PDA

View Full Version : A deeper think about beakers and genes



Pages : 1 2 [3]

vettor
11-26-2014, 05:38 PM
Maybe the Celts in Iberia the Romans knew were recent invaders from Gaul, because Hallstatt-derived Celts migrated all over Europe.

My old schooling ( and it might be wrong ) is that the celts arrived in spain circa 400BC . this gives them enough time to join Hannibals army on his march to Italy

vettor
11-26-2014, 05:42 PM
I think the original Scythians were probably mostly R1a with perhaps some R1b mixed in (R1b is still fairly frequent among the Ossetians, with some R1a present, as well). The Scythians (Alans in this case, if I recall correctly) picked up G2a from their Kafkas neighbors. That's what I think, anyway.

The scythians battled the persians ( parthians and bactrians ) long and hard in modern eastern Iran, so most likely they where plain R1. or they where both R1a and R1b. I cannot forsee that they where purely only R1a

vettor
11-26-2014, 05:49 PM
I think there is little doubt that I-M26 is one of the original lineages associated with Basque and Nuragic and R1b was originally not. IMO the Basques simply are more mixed than the Sardinians but a one time they were basically the same and the Sardinians preserve the genes associated with that language strata more purely than the Basques. They lived on an island while the Basque and Aquitania were completely surrounded by Celtic tribes. I dont think we should be too surprised either. The rest of Europe has radically changed its yDNA since 3000BC so why should the Basques be any different. They are given extra scrutiny because they are a non-IE language but Europe once had a number of those languages and before 3000BC was probably overwhelmingly non-IE. Even Iberia had Iberian just south of Basque. So, the concept of Basque exceptionalism is a modern one IMO. I have an open mind as to whether they are some sort of Cardial relic or a bronze age wave. Iberian was not the same a Aquitanian but some people think there is a broad family link in deep time. Problem is Cardial and the possible post-Neolithic waves into the west Med. all come from the east Med. sort of area so it seems hard to conclude much about that. My preference probably leans towards Cardial as there was an odd Cardial more northerly Atlantic outpost in what became Aquitania while the rest was along the Med. and Portugal. I find that quite a coincidence. On the other hand it is not obvious how Aquitania and Sardinia were linked in later times. I dont feel using vocab to date Basque's age really produces an answer as there is a lot of wriggle room there.

I believe, I-M26 mutated around the modern italy-french border and that it came via the north-adriatic refrugium and before that via the north balkans. once it mutated it crossed into sardinia ( so say it was joined at this point in time to that area noted above ) and went west.
Basque is ancient aquatarian which was ancient vasconic language ............which is why french-basque is original basque and spanish-basque is migrational basque

Jean M
11-26-2014, 05:51 PM
why Urnfield is such a serious contender

Urnfield has been assumed to be totally Celtic, but does not look that way if you get down to the nitty-gritty. Where it spread into Iberia we find Ligurian according to the earliest Greek accounts. (It was later overlaid by Iberian, which seems to be a later non-IE intrusion into a strip of coastal Ligurian.) There are some Celtic place-names in part of the area, but a general shortage along that coastal strip. Urnfield also falls outside of the Celtic heartland in Italy, but did not make much of an impression in the British Isles.

The only culture that can be found all over the areas later Celtic and Italic is Bell Beaker. That is not to say that BB actually spread Italo-Celtic in its earliest incarnation. We have Alteuropäisch place-names in Iberia and the British Isles to account for. That was wave one, as I see it, of a complex series of waves coming out of the Carpathian Basin and points adjacent. Ligurian [correction Lepontic] is the earliest written form of Celtic, but it is not the most archaic form. That is Celtiberian. If we look for a movement into the Celtiberian region from a later Celtic-speaking zone, we get late BB c. 2200 BC.

What makes you so confident of a later date? You are surely not relying on glottochronology? What is your source?

vettor
11-26-2014, 06:07 PM
http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/updated-dates-zabie-northeast-poland.html

Aestii tribes....connection through central europe to the adriatic sea as part of the amber trade ...............maybe!

Agamemnon
11-26-2014, 06:43 PM
Urnfield has been assumed to be totally Celtic, but does not look that way if you get down to the nitty-gritty. Where it spread into Iberia we find Ligurian according to the earliest Greek accounts. (It was later overlaid by Iberian, which seems to be a later non-IE intrusion into a strip of coastal Ligurian.) There are some Celtic place-names in part of the area, but a general shortage along that coastal strip. Urnfield also falls outside of the Celtic heartland in Italy, but did not make much of an impression in the British Isles.

The only culture that can be found all over the areas later Celtic and Italic is Bell Beaker. That is not to say that BB actually spread Italo-Celtic in its earliest incarnation. We have Alteuropäisch place-names in Iberia and the British Isles to account for. That was wave one, as I see it, of a complex series of waves coming out of the Carpathian Basin and points adjacent. Ligurian is the earliest written form of Celtic, but it is not the most archaic form. That is Celtiberian. If we look for a movement into the Celtiberian region from a later Celtic-speaking zone, we get late BB c. 2200 BC.

What makes you so confident of a later date? You are surely not relying on glottochronology? What is your source?

If Proto-Celtic really were ~4200 kya old, you'd expect its internal diversity to be on par with what we observe with Indo-Iranian languages (PII also dates back to the late 3rd millenium BCE) and that's a stretch since the semi-nomadic lifestyle of the Proto-Indo-Iranian speaking community enhanced mutal intelligibility over a longer time span so I could easily argue that Celtic should be even more diverse than Indo-Iranian (which definitely isn't what we're seeing in the first place).

Urnfield gave rise to the Canegrate culture (ancestral to the Golasecca culture, which is clearly tied to the emergence of Lepontic) and the Villanova culture in Italy.

I think BB is mainly responsible for the spread of para-Italo-Celtic and/or para-Celtic languages (such as Ligurian and Lusitanian), and that the spread of Celtic proper is due to a language-levelling process. That's the only model which makes sense to me, otherwise there are too many gaps to bridge.

R.Rocca
11-26-2014, 06:53 PM
Urnfield has been assumed to be totally Celtic, but does not look that way if you get down to the nitty-gritty. Where it spread into Iberia we find Ligurian according to the earliest Greek accounts. (It was later overlaid by Iberian, which seems to be a later non-IE intrusion into a strip of coastal Ligurian.) There are some Celtic place-names in part of the area, but a general shortage along that coastal strip. Urnfield also falls outside of the Celtic heartland in Italy, but did not make much of an impression in the British Isles.

The only culture that can be found all over the areas later Celtic and Italic is Bell Beaker. That is not to say that BB actually spread Italo-Celtic in its earliest incarnation. We have Alteuropäisch place-names in Iberia and the British Isles to account for. That was wave one, as I see it, of a complex series of waves coming out of the Carpathian Basin and points adjacent. Ligurian is the earliest written form of Celtic, but it is not the most archaic form. That is Celtiberian. If we look for a movement into the Celtiberian region from a later Celtic-speaking zone, we get late BB c. 2200 BC.

What makes you so confident of a later date? You are surely not relying on glottochronology? What is your source?

Jean, I know you know, but I think you meant to write Lepontic, not Ligurian.

rms2
11-26-2014, 06:57 PM
If Proto-Celtic really were ~4200 kya old, you'd expect its internal diversity to be on par with what we observe with Indo-Iranian languages (PII also dates back to the late 3rd millenium BCE) and that's a stretch since the semi-nomadic lifestyle of the Proto-Indo-Iranian speaking community enhanced mutal intelligibility over a longer time span so I could easily argue that Celtic should be even more diverse than Indo-Iranian (which definitely isn't what we're seeing in the first place).

Urnfield gave rise to the Canegrate culture (ancestral to the Golasecca culture, which is clearly tied to the emergence of Lepontic) and the Villanova culture in Italy.

I think BB is mainly responsible for the spread of para-Italo-Celtic and/or para-Celtic languages (such as Ligurian and Lusitanian), and that the spread of Celtic proper is due to a language-levelling process. That's the only model which makes sense to me, otherwise there are too many gaps to bridge.

So, if I understand you rightly, you think Beaker set the stage by spreading an IE language that was close enough to be amenable to the later development of a lingua franca that became Celtic, perhaps via the trade networks that intersected in Western Europe. Is that right?

Agamemnon
11-26-2014, 07:08 PM
So, if I understand you rightly, you think Beaker set the stage by spreading an IE language that was close enough to be amenable to the later develop of a lingua franca that became Celtic, perhaps via the trade networks that intersected in Western Europe. Is that right?

