PDA

View Full Version : R1b and IE branching



alan
12-15-2013, 02:14 PM
We have had a lot of R1a discussions but I would like to start this thread to exclusively discuss iR1b branching and how it matches the linguistic branching of IE languages associated with R1b today. This thread is for those who do believe in R1b having a primary (not exclusive) role in PIE. That is a premise of the thread so if you do not believe in this premise please do not participate.

This Warnow tree seems to be the most modern and sophisticated attempt at IE language clades

http://www.hartleyfamily.org.uk/IE_Language_Tree_by_Warnow.jpg

While its not that neat and tidy, the thing that really stands out is that the late branching group is very R1a strong and the earlier IE branchings appear to be R1b stronger today. That much is fairly clear. I know its not fashionable to say that there is a correpondence with R1b or R1a dominance with the centum-satem split but I think it still remains a standout strong trend even if it is not absolute.

As I believe it is simply impossible to be certain of what archaeological culture originated Tocharian as it is not attested until so much later and now extinct, I dont think it should be used as a solid arguement against this basic correspondence because it will always remain unclear.


I think Anatolian could correlate as an early branch as its got a lot of L23xL51.

Tocharian is simply never going to be able to be able to be genetically linked for certain with any remains as it is extinct and we cannot be sure what culture spoke it. I dont think it is wise to make any link with Tarim of Afansievo a big plank in any greater model as it essentially cannot be proven. I no longer believe there is any a priori reason to see Afansievo as an especially early branching given a date of c. 3300BC is not especially early in terms of an exit from the core and isolation. So, for the purposes of this thread the rules are to leave this one out of discussions.

Celto-Italic looks associated with L51 and downstream. Celtic is meant to be one of the first post-Tocharian branched and you could argue that being linked most likely to L51 and below does not match the branching. However, a couple of recent looks at L51* have suggested it is older than sometimes thought and could essentially be a parallel clade of at least equal age as the L23xL51 clades.

Germanic is a basket case language and so I wouldnt lean too much on its evidence but its main R1b element is also downstream of L51 which broadly agrees with a similar branching position to Celtic.

In general there is an arguement that the palaeo-Balkan/Armenian groups carried L23xL51 lineages mainly too (in terms of R1b).

I am very curious to know whether the suggestion that L51 is older than once thought will stand up. It makes sense in terms of linguistic branching if it is. The interface between the elevated L23xL51 area and the higher L51 and downstream area seems to correspond today in Danubian terms with the Hungary-Austria border area. We also have L51* noted in parts of the Tyrol that avoided Slavic settements, possibly indicating that this rare clade was erased by the Slavic invasions of Austria making it hard to be sure if it once extended further east. The ability of Slavic to seriously alter pre-Slavic patterns seems demonstrated in a number of population studies, including Tyrol. My guess is that L51* split off around the western Hungary heading west while L23xL51 clades had previously fanned out from a more easterly point.


http://r1b.org/imgs/M269_without_L23.png

Wonder_Wall
12-15-2013, 05:28 PM
This is fascinating, thank you. What is the latest info on the age and origin of L51? I read somewhere about the Middle Neolithic (Chasseen-Lagozza culture of France/ N. Italy) which seems both too old, too far west, and lacking metal and other cultural artifacts to be considered a candidate.

What future evidence would might make this particular scenario more robust? What specific evidence would collapse it?

alan
12-15-2013, 06:43 PM
Disagreement on dating has long hampered archaeological interpretation with any level of confidence. However, I tend to accept the dating that European R1b post-dates the early Neolithic wave of farmers. I think any time between 6000 and 3000BC has been suggested by several people but there seems to be a lot of estimates along the lines of m269 c. 4000BC, L23 c. 3500BC,, L51 c. 3000BC, L11 c. 2700bc, P312 c. 2500BC. These are the central dates that seem to be most typical. Although there are wide confidence intervals, I dont tend to think the end of the intervals lower than those centre dates make sense. I would be more inclined to think they could be a little on the young side but not vastly. Michal posted a couple of SNP counting options, one of which was older but still not early Neolithic.

Ancient DNA to date hasnt found any among early Neolithic remains and that seems to back up the post-early Neolithic dates that the vast majority in this hobby get for European R1b. The late date of M269 and its brother clade M73 (c. 4000 and 5000BC respectively according to several people) and the lack of any surviving modern people on the same line before that (who would be P297*) seems to show a long period of bare survival from P297 c. 9000BC to M269 and M73 which to me is a sure sign that they were in a simply hunter-gather type state before that. So, I tend to see M269 and M73 as groups who came late to farming and therefore expanded late. I think unless the suggested dates for these SNPs is several thousand years older than it seem impossible to me that they were located in the early farming zone of east Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Zagros, Levant etc. If the suggested dating is correct, they just spring out of nowhere about 4-5000 years BC. I would say they had to be hiding either in the western steppe or perhaps the south Caspian shore area or north Caucasus. I think these options would be the most popular among those without 'preferences' who have a good knowledge of the DNA and the archaeology of these suggested dates.

However, the uncertainty in the dating does keep a lot of doubt and it is not impossible that if it was somewhat older that it could be linked to dairy pastoralism which crossed into SE Europe from Marmara NW Anatolia just outside Europe c. 5500BC as a middle Neolithic secondary input and this had reached the north of Europe by 4000BC. NW Anatolia was far later to farming than east Anatolia - 2000 years later and the uptake of farming there appears to have involved both immigrants from central Anatolia and local hunter-fishers.

Of course some people even prefer an Anatolian origin for IE and although the weight is on them to explain the criticisms of that model I dont think its quite as open-shut as sometimes portrayed. The original Renfrew model of linking PIE with the earliest farmers seems disproved and IMO is now a Straw Man but a later NW Anatolian intrusion about 5500BC reaching the Dniester around 4800BC and apparently penetrating into the Sredny Stog group (who were very influential and controlled the metal trade from the Dnieper to the Urals) soon after is a little harder to shake off IMO. The Uralic loans from PIE has been questioned as non-existent by several recent linguists so that is no longer a safe arguement against it. Its a minority view that for now I am not backing but its nowhere near case closed IMO (and I have heard all the arguements over and over for over 25 years).


This is fascinating, thank you. What is the latest info on the age and origin of L51? I read somewhere about the Middle Neolithic (Chasseen-Lagozza culture of France/ N. Italy) which seems both too old, too far west, and lacking metal and other cultural artifacts to be considered a candidate.

