PDA

View Full Version : R1b in North Africans



jeanL
11-29-2013, 05:28 PM
Since it has been postulated by some people that R1b-L11 could have entered Europe through North Africa circa 4800 ybp, it would be interesting to create a compilation as to the subclades of R1b found in North Africans.

Here are a few studies, feel free to add more information:

985

981

982

983

984

alan
11-29-2013, 05:41 PM
There was definately a long thread about this not long back. The general conclusion was that the V88 zone down the Nile into Chad was very different from the Maghreb which looked like relatively late European contribution. However, I dont have time to go back over that stuff.

jeanL
11-29-2013, 05:54 PM
Here is my analysis of the studies:

985

^The first study was done by Onofri.et.al.2008, and they found 1-R1b-M269 sample, however no downstream mutations were typed, so it could be anything. I wonder if the R1*(xR1a,R1b1) or R-M173 was in fact typed for R1b-P25, or if it is an R1b-V88?

981

This is a modified figure-1 of the Adams.et.al.2008 study. Again only R1b-M269 was typed in this study, alongside with R1b-M65, R1b-M153 and R1b-SRY2627. So it seems R1b-M269 reaches percentages of 7% in both Algerians and Tunisians, but only 3% in Moroccans, interesting there is a small(1%) presence of R1b-SRY2627 in Tunisians

982

This study done by Bekada.et.al.2013 shows that Algerians do show 2/102 or 1.96% of R1b-M269(xL23), and so do Tunisians at 1/120 or 0.83%. I wonder if these were typed by R1b-M269 marker, or could they be R1b-M73? In any case only the Algerians show another downstream clade which is R1b-M412, and 3 R1b-U152 and 1 R1b-M529. The Moroccans show only R1b-U152/R1b-M529 derived clades.

983

This newly published study by Fadhlaoui-Zid.et.al.2013 team shows that the sample of 82 Moroccans show no R1b-M269 derived clade, on the other hand a sample of 215 Lybians show 5 R1b-M18(V88+) derived clades, and 1 R1a clade.

984

Finally there is the aDNA study done on an Aboriginal Canary Islanders sample from multiple islands, and they show 3/30 or 10% R1b1b2 or R1b-M269 clades. I wonder what the 1/30 or 3.33% P*(xR1) or the 3/30 or 10% K*(xP)(Perhaps it is Y-DNA T?) could be?

Now what was interesting was that the Guanches/Canary Islandes Aborigines were supposed to represent a relative isolated Berber community, however a recent article(in spanish) (http://lavozdetenerife.com/not/51451/se_confirma_el_origen_romano_del_yacimiento_arqueo logico_de_isla_de_lobos_y_se_inicia_su_excavacion_ durante_los_proximos_tres_anos/) shows a newly discovered Roman settlement in the Island of Fuerteventura, so it is very likely that the Romans did interact with the Canary Islanders. The presence of R1b-U152 in Moroccans, Algerians points to a Roman incursion more so that an Iberian proper, since that would yield more of the R1b-P312(xU152,L21) type.


My opinion: All in all, with the number of studies analyzed above, it seem highly unlikely that North Africa was any point of entry for R1b-M269 into Europe. While the presence of 2 R1b-M269(xL23) clades in Algeria and 1 R1b-M269(xL23) clade in Tunisia would lend some support, however the complete absence of it in Moroccans, the lack of derived clades, i.e. R1b-L23(xL11), or R1b-L11(xM412), points to these two clades likely being the result of Balkanic incursions through the Roman colonization of the peninsula. In any case the complete absence of any R1b-M269+ derived clades in Lybians makes it very unlikely for a North African point of entry of R1b-M269 into Europe. Finally the presence of Romans in the Canary Islands might explain the presence of R1b-M269 clades in Aborigines, and also the presence of I-M170, perhaps some Phoenician incursion could have brought about the presence of J1-M267

alan
11-30-2013, 12:28 AM
I agree that other than V88 there is no case for an out of Africa model for R1b. North Africa has such a complex colonial history too that there have been so many opportunities for European and west Asian DNA to come in.

Tomenable
08-17-2015, 08:50 PM
Indigenous Guanches apparently had some R1b M269 - 10% (3 out of 30):

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-9-181.pdf

How old are these 3 samples with R1b M269, are they from BC times ???

And how could it get there, also what subclades were those?


Aboriginal remains were clearly pre-conquest for all the analyzed islands: Tenerife (2210 ▒ 60 to 1720 ▒ 60 BP), Gomera (1743 ▒ 40 to 1493 ▒ 40 BP), Hierro (1740 ▒ 50 to 970 ▒ 50 BP) and Gran Canaria (1410 ▒ 60 to 750 ▒ 60 BP) [33]. Although the Fuerteventura and La Palma [59] materials were not directly C-14 dated, ceramic types co-excavated with the remains indicate that they were also prehispanic and not older than 1000 years BP.

From which island(s) were those 3 aboriginal R1b samples ???

dp
08-17-2015, 08:59 PM
Indigenous Guanches apparently had some R1b M269 - 10% (3 out of 30):

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-9-181.pdf

How old are these 3 samples with R1b M269, are they from BC times ???

And how could it get there, also what subclades were those?
regarding the centuries old male remains, a few hundred years old. As far as to how the male signature got into the gene pool, I'd say by ship, perhaps in the triangular trade.

The goal was to directly type North-African geographically structured Y-chromosome binary
markers in samples from indigenous and 17th–18th century remains that were already successfully analyzed for
mtDNA [24,25] and proven to be males by an amelogenin-based sexing test [33]
dp

Tomenable
08-17-2015, 09:03 PM
Nope. A few hundred years old.

No, no - you are referring to "historical era" (post-conquest) samples from the 17th-18th centuries.