Precisely, but not only trade networks... In fact, I suspect that many of the traits we understand as being quintessentially Celtic (Druidism for instance) enhanced the spread of linguistic innovations and thus enabled a language levelling process to take place.

alan
11-26-2014, 07:10 PM
There is some biased even in academics, giving Basque more prestige, uniqueness, and ancientness than they deserve, but it isn't 2006 anymore and no one thinks "Cro-Magnon" had R1b and spoke Basque, so there's no reason to fight over this

People who study Basque autosomal DNA like Laz-2014 and Eurogenes, say there is something very unique about them compared to Iberians and French. They share more drift and genetic similarity to both Neolithic farmers and Mesolithic hunter gatherers than Iberians. According to Laz and Eurogenes they have around as much WHG as NW Europeans, but very little ANE. Also their near eastern ancestry is probably the most purely EEF-derived in Europe, next to Sardinians.

In most admixture they score ~100% in north European and west-Mediterranean centered components, and usually 0% in west Asian centered components, unlike all other Europeans but like Mesolithic, Neolithic, and bronze age(only 2 sampled so far) European samples. Eurogenes suggests Basque are largely a preservation of the Neolithic and bronze age non-Indo European people of central-west Europe. Basque and Sardinians are both pretty much living fossils.

I am pretty happy to accept the idea of Basques as a population that are largely descended from Neolithic farmers plus some local WHG DNA they absorbed and not a lot else other than the y-lines they aborbed from surrounding non-Basque R1b people.

rms2
11-26-2014, 07:18 PM
Precisely, but not only trade networks... In fact, I suspect that many of the traits we understand as being quintessentially Celtic (Druidism for instance) enhanced the spread of linguistic innovations and thus enabled a language levelling process to take place.

Interesting idea, and one certainly worthy of serious consideration.

Kind of like the spread of Aramaic as a lingua franca in the Levant. Not an exact parallel, but similar.

alan
11-26-2014, 07:20 PM
If Proto-Celtic really were ~4200 kya old, you'd expect its internal diversity to be on par with what we observe with Indo-Iranian languages (PII also dates back to the late 3rd millenium BCE) and that's a stretch since the semi-nomadic lifestyle of the Proto-Indo-Iranian speaking community enhanced mutal intelligibility over a longer time span so I could easily argue that Celtic should be even more diverse than Indo-Iranian (which definitely isn't what we're seeing in the first place).

Urnfield gave rise to the Canegrate culture (ancestral to the Golasecca culture, which is clearly tied to the emergence of Lepontic) and the Villanova culture in Italy.

I think BB is mainly responsible for the spread of para-Italo-Celtic and/or para-Celtic languages (such as Ligurian and Lusitanian), and that the spread of Celtic proper is due to a language-levelling process. That's the only model which makes sense to me, otherwise there are too many gaps to bridge.

I am not sure. When you look at metalwork it looks like a huge area tended to stay in touch and evolution happened in tandem across large area. That could be a material expression of a similar constant low level elite contact keeping linguistic development moving in tandem across wide areas. You could call that convergence but I think its more of a case of stopping divergence before it happens. In top-down societies such as later associated with the Celts the elite will not only influence the language of their follower but they also provide a lot of the genes of their downward mobile offspring. So, IMO its possible, maybe probable that dating by divergence may not really work as a method due to this phenomenon.

Jean M
11-26-2014, 08:20 PM
so you propose that DF27 is Iberian , as in the ancient tribe which originates in modern catalonia to southern france area , up to the Rhone river ( I am not referring to the iberian peninsula)

No. I don't think it has anything to do with the Iberes, who were not IE speaking.

Jean M
11-26-2014, 08:42 PM
If Proto-Celtic really were ~4200 kya old, you'd expect its internal diversity to be on par with what we observe with Indo-Iranian languages

I wouldn't expect that at all for the living Celtic languages, which are a product of constant interchange. Unfortunately it is only the living languages that we can actually compare in this way. We have no idea what Celtiberian or Lepontic would have developed into, because they did not survive. You can't measure diversity except between languages that have had an equal period of development.


Urnfield gave rise to the Canegrate culture (ancestral to the Golasecca culture, which is clearly tied to the emergence of Lepontic)

I thought you would say that. It is a favoured theory that Lepontic arrived with Urnfield, but it is not a solid fact. The BB reflux arrived at Sion and Aosta in the Alps, and so should also be considered.

Krefter
11-26-2014, 09:31 PM
No. I don't think it has anything to do with the Iberes, who were not IE speaking.

So you think Df27 is Indo European derived?

Krefter
11-26-2014, 09:45 PM
Summary made by Davidski of a PCA presented by the Laz-Reich team with all the ancient Europeans sampled so far.

http://imageshack.com/a/img540/4412/blmKW4.png

The Bell Beaker and Unetice represented as LNE/EBA of east Germany are closest each other and very similar to the CWC of east Germany. CWC, Bell Beaker, and Unetice of east Germany cluster in the mainland European cluster, closest to central-north(inclu. east) Europeans. Yamna clustered just southeast of them making their position possibly very close to ethnic groups with very high ANE in Russia today. BB and CWC have the same differences in position as modern NW and NE Europeans.

This also tells us the Bell Beaker guys found to have R1b were probably of mostly Yamna and or copper age east European decent. And also that modern central-north Europeans are of mostly Yamna decent and or copper age..... It'll be exciting to see what Y DNA Mesolithic east Europeans had, and what Unetive had.

Jean M
11-26-2014, 09:46 PM
So you think Df27 is Indo European derived?

Yes. That is what we are talking about here. (Well mainly. ;) The thread keeps getting sidetracked.) It was noticed in the late 1990s that the distribution of R1a correlated with Indo-European languages in Eastern Europe and parts of Asia. In 2006 one of those posting in this thread, rms2, pointed out online that R1b1a2 (M269) was the other half of the story. Its distribution overlaps with R1a and its highest density correlates with the IE languages of western Europe. I went into print tying these ideas together in 2013. Now we have reached a new stage with the discovery that this story is matched by autosomal DNA. The ANE component also seems connected to the spread of the IE languages. It has been found in Corded Ware and Bell Beaker samples, as I expect you know.

I think DF27 arose among people speaking a very early western dialect of IE.

Agamemnon
11-26-2014, 09:51 PM
Interesting idea, and one certainly worthy of serious consideration.

Kind of like the spread of Aramaic as a lingua franca in the Levant. Not an exact parallel, but similar.

In fact, the spread of Berber proves to be an even more striking parallel, since we have the same kind of problem (the branch which led to Berber obviously split a long time ago while Proto-Berber itself is quite young, too young to have emerged that long ago) as it also involved language levelling and we do know about at least one para-Berber language (Numidian) if not two (Guanche, but nothing is really known about this language).



I am not sure. When you look at metalwork it looks like a huge area tended to stay in touch and evolution happened in tandem across large area. That could be a material expression of a similar constant low level elite contact keeping linguistic development moving in tandem across wide areas. You could call that convergence but I think its more of a case of stopping divergence before it happens. In top-down societies such as later associated with the Celts the elite will not only influence the language of their follower but they also provide a lot of the genes of their downward mobile offspring. So, IMO its possible, maybe probable that dating by divergence may not really work as a method due to this phenomenon.

The problem here is that what you call "stopping divergence before it happens" is what we observe with Indo-Iranian languages (Iranian languages in particular) since its speakers originally led a nomadic lifestyle which is known to slow divergence (Turkic languages are another famous example of this process).
In fact, there is no convergence either since divergence is the usual pattern in Celtic languages, had we observed convergence then one might as well conclude that Celtic isn't a valid branch but rather something close to a sprachbund (which, in itself, is a pretty preposterous concept).



I wouldn't expect that at all for the living Celtic languages, which are a product of constant interchange. Unfortunately it is only the living languages that we can actually compare in this way. We have no idea what Celtiberian or Lepontic would have developed into, because they did not survive. You can't measure diversity except between languages that have had an equal period of development.

Well, not quite... We can actually apply internal reconstruction to "dead" (I'd rather say "moribund", but that's just me) languages, which is precisely what we did with Etruscan, Lemnian, Rhaetian (which all belong to the Tyrsenian family) and Tocharian. The comparative method can also be applied in some cases, which is how we "recovered" most of Akkadian grammar and phonology which enabled us to thoroughly decipher and analyse Sumerian, Hurrian, Urartian and Elamite (though this is trickier because what we actually know about these languages can be compared to what we know about proto-languages, these are all educated guesses).

But as I said earlier, our current understanding of Proto-Celtic isn't going to change anytime soon... Unless we discover a previously unknown Celtic language. Till then, fact that Proto-Celtic broke up around the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age will remain pretty uncontroversial.


I thought you would say that. It is a favoured theory that Lepontic arrived with Urnfield, but it is not a solid fact. The BB reflux arrived at Sion and Aosta in the Alps, and so should also be considered.

Possible, yet again you'd expect far more diversity if Lepontic came with the BB reflux... It could work for Ligurian, but Lepontic? As I said, BB is too ancient for that.