What future evidence would might make this particular scenario more robust? What specific evidence would collapse it?

alan
12-15-2013, 07:31 PM
I think broadly speaking most people would agree that (without saying that it is directly linked) R1b is weak among satem IEs although I do not believe in pure single-lineage entire populations. I understand satemisation varied and in some groups like Albanian and Armenian it looks like a later aerial addition to me. The way they branch kind of shows that. However, I do think the primary satem groups are the Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs and this clearly is telling us something - probably that the centum and only later satemised groups were probably out of range or out of interaction with them.

I am of the opinion that there were probably lots of IE branches that died out and are been overlain by big branches. Well that is shown even in the last couple of millenia in historical time and I have no doubt that it was similar c. 4000-1000BC and lots of branches have been lost. Noone can really ever know for sure what the myriad of cultures on the western steppes c. 4000-1000BC were speaking. There may have been multiple dialects even within some of the larger cultures.

I personally think satemisation occurred c. 3000-2500BC in the Middle Dnieper-Fatyanovo-Abashevo chain of cultures who we know were mixed with corded ware peoples who in turn had a non-steppe element and of course they also mixed with the hunters in the region they passed through so I think satemisation could relate to that sort of substrate effect. I would like to understand a little better about the steppe element in these groups and likely immediate origin point because these languages are very R1a associated.

So, for the European centum groups we should be looking at them being disconnected with that chain. That is not a big problem IMO because they had a different trajectory and appear to have intruded into the Balkans from the edge of the Black Sea along the southern edge of the steppe rather than the forrest steppe. IMO there is enough room for R1b to have passed south of the R1a-associated cultural chain to the north I just mentioned above. However, IMO it is also possible that R1b might have entered the Balkans in pre-Yamnaya steppe movements and that they were not only to be associated with Anatolian dialects but also possibly early centum ones.

Andrew Lancaster
12-15-2013, 07:43 PM
I would have though Greek was a satem language?

parasar
12-15-2013, 07:53 PM
...

Ancient DNA to date hasnt found any among early Neolithic remains and that seems to back up the post-early Neolithic dates that the vast majority in this hobby get for European R1b. ... just spring out of nowhere about 4-5000 years BC. I would say they had to be hiding either in the western steppe or perhaps the south Caspian shore area or north Caucasus. I think these options would be the most popular among those without 'preferences' who have a good knowledge of the DNA and the archaeology of these suggested dates.

However, the uncertainty in the dating does keep a lot of doubt and it is not impossible that if it was somewhat older that it could be linked to dairy pastoralism which crossed into SE Europe from Marmara NW Anatolia just outside Europe c. 5500BC as a middle Neolithic secondary input and this had reached the north of Europe by 4000BC. NW Anatolia was far later to farming than east Anatolia - 2000 years later and the uptake of farming there appears to have involved both immigrants from central Anatolia and local hunter-fishers.

Of course some people even prefer an Anatolian origin for IE and although the weight is on them to explain the criticisms of that model I dont think its quite as open-shut as sometimes portrayed. The original Renfrew model of linking PIE with the earliest farmers seems disproved and IMO is now a Straw Man but a later NW Anatolian intrusion about 5500BC ...

That R1b is associated with the early IE I have no doubt, but I also think the earliest IE was in existence before R1b-M269 was born. The Tarim IE may be a remnant in China rather than returnee from Europe. R1a and R2 may be just be a little older and that is why we seem them in the east.

On the ancient dna polls each time I guessed R1b, and each that choice proved incorrect every time! Still until Italy and the Balkans are properly tested I would not fully abandon a mesolithic presence of R1b in Europe.

alan
12-15-2013, 08:03 PM
No its a centum language. This is interesting IMO as it does raise questions for some of the ideas of a slightly late arrival of Greek from Catacomb peoples that SOME have suggested. If that was the case then it would indicate that the Catacomb culture of the Ukraine c. 2800 onwards was still centum. I dont see this as a huge problem though as satemisation probably commenced at a significant distance from this area in some culture like Abashevo or perhaps even Poltavka. Perhaps Ukraine was satemised late from east to west by the Timber Grave culture which some see as foreshadowed by the Poltavka culture around the east end of the western steppe.


I would have though Greek was a satem language?

alan
12-15-2013, 08:23 PM
I actually agree that in R1b terms it is possible that M269 did not exist at the start of PIE and perhaps some of its early life was still in a late P297* phase a little before that SNP happened. I think though once you get back to R2 etc you are so deep back in time in terms of split with the rest of R that they clearly do not have anything to do with PIE. I really want to keep this thread on looking at the mainstream steppe copper age model of PIE although I am probably one of the less than 100 percent convinced of this model in this hobby.

Regarding R1b in Mesolithic Europe, I am pretty sure it was but just that it looks more likely that it was in the east end of Europe or just beyond in Asia. I think there is no doubt that broadly speaking R1b and R1a display the properties of lineages that remained in a significantly Mesolithic state for millennia while others were experiencing a farming-driven population boom. It could be argued that R1b could have been hiding among late hunters who were absorbed by farming at any point where farming arrived late. The steppes is just the largest zone where farming came late but this is also true for north Iran, the north Caucasus, north-west central Asia and even the area of the NE Carpathians where Cuc-Tryp spread into was pretty late and at the expense of local Bug-Dniester hunters. In terms of ancient DNA we have barely scraped the surface of testing even one person in each possibly relevant culture where R1b might have been hiding. Could take 100s of ancient DNA tests spread across several dozen cultures c. 6000-3000BC in eastern Europe and western Asia to find where it was.

However, for now, I am going with the hints of M269*, M73* and L23xL51* that we should be looking in the eastern end of Europe or just beyond in the Asian borderlands with Europe and expect it to be somewhere 'circum pontic-caspian'.


That R1b is associated with the early IE I have no doubt, but I also think the earliest IE was in existence before R1b-M269 was born. The Tarim IE may be a remnant in China rather than returnee from Europe. R1a and R2 may be just be a little older and that is why we seem them in the east.

On the ancient dna polls each time I guessed R1b, and each that choice proved incorrect every time! Still until Italy and the Balkans are properly tested I would not fully abandon a mesolithic presence of R1b in Europe.

Wonder_Wall
12-15-2013, 10:05 PM
It is frustrating that there are not enough clear signals to make the finer grain of the R1a/b story clearer. It seems that at the largest scale, we have Neolithic folk in Western Europe without Rx, with a cultural package not associated with IE or PIE, and then we have wide scale replacement of Ydna by haplogroups linked to the putative PIE Pontic-Caspian urheimat. On this there seems to widespread agreement (setting Renfrew and computational glottochronology aside.)