In that group R1b was 43%, or 18 out of 42 samples (see Table I).

However, there was also 10% (3 out of 30) of R1b in prehistoric aboriginal (pre-conquest) samples.

Here is calibrated radiocarbon dating:


Aboriginal remains were clearly pre-conquest for all the analyzed islands: Tenerife (2210 ▒ 60 to 1720 ▒ 60 BP), Gomera (1743 ▒ 40 to 1493 ▒ 40 BP), Hierro (1740 ▒ 50 to 970 ▒ 50 BP) and Gran Canaria (1410 ▒ 60 to 750 ▒ 60 BP) [33]. Although the Fuerteventura and La Palma [59] materials were not directly C-14 dated, ceramic types co-excavated with the remains indicate that they were also prehispanic and not older than 1000 years BP.

But they don't specify which samples were R1b - from which island(s), and how old were those R1b-s.

Tomenable
08-17-2015, 09:24 PM
Aboriginal haplogroups (samples dated to 2270 - 690 years ago):

E1b1b1b* M81 ---- 8 ---- 26,67%
E1b1b1a* M78 ---- 7 ---- 23,33%
J1* M267 -------- 5 ---- 16,67%
R1b1b2 M269 ----- 3 ---- 10,00%
K* M9 ----------- 3 ---- 10,00%
I* M170 --------- 2 ---- 6,67%
E1a* M33 -------- 1 ---- 3,33%
P* M45 ---------- 1 ---- 3,33%

This P* M45 is probably also R1b, so we have in total 4 samples.

Now I'm wondering if R1b samples are closer to 2270 years old, or closer to 690 years old. :P

No dating for each sample separately is given, just for the whole set.

rms2
08-17-2015, 09:25 PM
Those dates for R1b are all Iron Age dates, btw. Nothing hugely shocking about them.

Tomenable
08-17-2015, 09:28 PM
No but those were isolated island populations, so it's quite surprising.

And there are various interesting theories about Guanche origins and contacts with outsiders.

If these R1b-s are closer to 2270 years old then they could be brought in by... whom ???

dp
08-17-2015, 09:29 PM
Sorry. I just glossed through to the Methods section.
dp

No, no - you are referring to "historical era" (post-conquest) samples from the 17th-18th centuries.

In that group R1b was 43%, or 18 out of 42 samples (see Table I).

However, there was also 10% (3 out of 30) of R1b in prehistoric aboriginal (pre-conquest) samples.

Here is calibrated radiocarbon dating:



But they don't specify which samples were R1b - from which island(s), and how old were those R1b-s.

rms2
08-17-2015, 09:30 PM
. . .

This P* M45 is probably also R1b, so we have in total 4 samples . . .

No, you cannot say that. It could have just as well been R1a or Q.

The dates aren't all that old. They're Iron Age, all within the time of the existence of the Roman Empire. If you were hoping to make M269 aboriginal in western Europe, this doesn't do it, and it's been tried before.

rms2
08-17-2015, 09:31 PM
No but those were isolated island populations, so it's quite surprising.

And there are various interesting theories about Guanche origins and contacts with outsiders.

If these R1b-s are closer to 2270 years old then they could be brought in by... whom ???

Romans maybe. Greeks maybe. You're getting excited about Iron Age remains, which in this case isn't all that big a deal.

And apparently they weren't all that isolated, given the number of y haplogroups represented in the so-called "aboriginal" category.

Tomenable
08-17-2015, 09:33 PM
I was just making a map of ancient R1b and stumbled upon these Guanche samples, so I wonder how old they are. Because I'm not including Medieval samples in my map, only samples up to the Iron Age.

Hence the question.

And if they are 2270 years old then I think it's a bit too early for Roman incursions.

rms2
08-17-2015, 09:42 PM
I was just making a map of ancient R1b and stumbled upon these Guanche samples, so I wonder how old they are. Because I'm not including Medieval samples in my map, only samples up to the Iron Age.

Hence the question.

And if they are 2270 years old then I think it's a bit too early for Roman incursions.

No it isn't. That's roughly 270 BC.

Any number of European peoples could have made it out to the Canaries by that time, and that's the outer limit of the time range.

Tomenable
08-17-2015, 09:44 PM
And apparently they weren't all that isolated

Maybe not, but they had primitive Stone Age technology in the 15th century AD, during the conquest. Is it possible that they had contacts with more advanced cultures (including intermarriage / gene flow) but still remained at the Stone Age? Maybe that's because there were no metal deposits there. But anyway this would suggest, that contacts were not frequent (otherwise they would simply import metals).


That's roughly 270 BC.

Yes, at that time Carthage still controlled southern coasts of Iberia and North Africa.

So how could the Romans get to Canary Islands at that time? Rather impossible.


Any number of European peoples could have made it out to the Canaries by that time

Yes, they could be random castaways, for example. Who got lost and landed there. But 10% is quite a lot (though the sample size is small, only 30 people). BTW - Guanches are thought to be of ethnic Berber origin, but also other peoples are sometimes postulated as taking part in their ethnogenesis.

ADW_1981
08-17-2015, 09:47 PM
No, you cannot say that. It could have just as well been R1a or Q.

The dates aren't all that old. They're Iron Age, all within the time of the existence of the Roman Empire. If you were hoping to make M269 aboriginal in western Europe, this doesn't do it, and it's been tried before.

Realistically I think R-V88, or even R1b-L389 has an edge over either R1a or Q.

rms2
08-17-2015, 09:48 PM
Maybe not, but they had primitive Stone Age technology in the 15th century AD, during the conquest. Is it possible that they had contacts with more advanced cultures (including intermarriage / gene flow) but still remained at the Stone Age? Maybe that's because there were no metal deposits there. But anyway this would suggest, that contacts were not frequent (otherwise they would simply import metals).