Jean M
11-26-2014, 10:03 PM
The Bell Beaker and Unetice (LBA) of east Germany are closest each other and very similar to the CWC of east Germany.

I do not see BB or Unetice on the plot as such. What we have is Early Neolithic (ENE bottom left), Middle Neolithic (MNE) a bit closer to Yamnaya, Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age (LNE/EBA) very close to CW. They are using the classifications of Brant 2013, who has both Bell Beaker and Corded as Late Neolithic, and Unetice as Early Bronze Age. So Bell Beaker and Unetice seem to be lumped together.



This also tells us the Bell Beaker guys found to have R1b were probably of mostly Yamna and or copper age east European decent.

Yes I know they were of Yamnaya descent. Harrison and Heyd said that in 2007 in cultural terms. I filled in the genetics in 2013. It's just a bit complicated, which has resulted in a lot of arguing on this forum.

Krefter
11-26-2014, 10:04 PM
I do not see BB or Unetice on the plot. What we have is Early Neolithic (ENE bottom left), Middle Neolithic (MNE) a bit closer to Yamnaya, Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age (LNE/EBA) very close to CW.

Sorry. LNE/EBA is Bell beaker and Unetice.

Krefter
11-26-2014, 10:22 PM
The exciting thing about that plot is it tells us that there was continuum for 1,000's of years in east German farmers after their arrival from the near east, like there was in Hungary, in Sweden, and in N Italy(Otzi). And that west and NW Europeans can trace nearly all their blood to EEF and Yamna.

Jean M
11-26-2014, 10:27 PM
We can actually apply internal reconstruction to "dead" ... languages, .

Yes, but you can't project into their future how they would have developed into the modern age, because they didn't. That's my point. By now Celtiberian in particular could have been vastly different from modern Irish and Welsh, since Celtiberian was pretty well cut off from the rest of the Celtic sphere. That is why it retained archaic features.


Possible, yet again you'd expect far more diversity if Lepontic came with the BB reflux...

Again I wouldn't, because Lepontic remained in constant contact with the development of Gaulish on the other side of the Alps. The Golasecca culture functioned as the trade gateway between Hallstatt and the Etruscans. Contact with Gaulish was so close that Lepontic has sometimes been thought a variety of Gaulish. We have this areal issue again. This is the updated tree that is going into the book. I think I posted a draft version earlier that missed that factor out.

3068

It is based on one by Sims-Williams.

Jean M
11-26-2014, 10:43 PM
IIRC, did'nt the Romans state in proper Gaul there where 3 celtic languages!

No. Caesar famously said that Gaul was divided into three parts, inhabited by three different people:


Aquitanians [we now know that they spoke a precursor to Basque]
Gauls [called themselves Celts; spoke a kind of Celtic called Gaulish]
Belgae [We now know they spoke a Celtic so close to Gaulish that it is hard to say why Caesar thought it different]

Jean M
11-26-2014, 11:02 PM
I suspect that many of the traits we understand as being quintessentially Celtic (Druidism for instance) enhanced the spread of linguistic innovations and thus enabled a language levelling process to take place.

One theory is that the Druids actually preserved an ancient type of Celtic for ritual use and that this is reflected in Primitive Irish, the language of the ogham stones. It is strikingly closer to Latin, and very different from the Old Irish that emerged as the written vernacular.

Agamemnon
11-26-2014, 11:14 PM
Yes, but you can't project into their future how they would have developed into the modern age, because they didn't. That's my point. By now Celtiberian in particular could have been vastly different from modern Irish and Welsh, since Celtiberian was pretty well cut off from the rest of the Celtic sphere. That is why it retained archaic features.

True, but we are not taking Modern Irish and Welsh into account (or any other contemporary Celtic language for that matter)... Instead, we are using Primitive Irish and what we can make out of Common Brittonic. In the same way, we'd use Sabellic, Faliscan and Latin to reconstruct Proto-Italic, as opposed to French, Romanian and South Picene. This is a convenient way of reconstructing a proto-language properly, since divergence has already observed we can already assume that these languages will share more similarities than their modern-day descendants (which is why they're related in the first place). Unless we're trying to figure out specific sound changes and therefore uncover underlying patterns where irregularities appear, using contemporary languages isn't the best option out there.




Again I wouldn't, because Lepontic remained in constant contact with the development of Gaulish on the other side of the Alps. The Golasecca culture functioned as the trade gateway between Hallstatt and the Etruscans. Contact with Gaulish was so close that Lepontic has sometimes been thought a variety of Gaulish. We have this aerial issue again. This is the updated tree that is going into the book. I think I posted a draft version earlier that missed that factor out.

3068

I agree (Lepontic is P-Celtic after all), yet again we shouldn't overlook the possibility that Lepontic might represent a primary branch. Until the 70s most scholars thought that Lepontic was a Para-Celtic language closely related to Ligurian, Michel Lejeune finally put an end to this view and highlighted the fact that Lepontic might be as different from Gaulish as Celtiberian is.

Leeroy Jenkins
11-26-2014, 11:48 PM
Summary made by Davidski of a PCA presented by the Laz-Reich team with all the ancient Europeans sampled so far.

http://imageshack.com/a/img540/4412/blmKW4.png

Yes, this plot is very interesting.

A few points of interest:

EHG is pulled away from WHG and SHG by MA-1 influence.

MNE starts to pull away from the earlier ENE towards the SHG samples, but maybe with a little influence from EHG or MA-1.

LNE/EBA is almost directly between MNE and EHG.

CWC is very similar to LNE/EBA, but with a little more EHG and MA-1 influence. (via Yamnaya?)

Yamnaya is almost in the middle of the triangle formed by MNE, EHG and MA-1.

Jean M
11-26-2014, 11:54 PM
I agree (Lepontic is P-Celtic after all), yet again we shouldn't overlook the possibility that Lepontic might represent a primary branch. Until the 70s most scholars thought that Lepontic was a Para-Celtic language closely related to Ligurian, Michel Lejeune finally put an end to this view and highlighted the fact that Lepontic might be as different from Gaulish as Celtiberian is.

Yes I have it as a primary branch, but with aerial influence from Gaulish. I'm following Patrick Sims-Williams 2007 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f0VNHHxyNt0C&pg=PA309&lpg=PA309 .

nuadha
11-27-2014, 02:20 AM
Sort of, but not quite. Two points:


Bell Beaker pots were made by copper-working people, who did not spring up from the Iberian Neolithic. Their type of arsenic-copper technology had its origins in Yamnaya, as did other elements of their culture. Put simply, an offshoot of Yamnaya went off prospecting from the Carpathian Basin all the way to Portugal, leaving a trail en route to mark their progress in the form of stelae. The actual first makers of BB pottery probably arrived later along the same trail, which continued in use for trading and no doubt fetching the family or a wife from the 'Old Country'. IMPORTANT - BB people were scattered about and did not act as a total replacement for the previous population of Iberia. Plus Iberia had further waves of immigrants after BB. So only by testing the actual remains of an early BB person in Portugal could we find out the level of ANE he/she carried. Taking the average of modern Iberians is useless.

Around 2400 BC trouble blew up in the 'New Country' and key BB sites were deserted. BB people scattered, a few up the Atlantic route to Brittany and even the British Isles. Others went to the 'Old Country' in the Carpathian Basin. They did not meet CW there, because it wasn't there. They met and mixed with distant relatives of Yamnaya descent, and picked up a few new habits, like wearing boar's tusk pendants, as Yamnaya people had done. They acquired some wives used to making local pottery such as polypod bowls, while continuing to make BB. From there they moved over a swathe of Europe including the Kromsdorf site and back into Iberia, this time to the NE. They moved down the Rhine into the British Isles. Both the genetics and the archaeology suggest that this was the biggest BB flow into the Isles.


This, IMO, is the best summary you have given for your theory. I assume you would agree that most of the ANE introduced to western europe by bell beakers came from the group of yamnaya descendants that stayed in hungary rather those who ventured from hungary to form the Stelae marked network that would later foster the early beaker formation/network. I envision the ones who stayed in hungry as being populous while the ones who established the Stelae marked network outside of hungary, and eventually the beaker tell tales, did not have the numbers to affect such a authosomal shift.

Could you tell me if I understand your theory correctly. Yamnaya move up the danube to hungary. Some settle there for a while, but others quickly move on and set up trading posts from Hungary, across northern italy, southern france, spain, and finally to portugal. The network they establish is marked by a movement of stelae moving from hungary and expanding west along said network. This movement of stelae also reflects a movement of people, which you liken to pioneers. From this network emerged many of the tell tale signs of the beaker culture, and most researchers would recognize this emerging phenomena are the origin of bell beakers, and call them the "first bell beakers". These highly recognized features of the bell beaker people (appropriate in defining the emergence of bell beakers or not) came from the western half of the network mentioned above. The tell tale signs of beaker culture travel along the same network and into hungary, again, accompanied by a movement of people. (some of the these people with the highly recognized beaker features, however, when from Spain to the north with what you might call a first version of bell beaker culture). These people meet their old kindred in hungary and blend their culture with the culture of the yamnaya who had stayed in hungary all this time, which creates the Eastern Bell beakers. These eastern bell beakers then move across most of western europe.