Actually the tree you posted does allow for Anatolia to play a unique role, reflux or otherwise, which makes sense to me.

The problem with all the Y-DNA signatures is that languages can and do move without genes. And though perhaps less likely if you belong to a dominant culture, genes often take on other languages (Basque comes to mind as a possible example.)

I think I need to read Jean Manco's book. So much of what I read here is couched in somewhat apophenic terms. I do work a lot with computers and statistical modeling, and am well aware of the statistical burden of significance testing etc... This problem strikes me as one that has more models than the available data can support, or perhaps overdetermines across multiple models. Which is messy.

Who are the academic folks taking the genes & language thing on in a systematic way. I have to say most of what reaches popular science seems way off the mark and 5 years behind.

Andrew Lancaster
12-16-2013, 12:57 PM
No its a centum language.

Ah yes, sorry. To explain what my memory was catching on: Greek shares many other isoglosses with the Iranian and Indian group, and even more with Armenian, but it is not a satem language. OTOH, Balto-Slavic shares many isoglosses with centum languages especially Germanic, but it is satem if you look at that one isogloss in isolation. It is a bit like looking at only one STR marker.

Regards
Andrew

alan
12-16-2013, 01:13 PM
Getting back to the main subject of R1b correlation with centum European branching, I see 2 problems

1. Variation in the proposed branching structure

2. Doubts about clade dating.

However I think its probably generally accepted that a sequence something like this would be acceptable


Celto-Italic
Germanic
Albanian
Greek-Armenian-PalaeoBalkan

My own feeling is that the initial branching was very quick and there is not a big gap in time between them. The most obvioius way of dealing with this in terms of R1b branching is to see L23* very quickly split into different lines with L51* as old as the L23xL51 lines. That would make most sense to me. Its also possibly that the split commenced in the L23* phase but no trace is left because of small beginnings. Albanian (which I believe is derived from Dacian) includes M269* which I think probably is due to a former position around Romania. Albanians position has always been unclear in the branching scheme and is sometimes placed with Germanic which in turn is sometimes seen as the first split.

I am imagining M269* originally appeared at the early PIE phase in the Balkans, perhaps with the Suvorovo groups, perhaps as a fellow travellor with L23*. This would have been overlain by further L23xL51 elements in later waves creating a mixture. IMO this group around Romania was displaced south and west in the Balkans at a later period.

As for the Celto-Italic and Germanic early splitting, a lack of M269* and a boundary for high levels of L23xL51 around the Austria-Hungary border suggests to me that Celtic must have quickly moved to that border area bypassing the groups in the Lower Danube. I suspect that L51* is early than we tend to think and as old as most of the L23xL51 clades. My suspicion is that there was a lightening move to Hungary by an L23* line and that it arose in Hungary and entered the Alps c. 3500BC. Maybe that is too much of a wish to link it with the whole Remedello/mining etc thing in the Alps though. For that to be true I think it would have to be pre-Yamnaya as its about 300-500 years ahead of Yamnaya west of the Black Sea according to Heyd.

Maybe that is wrong though and attempts to link pre-beaker copper age cultures of the Alps, Italy etc is barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps it really didnt happen until Yamnaya c. 3000BC spilled into the Balkans and Danube. The pre-beaker copper age people so far tested are not R1b in Italy and southern France, albeit the sample is miniscule. This would pose the alternative, which I think is plausible, that these Med. and Alpine pre-beaker copper age groups and also the initial early bell beaker phase had nothing to do with R1b or IE. In such a scenario we have to think of the concept of more than one beaker people - an early non-IE/non-R south-western group and a later more central European group who stole their clothes. Yamnaya of course was undeniably present in Hungary where the potentially early Csepel group were located and other potentially IE speaking groups existed including corded ware.

Rathna
12-16-2013, 01:48 PM
Still until Italy and the Balkans are properly tested I would not fully abandon a mesolithic presence of R1b in Europe.

It is just what I am thinking from many years and writing and is my theory of the "Italian Refugium". I think having carried also tons of proofs, but only the aDNA proof lacks.

alan
12-16-2013, 05:05 PM
certainly the sharing of isoglosses can be more about later contact and sometimes just chance so the overall branching deduced is more important.


Ah yes, sorry. To explain what my memory was catching on: Greek shares many other isoglosses with the Iranian and Indian group, and even more with Armenian, but it is not a satem language. OTOH, Balto-Slavic shares many isoglosses with centum languages especially Germanic, but it is satem if you look at that one isogloss in isolation. It is a bit like looking at only one STR marker.

Regards
Andrew

Diverclic
12-16-2013, 06:18 PM
Parasar wrote : Still until Italy and the Balkans are properly tested I would not fully abandon a mesolithic presence of R1b in Europe.


It is just what I am thinking from many years and writing and is my theory of the "Italian Refugium". I think having carried also tons of proofs, but only the aDNA proof lacks.

OK. This is the right place to discuss that point.
The whole ht35 ---> ht15 story is dismissing R1b as indigenous in Europe at neolithic times. In my view that doesn't precludes the possibility of RARE R1b migrants at nomadic times when the land wasn't yet occupied by farmers. So, I wouldn't consider old R1b branches in remote places of Europe as a proof of R1b being "European".
As far as this thread is concerned the spread of R1b in western Europe, probably linked to Centum languages, is much more recent, as both linguistic and R1b tree based on SNPs is now suggesting.
Frankly, say R1b-M269 was the first of the latest wave of R1b in Europe. How many SNPs until the lastest groups ? A dozen at best. Sequencing is going to provide those SNPs since iron age, say between 20 and 30, and calculating on the basis of 1 SNP every 100 years the ideas that R1b-M269 can be mesolithic will be gone.
R1b expansion in the west is certainly linked to IE expansion, starting say, 6000 years ago.

Diverclic
12-16-2013, 06:38 PM
My own feeling is that the initial branching was very quick and there is not a big gap in time between them. The most obvioius way of dealing with this in terms of R1b branching is to see L23* very quickly split into different lines with L51* as old as the L23xL51 lines. That would make most sense to me. Its also possibly that the split commenced in the L23* phase but no trace is left because of small beginnings. Albanian (which I believe is derived from Dacian) includes M269* which I think probably is due to a former position around Romania. Albanians position has always been unclear in the branching scheme and is sometimes placed with Germanic which in turn is sometimes seen as the first split.