Yes, at that time Carthage still controlled southern coasts of Iberia and North Africa.

So how could Romans get to Canary Islands at that time? Rather impossible.

You're flailing about now. Face it: Iron Age R1b in the Canaries is just not all that significant. You can plead for it to be, but it isn't.

rms2
08-17-2015, 09:50 PM
Realistically I think R-V88, or even R1b-L389 has an edge over either R1a or Q.

The point is, one cannot just assume an Iron Age P-M45 is R1b-M269 because it is convenient.

Tomenable
08-17-2015, 09:52 PM
It's significant for my map. If it's just 690 years old then I'm not going to include it.

If it's 2300 years old then I will include it. :)

If nobody knows how old is it, then I will simply include it as "270 BC - 1325 AD".


The point is, one cannot just assume an Iron Age P-M45 is R1b-M269 because it is convenient.

Q or R1a that far to the south-west would be even more surprising than R1b.

Especially if we already have 3 M269 samples from the same area, and no Q or R1a.

rms2
08-17-2015, 09:54 PM
It's significant for my map. If it's just 690 years old then I'm not going to include it.

If it's 2300 years old then I will include it. :)

If nobody knows how old is it, then I will simply include it as "270 BC - 1325 AD".

That's reasonable, although I suspect a date somewhat nearer 1325 AD than 270 BC.

Tomenable
08-17-2015, 10:08 PM
If you were hoping to make M269 aboriginal in western Europe, this doesn't do it, and it's been tried before.

No, I'm not making claims about the origins of M269.

History of the Canary Islands is interesting enough to investigate this further, though.

It would be nice to know to which subclade(s) that early Canarian M269 belonged.

For example if that was U152, then probably it came with the Romans.

But if it was for example DF27 - now that would be interesting!

rms2
08-17-2015, 10:13 PM
No, I'm not making claims about the origins of M269.

History of the Canary Islands is interesting enough to investigate this further, though.

It would be nice to know to which subclade(s) that early Canarian M269 belonged.

For example if that was U152, then probably it came with the Romans.

But if it was for example DF27 - now that would be interesting!

Not all that interesting, IMHO, given that range of dates. DF27 probably arrived in Iberia by the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age. That gave it a lot of time to get out to the Canary Islands by 1325.

Tomenable
08-17-2015, 10:23 PM
And why do you stick to this 1325? It's the latest possible date.

The islands were isolated so there weren't many opportunities for immigration after Roman times.

Check here - a good post about mysterious Guanche history, by an user from Canary Islands:

http://historum.com/european-history/79762-what-origin-canarian-native-population.html#post2007706?postcount=5

BTW - of course U106 or L21 would be even more interesting. Or R1a or Q for that matter.

rms2
08-17-2015, 10:27 PM
And why do you stick to this 1325? It's the latest possible date.

The islands were isolated so there weren't many opportunities for immigration after Roman times.

Check for example here - a good post about mysterious Guanche history:

http://historum.com/european-history/79762-what-origin-canarian-native-population.html#post2007706?postcount=5

Because it makes more sense than 270 BC since it gives Europeans more time to get out to the Canaries. Why do you seem to prefer the earlier, less likely date?

Anyway, whether R1b got out to the Canaries around 270 BC or around 1325 AD makes little difference to me. Either date is sufficiently underwhelming.

Tomenable
08-17-2015, 10:30 PM
Because it makes more sense than 270 BC since it gives Europeans more time to get out to the Canaries.

But Ancient Europeans were much better sea travellers than Early Medieval Europeans.

So it is more probable that they reached the islands in Ancient times.

Especially it is rather certain that the Romans reached them, but long after 270 BC, IIRC.

Also in 1325 AD the Canarians lived at the Stone Age level of technology.

Tomenable
08-17-2015, 10:52 PM
DF27 probably arrived in Iberia by the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age.

DF27 is strange because unlike other R1b M269 clades, it doesn't correlate with Indo-European languages at all. The distribution of DF27 actually correlates with Non-IE languages spoken in much of Iberia until the Roman conquest and replacement by Latin (only what is now called Basque survived).

As for the Guanches - they were Stone Age people in 1400 AD, but they could had been more advanced at some point in time before that. Technological regress is not such a rare phenomenon (Tasmanians is a good example of extreme regress, since - IIRC - they even forgot how to start a fire).

rms2
08-20-2015, 12:10 AM
DF27 is strange because unlike other R1b M269 clades, it doesn't correlate with Indo-European languages at all. The distribution of DF27 actually correlates with Non-IE languages spoken in much of Iberia until the Roman conquest and replacement by Latin (only what is now called Basque survived).

That is not accurate at all. Indo-European languages were spoken fairly early in Iberia, and there is evidence that the Iberians and Aquitanians were relative latecomers.



As for the Guanches - they were Stone Age people in 1400 AD, but they could had been more advanced at some point in time before that. Technological regress is not such a rare phenomenon (Tasmanians is a good example of extreme regress, since - IIRC - they even forgot how to start a fire).

I'll have to take your word for the Guanches being a "Stone Age" people as of 1400, but that covers a lot of territory. Simple subsistence farming with stone tools was pretty common throughout Europe for much of its history.

Besides, we're talking three R1b (if I recall correctly) who could be as recent as 1325 or only as old as 270 BC. How they got there no one knows. Some sort of sexual liaison between European sailors and native women, consensual or otherwise? Who knows?

Anyway, R1b in the Canaries sometime between the Iron Age and the 14th century is not exactly earth shattering news.

Tomenable
08-20-2015, 12:36 AM
That is not accurate at all. Indo-European languages were spoken fairly early in Iberia, and there is evidence that the Iberians and Aquitanians were relative latecomers.