I have a few questions. Did the pioneers who created the stelae marked network, from hungary to portugal, all come through hungary or did some pioneers come directly from lower parts of the danube? When these pioneers started to set up posts along the west med, were there still waves of yamnaya moving into hungary? How exactly do you see the bulk of yamnaya settlers in hungary and their descendants entering the bell beaker populous. As in, most the yamnaya who settled in hungary settled along the Tisza river; only some settled in western hungary and probably austria too. But the early bell beakers in hungary were in western hungary and its these western hungarians who probably supplied the yamnaya connected to the eastern bell beakers. [A] Do you think the few yamnaya-like settlements discovered in western hungary/ austria underestimates the yamnaya settlement in western hungary/ austria and that this alone can explain the yamnaya impact on eastern bell beaker autosomal composition. [B] Do think the yamnaya settled the tisza but about the hungarian plain in a disorganized way, with a enough ending up in western hungary to explain the yamnaya impact on BB. [C] Do you think the yamnaya of the tisza moved en masse to western hungary and beyond under the new face of bell beaker?

My last three question are really just a question of detail rather than anything crucial to a theory. It should be expected that people of the west hungarian plain would have a significant portion of yamnaya ancestry when a large number of yamnaya had been settled in the central part of the hungarian plain for hundreds of years. Asking for more, outside of curiosity, is like asking how beakers from northeast bavaria made it to northwest bavaria when trying to answer how beakers made it from hungary/czech republic to to spain and ireland...

Jean M
11-27-2014, 09:23 AM
This, IMO, is the best summary you have given for your theory. I assume you would agree that most of the ANE introduced to western europe by bell beakers came from the group of yamnaya descendants that stayed in hungary rather those who ventured from hungary to form the Stelae marked network that would later foster the early beaker formation/network.

That's not something that I feel an urgent necessity to speculate about. I realise that the keenly numerate want estimated proportions of everything because that is how their brains work, but I don't think that we are in a position to pluck proportions out of the data we currently have. If we can't be accurate it seems worthless to speculate.

In AJ I postulated that CW and BB were not just cultural descendants of Yamnaya, but carried R1a and R1b from a Yamnaya/Cucuteni pool on the steppe. Lazaridis 2013 came too late to be included, but was not at all unexpected to me. It provides the autosomal confirmation of what I and others had already guessed from Y-DNA i.e. that a third genetic source was an important part of the gene pool of Europe and that it largely reflects IE movements. We are now starting to get the dots joined up. Much more work will be needed to get the full story.


I have a few questions. Did the pioneers who created the stelae marked network, from hungary to portugal, all come through hungary or did some pioneers come directly from lower parts of the danube?

There are other stelae routes which I did not deal with in AJ, but they don't end up in Portugal. From Plachidol and Ezerovo, near Varna, there is a trail of anthropomorphic stelae to Greek Macedonia and on to the Aegean island of Thassos and Soufli Magoula in Thessaly. I'm assuming that this is connected to the 'Balkan Group' of languages including Greek and Armenian, and R1b-CTS1078/Z2103. These stelae develop into a tall, slender type.

The few stelae in CW have no obvious connection with those in the Carpathian Basin and most probably arrived by a different route entirely, up one or more other rivers from the steppe. They are intriguingly similar to one of the Cimmerian period at Gumarevo. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HTSeiXqGKBwC&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false

There is also a stelae route from the steppe to the Altai, Xinjiang and Mongolia. These are generally round-faced. See for example Peter Wei Ming Jia and Alison V. G. Betts, A re-analysis of the Qiemu’erqieke (Shamirshak) cemeteries, Xinjiang, China, The Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 38, Number 3 & 4 (Fall/Winter 2010), 275-317.

rms2
11-27-2014, 03:19 PM
Just my own opinion, but I think Cucuteni-Tripolye represents a pretty big pool of I2 that was Neolithicized (does such a word exist?) by mostly G2a Near Eastern farmers and had no R1b or R1a in it to begin with.

R1b entered SE Europe with Yamnaya and got into Beaker and spread west which should be regarded as the European y-dna equivalent of the Big Bang. I also think Gimbutas was onto something with the BB link to Vučedol.

Piquerobi posted something on another thread about decorated horse phalanges that were found at Beaker sites in Spain that appear to have their origin in the Botai and Tersek peoples of the Kazakh steppe. Interesting.

vettor
11-27-2014, 04:54 PM
Ligurian [correction Lepontic] is the earliest written form of Celtic, but it is not the most archaic form. That is Celtiberian. If we look for a movement into the Celtiberian region from a later Celtic-speaking zone, we get late BB c. 2200 BC.



this makes no sense, but before I reply answer me this question - is vasconic older that celtiberian or not?

vettor
11-27-2014, 04:57 PM
No. I don't think it has anything to do with the Iberes, who were not IE speaking.

But you placed it in Iberes area, if its not them who was there?

vettor
11-27-2014, 05:04 PM
Well, not quite... We can actually apply internal reconstruction to "dead" (I'd rather say "moribund", but that's just me) languages, which is precisely what we did with Etruscan, Lemnian, Rhaetian (which all belong to the Tyrsenian family) and Tocharian. The comparative method can also be applied in some cases, which is how we "recovered" most of Akkadian grammar and phonology which enabled us to thoroughly decipher and analyse Sumerian, Hurrian, Urartian and Elamite (though this is trickier because what we actually know about these languages can be compared to what we know about proto-languages, these are all educated guesses).

But as I said earlier, our current understanding of Proto-Celtic isn't going to change anytime soon... Unless we discover a previously unknown Celtic language. Till then, fact that Proto-Celtic broke up around the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age will remain pretty uncontroversial.



Possible, yet again you'd expect far more diversity if Lepontic came with the BB reflux... It could work for Ligurian, but Lepontic? As I said, BB is too ancient for that.

rhaetic is older than etruscan, that is, both west rheatic and east rhaetic, it is older that its sister languages of etruscan, camunic, and venetic...........if I recall correctly, there is a paper stating it's origins as west-semetic

ADW_1981
11-27-2014, 05:14 PM
But you placed it in Iberes area, if its not them who was there?

C-M130 has turned up half a dozen times already in pre-neolithic or neolithic DNA, yet is only present in a few dozen living males today. (at least from public datasets - the number is still miniscule)
Why on earth would the modern quantity of R1b in Spain matter at all? We're looking at rapid demographic change in European males during the Bronze age. Even the "true" Middle Eastern male lineages are around only 5-7% in Europeans and they had selective advantage for a good few thousand years there.

vettor
11-27-2014, 05:17 PM
Yes, but you can't project into their future how they would have developed into the modern age, because they didn't. That's my point. By now Celtiberian in particular could have been vastly different from modern Irish and Welsh, since Celtiberian was pretty well cut off from the rest of the Celtic sphere. That is why it retained archaic features.



Again I wouldn't, because Lepontic remained in constant contact with the development of Gaulish on the other side of the Alps. The Golasecca culture functioned as the trade gateway between Hallstatt and the Etruscans. Contact with Gaulish was so close that Lepontic has sometimes been thought a variety of Gaulish. We have this areal issue again. This is the updated tree that is going into the book. I think I posted a draft version earlier that missed that factor out.

3068

It is based on one by Sims-Williams.

Insular Celtic languages are those Celtic languages that originated in the British Isles,...what is Sims-Williams saying in his link with regard sto gaulish?

I find it very hard to make any sense of lepontic as being part of hallstatt . The logical scenario is Lepontic is associated with La Tene to a degree and must mean the helvetic people ( swiss) spoke it or a form of it because central alpine area as far as the foothills of southern germany spoke the rhaetic branch which is not celtic. There is no possibility that the celts where in the central alps pre-500BC , it goes against hictorical fact..............unless lepontic rose via a mix of ligurian and rhaetic ( i doubt this )
Halstatt to a degree would be Noric ( celtic branch )

Jean M
11-27-2014, 05:18 PM
But you placed it in Iberes area, if its not them who was there?

Before the Iberes there were Ligurians. They seem to have arrived in the Late Bronze Age. They were still there in about the 6th century BC when early Greek travellers started writing down things about the place.

Before the Ligurians were people who spoke an early form of Indo-European, it seems from place-names that they left behind. These are the ones I speculate were carrying DF27. You won't find them in any history book, because this was before history. We are into archaeology and linguistics.

Jean M
11-27-2014, 05:35 PM
this makes no sense, but before I reply answer me this question - is vasconic older that celtiberian or not?

