as well as by calling attention to the fact that it is propaganda. However, if this user -- or any other -- persists in bombarding Anthrogenica with propaganda, he will soon have to earn his .5 renminbi per post somewhere else.

lgmayka
01-11-2015, 12:36 AM
Zhou: R1a
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the Scythians may have raided China during the Zhou dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians):
---
Probably originating in the Altai Mountains of Central Asia, the Scythians were among the earliest people's to master mounted warfare.[6] In the 8th century BC they possibly raided Zhou China.[7] Soon after they expanded westwards and dislodged the Cimmerians from power on the Pontic Steppe,[8] and subsequently came to dominate a vast region stretching from the Carpathian Mountains of Europe to the plains of central China,[9][10][5] creating what has been referred to as the first Central Asian nomadic empire.[8][11]
...
[7] "The Steppe". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 31 December 2014.
---

lgmayka
01-11-2015, 12:43 AM
The question is, do you or others believe this to be true?
At least one other author for that journal clearly believes that the hypothesis is worthy of investigation:

Correspondences of the Basic Words between Old Chinese and Proto-lndo-European (http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp115_chinese_proto_indo_european.pdf) by Zhou Jixu
Correspondences of Cultural Words between Old Chinese and Proto-lndo-European (http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp125_chinese_proto_indo_european.pdf) by Zhou Jixu
Old Chinese “*tees” and Proto-Indo-European “*deus”: Similarity in Religious Ideas and a Common Source in Linguistics (http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp167_old_chinese_proto_indo_european.pdf) by Zhou Jixu

Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Platonic_Papers) of the Sino-Platonic Papers journal:
---
Sino-Platonic Papers is a scholarly monographic series published by the University of Pennsylvania. The chief focus of the series is on the intercultural relations of China and Central Asia with other peoples. The journal was established in 1986 by Victor H. Mair, to publish and encourage "unconventional or controversial" research by "younger, not yet well established, scholars and independent authors".[1]
---

lgmayka
01-11-2015, 01:16 AM
Zhou: R1a
This author (of the book The Origin of the Indo-Iranians) suggests a similarity (https://books.google.com/books?id=x5J9rn8p2-IC&pg=PA400&lpg=PA400&dq=scythian+zhou&source=bl&ots=VOVdQ-cemz&sig=wYfr6gVHZqZ4VFV3DujIBQvkY68&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F8yxVNK2GY30yAT9rYGgDw&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=scythian%20zhou&f=false) between the helmets of Scythians and those of the Zhou dynasty. He appears to be saying that the Scythians borrowed their helmet design from the Chinese.
---
Shang helmets are very different from those of the Zhou period. The latter have a cut in the front and another one in the backside and a projection in the middle. Usually the lower brim of the helmet has a roller over which there is an aperture for fastening a panel, and on the top there is a loop for a plume. Helmets are cast with a wax model. They are similar to the Scythian helmets not only in general construction but also in details. This means that their genesis may have been monocentric. A. V. Varenov (1988: 11) notes that the date of the earliest Zhou helmets is the 11th-10th centuries BC and hence they are the original form for their Scythian analogies.
---

Roserover
01-11-2015, 01:17 AM
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the Scythians may have raided China during the Zhou dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians):
---
Probably originating in the Altai Mountains of Central Asia, the Scythians were among the earliest people's to master mounted warfare.[6] In the 8th century BC they possibly raided Zhou China.[7] Soon after they expanded westwards and dislodged the Cimmerians from power on the Pontic Steppe,[8] and subsequently came to dominate a vast region stretching from the Carpathian Mountains of Europe to the plains of central China,[9][10][5] creating what has been referred to as the first Central Asian nomadic empire.[8][11]
...
[7] "The Steppe". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 31 December 2014.
---
It wouln't be, If it's, I can see from the history book "Siji". Centrel Asia is stll far away from Zhou. Scythian may be R1b of hp.