I am imagining M269* originally appeared at the early PIE phase in the Balkans, perhaps with the Suvorovo groups, perhaps as a fellow travellor with L23*. This would have been overlain by further L23xL51 elements in later waves creating a mixture. IMO this group around Romania was displaced south and west in the Balkans at a later period.

As for the Celto-Italic and Germanic early splitting, a lack of M269* and a boundary for high levels of L23xL51 around the Austria-Hungary border suggests to me that Celtic must have quickly moved to that border area bypassing the groups in the Lower Danube. I suspect that L51* is early than we tend to think and as old as most of the L23xL51 clades. My suspicion is that there was a lightening move to Hungary by an L23* line and that it arose in Hungary and entered the Alps c. 3500BC. Maybe that is too much of a wish to link it with the whole Remedello/mining etc thing in the Alps though. For that to be true I think it would have to be pre-Yamnaya as its about 300-500 years ahead of Yamnaya west of the Black Sea according to Heyd.

Maybe that is wrong though and attempts to link pre-beaker copper age cultures of the Alps, Italy etc is barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps it really didnt happen until Yamnaya c. 3000BC spilled into the Balkans and Danube. The pre-beaker copper age people so far tested are not R1b in Italy and southern France, albeit the sample is miniscule. This would pose the alternative, which I think is plausible, that these Med. and Alpine pre-beaker copper age groups and also the initial early bell beaker phase had nothing to do with R1b or IE. In such a scenario we have to think of the concept of more than one beaker people - an early non-IE/non-R south-western group and a later more central European group who stole their clothes. Yamnaya of course was undeniably present in Hungary where the potentially early Csepel group were located and other potentially IE speaking groups existed including corded ware.

I posted in the R1a section a proposal for IE expansion and the R1b part is my main interest at the moment. If the tree post by Alan in the first post of this thread is to be correct, then Centum languages had a leading role and that could be seen as a leading role of R1b over R1a at the onset of IE (with later a large R1a expansion). Let me say, right now, about that tree that I don't believe in a long sequence of Centum with the Satem branch only at the very end, as depicted.
We are waiting for data of the large and diverse population once tested ht35 in eastern Europe and in the Balkan area. It was convenient to think that these L23 people were all of the same branch and probably the group from which R1b-L51 emerged. However, some results are indicating that it might not be true and those R1b-L23 might belong to the R1b-Z2105 branch, excluding them as "parents" for R1b-L51. We need more results but I agree to discuss a model of IE expansion with a large part of those L23 belonging to the Z2105 branch.
My first thought was that it could be a consequence of the Turkish occupation but, after all it's asking too much of Turkish genetics influence.

Rathna
12-16-2013, 10:51 PM
The whole ht35 ---> ht15 story is dismissing R1b as indigenous in Europe at neolithic times.

I see much confusion in your statements:
1) there are Eastern R-L23* ancestors of R-L51?
a) the map of R-L51 done by Argiedude and me many years ago demonstrated that R-L51 is diffused above all in Northern Italy and its presence crush down Eastward of Italy and a little changed the map of Richard Rocca, if not extending the presence of R-L51 Westward to central France but not Eastward, except a presence in south Poland and a presence in Iberia I have written a lot about, then its ancestor lived probably here and not elsewhere
b) about R-L23 I have written tons of letters from many years and also in this forum there are many threads about it. This is also my haplogroup and as you can see also in the map designed by smal in another thread, it seems that the most ancient haplotype tested so far has been found in a Tuscan of the 1KGP: R-L23/Z2103,-4,-5,-6, -7+. When my Chromo2 arrives I'll tell you which are my SNPs beyond Z2105+ (but I am anyway L277- and L584-).
The ancestor of L584+ could be the Italian Carnevali (and A Romanian) who are PF7580* (we'll see a possible test for L584).
c) it seems that all the Eastern European and Middle Easterner R-L23 are either L277+ or L584+. Open is the problem of L277 and there is a thread on it now.
d) about R-M269* I have written tons of letter and if now there is a clade R-M269/L150+/PF7558/PF7562/PF7563+ this is due to my action (see above all Worldfamilies). This clade comprises the whole Jewish R-M269, but we don't know if all the R-M269 belong to this clade, and that it is recent I have demonstrated not true
e) the ancestor of all these haplogroups is R1b1*, that has the highest variance in Italy and the Asian ones are another thing, being L388/L389-.
From all these data comes my theory of an Italian Refugium of R1b1 amongst other Y and mt haplogroups.

alan
12-16-2013, 11:17 PM
I think its worth looking at Michals SNP based dating - his version 2 which is younger and closer to the normal STR variance figures
I
The below dates for the early clades could be taken as the expansion period and seems to place them in the 4000-3500BC period in terms of central dates. These are the most interesting IMO and the ones that likely relate to any link between R1b and language branches. I would obviously take the centre dates with great caution but the relative ages are interesting and IMO fit the branching fairly well.

5.9 (5.1-7.8) R1b-L51
5.6 (4.8-7.4) R1b-Z2105
5.5 (4.7-7.2) R1b-M269(xL23)

Note that L51, the likely root of future Celtic, Italic and Germanic is oldest. This fits very well with the branching models. I think we need to adjust our thought processes a little here and rewind back to L51 rather than looking at later clades. L51 could be the clade echo of a period when Celtic, Germanic and Italic were one section that was breaking off of PIE but had not yet gone that stage further into the pre-proto branches. L51 could take us back to the time of this section collectively breaking off and IMO that is potentially a very important clue. I do not believe we can take the modern distribution too literally as a small clade like this probably has been erased in many areas especially in eastern Europe but it does potentially take is back to an important moment in time between PIE and further branching when a large section that would give the languages of much of western, central and northern Europe broke off. That would be quite something.

Modern distribution of L51* may just be the western end of the trail, perhaps preserved in the Alps because of remoteness but it possibly does give some idea of the latitude aspect of spread, alpine and adjacent, as well as some sort of longitudinal idea of at least part of its area where it got away from the complex tangle of overlays in eastern Europe. The archaeological issue is that we dont have a handy Afanasievo of the west as a simple match for this split and its apparent general latitude and longitude. On the other hand a clade that put distance between it and the rest by moving westwards in a bit of a leap is exactly what we would expect to match the Celto-Italic-Germanic type early branching. My guess is that the leap was pre-Yamnaya steppe groups who transformed somewhere like Hungary before moving into the Alps, Italy etc.