Basque has no relatives that linguists can agree on. That makes it difficult to assess its age. People used to take it for granted that it was Palaeolithic, because they thought the Basques were a Palaeolithic relic population. In recent years some linguists have been reassessing, noting farming vocabulary in Basque and so on. In fact it has Copper Age vocabulary, which is pretty depressing for people like me looking for a Neolithic language in Europe. I once had a list of what I thought were pre-IE languages in Europe, that got whittled down to zero. That includes Iberian, Etruscan and Minoan, all of which appear to have arrived from the Near East/Anatolia after IE. Archaic Sardinian looks a good bet, along with a substrate in Germanic and Greek.

vettor
11-27-2014, 06:15 PM
Basque has no relatives that linguists can agree on. That makes it difficult to assess its age. People used to take it for granted that it was Palaeolithic, because they thought the Basques were a Palaeolithic relic population. In recent years some linguists have been reassessing, noting farming vocabulary in Basque and so on. In fact it has Copper Age vocabulary, which is pretty depressing for people like me looking for a Neolithic language in Europe. I once had a list of what I thought were pre-IE languages in Europe, that got whittled down to zero. That includes Iberian, Etruscan and Minoan, all of which appear to have arrived from the Near East/Anatolia after IE. Archaic Sardinian looks a good bet, along with a substrate in Germanic and Greek.

fine,
but I find it difficult that celtiiberian emerged in northern Spain having to run the gauntlet of passing through vasconic and Iberes areas......these sat between the atlantic sea and the med. sea along SW france.

Etruscan is "new" in Italy , around 800BC, clearly it came via the alps in the form of a Rhaetic branch if its a sister of Rhaetic. etruscans 12 major cities formed a confederation in italy. An indication from Italian historians that etruscan did not form in italy but migrated there.

The difference between celtic and slavic in terms on how they operated.........celtic language moved and changed with the local language where they arrived, hence, not all celtic languages are similar to each other ...........while slavic commenced in one place ( some say border of modern belrussia and ukraine ) sat there for century upon century until it broke out and spread......which is why all slavic branch are more similar to each other.

Leeroy Jenkins
11-27-2014, 07:21 PM
Etruscan is "new" in Italy , around 800BC, clearly it came via the alps in the form of a Rhaetic branch if its a sister of Rhaetic. etruscans 12 major cities formed a confederation in italy. An indication from Italian historians that etruscan did not form in italy but migrated there.

It's a bit of a stretch to say Etruscan "clearly" came from the Alps, no? Last I remember, it was still possible that it came from the East Mediterranean with Lemnian being evidence of early Etruscan influence in the region.

Agamemnon
11-27-2014, 07:29 PM
It's a bit of a stretch to say Etruscan "clearly" came from the Alps, no? Last I remember, it was still possible that it came from the East Mediterranean with Lemnian being evidence of early Etruscan influence in the region.

In fact, the odds for Tyrsenian being Eastern Mediterranean in origin are quite high, especially since it displays interesting similarities to NE Caucasian languages (and in turn, might be related to Eteocretan and Minoan).

razyn
11-27-2014, 11:32 PM
Anybody want to agree with, or argue with, the suggestion by Josef Karst in the 1920s that Basque language has a close relationship with Armenian? The following source is in Russian, but Google Translate makes it at least comprehensible. I have no idea how many times it may have been shot down, since 1928 -- but however many times that was, it was done on theoretical grounds, and w/o reference to genetic markers, real or imagined. So it might be something to look at -- especially if one knows about the DF27 subclade A431. Or drinks wine. http://shkolazhizni.ru/archive/0/n-57592/

rms2
11-28-2014, 12:09 AM
I really doubt any connection to Armenian, a satem IE language. I think it more likely the early Basques and Sardinians were the same people and were both predominantly I-M26. The Sardinians preserved that I-M26 dominance in large part because they live on an island. The Basques, on the other hand, came to have a y-dna profile similar to their IE-speaking neighbors while hanging onto their language and some I-M26 as two reminders of what they once were.

vettor
11-28-2014, 04:54 AM
It's a bit of a stretch to say Etruscan "clearly" came from the Alps, no? Last I remember, it was still possible that it came from the East Mediterranean with Lemnian being evidence of early Etruscan influence in the region.

genetics does not support what you state

Genetic evidence does not support an etruscan origin in Anatolia

Francesca Tassi et al. 2013

The debate on the origins of Etruscans, documented in central Italy between the eighth century BC and the first century AD, dates back to antiquity. Herodotus described them as a group of immigrants from Lydia, in Western Anatolia, whereas for Dionysius of Halicarnassus they were an indigenous population. Dionysius' view is shared by most modern archeologists, but the observation of similarities between the (modern) mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) of Turks and Tuscans was interpreted as supporting an Anatolian origin of the Etruscans. However, ancient DNA evidence shows that only some isolates, and not the bulk of the modern Tuscan population, are genetically related to the Etruscans. In this study, we tested alternative models of Etruscan origins by Approximate Bayesian Computation methods, comparing levels of genetic diversity in the mtDNAs of modern and ancient populations with those obtained by millions of computer simulations. The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period.

Generalissimo
11-28-2014, 05:29 AM
genetics does not support what you state

Genetic evidence does not support an etruscan origin in Anatolia

Francesca Tassi et al. 2013

The debate on the origins of Etruscans, documented in central Italy between the eighth century BC and the first century AD, dates back to antiquity. Herodotus described them as a group of immigrants from Lydia, in Western Anatolia, whereas for Dionysius of Halicarnassus they were an indigenous population. Dionysius' view is shared by most modern archeologists, but the observation of similarities between the (modern) mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) of Turks and Tuscans was interpreted as supporting an Anatolian origin of the Etruscans. However, ancient DNA evidence shows that only some isolates, and not the bulk of the modern Tuscan population, are genetically related to the Etruscans. In this study, we tested alternative models of Etruscan origins by Approximate Bayesian Computation methods, comparing levels of genetic diversity in the mtDNAs of modern and ancient populations with those obtained by millions of computer simulations. The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period.

Don't believe everything you read.

vettor
11-28-2014, 06:21 AM
Don't believe everything you read.


Origins and Evolution of the Etruscans’ mtDNA

Silvia Ghirotto et al.

The Etruscan culture is documented in Central Italy (current Tuscany and Northern Latium, formerly known as Etruria) between the 8th and the 1st century BC. Questions about the Etruscans’ origins and fate have been around for millennia. Herodotus and Livy regarded them as immigrants, respectively from Lydia, i.e. Western Anatolia, or from North of the Alps, whereas for Dionysius of Halicarnassus they were an autochthonous population [1]. Previous DNA studies, far from settling the issue, have raised further questions. The Etruscans’ mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) appear similar, but seldom identical, to those currently observed in Tuscany [2], [3]. Assuming reasonable effects of genetic drift and mutation, these levels of resemblance proved incompatible with the notion that modern Tuscans are descended from Etruscan ancestors [4], [5]. Explanations for this result include the (extreme) possibility that the Etruscans became extinct, but also that their modern descendants are few and geographically dispersed, or that the ancient sample studied represents a small social elite rather than the entire population [4]. As for the Etruscans’ origins, ancient DNA is of little use, because pre-Etruscan dwellers of Central Italy, of the Villanovan culture, cremated their dead [1], and hence their genetic features are unknown. DNAs from modern humans and cattle in Tuscany show affinities with Near Eastern DNAs, which was interpreted as supporting Herodotus’ narrative [2], [6], but in these studies modern Tuscans were assumed to be descended from Etruscan ancestors, in contrast with ancient DNA evidence [5]. The claim that systematic errors in the Etruscan DNA sequences led to flawed genealogical inference [2], [7] is not supported by careful reanalysis of the data [8].
So, it would seem that the inferred dates are incompatible with a folk migration model of Etruscan origins, but not necessarily with a model that accommodates admixture (e.g., initial mtDNA gene pool separation c. 8,000 years ago with the onset of the Neolithic + later admixture during the Bronze Age). On the other hand, the close similarity between Etruscan and Central European Neolithic mtDNA is a good argument for (mostly) continuity in this case.

:biggrin1:

Jean M
11-28-2014, 10:08 AM
Just my own opinion, but I think Cucuteni-Tripolye represents a pretty big pool of I2 that was Neolithicized (does such a word exist?) by mostly G2a Near Eastern farmers and had no R1b or R1a in it to begin with..

Yamnaya absorbed the remnants of Cucuteni-Tripolye as it moved through their former territory. That was clear to me back in 2007 or 2008 from the fact that I2 was a fellow-traveller with both R1a and R1b into Europe, but not into Asia. I thought initially that haplogroup G had travelled with copper workers. Then I dumped that idea (in 2008?) as it began to look more and more Neolithic. I suppose I have sort of returned to that old idea as it looks like much of the G2a in Europe today is not a local descendant of the Neolithic G2a, but belongs to a later wave.