Roserover
01-11-2015, 01:21 AM
This author (of the book The Origin of the Indo-Iranians) suggests a similarity (https://books.google.com/books?id=x5J9rn8p2-IC&pg=PA400&lpg=PA400&dq=scythian+zhou&source=bl&ots=VOVdQ-cemz&sig=wYfr6gVHZqZ4VFV3DujIBQvkY68&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F8yxVNK2GY30yAT9rYGgDw&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=scythian%20zhou&f=false) between the helmets of Scythians and those of the Zhou dynasty. He appears to be saying that the Scythians borrowed their design from the Chinese.
---
Shang helmets are very different from those of the Zhou period. The latter have a cut in the front and another one in the backside and a projection in the middle. Usually the lower brim of the helmet has a roller over which there is an aperture for fastening a panel, and on the top there is a loop for a plume. Helmets are cast with a wax model. They are similar to the Scythian helmets not only in general construction but also in details. This means that their genesis may have been monocentric. A. V. Varenov (1988: 11) notes that the date of the earliest Zhou helmets is the 11th-10th centuries BC and hence they are the original form for their Scythian analogies.
---

yes I can see it.

Roserover
01-11-2015, 03:35 AM
Fortunately it is very easy to counter this user's propaganda with archeological, genetic, linguistic, and other evidence, as well as by calling attention to the fact that it is propaganda. However, if this user -- or any other -- persists in bombarding Anthrogenica with propaganda, he will soon have to earn his .5 renminbi per post somewhere else.
The current gorvenor of china is O3, who don't be willing to see such propaganda. In fact, Zhou is the dynasty most easily tested on DNa of tombs, but the govenors are all along concealing the results of the experimants from the citizens. I dont interst in many 50 fen per post if it ouside my door, even if millions of them.

Roserover
01-11-2015, 10:47 PM
Chinese cognate words with English

秣(/mo/厉兵秣马) mow
路(/lu/道路) road
市(/si/市集) city
色子(/daizi/) dice
铁(/tie/) steel
垱(/dang/) dam
剌(/nai,na/) knife
侯着(/hou/(抓住,等候)) hold
屯(/tun/屯子) -ton Hampton
县(/xian/) -shire Hanpshire
吮,咪(/mi,shun/) milk
鸡(/ji/) chick
歹(/dai/) die
棋(/qi/) chess
色 (/se/) sex
吃 (/qi,chi/) eat
泻 泄 (/xie/) shed shit
铸模(/mo/) mould
磨(/mo/磨担) mill
酸(/suan/) sour
涕 (/ti/) tear
眼 (/ran,yan/) eye
耳 (/er/) ear
There are many other cognate words I cant remember just now

Agamemnon
01-13-2015, 04:07 AM
Chinese cognate words with English

秣(/mo/厉兵秣马) mow
路(/lu/道路) road
市(/si/市集) city
色子(/daizi/) dice
铁(/tie/) steel
垱(/dang/) dam
剌(/nai,na/) knife
侯着(/hou/(抓住,等候)) hold
屯(/tun/屯子) -ton Hampton
县(/xian/) -shire Hanpshire
吮,咪(/mi,shun/) milk
鸡(/ji/) chick
歹(/dai/) die
棋(/qi/) chess
色 (/se/) sex
吃 (/qi,chi/) eat
泻 泄 (/xie/) shed shit
铸模(/mo/) mould
磨(/mo/磨担) mill
酸(/suan/) sour
涕 (/ti/) tear
眼 (/ran,yan/) eye
耳 (/er/) ear
There are many other cognate words I cant remember just now

Truthfully, these alleged cognates don't look reliable to me... They do not follow basic sound correspondence, there is no clear pattern and I could just as well make up a list of Semitic (or even Afroasiatic) "cognates" with English.
Instead of using English, I suggest you use PIE, that way you'd be able to assess how legitimate these cognates truly are.

Roserover
01-13-2015, 06:09 AM
Truthfully, these alleged cognates don't look reliable to me... They do not follow basic sound correspondence, there is no clear pattern and I could just as well make up a list of Semitic (or even Afroasiatic) "cognates" with English.
Instead of using English, I suggest you use PIE, that way you'd be able to assess how legitimate these cognates truly are.
The symbol is Ping-Yin (used to denote the voice of Chinese) that has some differences from English voice. In fact the cognates has same Vowes and consonants. I add two words to them.
Chinese cognate words with English
Chinese(PingYin) Phonetic by English English
秣(/mo/ 厉兵秣马) mor mow
路(/lu/道路) loa road
市(/si/市集) see city
色子(/daizi/) dize dice
铁(/tie/) /tie/ steel
垱(/dang/) /dang/ dam
剌(/nai,na/) /nai/ knife
侯着(/hou/(抓住,等候))hou hold
屯(/tun/屯子) /tun/ -ton Hampton
县(/xian/) shian -shire Hanpshire
吮,咪(/mi,shun/) mee milk
鸡(/ji/) djee chick
歹(/dai/) /dai/ die
棋(/qi/) cjee chess
色 (/se/) /se/ sex
吃 (/qi,chi/) cji eat
泻 泄 (/xie/) /shie/ shed shit
铸模(/mo/) mor mould
磨(/mo/磨担) mor mill
酸(/suan/) /suan/ sour
涕 (/ti/) tee tear
眼 (/ran,yan/) /an,ran/ eye
耳 (/er/) /er/ ear
或 (/huo/) /huo/ or
和 (/he,han/) /han/ and