Turdetanian, Tartessian, Iberian and Aquitanian are considered Non-Indo-European - see this map:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4974-Ethnic-patterns-of-toponyms-and-DNA-do-they-correlate&p=97466&viewfull=1#post97466

So in historical times, entire eastern and southern coasts of Iberia were peopled by Non-IE tribes:

http://www.arkeotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi150dpi.jpg

http://www.arkeotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi150dpi.jpg


there is evidence that the Iberians and Aquitanians were relative latecomers

Are you suggesting, that those areas had been Indo-European and later became Non-IE again ???

========================

Languages of pre-Roman Iberia:

1) Non-Indo-European:

Iberian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_language
Tartessian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartessian_language
Turdetanian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turdetani
Aquitanian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquitanian_language
Basque - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Basque_language

2) Non-Celtic Indo-European:

Lusitanian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusitanian_language
Sorothaptic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorothaptic_language

3) Celtic Indo-European:

Celtiberian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtiberian_language
Gallaecian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallaecian_language

And if Eupedia's map is right, then DF27 seems to correlate with Ancient Non-IE areas:
(higher frequencies of DF27 in the north-east, in the east and in the south-east):

http://s8.postimg.org/3s0xn53ol/DF27.png

Of course we now have one sample DF27 from Bell Beaker culture in Germany, IIRC.

So maybe DF27 was originally IE and was later assimilated by Non-IEs.

But DF27 could also be originally Non-IE and start to speak IE languages only later.

Coming back to this issue:


there is evidence that the Iberians and Aquitanians were relative latecomers

And they could come with DF27, bringing it there.

It's not certain whether DF27 was in Iberia before they came. All we know is that it seems to correlate with areas historically Iberian/Aquitanian, i.e. inhabited by speakers of Non-IE languages.

rms2
08-20-2015, 12:46 AM
I'm suggesting just what I said, that there is evidence that Iberians and Aquitanians were relative latecomers and that Indo-European languages were widespread in Iberia fairly early (as is evident from your map). I believe Koch has argued that Tartessian is Indo-European and possibly Celtic.

Your map shows Aquitanian straddling the Pyrenees along the Franco-Spanish border, and I have read that its speakers advanced into what is now Spain fairly late, displacing Celtic speaking tribes who were already there. The Iberians and Turdetani ring the south coast of Iberia. As I said, I have read they were relative latecomers, and that map could certainly be interpreted as evidence of a maritime arrival, although other interpretations are possible.

Anyway, R1b-L23 of any kind, including DF27, is conspicuous by its absence from Europe outside Russia before the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.

Tomenable
08-20-2015, 12:48 AM
Not everyone who came from the steppe had to be a speaker of Indo-European. Today you have for example Tajiks and Uyghurs, they have similar genetics, but Tajiks speak IE while Uyghurs speak Turkic.

Turkic-speaking Bashkirs have a lot of R1b & R1a (combined R1 is present in 75% of Bashkirs).

Aquitanian-speakers came to Iberia from the east - that's certain.

What if Aquitanian was originally spoken in the steppe alongside Proto-Indo-European?

And they could bring DF27 subclade of R1b to Iberia, from the east.

rms2
08-20-2015, 12:54 AM
Not everyone who came from the steppe had to be a speaker of Indo-European. Today you have for example Tajiks and Uyghurs, they have similar genetics, but Tajiks speak IE while Uyghurs speak Turkic.

Turkic-speaking Bashkirs have a lot of R1b and R1a (combined R1 is present in 75% of Bashkirs).

Yes, and Turkic speakers expanded relatively late, during the historical period. They overwhelmed a lot of people who were not originally Turkic speaking, including a lot of Greeks in Anatolia (a rather obvious example, which is why I mentioned it).

A number of very reputable scholars attribute much of the spread of Indo-European languages to Yamnaya and subsequently to Corded Ware and Beaker. R1b-L23 has been overwhelmingly predominant in ancient Yamnaya and Beaker thus far, and at least one Corded Ware R1b has also been found, although most ancient Corded Ware remains thus far have been R1a.

I'm not sure what your point is, since you began with the Guanches.

Tomenable
08-20-2015, 01:01 AM
Yes, and Turkic speakers expanded relatively late, during the historical period. They overwhelmed a lot of people who were not originally Turkic speaking, including a lot of Greeks in Anatolia

Yes indeed, and Uyghurs resemble Tajiks because Uyghurs are mostly Turkicized Iranians.

But Aquitanian people expanded much earlier than Proto-Turkic people.

So why do you think that Aquitanian-speakers didn't have DF27 before coming to Iberia ???

When DF27 people first entered Iberia, they could already be Aquitanian-speaking.

Was all of R1b under M269 "originally" IE-speaking? There is no proof to claim so.

nuadha
08-20-2015, 01:05 AM
Aquitanian-speakers came to Iberia from the east - that's certain.

Really? How do you know this?



What if Aquitanian was originally spoken in the steppe alongside Proto-Indo-European?

And they could bring DF27 subclade of R1b to Iberia, from the east.

You would culturally disassociate the arrival of DF27 to western europe with the rest of the L51 arrivals to western europe in the bronze age (bell beaker)? Does not seem likely.

What is the archeological evidence for a Visconic migration that could have potentially carried DF27? Also, where are the steppe traits in visconic peoples or the linguistic relations between visconic and IE?

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

rms2
08-20-2015, 01:11 AM
. . . All we know is that it seems to correlate with areas historically Iberian/Aquitanian, i.e. inhabited by speakers of Non-IE languages.

You're recycling arguments from about 2007 or so. Why restrict yourself to Iberia? All of western Europe was non-IE before the Indo-Europeans arrived, thus there is a lot of R1b today in old non-IE territory.