Logically it is appealing to see R1b as the steppe element in the western Yamnaya mix, but I don't commit myself in the book presently in production.


Piquerobi posted something on another thread about decorated horse phalanges that were found at Beaker sites in Spain that appear to have their origin in the Botai and Tersek peoples of the Kazakh steppe. Interesting.

Yes I saw that. Very interesting.

Agamemnon
11-28-2014, 10:16 AM
Can't believe you actually missed that, Vettor:



Background

The origin of the Etruscan civilization (Etruria, Central Italy) is a long-standing subject of debate among scholars from different disciplines. The bulk of the information has been reconstructed from ancient texts and archaeological findings and, in the last few years, through the analysis of uniparental genetic markers.

Methods

By meta-analyzing genome-wide data from The 1000 Genomes Project and the literature, we were able to compare the genomic patterns (>540,000 SNPs) of present day Tuscans (N = 98) with other population groups from the main hypothetical source populations, namely, Europe and the Middle East.

Results

Admixture analysis indicates the presence of 25–34% of Middle Eastern component in modern Tuscans. Different analyses have been carried out using identity-by-state (IBS) values and genetic distances point to Eastern Anatolia/Southern Caucasus as the most likely geographic origin of the main Middle Eastern genetic component observed in the genome of modern Tuscans.

Conclusions

The data indicate that the admixture event between local Tuscans and Middle Easterners could have occurred in Central Italy about 2,600–3,100 years ago (y.a.). On the whole, the results validate the theory of the ancient historian Herodotus on the origin of Etruscans.



Source: A Genome-Wide Study of Modern-Day Tuscans: Revisiting Herodotus's Theory on the Origin of the Etruscans (Pardo-Seco et al. 2014) (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105920)

Tuscans clearly cline towards Near Eastern populations when compared to their neighbours, nothing controversial about that I'm afraid.

alan
11-28-2014, 02:34 PM
Jean-Is beakers similar but different worth ordering from Santa?

Jean M
11-28-2014, 02:36 PM
Jean-Is beakers similar but different worth ordering from Santa?

Look in the Mini-Library under Books > Bell Beaker. I seem to accumulate these things. :)

MJost
11-28-2014, 03:46 PM
...

Presenting more information:

Ancient DNA Reveals Key Stages in the Formation of Central European Mitochondrial Genetic Diversity
Brandt et al
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6155/257

The papers link to an interactive MtDNA movie was very interesting.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/10/10/342.6155.257.DC1/1241844s1.mov

MJost

Open paper link here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4039305/

MJost

vettor
11-28-2014, 05:10 PM
Can't believe you actually missed that, Vettor:



Source: A Genome-Wide Study of Modern-Day Tuscans: Revisiting Herodotus's Theory on the Origin of the Etruscans (Pardo-Seco et al. 2014) (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105920)

Tuscans clearly cline towards Near Eastern populations when compared to their neighbours, nothing controversial about that I'm afraid.

Thanks ...I will read it............but upon a quick scan, the paper states a maritime route to Italy, then it does not fullfill the fundamental question that the other papers clarified....that is ..........if etruscans are stated historically in italy as from 800BC to 100AD then how is their association linguistic and genetically etc etc with the Rhaetic people in the alps be maintained historically if they ( rhaetics) have been there (alps) since a minimum time of the late-bronze age?

maybe I should use the approved reply .............Don't believe everything you read.............on everything from now on !

vettor
11-28-2014, 05:41 PM
Can't believe you actually missed that, Vettor:



Source: A Genome-Wide Study of Modern-Day Tuscans: Revisiting Herodotus's Theory on the Origin of the Etruscans (Pardo-Seco et al. 2014) (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105920)

Tuscans clearly cline towards Near Eastern populations when compared to their neighbours, nothing controversial about that I'm afraid.



the paper is flawed in that fact that
Conclusions

The dating calculated in the present study is in good agreement with the age of the Middle Eastern haplogroup U7 lineages (2,300 y.a.) identified in the Isle of Elba (Tuscany) by Brisighelli et al. [11]. However, our findings conflict with the most recent proposal of Tassi et al. [13] and Ghirotto et al. [12] based on theoretical simulations of mtDNA patterns observed in Etruscan and Medieval samples from Tuscany. Both studies suggested that the genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory (at least 5,000 y.a.). On the other hand, the mtDNA data in general (both modern and ancient DNA) are compatible with a proportion of lineages coming from the Middle East, not necessarily from Turkey or South Caucasus, but also further southeast (e.g. Iran).


The first sentence is the issue because Brisghelli used AIMS to get the data for her paper

AIMs are a subset of SNPs chosen for their informativeness about ancestry and often used by geneticists instead of genome-wide data to save time and money. However, according to Galanter et al. (2010), this can lead to errors and overestimations of admixture, especially when the panel of AIMs is very small:

Ancestry informative markers (AIMs) have been used as a cost-effective way to estimate individual ancestral proportions in admixed populations such as African Americans and Latinos. [...] We compared differences in ancestry estimated with different size AIMs panels with ancestry estimated from genomewide markers. [...] There was an inverse correlation between the number of AIMs used to estimate ancestry and mean and standard deviation of the error in ancestry estimation. Using AIMs, African ancestry was consistently overestimated, while the major ancestral component (European in Puerto Ricans and Native American in Mexicans) was systematically underestimated. Using 300 or fewer AIMs consistently produced a standard deviation of ancestry estimation error of 10% or greater. [...] There is both systematic bias resulting in overestimation of African ancestry (and underestimation of other continental ancestry) and random error. Such error is inversely proportional to the number of AIMs used.

Agamemnon
11-28-2014, 08:54 PM
That's irrelevant, this is a genome-wide study, it doesn't address uniparental lineages in particular.

Krefter
11-28-2014, 09:00 PM
That's irrelevant, this is a genome-wide study, it doesn't address uniparental lineages in particular.

It's relevant because if they find useful information for using this method for discovering the origins of Tuscans and Etruscans.

Agamemnon
11-28-2014, 09:01 PM
It's relevant because if they find evidence with this method about Tuscan and theoretically Etruscan origins.

As I said, this is a genome-wide study, it doesn't purport to find evidence with uniparental markers.

Krefter
11-28-2014, 09:03 PM
As I said, this is a genome-wide study, it doesn't purport to find evidence with uniparental markers.

After you do research on uniparental markers, it would be wise to keep this paper in a file some where because it can serve the same goal.

vettor
11-28-2014, 10:44 PM
That's irrelevant, this is a genome-wide study, it doesn't address uniparental lineages in particular.

the paper of brisghelli ( your paper relies on this paper ) was so badly flawed that they had to release a correctional paper ............later, there was "rubbish" dumped on it..............IIRC it might be removed for reference purposes

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371%2Fannotation%2Fea14adcb-033d-492d-8f8b-e047aa080cd4

Agamemnon
11-28-2014, 11:01 PM
After you do research on uniparental markers, it would be wise to keep this paper in a file some where because it can serve the same goal.

I keep all the studies I come accross in a file (several, in fact, depending on the region and the nature of the study) ;)

Heber
11-30-2014, 01:06 PM
Different waves and directions of Neolithic migrations in the Armenian Highland

Anahit Hovhannisyan, Zaruhi Khachatryan, Marc Haber, Peter Hrechdakian, Tatiana Karafet, Pierre Zalloua and Levon Yepiskoposyan

Investigative Genetics 2014, 5:15, doi:10.1186/s13323-014-0015-6. Received: 31 July 2014. Accepted: 10 November 2014. Published: 30 November 2014.

This recent study has an interesting migration map for P312 into Iberia.

3075

3077

Abstract

Background
The peopling of Europe and the nature of the Neolithic agricultural migration as a primary issue in the modern human colonization of the globe is still widely debated. At present, much uncertainty is associated with the reconstruction of the routes of migration for the first farmers from the Near East. In this context, hospitable climatic conditions and the key geographic position of the Armenian Highland suggest that it may have served as a conduit for several waves of expansion of the first agriculturalists from the Near East to Europe and the North Caucasus.

Results
Here, we assess Y-chromosomal distribution in six geographically distinct populations of Armenians that roughly represent the extent of historical Armenia. Using the general haplogroup structure and the specific lineages representing putative genetic markers of the Neolithic Revolution, haplogroups R1b1a2, J2, and G, we identify distinct patterns of genetic affinity between the populations of the Armenian Highland and the neighboring ones north and west from this area.