I think the M269* and Z2105 clades are too close to call in terms of which is older but they seem to be significantly younger than L51* clade. Is this a secondary wave? Obvious candidates for this include Albanian, Armenian and Palaeo-Balkan in general. This slightly later branching is interesting. These languages are seen as splitting between the early Celto-Italic and Germanic branches on the one hand and the Balto-Slavic/Iranian later branches on the other (which are heavily R1a associated). They seem to be a middling group and some members of this group were also was satemised - satemisation apparently being aerial.

alan
12-16-2013, 11:33 PM
I should point out that I think the popular idea that Germanic and Celto-Italic had totally different roots archaeologically with one being related to corded ware/R1a and the other being related to R1b as some more southerly movement just doesnt work. IMO in terms of language branching and other shared aspects of these languages it only makes sense if they had a similar background and split together as a linguistic para-group before further splitting into branches.

Either none of those three are related to the corded ware model or all of them are (as Mallory once suggested). I have stated my opinion that L51* could be the thin signal of a time when those branches were one and the same or just starting to split. As I said, the current distribution might only be a very vague latitudinal and longitudinal echo of the original path caused by survival in the Alpine zone and all sorts of later short to medium distance displacement and the eastern part of the trail of a small clade was probably very sensitive to erasing as the study of Tyrol shows. However, it does seem to give some sort of implication that it moved along not too far from the Alps.

Archaeologically, we would ideally want evidence of a separation of the group from the melting pot of the western steppe and Balkans where multiple overlaying, satemisation etc occurred.

TigerMW
12-17-2013, 07:34 PM
OK. This is the right place to discuss that point.
The whole ht35 ---> ht15 story is dismissing R1b as indigenous in Europe at neolithic times. In my view that doesn't precludes the possibility of RARE R1b migrants at nomadic times when the land wasn't yet occupied by farmers. So, I wouldn't consider old R1b branches in remote places of Europe as a proof of R1b being "European".
As far as this thread is concerned the spread of R1b in western Europe, probably linked to Centum languages, is much more recent, as both linguistic and R1b tree based on SNPs is now suggesting.
Frankly, say R1b-M269 was the first of the latest wave of R1b in Europe. How many SNPs until the lastest groups ? A dozen at best. Sequencing is going to provide those SNPs since iron age, say between 20 and 30, and calculating on the basis of 1 SNP every 100 years the ideas that R1b-M269 can be mesolithic will be gone.
R1b expansion in the west is certainly linked to IE expansion, starting say, 6000 years ago.


Diverclic, it's nice to hear from you here.

There is one outstanding feature of R1b in Europe. It's really an R1b-L11/S127 story, at least this astounding piece of the story. There was a rapid and geographically diverse expansion of this male lineage during its early centuries.

I think SNPs are verifying this to some degree, but I think the SNP counting scheme are still too immature to count on much. Here is an example of looking at the length of branches by counting SNPs. There are some apparently long branches, like the branch from R1b-P312>L21>DF13>DF49 to M222. M222 has approximately 23 phylogenetically equivalent SNPs according to BISDNA. That makes sense as confirmed by the distinct haplotype modal for M222. Whether M222 was first or last in the long branch makes little difference, but its a long branch. M222 does not show the outstanding expansion I'm talking about, It is good background for understanding what a long branch might look like. I just wanted to set the stage with some background information.

The expansion of early levels of L21 branching was incredibly strong (survival-wise). DF13 has the same modal as L21 and we perhaps have one or two equivalents for DF13, to-date. Just downstream of DF13, we have the bushy branching. There are at least 7 or 8 very large direct branching subclades of DF13 still surviving with several newly discovered ones that might be large and still a whole cache of DF13* people.

U152 has a similar strong but early split. Richard R says that there have been no phylogenetic equivalents for L2 found yet. L2 is a direct descendant of U152 as it stands. I almost find that hard to believe that L2 could have provided such an early and large split.

DF27 also has a multiple of subclades besides its most significant, Z196. We haven't identified any equivalents for DF27 yet, I don't think.

Over on the U106 side, we have early branching too.

TigerMW
12-17-2013, 08:38 PM
I should point out that I think the popular idea that Germanic and Celto-Italic had totally different roots archaeologically with one being related to corded ware/R1a and the other being related to R1b as some more southerly movement just doesnt work. IMO in terms of language branching and other shared aspects of these languages it only makes sense if they had a similar background and split together as a linguistic para-group before further splitting into branches....

I agree. Occam's razor makes it hard for me to see U106 and P312 (and L21, U152 and DF27) separating and straggling along in a minimal survival mode for very long in their geographically dispersed centers of "local origin" (I believe some would say), before expanding aggressively spreading their Centum IE languages with them. It is easier for me to see L11 types already on the aggressive expansion nearer the time (and place) of PIE. The folks that took a little more northerly route had to do more integration with the native folks, causing more corruption to their language and more admixture. U106 would have occurred on that front of the wave. That's just speculation on my part. It definitely can not be proven.

Generalissimo
12-17-2013, 09:53 PM
While its not that neat and tidy, the thing that really stands out is that the late branching group is very R1a strong and the earlier IE branchings appear to be R1b stronger today. That much is fairly clear.

Indeed, the early Indo-Europeans who left their homeland first would've had more time to mix with non-Indo-Europeans (R1b, I, etc).

On the other hand, the Indo-Europeans who stayed in and near their homeland didn't have anyone to mix with except each other, hence they mostly preserved their Proto-Indo-European gene pool (R1a).

TigerMW
12-17-2013, 10:20 PM
Indeed, the early Indo-Europeans who left their homeland first would've had more time to mix with non-Indo-Europeans (R1b, I, etc).

On the other hand, the Indo-Europeans who stayed in and near their homeland didn't have anyone to mix with except each other, hence they mostly preserved their Proto-Indo-European gene pool (R1a).

What you are saying could be true. I have my doubts, though, because R1a is so light in some of the Centum IE speaking areas. Nevertheless, you might be right. The premises that Alan has set out might be correct also, though. We don't know.

However, I think Alan asked very nicely to follow the precept of the threads to discuss whatever finer points it is we are going into. There is no need to derail the thread onto other discussions about the original admixture (or lack of it) in PIE speakers, with your presumptive statements. It's just a discussion.

alan
12-17-2013, 10:41 PM
I have started to wonder if we are not getting a little trapped and forced to jump through hoops to fit the beaker model. Perhaps there really is a problem with dating. Michal did say that one version of dating based on SNPs which produced earlier dates than normal fits better the Malta evidence. So, perhaps the L11 expansion didnt happen as late as 2500BC and that is why we have the contradiction of trying to explain a west-east culture with an apparently more east-west yDNA phylogeny.