The fact remains that ancient y-dna thus far connects R1b-L23 to Yamnaya and Beaker, cultural horizons strongly associated with the spread west of Indo-European languages. No R1b-L23 of any kind, including DF27, has been found anywhere in Europe outside of Russia before the Late Neolithic or early Bronze Age, despite the growing library of ancient samples.

A number of scholars claim to find a resemblance between Euskara, the language of the Basques, and Nuragic, also called Paleo-Sardinian. I-M26 reaches its frequency peak in Sardinia and is also still found at a fairly respectable frequency among the Basques. It seems to me it was the dominant y haplogroup of the original Aquitanians/Basques, whose descendants have acquired a y-dna resemblance to their IE neighbors via admixture over the millennia. I read somewhere that the Basques had at one time a matrilocal marriage tradition, which is tailor-made for the introduction of outsider y-dna and the simultaneous preservation of the mother's language.

DF27 arrived in Iberia from the east with Indo-European speakers.

Tomenable
08-20-2015, 01:14 AM
Really? How do you know this?

Because in historical times they were also attested to the east of Iberia, somewhere near Italy, IIRC.

Anyway, they didn't come from the west (Atlantic Ocean), nor from the south (Africa ???).

Arrival from the north is also unlikely.

Moreover - we now have a DF27 sample from Bell Beaker culture in Bavaria, so east of Iberia:

RISE560 Augsburg Bell Beaker Germany Male R1b DF27 (or is this association with DF27 wrong?)

I think it was Genetiker who claimed it to be DF27, but I'm not sure.


You would culturally disassociate the arrival of DF27 to western europe with the rest of the L51 arrivals to western europe in the bronze age (bell beaker)? Does not seem likely.

Linguistically, not culturally (though language is of course an important part of culture too).

If DF27 is old enough that it existed in the steppe, then it didn't have to speak the same language as other L51. Before M269, there is P297 - it is ancestral to M269 and M478. M478 is nowadays almost exclusively found among Turkic-speakers, it does not correlate with Indo-European languages. Of course it doesn't yet mean that it was originally Turkic, but it strongly indicates that it wasn't originally Indo-European.

Tomenable
08-20-2015, 01:22 AM
You're recycling arguments from about 2007 or so.

No - those arguments were that R1b is native to Iberia. And I am not claiming this.

I'm just claiming that not only Indo-European speakers were on the move, you know.

So DF27 could come to Iberia from the east with people who originally spoke Non-IE.

Iberia had more Non-IE speakers than IE speakers even as late as Hannibal's times.

rms2
08-20-2015, 01:23 AM
Because in historical times they were also attested to the east of Iberia, somewhere near Italy, IIRC.

Anyway, they didn't come from the west (Atlantic Ocean), nor from the south (Africa ???).

Arrival from the north is also unlikely.

Moreover - we now have a DF27 sample from Bell Beaker culture in Bavaria, so east of Iberia:

RISE560 Augsburg Bell Beaker Germany Male R1b DF27 (or is this association with DF27 wrong?)

I think it was Genetiker who claimed it to be DF27, but I'm not sure.



Linguistically, not culturally (though language is of course an important part of culture too).

If DF27 is old enough that it existed in the steppe, then it didn't have to speak the same language as other L51. Before M269, there is P297 - it is ancestral to M269 and M478. M478 is nowadays almost exclusively found among Turkic-speakers, it does not correlate with Indo-European languages. Of course it doesn't yet mean that it was originally Turkic, but it strongly indicates that it wasn't originally Indo-European.

And you are connecting Beaker with Aquitanian? If so, you're the first. (BTW, that Beaker man turned out to be U152+, as I recall.)

David Anthony and a number of other scholars over the years have attributed the spread of Italo-Celtic and early Celtic to the Beaker Folk. If one looks at the distribution of the Beaker Folk, that certainly makes a lot more sense than trying to connect them to Aquitanians.

rms2
08-20-2015, 01:24 AM
. . .

Iberia had more Non-IE speakers than IE speakers even as late as Hannibal's times.

Says who?

Tomenable
08-20-2015, 01:25 AM
Says who?

Says the map I posted.

Note that coastal areas are usually more densely populated than inland areas. And in Iberia, eastern and southern areas were predominantly inhabited by Non-IE speakers in Hannibal's times.


And you are connecting Beaker with Aquitanian?

Beaker was not a language, but a culture which was very likely more than just mono-ethnic.

BTW - many scholars actually place the oldest sites of Beaker culture in Iberia.


David Anthony and a number of other scholars over the years, have attributed the spread of Italo-Celtic and early Celtic to the Beaker Folk. If one looks at the distribution of the Beaker Folk, that certainly makes a lot more sense than trying to connect them to Aquitanians.

And I'm not saying that Beaker wasn't Italo-Celtic, it could be both (Non-IE in Iberia, Italo-Celtic elsewhere). When did Iberian-speakers and Aquitanian-speakers come to Iberia according to you?

And from which place did they come?

And what about Non-Celtic / pre-Celtic IE languages, such as Lusitanian? Not related to Beaker?

Wasn't Celtic spreading only with Hallstatt and La-Tene cultures ???

If only Italo-Celtic was spreading Beaker in Iberia, then how did Lusitanian get there? :confused:

ADW_1981
08-20-2015, 01:26 AM
DF27 is strange because unlike other R1b M269 clades, it doesn't correlate with Indo-European languages at all. The distribution of DF27 actually correlates with Non-IE languages spoken in much of Iberia until the Roman conquest and replacement by Latin (only what is now called Basque survived).


It correlates with Celtiberian languages.

rms2
08-20-2015, 01:31 AM
DF27 extends eastward and northward well beyond the old boundaries of Celtiberian languages, which were Celtic anyway.

Tomenable
08-20-2015, 01:35 AM
It correlates with Celtiberian languages.