Conclusions
Based on the results obtained, we suggest a new insight on the different routes and waves of Neolithic expansion of the first farmers through the Armenian Highland. We detected at least two principle migratory directions: (1) westward alongside the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea and (2) northward to the North Caucasus

http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/5/1/15

MJost
11-30-2014, 01:41 PM
the paper of brisghelli ( your paper relies on this paper ) was so badly flawed that they had to release a correctional paper ............later, there was "rubbish" dumped on it..............IIRC it might be removed for reference purposes

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371%2Fannotation%2Fea14adcb-033d-492d-8f8b-e047aa080cd4

Dang those research students cant they add simple numbers. lol

MJost

rms2
11-30-2014, 07:17 PM
Different waves and directions of Neolithic migrations in the Armenian Highland

Anahit Hovhannisyan, Zaruhi Khachatryan, Marc Haber, Peter Hrechdakian, Tatiana Karafet, Pierre Zalloua and Levon Yepiskoposyan

Investigative Genetics 2014, 5:15, doi:10.1186/s13323-014-0015-6. Received: 31 July 2014. Accepted: 10 November 2014. Published: 30 November 2014.

This recent study has an interesting migration map for P312 into Iberia.

3075

3077

Abstract

Background
The peopling of Europe and the nature of the Neolithic agricultural migration as a primary issue in the modern human colonization of the globe is still widely debated. At present, much uncertainty is associated with the reconstruction of the routes of migration for the first farmers from the Near East. In this context, hospitable climatic conditions and the key geographic position of the Armenian Highland suggest that it may have served as a conduit for several waves of expansion of the first agriculturalists from the Near East to Europe and the North Caucasus.

Results
Here, we assess Y-chromosomal distribution in six geographically distinct populations of Armenians that roughly represent the extent of historical Armenia. Using the general haplogroup structure and the specific lineages representing putative genetic markers of the Neolithic Revolution, haplogroups R1b1a2, J2, and G, we identify distinct patterns of genetic affinity between the populations of the Armenian Highland and the neighboring ones north and west from this area.

Conclusions
Based on the results obtained, we suggest a new insight on the different routes and waves of Neolithic expansion of the first farmers through the Armenian Highland. We detected at least two principle migratory directions: (1) westward alongside the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea and (2) northward to the North Caucasus

http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/5/1/15

Interesting paper. It should probably get its own separate thread.

One big problem I see with it is the fact that thus far no ancient R1b has been recovered from any Neolithic site in Europe. Another is that they are basing their hypothesis on modern R1b-M269 variance, which according to those maps is greatest in eastern Anatolia. I think probably the SNP trail is a better indicator (of course, ancient y-dna is best).

I have not had the time to read the whole paper in detail.

alan
11-30-2014, 07:57 PM
Looks like a rehash of the idea R1b moved in two Neolithic waves by Cardial and LBK. That is essentially already disproved by ancient DNA. Looks like its going to be a while before the fact most of Europe only got R1b in post-Neolithic times reaches all scholars.

IF M269 arose close to Armenia - which is not impossible - it still seems likely it got into the steppes and spread into Europe from there in the copper age. Another thing worth noting is that although it was close to the farming origin core, the Caucasus did not receive farming until farming was already in Europe so the Caucasus are not a plausible origin point for Neolithic farmers in Europe. In fact the latest ideas point to the Levant as being important in terms of European farming.

alan
11-30-2014, 08:03 PM
Interesting observations in the paper though

Furthermore, in comparison with all analyzed populations from the Near East, Europe, and Anatolia, the haplogroup R1b1a2-M269 occurs with the highest genetic variances in the western parts of the Armenian plateau, in Sasun and Salmas/I]

AND

[I]Moreover, in contrast to other populations of the Near Eastern cluster, the populations of the western part of the Armenian Highland, Van, Turkey, and Lebanon show a moderate level of genetic affinity to the central European populations. Indeed, the actual estimates of the FST values for haplogroup R1b1a2 place the western region of the Armenian Highland in a transitional position between the Near East and Europe (see Additional file 4, sheet 2).revious data on the limited Y-chromosomal and autosomal sharing among the Armenian and European populations [31],[35] should be considered as a consequence of the absence, in their Armenian datasets, of the populations from the western region of the Armenian Highland

I think this could be interpreted as supporting the traditional view that the Armenians came from SE Europe

Leeroy Jenkins
11-30-2014, 08:05 PM
3077

The variance of R1b1a2 in this figure matches the extent of the Hittite empire. Not to say the correlation means R1b1a2 was the primary Hittite lineage or anything, but there does seem to be a correlation between the two.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/hittite-empire-troy.jpg

Krefter
11-30-2014, 08:14 PM
Why does that new paper on Caucasus Y DNA think R1b is Indo European? Do they suggest a migration of R1b-M269 from the Steppe into west Asia? I doubt this because the greatest diversity of R1b is found in west Asia.

Leeroy Jenkins
11-30-2014, 08:26 PM
Why does that new paper on Caucasus Y DNA think R1b is Indo European?

Because it seems to be more frequent in areas settled and held by Hittites and Armenians, I guess.


Do they suggest a migration of R1b-M269 from the Steppe into west Asia? I doubt this because the greatest diversity of R1b is found in west Asia.

No, in the paper they state R1b came from either West Asia or Atlantic Europe. I guess they are leaving open the possibility of IE languages coming from the Near East.

Heber
11-30-2014, 08:41 PM
Haplogroup R1b1a2-M269
The spatial distribution of the main western European Y-chromosomal lineage, haplogroup R1b1a2-M269, shows a significant frequency cline from 7% in Lebanon to 82% in Ireland [24],[47], though also present in trace amounts in the majority of the North Caucasus populations [30]. Among Armenian samples, the haplogroup is one of the most common lineages, which is frequently encountered in the eastern part of the Armenian Highland and Van (see Additional file 5).

In contrast, a decreasing cline of microsatellite variance is detected from the Levant towards northwest and northeast. Furthermore, in comparison with all analyzed populations from the Near East, Europe, and Anatolia, the haplogroup R1b1a2-M269 occurs with the highest genetic variances in the western parts of the Armenian plateau, in Sasun and Salmast (Figure 5).

3080
Figure 5. Geographical distribution maps of haplogroup frequencies and genetic variances (VP): (A) R1b1a2, (B) J2, and (C) G.

Krefter
11-30-2014, 10:11 PM
No, in the paper they state R1b came from either West Asia or Atlantic Europe. I guess they are leaving open the possibility of IE languages coming from the Near East.

Atlantic Europe, are they kidding? To claim there's a significant frequency cline of R1b from the Lebanon to Ireland, is a ridiculous statement to. They must be stuck in 2006. How popular a haplogroup is means almost nothing. The existence of R1b in the Lebanon and Ireland are probably for unrelated reasons. The dominance of R1b-L11 was a recent introduction into western Europe. Most of European genetics had already formed before R1b-L11 became the staple paternal lineage of west Europe.

alan
11-30-2014, 10:15 PM
The variance of R1b1a2 in this figure matches the extent of the Hittite empire. Not to say the correlation means R1b1a2 was the primary Hittite lineage or anything, but there does seem to be a correlation between the two.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/hittite-empire-troy.jpg

That is an interesting observation and in a sense highest variance fits the early branching of the language compared to other R1b-linked IE languages.

In Armenian terms it is also interesting that the highest variance is in the west and that they seem to be saying previously undetected shift towards Europe is present in autosomal terms.

In general though variance is tricky when an entire branch like Hittite or Armenian has no remnant at its origin point linguistically speaking. So, the highest variance point may just be the survival zone of a people with the parent group lineages basically wiped out at origin point.

alan
11-30-2014, 10:16 PM
Atlantic Europe, are they kidding? To claim there's a significant frequency cline of R1b from the Lebanon to Ireland, is a ridiculous statement to. They must be stuck in 2006. How popular a haplogroup is means almost nothing. The existence of R1b in the Lebanon and Ireland are probably for unrelated reasons. The dominance of R1b-L11 was a recent introduction into western Europe. Most of European genetics had already formed before R1b-L11 became the staple paternal lineage of west Europe.

The interpretations are incredibly out of date but they do make some interesting observations even if their interpretation is drastically wrong.

Silesian
11-30-2014, 10:20 PM
Why does that new paper on Caucasus Y DNA think R1b is Indo European? Do they suggest a migration of R1b-M269 from the Steppe into west Asia? I doubt this because the greatest diversity of R1b is found in west Asia.
West Asia covers a large region. Some of the oldest R1b samples, are not fully tested to my knowledge.
However the little information we have: R1b1* found in Kurds 2x R1b-M343 (Kurdish village Dogukoy*/Central Anatolia in Gokcumen et al., 2011)http://kurdishdna.blogspot.it/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=10
R1b1* in Azerbijian[Grugni et al- http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252]
R-M343 P25+, L21-, M18-, M222-, M269-, M335-, M73-, P297-, P312-, U106-, V88- Armenians
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject/default.aspx?section=ysnp
R1b R-M343 M343+, P25+, P297-, V88-, M269-, M18-, M335-, M73- Georgians
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/georgia/default.aspx?section=ysnp

R1b-CTS-7822+>CTS-9219+ has not been found in any significant quantity in South West Asia.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/assyrianheritagednaproject/default.aspx?section=ysnp
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/lebanon-syria-dna/default.aspx?section=yresults

Leeroy Jenkins
11-30-2014, 10:27 PM
Atlantic Europe, are they kidding? To claim there's a significant frequency cline of R1b from the Lebanon to Ireland, is a ridiculous statement to. They must be stuck in 2006. How popular a haplogroup is means almost nothing. The existence of R1b in the Lebanon and Ireland are probably for unrelated reasons. The dominance of R1b-L11 was a recent introduction into western Europe. Most of European genetics had already formed before R1b-L11 became the staple paternal lineage of west Europe.