Michals calculations using the version that produced older dates came out:


7.4 (6.3-9.7) R1b-Z2105
7.2 (6.1-9.5) R1b-M269(xL23)
6.6 (5.6-8.6) R1b-L11
6.2 (5.3-8.2) R1b-P312
6.1 (5.2-8.0) R1b-U152

That actually would be require a significant re-think and the beaker model would need thrown out. It would fit the dairy farmer model fairly well as the clade dates and their geography does track the spread of dairy farming rather well. The more Balkans associated R1b clades are dated in the above list to c. 5200-5400BC which is pretty close to the date of the spread of dairying there from nearby Marmara. Then there is a gap in time before the clades that dominate the rest of Europe are dated to about 4200-4000BC, again uncannily close to the likely period the spread of dairy farming into the remainder of Europe-something that was apparently achieved is a bit of a sudden leap.

The latter leap in dairying parallels the linguistic detachment Celto-Italic and Germanic. In terms of date its not as problematic as it sounds. After all the earliest steppe groups arrived in the Balkans at c. 4200BC or so and that is not much different from the date of the leap of dairy farming beyond the SE/east central part of Europe. Not that they are directly connected - I am just showing for those who like to try and bookend PIE using archaeology that the dates of the big extension of the spread of dairy farmers west and north is very similar to the date of the first steppe groups that moved into the Balkans. There is not the sort of huge chronological difference that a simple first farmers vs Yamnaya arguement produces.

That may sound like the Anatolian/Balkans IE model. However, the more I read into this subject, the less simple it is. After 5000BC the farming cultures next door had an impact on the steppe and the Carpatho-Balkans metalwork trade involved Sredny Stog elites acting as go betweens as far as the Volga. Recently in a review of a book posted on Dienekes, Mallory noted it discussed some evidence of the Sredny Stog males have a mix of cranial types including apparent farming elements on the male side (c. 4500BC if I remember right). Then when one considers that Sredny Stog related Suvorovo groups then migrated into the Balkans a century or two later and also did return journeys back to the steppe, then the sheer complexity becomes mind boggling. Essentially the period 5000-4000BC saw a very complex picture of two way movement at the farming-steppe interface and who knows what the linguistic implication of this is.

The main advantage of the dairy farming option for European R1b from a DNA point of view is that it does at least conform to what is a SE to NW trajectory without all sorts of mind bending juggling to fit it like a square peg in a round hole into the beaker model.

I think too that the whole dichotomous approach of an early farmers vs Yamnaya model needs reconsidered. It doesnt need to be that dichotomous at all. There is a long period of two way influence and movement between the steppe and farming world c. 5000-4000BC and the separate but perhaps not entirely disconnected issue of the spread of dairy farming across Europe in the same sort of time frame.



I agree. Occam's razor makes it hard for me to see U106 and P312 (and L21, U152 and DF27) separating and straggling along in a minimal survival mode for very long in their geographically dispersed centers of "local origin" (I believe some would say), before expanding aggressively spreading their Centum IE languages with them. It is easier for me to see L11 types already on the aggressive expansion nearer the time (and place) of PIE. The folks that took a little more northerly route had to do more integration with the native folks, causing more corruption to their language and more admixture. U106 would have occurred on that front of the wave. That's just speculation on my part. It definitely can not be proven.

alan
12-17-2013, 10:59 PM
I am not sure it can be cast in the sense of IE natives vs non-IE farmers. The archaeology of the period 5000-4000BC, especially Sredny Stog, a very influential go-between group (who a recent paper noted had a significant farmer element among the males) shows a complex mix possibly existed even before PIE had even fully evolved. To me the Sredny Stog group and its elite is probably the only pre-Yamnaya steppe group with the possibility of widely spreading a dialect and even Anthony at least considers that they spoke archaic PIE/Anatolian. There is pretty clearcut cranial evidence now that this group were a mix of steppe natives and farmers on the male side.

Who knows what that means in terms of yDNA but R1a, R1b and non-R may well have been in their mix. So, if they were already a mixed group in the archaic PIE phase then I dont think its really fair that any one lineage claims to be THE PIE group. Archaic PIE probably developed in a zone or a network, likely the Sredny Stog one, and so even before PIE 'proper' developed this networking group probably was a mix, probably varying wildly in composition from the Dneiper to the Volga-Urals area.

I see this not only as a more happily inclusive description but also one that appears to actually fit the evidence of pretty intense farmer-steppe interacting and mixing and mixed craniology on the male side among the Sredny Stog groups.

Without this interaction there would be no PIE culture and just simple hunter-fishers-primitive farmers. That interaction firstly with the Balkans and then Maykop seems to have been important steppes in the evolution of the steppes from very simple groups to more complex hierarchical ones such as Sredny Stog and eventually Yamnaya. I think archiac PIE culturally and linguistically evolved at a time when the population was already mixed, perhaps even with non-R groups.

I am pretty confident that the complexity of the Stedny Stog groups will be revealed by ancient DNA.


Indeed, the early Indo-Europeans who left their homeland first would've had more time to mix with non-Indo-Europeans (R1b, I, etc).

On the other hand, the Indo-Europeans who stayed in and near their homeland didn't have anyone to mix with except each other, hence they mostly preserved their Proto-Indo-European gene pool (R1a).

alan
12-17-2013, 11:38 PM
It seems incredibly unlikely that it would just so happen that R1a would form a wide number of early branches in Europe and Anatolia yet always apparently pass over the torch to R1b in R terms. Primitive elite dominance usually means a hogging of resources by the elite and larger amounts of descendants. Why then would R1b come to dominate as the major R group across so much of Europe and Anatolia? That would be even more weird when it is considered that R1b has not been detected in early farmer samples as yet. Its far more likely that at the time PIE evolved it evolved over a wide area across which there was variation in yDNA lineages who participated.

If we stay traditional and assume that full PIE developed after 4000BC then we know already that there were strong farming elements within Stedny Stog BY c. 4500BC, that Stedny Stog groups had migrated into the Balkans perhaps only a century or so later and that they had also then made some return trips to the Dnieper. All this indicates a mixed population existed across the entire Balkan-western steppe area c. 4500-4000BC before the date that PIE is usually placed at. In other words a mixed group participated in the period when both archaic and full PIE evolved. An hype-nativist or purest approach does not fit the archaeological evidence IMO.