Celtiberians were inland, while according to Eupedia's map, DF27 is most common in former Non-IE areas. Iberia was a hodge-podge of Non-IE, Non-Celtic / pre-Celtic IE and Celtic until the Romans. Viriathus, famous resistance leader against the Romans, wasn't Celtic - he was Lusitanian, IE but Non-Celtic.

After the Roman conquest nearly all of Iberia gradually became vulgar Latin-speaking.

rms2
08-20-2015, 01:43 AM
Says the map I posted.

Note that coastal areas are usually more densely populated than inland areas. And in Iberia, eastern and southern areas were predominantly inhabited by Non-IE speakers in Hannibal's times.

The map you posted does not say there were more non-IE than IE speakers in Iberia in Hannibal's time. That is just a bald assertion on your part.




Beaker was not a language, but a culture which was very likely more than just mono-ethnic.

Thus far its ancient remains that have yielded y-dna have all been R1b.



BTW - many scholars actually place the oldest sites of Beaker culture in Iberia.

True, but that is a matter of controversy, and that very early Beaker lacked many of the characteristics of the fully developed, kurgan-looking Beaker that spread west from eastern or central Europe. It is likely Beaker acquired both its R1b and its Indo-European in eastern or central Europe.




And I'm not saying that Beaker wasn't Italo-Celtic, it could be both (Non-IE in Iberia, Italo-Celtic elsewhere). When did Iberian-speakers and Aquitanian-speakers come to Iberia according to you?

And from which place did they come?

I do not know. The ultimate origins of Iberians and Aquitanians is not my area of expertise. I'm not sure there is a consensus on their ultimate places of origin anyway. The Basques are believed to have expanded into northern Spain from Aquitania in what is now southern France sometime before the arrival of the Romans, as I recall. They displaced Celtic speakers who were already there.



And what about Non-Celtic / pre-Celtic IE languages, such as Lusitanian? Not related to Beaker?

Lusitanian was an Italo-Celtic language likely spread to Iberia by Beaker Folk.



Wasn't Celtic spreading only with Hallstatt and La-Tene cultures ???

If only Italo-Celtic was spreading Beaker in Iberia, then how did Lusitanian get there? :confused:

No. Celtic is older than those Iron Age cultures and likely spread with the Beaker Folk.

As I already mentioned, Lusitanian was an Italo-Celtic language.

Il PapÓ
08-20-2015, 01:54 AM
And you are connecting Beaker with Aquitanian? If so, you're the first. (BTW, that Beaker man turned out to be U152+, as I recall.)

David Anthony and a number of other scholars over the years have attributed the spread of Italo-Celtic and early Celtic to the Beaker Folk. If one looks at the distribution of the Beaker Folk, that certainly makes a lot more sense than trying to connect them to Aquitanians.

There were not only one beaker tested, there was also an other beaker than the U152 guy who is supposed to be DF27+ but it is not totally certain that he is DF27.

Tomenable
08-20-2015, 01:59 AM
No. Celtic is older than those Iron Age cultures and likely spread with the Beaker Folk.

As I already mentioned, Lusitanian was an Italo-Celtic language.

Connection of Lusitanian with Italo-Celtic is possible but uncertain. I can see that you like making things simple, but the truth is that apart from Non-IE languages there were also a lot of "Paleo"-IE languages which got extinct - Cimmerian, Thracian, Dacian, Phrygian, Illyrian, Venetic, Liburnian, Messapian, Paionian, Ligurian, Lusitanian, West Baltic (entire family is gone), East Germanic (also entire family is extinct), etc. - just to mention those few of them which are mentioned in inscriptions that survived to our times, so that we know that they actually existed.

These things make associating DNA with languages more difficult. Which Y-DNA correlates with, say, Cimmerians?


Thus far its ancient remains that have yielded y-dna have all been R1b.

But different subclades. V88 is also R1b, yet it is mainly typical of Chadic-speaking Sub-Saharans.

rms2
08-20-2015, 02:03 AM
There were not only one beaker tested, there was also an other beaker than the U152 guy who is supposed to be DF27+ but it is not totally certain that he is DF27.

No, the one that is U152+ was originally thought to be DF27+, but that was an error. There are other Beaker y-dna results, and at least one other is P312+, but there are no DF27+ Beaker men yet.

rms2
08-20-2015, 02:09 AM
Connection of Lusitanian with Italo-Celtic is possible but uncertain . . .

It is probably Italo-Celtic, and that seems to be the general consensus. That has nothing to do with whether things are simpler that way or not. A number of scholars attribute the spread of Italo-Celtic and of early Celtic to the Beaker Folk. Thus far every ancient Beaker y-dna result has been R1b. One of them was U152+ and another was P312+. It seems likely to me R1b-DF27 (downstream of P312) was spread to Iberia from the east by Beaker Folk.

Could that be wrong? Perhaps, but that doesn't seem likely.

Tomenable
08-20-2015, 02:14 AM
It's a bit funny that Yamnaya so far are turning only R1b, Corded Ware in Germany so far - only R1a.

Yet according to Haak, ~75% of autosomal ancestry of Corded Ware in Germany was from Yamnaya. It seems that either Corded was derived not from Yamnaya but from another autosomally Yamnaya-like population, or Yamnaya R1a is hiding so well that we can't find it.

rms2
08-20-2015, 01:18 PM
It's a bit funny that Yamnaya so far are turning only R1b, Corded Ware in Germany so far - only R1a.

Yet according to Haak, ~75% of autosomal ancestry of Corded Ware in Germany was from Yamnaya. It seems that either Corded was derived not from Yamnaya but from another autosomally Yamnaya-like population, or Yamnaya R1a is hiding so well that we can't find it.