Agamemnon
01-13-2015, 05:55 PM
The symbol is Ping-Yin (used to denote the voice of Chinese) that has some differences from English voice. In fact the cognates has same Vowes and consonants. I add two words to them.
Chinese cognate words with English
Chinese(PingYin) Phonetic by English English
秣(/mo/ 厉兵秣马) mor mow
路(/lu/道路) loa road
市(/si/市集) see city
色子(/daizi/) dize dice
铁(/tie/) /tie/ steel
垱(/dang/) /dang/ dam
剌(/nai,na/) /nai/ knife
侯着(/hou/(抓住,等候))hou hold
屯(/tun/屯子) /tun/ -ton Hampton
县(/xian/) shian -shire Hanpshire
吮,咪(/mi,shun/) mee milk
鸡(/ji/) djee chick
歹(/dai/) /dai/ die
棋(/qi/) cjee chess
色 (/se/) /se/ sex
吃 (/qi,chi/) cji eat
泻 泄 (/xie/) /shie/ shed shit
铸模(/mo/) mor mould
磨(/mo/磨担) mor mill
酸(/suan/) /suan/ sour
涕 (/ti/) tee tear
眼 (/ran,yan/) /an,ran/ eye
耳 (/er/) /er/ ear
或 (/huo/) /huo/ or
和 (/he,han/) /han/ and

I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread that these are anything but cognates.

AJL
01-13-2015, 06:15 PM
Surprising, You are a China expert.

Well, as I descend from a Zhou emperor, why shouldn't I be.

J1 DYS388=13
01-13-2015, 06:25 PM
I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread that these are anything but cognates.

There are also numerous mistakes. In line 1, 厉兵秣马, the second part 秣马 doesn't mean "mow" a horse, it means "feed" a horse. Line 4, 色 is not dai, it's shai. Later, 歹 does not mean die, it means bad.

This list is rubbish.

Yes, I am a translator.

KSDA
01-13-2015, 10:37 PM
This line of discussion has gone way off from it's original topic of "how did R1a subclades enter into Germanic cultures" and really needs to go someplace else.

Agamemnon
01-14-2015, 12:04 AM
Its gap isnot wider than that between English and Scotish.


I don't get it, are you Japanese? The only people from which I heard similar outlandish claims were Japanese, that's why I'm asking.
Regardless, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, I hope you realise that.

DMXX
01-14-2015, 12:35 AM
^ Will be closing this thread temporarily for maintenance precisely because of the above.

Roserover, if you wish to discuss Chinese-IE cognates, please open another thread for this in the Linguistics section (http://www.anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?108-Linguistics).

[Edit]: Thread reopened.

Agamemnon
01-14-2015, 12:38 AM
Jean M, I'd like to know more about your take on R1a-Z284's expansion and how it relates to Proto-Germanic.

Ebizur
01-14-2015, 01:18 AM
I don't get it, are you Japanese? The only people from which I heard similar outlandish claims were Japanese, that's why I'm asking.Seriously? Most Japanese people would never make a public claim either way about anything like this. They think that sort of thing is for...other people. :P (Please sense the euphemism.)

Agamemnon
01-14-2015, 02:31 AM
Seriously? Most Japanese people would never make a public claim either way about anything like this. They think that sort of thing is for...other people. :P (Please sense the euphemism.)

Oh believe me, this wasn't a public claim... But I do get to meet Japanese people from time to time and quite a few made similar claims.

Ebizur
01-14-2015, 03:06 AM
Oh believe me, this wasn't a public claim... But I do get to meet Japanese people from time to time and quite a few made similar claims.That makes more sense. Japanese people seem to be very fond of the adage, "Speech is silver, silence is golden." They translate "speech" with a word of Chinese origin (雄弁) that literally means "male/masculine/manly argument" or "heroic speech (in favor of or against something)," which is conventionally translated as "convincing argument" from Chinese and as "eloquence" from Japanese. They translate "golden" with a word of Chinese origin (金) that means "gold; metal; money." Being "macho" or "an hero" is not something to which Japanese generally aspire.