If we move on to the later phases c. 3500BC-3000BC Maykop elements also spilled into the steppe c. 3500BC and was apparently very influential in the steppes even if its numbers of settlers were not huge. This happened before Yamnaya, a culture which many steppe traditionalists would especially link with developed PIE. If final full evolution of PIE with wheel vocab etc is placed c. 3500BC on the western steppe then it is clear that we are not talking about a homogenous population.

IMO homogeneity would only happen where leaders could establish groups in very lightly settled areas where hunters etc lived.




What you are saying could be true. I have my doubts, though, because R1a is so light in some of the Centum IE speaking areas. Nevertheless, you might be right. The premises that Alan has set out might be correct also, though. We don't know.

However, I think Alan asked very nicely to follow the precept of the threads to discuss whatever finer points it is we are going into. There is no need to derail the thread onto other discussions about the original admixture (or lack of it) in PIE speakers, with your presumptive statements. It's just a discussion.

Michał
12-18-2013, 03:06 PM
Michals calculations using the version that produced older dates came out:

7.4 (6.3-9.7) R1b-Z2105
7.2 (6.1-9.5) R1b-M269(xL23)
6.6 (5.6-8.6) R1b-L11
6.2 (5.3-8.2) R1b-P312
6.1 (5.2-8.0) R1b-U152

That actually would be require a significant re-think and the beaker model would need thrown out.
I don’t think such earlier dates would exclude any association of P312 (or even L11 and L51) with the Bell-Beaker expansion. It seems perfectly possible that this particular sublineage of L11 (represented initially by just one man!) needed at least a couple of centuries to increase in size enough to be able to expand over nearly a half of Europe. In other words, equating the TMRCA values with the exact historically/archeologically-attested expansion dates is not a good idea IMO. In most such cases, TMRCA should predate any historically or archaeologically-recordable expansion by about 500 years, although some shorter or much longer “incubation” periods are of course possible in some very specific situations.

What should be noted in the case of the L23->L51->L11->P312/U106 lineage is that between the birth of L51 (or separation of the lineages ancestral to L51 and Z2103) and the sudden expansion of P312 and U106 there was a very long (at least 1500 years, if not much longer!) “incubation period” with no significant expansion signs. One could say that we actually have some “traces” of such earlier ”moderate” expansion, and these are L51(xL11) and L11(xP312,U106). However both these lineages are extremely rare and their distribution patterns partially overlap with that of P312+U106, so although a hypothetical process of prolonged in situ incubation and subsequent expansion is a quite likely option, we cannot exclude an alternative scenario in which a relatively small band of people, already divided into some clans, has moved from the North Pontic steppe (or from Asia) to the Balkans and then to Central-Southern Europe, with only some of those clans participating in the subsequent major BB-associated expansion in Western Europe. Of course, a combination of both above scenarios is also possible.

BTW, it should be noted that the recent “Ashkenazi-Levite” paper by Rootsi et al. is not only consistent with such earlier TMRCAs for R1b, but it also suggests that R1b-L23 is at least 1500-2000 years older than R1a-Z645. I didn’t have enough time to make any precise calculations, but some preliminary estimates suggest about 5.7 ky for R1a-Z645 and 7.5 ky for R1b-L23 (6.3 ky for Z2103/5). Assuming that R1a-Z645 is likely to be slightly older than 5.7 ky (at least 6 ky old), this would make R1b-L23 about 8 ky old, which is close to my “older” set of previous estimates (where 8.3 ky was suggested for R1b-L23 and 7.4 ky for R1b-Z2103/5). Of course, all above calculations are based on using an “average” mutation rate of 0.7 x 10^-9 per nucleotide per year, while the mutation rate suggested by Francalacci (0.53) would give much earlier TMRCAs.

alan
12-18-2013, 04:09 PM
Michal

I think the apparent realisation that L51 has a much bigger gap between it and the big expansion is an interesting new development. As is the apparent scenario that it is older than the surviving L23xL51 and M269* subclades. Not long ago it was thought it was only a few centuries older than L11. That really does mean we need a bit of a rethink. Even the older possible age of L11 and main subclades does make me wonder if we should really be looking at the minority of those clades further east as later west-east movements. Could they not actually be a thin trail of the start of the expansion? I tend to agree that L11 and L51 could simple be fellow travelling cousins who moved with the bigger downstream clades although they do provide a potential marker for that movement that stands out among the mass of p312 and U106.

6.3 kys of age for R1b-Z2105 who be in line with the low end of the ranges of your older date list. I suppose if the dates came in for all clades at the low end of your ranges then its not incompatible with a steppe model as that is just the sort of age the Suvorovo groups made their move west. In fact that would make a great deal of sense as it would give L23*a long period of non-farmer-like stasis and bare survival somewhere for 1000 years and presumably an even longer period making hay between the M269 SNP and the M269* subclade. An initial expansion for both clades associated with Suvorovo entering the Balkans and subsequent expansion into Anatolia would make a lot of sense to me with those kind of dates and that of course doesnt rule out participation in later waves. A date of c. 3500BC for L51 tentatively moving into the Alpine area would fit incredibly well with some of the copper age scenarios suggested.


I don’t think such earlier dates would exclude any association of P312 (or even L11 and L51) with the Bell-Beaker expansion. It seems perfectly possible that this particular sublineage of L11 (represented initially by just one man!) needed at least a couple of centuries to increase in size enough to be able to expand over nearly a half of Europe. In other words, equating the TMRCA values with the exact historically/archeologically-attested expansion dates is not a good idea IMO. In most such cases, TMRCA should predate any historically or archaeologically-recordable expansion by about 500 years, although some shorter or much longer “incubation” periods are of course possible in some very specific situations.

What should be noted in the case of the L23->L51->L11->P312/U106 lineage is that between the birth of L51 (or separation of the lineages ancestral to L51 and Z2103) and the sudden expansion of P312 and U106 there was a very long (at least 1500 years, if not much longer!) “incubation period” with no significant expansion signs. One could say that we actually have some “traces” of such earlier ”moderate” expansion, and these are L51(xL11) and L11(xP312,U106). However both these lineages are extremely rare and their distribution patterns partially overlap with that of P312+U106, so although a hypothetical process of prolonged in situ incubation and subsequent expansion is a quite likely option, we cannot exclude an alternative scenario in which a relatively small band of people, already divided into some clans, has moved from the North Pontic steppe (or from Asia) to the Balkans and then to Central-Southern Europe, with only some of those clans participating in the subsequent major BB-associated expansion in Western Europe. Of course, a combination of both above scenarios is also possible.