My advice for the paper in question is to take the data from it, but take the authors' interpretation of that data with a grain of salt.


In general though variance is tricky when an entire branch like Hittite or Armenian has no remnant at its origin point linguistically speaking. So, the highest variance point may just be the survival zone of a people with the parent group lineages basically wiped out at origin point.

Indeed, that is why I used caution in the wording of my post. A simple correlation between a haplogroup's variance and a particular ancient culture or language is certainly not enough to base an argument or theory on.

Joe B
11-30-2014, 10:54 PM
My advice for the paper in question is to take the data from it, but take the authors' interpretation of that data with a grain of salt.
Every interpretation in this field should be taken with a grain of salt!
That said, I work with one of the authors of this study in the R1b1a2 (P312- U106-) DNA Project. He is very phylogenetically oriented and scientific straight shooter.


R1b-CTS-7822+>CTS-9219+ has not been found in any significant quantity in South West Asia.
R1b-CTS7822 and CTS9219 have not been tested in Southwest Asia or the Caususes enough. Maybe a handful of tests.

Peace everybody

Silesian
11-30-2014, 11:43 PM
R1b-CTS7822 and CTS9219 have not been tested in Southwest Asia or the Caususes enough. Maybe a handful of tests.

Peace everybody
Since we differ at R1b-CTS-7822+/-, do you [or Smal] have any idea how many generations are ancestor's branched apart. One going into branch R1b-CTS-7822+ and going into R1b-CTS-7822- @30yr+/- generation?

vettor
12-01-2014, 05:42 AM
West Asia covers a large region. Some of the oldest R1b samples, are not fully tested to my knowledge.
However the little information we have: R1b1* found in Kurds 2x R1b-M343 (Kurdish village Dogukoy*/Central Anatolia in Gokcumen et al., 2011)http://kurdishdna.blogspot.it/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=10
R1b1* in Azerbijian[Grugni et al- http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252]
R-M343 P25+, L21-, M18-, M222-, M269-, M335-, M73-, P297-, P312-, U106-, V88- Armenians
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject/default.aspx?section=ysnp
R1b R-M343 M343+, P25+, P297-, V88-, M269-, M18-, M335-, M73- Georgians
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/georgia/default.aspx?section=ysnp

R1b-CTS-7822+>CTS-9219+ has not been found in any significant quantity in South West Asia.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/assyrianheritagednaproject/default.aspx?section=ysnp
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/lebanon-syria-dna/default.aspx?section=yresults

does'nt this change the ages

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&p=22990#p22990
Time of Development staes 1st of December 2014

Silesian
12-01-2014, 02:42 PM
Looks like a rehash of the idea R1b moved in two Neolithic waves by Cardial and LBK. That is essentially already disproved by ancient DNA. Looks like its going to be a while before the fact most of Europe only got R1b in post-Neolithic times reaches all scholars.

IF M269 arose close to Armenia - which is not impossible - it still seems likely it got into the steppes and spread into Europe from there in the copper age. Another thing worth noting is that although it was close to the farming origin core, the Caucasus did not receive farming until farming was already in Europe so the Caucasus are not a plausible origin point for Neolithic farmers in Europe. In fact the latest ideas point to the Levant as being important in terms of European farming.


David Anthony squarely pegs one of the borders for P.I.E within region of proto-Kartvelian speaking peoples. Hittites and Western Europeans[Bell Beaker regions] and North Western Iranians had a word for grape/wine. Although wine exists in P.I.E. & Proto-Kartvelian,Proto Armenian, ancient Hittite, Mycenaean's, Slavic, but not Akadian[language of ancient Assyrians, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Proto-Semitic_stems] and does not exist[meaning lost as just as in Eastern Iranian dialects for example Ossetian] in the second branch to have split from PIE region, Tocharians[who had word for domesticated pig and grains, but not wine]had no such word. One of the oldest region for grape/wine cultivation is generally thought to be in region around Kura river, from this region a spread to Levant.

Kartvelian has a word for grape/wine, Armenian is a language isolate and had a word for grape/wine, Mycenaean Greek also had a word for grape/wine.
Greek's also had a word for dates[The species name dactylifera "date-bearing" comes from Ancient Greek dáktulos "date" (also "finger")[7] and the stem of the Greek verb ferō "I bear".[8] ] Does a proto-Indo European word exist for the common date, found in Mehrgarh; and used by the Ancient Egyptians to make date wine?

razyn
12-01-2014, 04:04 PM
One of the oldest region for grape/wine cultivation is generally thought to be in region around Kura river, from this region a spread to Levant.

I'm happy to see somebody else picking up on the grape thing. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=59186&viewfull=1#post59186

Might as well park a link to the Basque-Armenian theory here, while Armenia is on the horizon of our Bell Beaker speculations. I am not a strong advocate of this theory; just wish to keep these cards on the table and not limit our discussion to ceramics, metals and skulls -- semi-permanent objects that are still around, to the joy of archaeologists, but can interfere with broader discussions of culture including mentifacts, products made of perishable materials, linguistics, and haplotrees. At the following site, hover over menu items (e.g. "History of Basque," then "Theories about the origin") to discover many more pages of opinion -- often internally contradictory -- on Basque topics: http://www.kondaira.net/eng/Euskara0005.html

Isidro
12-01-2014, 10:56 PM
Krefter wrote on 11-26-2014, 09:58 AM #492 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=59756&viewfull=1#post59756)

"I see where you're going with this. You're claiming people online who argue this stuff are arrogant, inaccurate, uneducated, etc. That is true for some, but not all, and there isn't anything wrong with someone who is uneducated or unintelligent to play around with ideas and do research. If a person like that throws out a theory it doesn't make him arrogant.

There is validity to what's discussed in these forums, and there's many academic papers about it. If you ignore this subject, you're missing out on alot, including discoveries that will probably be in grammar school history books decades from now. "

No disrespect intended toward anyone and I do learn a lot just by reading what people post. Thanks.

rms2
12-02-2014, 12:41 PM
I'm happy to see somebody else picking up on the grape thing. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=59186&viewfull=1#post59186

Might as well park a link to the Basque-Armenian theory here, while Armenia is on the horizon of our Bell Beaker speculations. I am not a strong advocate of this theory; just wish to keep these cards on the table and not limit our discussion to ceramics, metals and skulls -- semi-permanent objects that are still around, to the joy of archaeologists, but can interfere with broader discussions of culture including mentifacts, products made of perishable materials, linguistics, and haplotrees. At the following site, hover over menu items (e.g. "History of Basque," then "Theories about the origin") to discover many more pages of opinion -- often internally contradictory -- on Basque topics: http://www.kondaira.net/eng/Euskara0005.html

I know you did not post that because you agree with it, so what follows is no criticism of you.

Anyway, I think the Basque-Armenian idea is way out in left field. To begin with, although I am no linguist, from what I have read and seen it is goofy to propose that Armenian is not really Indo-European but has only come to seem Indo-European because of millennia of contact with Indo-Iranian speakers. Armenian is at base an IE language, and some IE experts see a connection between it and Greek, which may indicate that both emerged from the same branch in the Balkans before the group that would come to speak Armenian headed into Anatolia.

Some linguists have claimed to see a relationship between Basque and Kartvelian, but even that is doubtful.

Silesian
12-02-2014, 03:28 PM
I'm happy to see somebody else picking up on the grape thing. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=59186&viewfull=1#post59186
What about Honey/Mead? Any idea's how it was picked up by Finno-Ugric language branches?
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66821

DMXX
12-02-2014, 03:32 PM
What about Honey/Mead?
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66821

If the interest is there, it would be great if a new thread was created exploring the nature of various flora and fauna terms in PIE and the other reconstructed prehistoric proto-languages. I'm sure it's covered quite thoroughly in the literature, but perhaps our community could pick out some novel relationships.

Bobo Manbuck
02-23-2015, 11:39 AM
The gaps in artifact survival is so high that 300 years inaccuracy doesn't really matter. Even if you can perfectly date, you are still getting a very innacurate picture.

Imagine you get just one skeleton every 5k years for any given site over 2k years old and every 10k years for anything over 5k years and you will understand just how sparse our data is. Except it's 100 times more sparse than that.