I think you'll see R1a turn up in Yamnaya on the northern route around the north and east side of the Carpathians, along with R1b-U106. The situation with R1b-L51 and Yamnaya is similar to the situation with R1a and Yamnaya, but I think we will find R1b-L51 (perhaps in the form of R1b-P312) on the up-the-Danube route of Yamnaya, around the south side of the Carpathians. Of course, R1b-U106 is an L51+ group, but I think it rode with Corded Ware onto the North European Plain.

Time will tell. Hopefully we'll get lots more ancient y-dna soon.

ADW_1981
08-20-2015, 01:26 PM
Celtiberians were inland, while according to Eupedia's map, DF27 is most common in former Non-IE areas. Iberia was a hodge-podge of Non-IE, Non-Celtic / pre-Celtic IE and Celtic until the Romans. Viriathus, famous resistance leader against the Romans, wasn't Celtic - he was Lusitanian, IE but Non-Celtic.

After the Roman conquest nearly all of Iberia gradually became vulgar Latin-speaking.

No. DF27+ is everywhere in Iberia, not certain regions. For instance, you're going to argue this:

I'm using rough numbers here, I don't know the actual figures

Portugal = 40% DF27+, but
Eastern Spain (Iberia) = 60% DF27+ and was non-IE speaking , therefore DF27 cannot be IE....blah blah blah

What you didn't consider was E1b, J2 offset the other 20% in Portugal, not R1a, and not I (in other words not central European, not Russian origin). Effectively destroying your argument completely.

The question that needs to be asked is: Why did some Celts speak the "Basque language"?

Gravetto-Danubian
08-20-2015, 01:29 PM
It's a bit funny that Yamnaya so far are turning only R1b, Corded Ware in Germany so far - only R1a.

Yet according to Haak, ~75% of autosomal ancestry of Corded Ware in Germany was from Yamnaya. It seems that either Corded was derived not from Yamnaya but from another autosomally Yamnaya-like population, or Yamnaya R1a is hiding so well that we can't find it.

My impression is that both had similar ancestry. Ie, that CWC derives from Yamnaya has not actually been yet proven

A "yamnaya -like population" probably existed from the east Baltic to the Altai. (!)

ADW_1981
08-20-2015, 02:04 PM
My impression is that both had similar ancestry. Ie, that CWC derives from Yamnaya has not actually been yet proven

A "yamnaya -like population" probably existed from the east Baltic to the Altai. (!)

That doesn't appear to be the case. The Samara hunter-gatherer lacked the "Teal", "Hindu-Kush"component, as did the NW Russian H-G. The sudden appearance of this component in Russia must be the arrival of a subset of a population, who likely arrived in the Neolithic with pastoralism.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-20-2015, 03:22 PM
That doesn't appear to be the case. The Samara hunter-gatherer lacked the "Teal", "Hindu-Kush"component, as did the NW Russian H-G. The sudden appearance of this component in Russia must be the arrival of a subset of a population, who likely arrived in the Neolithic with pastoralism.

Yes, of course.
But where did this population "come from" is the question that is begging ? ?

Whatever and wherever the case, it could have diffused through various directions rather having a distinct sojourn in Yamnaya, which is itself, both, too diffuse and internally heterogeneous to be worth considering a single entity.

Probably the Teal compnent entered or began from Majkop, then diffused East to Samara, further to Afansievo, and also directly northwest to CWC and west to hungary, albeit of lesser degree. So Yamnaya isn't really ancestral to anything. In fact, i suspect when we get later genomes from steppe, Yamnaya itself is likely to have been replaced- eg the Catacomb period.

ADW_1981
08-20-2015, 03:53 PM
Yes, of course.


Probably the Teal compnent entered or began from Majkop, then diffused East to Samara, further to Afansievo, and also directly northwest to CWC and west to hungary, albeit of lesser degree. So Yamnaya isn't really ancestral to anything. In fact, i suspect when we get later genomes from steppe, Yamnaya itself is likely to have been replaced- eg the Catacomb period.

Hmm that's an approach I hadn't thought of. I don't know why this would peak in Hindu-Kush or Kalash isolate population though. From the look of it, I would anticipate Maykop was more like EEF, perhaps even more Middle-Eastern.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-20-2015, 04:12 PM
Hmm that's an approach I hadn't thought of. I don't know why this would peak in Hindu-Kush or Kalash isolate population though. From the look of it, I would anticipate Maykop was more like EEF, perhaps even more Middle-Eastern.

Because it complex. Have a look at Eurogenes lastest thread on the issue of Yamnaya, steppe ancestry etc http://http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/doutgroup-poptest-pop1-pop2.html?m=1 (http://http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/doutgroup-poptest-pop1-pop2.html?
m=1)

The ANE or "steppe" in South-central asians isn't from Yamnaya, but some
Distinct but related type . If anything, that mystery group went to form Yamnaya , not vice -versa .

Silesian
08-20-2015, 04:31 PM
Because it complex. Have a look at Eurogenes lastest thread on the issue of Yamnaya, steppe ancestry etc http://http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/doutgroup-poptest-pop1-pop2.html?m=1 (http://http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/doutgroup-poptest-pop1-pop2.html?
m=1)

The ANE or "steppe" in South-central asians isn't from Yamnaya, but some
Distinct but related type . If anything, that mystery group went to form Yamnaya , not vice -versa .
Eurogenes has been known to change his viewpoint on occasions.

ADW_1981
08-20-2015, 04:36 PM
Because it complex. [/URL]

Now now, don't get all high and mighty. We know a few truths.

1) Farming was brought to Europe and the genome of farmers is pretty distinct and contains ancestry not found previously in the European HG. Let's just genericize it a bit and call it Early Euro Farmer, even though we know some HG ancestry was absorbed along the way.

2) The origins of this farming wave appear to be the fertile crescent. We could strongly argue somewhere in this crescent as the origin of EEF.