It is part of "The Japanese Narrative" that Japanese people are too shy to make "claims, assertions" (主張 shuchou). Shuchou are something that 外国人 gaikokujin "foreign country persons" (a polite way of referring to 外人 gaijin "foreign persons, outside persons") are supposed to be fond of making. Of course, the fact that this part of "The Narrative" is itself an assertion and therefore paradoxical should not be mentioned to any Japanese person unless you want to be put on The Ignore List and/or have the topic of conversation changed deftly. Japanese people like the idea of paradoxes, yin-yang, "there's a little bit of the opposite in everything," so this part of The Narrative is completely OK for them (or maybe not...just a little bit? You probably shouldn't say that you're sure about that, though! At least not in an unambiguous manner.).

I would much more expect to hear such a claim from a Chinese person. IIRC, there is an ancient Chinese historical text in which it is reported that some ancient Romans (citizens of the Roman Empire?) have claimed that their ancestors have come from "the Middle Kingdom," some people in an ancient kingdom around the Pamir Mountains have claimed to be descended from a "Han" princess, etc.

Roserover
01-14-2015, 06:52 PM
Well, as I descend from a Zhou emperor, why shouldn't I be.
What's your family name? By prof. Yanshi, the R1a in China has precentage 10%. I know many R1a hide from the public DNA test. Do your HP belong to a ancient class?
My hp may belongs to R1a1a1a. Your SNP Y2630 I can't find by Bing, Please explain the SNP.

lgmayka
01-14-2015, 08:58 PM
Your SNP Y2630 I can't find by Bing, Please explain the SNP.
Y2630 is two levels more recent and specific than a better-known SNP, CTS6 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-CTS6/).

Roserover
01-15-2015, 06:04 AM
Z93, At "Ranhaer" there are R1a a few, all belongs to Z93, It looks like most R1a in China belonging to Z93.

Ebizur
01-15-2015, 06:08 AM
Z93, At "Ranhaer" there are R1a a few, all belongs to Z93, It looks like most R1a in China belonging to Z93.The Bhutanese R1a (bhu-0956) in Hallast et al. 2014 should be downstream of Z93. To be precise, he belongs to R-Y2632.

newtoboard
02-22-2015, 05:30 PM
I just don't see it.

Again with U106 and Poland you are looking at the sink and not the spout. Starting with the Eastern Germanic tribes, the Frankish Marches, to the medieval Ostsiedlung, to the 19th century "Drang nach Osten" and beyond there has been wave after wave of German expansion into Baltic and Slavic lands which has inflated the diversity of U106 in Poland.

The Lusatian culture is neither genetically nor linguistically Germanic. It's Baltic... with yes... cultural influences from the Nordic Bronze Age, and the Celtic regions to the South. Not a hotbed for U106. As Michal pointed out previously on this thread "there is no archaeological culture that would have spread from that region to Northern Germany and Jutland during any time within a period of 2500-700 BC, i.e. before the first undoubtedly Germanic culture (Jastorf)".

The Lusatian Culture furthermore emerged from the Trzciniec culture( a culture which most everyone attests to the Balto-Slavic people). In the Bronze age, the Baltic sphere extended from the mouth of the Oder River, to the whole Vistula river basin, to the Upper Dnieper, and out to the Urals. Z280 is the primary Baltic marker not U106, and lo and behold, there is a massive explosion of at least 20 or more Z280 clades during the period of 1000 - 500 BCE.

Look it you name the bet. I will bet the house and pool :) against U106 originating in Poland in the Lusatian Culture... whoa well maybe some johnnie walker black

And btw this is a thread on where R1a originated not R1b! Mr. Moderator... Lol!

Wow you certainly deserve a lot of credit for being right on this. Z280+ in Lusatian and its westernmost edge too. The distribution of Indo-Iranian and Baltic languages has shrunk so much.:(

Tomenable
07-29-2015, 01:28 PM
I'm not sure if we can talk about Baltic language in Lusatian culture.

At that time it was rather still during its Proto-Balto-Slavic stage.

Remember that Balto-Slavic used to be one language in the past.