So what is the origin of Maykop? Everything I read implies it was intrusive from the south, which would make it in and around the Fertile Crescent.



The ANE or "steppe" in South-central asians isn't from Yamnaya, but some
Distinct but related type . If anything, that mystery group went to form Yamnaya , not vice -versa .

I agree and never suggested otherwise, hence why I called it peaking in Kalash/Hindu-Kush, and that it wasn't found in the Russian hunter-gatherers.

parasar
08-20-2015, 05:09 PM
Hmm that's an approach I hadn't thought of. I don't know why this would peak in Hindu-Kush or Kalash isolate population though. From the look of it, I would anticipate Maykop was more like EEF, perhaps even more Middle-Eastern.

I had given my thinking on this component here:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3869-Why-a-Z2103-move-into-steppes-from-the-south-doesnt-seem-plausible/page2&p=70687#post70687

Gravetto-Danubian
08-20-2015, 05:33 PM
Now now, don't get all high and mighty. We know a few truths.

1) Farming was brought to Europe and the genome of farmers is pretty distinct and contains ancestry not found previously in the European HG. Let's just genericize it a bit and call it Early Euro Farmer, even though we know some HG ancestry was absorbed along the way.

2) The origins of this farming wave appear to be the fertile crescent. We could strongly argue somewhere in this crescent as the origin of EEF.

So what is the origin of Maykop? Everything I read implies it was intrusive from the south, which would make it in and around the Fertile Crescent.



I agree and never suggested otherwise, hence why I called it peaking in Kalash/Hindu-Kush, and that it wasn't found in the Russian hunter-gatherers.

I wasn't getting high and mighty. I said its comlex simply because it is . I don't know where Majkop came from , but the stimulus for it is definitely from South of Caucasus: that's where the demand for metal ores came from. How this translates genetically could be broken down to 3 scenarios :

1) Majkop was simply a native, EHG type people.
2) they were admixed with southerners -
(A) gradually over time, including exogamy etc
(b) suddenly , 4500 BC
3) they were largely all southerners

We already know it's likely to be 3a. But genomes are coming, and it'll tell us the story. I think some people suspect the answer already .

can't_lurk_no_mo'
08-20-2015, 05:52 PM
I wasn't getting high and mighty. I said its comlex simply because it is . I don't know where Majkop came from , but the stimulus for it is definitely from South of Caucasus: that's where the demand for metal ores came from. How this translates genetically could be broken down to 3 scenarios :

1) Majkop was simply a native, EHG type people.
2) they were admixed with southerners -
(A) gradually over time, including exogamy etc
(b) suddenly , 4500 BC
3) they were largely all southerners

We already know it's likely to be 3a. But genomes are coming, and it'll tell us the story. I think some people suspect the answer already .

Do you mean 2a or 3? I don't see 3a.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-21-2015, 12:43 PM
stupid me. 2a.
Apparently they already have some Genomes from Khvalynsk culture and are getting from Majkop.

Tomenable
08-23-2015, 01:33 AM
Effectively destroying your argument completely.

Sorry but I can't see how that supposedly destroys my argument completely...


Now now, don't get all high and mighty. We know a few truths.

1) Farming was brought to Europe and the genome of farmers is pretty distinct and contains ancestry not found previously in the European HG. Let's just genericize it a bit and call it Early Euro Farmer, even though we know some HG ancestry was absorbed along the way.

2) The origins of this farming wave appear to be the fertile crescent. We could strongly argue somewhere in this crescent as the origin of EEF.

So what is the origin of Maykop? Everything I read implies it was intrusive from the south, which would make it in and around the Fertile Crescent.

Neolithic farmers likely came to Europe from Western (or Western & Central) Anatolia. By contrast those later intruders such as Maykop came from areas of the Middle East located much farther to the east.


I think you'll see R1a turn up in Yamnaya on the northern route around the north and east side of the Carpathians, along with R1b-U106. The situation with R1b-L51 and Yamnaya is similar to the situation with R1a and Yamnaya, but I think we will find R1b-L51 (perhaps in the form of R1b-P312) on the up-the-Danube route of Yamnaya, around the south side of the Carpathians. Of course, R1b-U106 is an L51+ group, but I think it rode with Corded Ware onto the North European Plain.

Time will tell. Hopefully we'll get lots more ancient y-dna soon.

Here some interesting pie charts of R1b subclades as % of all R1b:

http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/08/r1b1b2a1-is-almost-unique-of-west.html


[Typo: in the maps M529, also known as L21, is wrongly written as M259. My apologies]

http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/08/r1b1b2a1-is-almost-unique-of-west.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x6Y4ZgFsZdY/THaeRzxEhJI/AAAAAAAAAYo/YgRyAz2YnDU/s1600/R1b+sub-structure.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_x6Y4ZgFsZdY/THgPi2xnlbI/AAAAAAAAAZA/fQ9CRVXNv2A/s1600/R1b+sub-structure+V2.png

Though I'm not sure how accurate these maps are, because they are quite old, from 2010.

Tomenable
08-26-2015, 12:54 AM
DF27 is the most common subclade among Basque-speakers (71,5% of rural Basques have DF27):

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Valverde.et.al.2015_Table-S1-Modified_zpsh2bq4v3h.jpg

And the same data here:

http://oi57.tinypic.com/vy2qly.jpg

But Basques can't be treated as a source for West European R1b (L51), because they only have DF27.

Gray Fox
08-29-2015, 06:27 PM
There were not only one beaker tested, there was also an other beaker than the U152 guy who is supposed to be DF27+ but it is not totally certain that he is DF27.

This is the first I've heard of the potential DF27 beaker. Is there a link to a site or paper making this claim?

Never mind, I read the successive posts following that one, explaining the error.