BTW, it should be noted that the recent “Ashkenazi-Levite” paper by Rootsi et al. is not only consistent with such earlier TMRCAs for R1b, but it also suggests that R1b-L23 is at least 1500-2000 years older than R1a-Z645. I didn’t have enough time to make any precise calculations, but some preliminary estimates suggest about 5.7 ky for R1a-Z645 and 7.5 ky for R1b-L23 (6.3 ky for Z2103/5). Assuming that R1a-Z645 is likely to be slightly older than 5.7 ky (at least 6 ky old), this would make R1b-L23 about 8 ky old, which is close to my “older” set of previous estimates (where 8.3 ky was suggested for R1b-L23 and 7.4 ky for R1b-Z2103/5). Of course, all above calculations are based on using an “average” mutation rate of 0.7 x 10^-9 per nucleotide per year, while the mutation rate suggested by Francalacci (0.53) would give much earlier TMRCAs.

alan
12-18-2013, 05:22 PM
I imagine a handful of ancient DNA SNP counts could really make a huge impact on interpretation of modern SNP counting dating.

The long incubation period is kind of suggestive of an event c. 4500-4000BC or later that allowed them to take off in a way they previously simply couldnt. Perhaps the signal of steppe lineages entering the Balkans? Alternatively perhaps there was simply a massive lineage kill off at the end of SE Old Europe due to the climatic decline that peaked in the 5.9 kiloyear event and that is why they date to those periods.



I don’t think such earlier dates would exclude any association of P312 (or even L11 and L51) with the Bell-Beaker expansion. It seems perfectly possible that this particular sublineage of L11 (represented initially by just one man!) needed at least a couple of centuries to increase in size enough to be able to expand over nearly a half of Europe. In other words, equating the TMRCA values with the exact historically/archeologically-attested expansion dates is not a good idea IMO. In most such cases, TMRCA should predate any historically or archaeologically-recordable expansion by about 500 years, although some shorter or much longer “incubation” periods are of course possible in some very specific situations.

What should be noted in the case of the L23->L51->L11->P312/U106 lineage is that between the birth of L51 (or separation of the lineages ancestral to L51 and Z2103) and the sudden expansion of P312 and U106 there was a very long (at least 1500 years, if not much longer!) “incubation period” with no significant expansion signs. One could say that we actually have some “traces” of such earlier ”moderate” expansion, and these are L51(xL11) and L11(xP312,U106). However both these lineages are extremely rare and their distribution patterns partially overlap with that of P312+U106, so although a hypothetical process of prolonged in situ incubation and subsequent expansion is a quite likely option, we cannot exclude an alternative scenario in which a relatively small band of people, already divided into some clans, has moved from the North Pontic steppe (or from Asia) to the Balkans and then to Central-Southern Europe, with only some of those clans participating in the subsequent major BB-associated expansion in Western Europe. Of course, a combination of both above scenarios is also possible.

BTW, it should be noted that the recent “Ashkenazi-Levite” paper by Rootsi et al. is not only consistent with such earlier TMRCAs for R1b, but it also suggests that R1b-L23 is at least 1500-2000 years older than R1a-Z645. I didn’t have enough time to make any precise calculations, but some preliminary estimates suggest about 5.7 ky for R1a-Z645 and 7.5 ky for R1b-L23 (6.3 ky for Z2103/5). Assuming that R1a-Z645 is likely to be slightly older than 5.7 ky (at least 6 ky old), this would make R1b-L23 about 8 ky old, which is close to my “older” set of previous estimates (where 8.3 ky was suggested for R1b-L23 and 7.4 ky for R1b-Z2103/5). Of course, all above calculations are based on using an “average” mutation rate of 0.7 x 10^-9 per nucleotide per year, while the mutation rate suggested by Francalacci (0.53) would give much earlier TMRCAs.

Diverclic
12-18-2013, 07:56 PM
No quotes.
I didn't study yet what you all call the Michal's SNP counting method. I posted on other forums my own based on Morley's phylogeny but I don't get such extended dates. Anyway this post only to say that no R1b was found to date among skeletons younger than 5000 years . So, in my view the (roughly) 5000 years timing for L11 arrival in western Europe still stands. Also, it was noted that brachicephalic emerged as a new population between 6000 and 5000 years ago in Europe .
I keep this post short as I want to (find and) study the method mentioned and then I'll be back but I suggest all kind of data are considered before changing again the dates.

lgmayka
12-18-2013, 10:20 PM
What should be noted in the case of the L23->L51->L11->P312/U106 lineage is that between the birth of L51 (or separation of the lineages ancestral to L51 and Z2103) and the sudden expansion of P312 and U106 there was a very long (at least 1500 years, if not much longer!) “incubation period” with no significant expansion signs.
Just to clarify: This 1500 years is the interval between:
- The split (TMRCA) of L23 (into branches leading to L51 and Z2103), and
- The split (TMRCA) of P312 (into U152, DF27, etc.).
Is that what you mean?

I presume that we do not yet have two high-quality full-Y L51(xL11) results, so we cannot estimate the TMRCA of L51(xL11) by this method. Similarly for L11(xP312,U106). Both, however, are relatively rare, at least in well-sampled populations.

parasar
12-18-2013, 10:45 PM
Indeed, the early Indo-Europeans who left their homeland first would've had more time to mix with non-Indo-Europeans (R1b, I, etc).

On the other hand, the Indo-Europeans who stayed in and near their homeland didn't have anyone to mix with except each other, hence they mostly preserved their Proto-Indo-European gene pool (R1a).

This is extremely doubtful. What is your reasoning as to when and how that happened?

Michał
12-19-2013, 12:27 AM
Just to clarify: This 1500 years is the interval between:
- The split (TMRCA) of L23 (into branches leading to L51 and Z2103), and
- The split (TMRCA) of P312 (into U152, DF27, etc.).
Is that what you mean?
Yes.


I presume that we do not yet have two high-quality full-Y L51(xL11) results, so we cannot estimate the TMRCA of L51(xL11) by this method. Similarly for L11(xP312,U106). Both, however, are relatively rare, at least in well-sampled populations.
Actually, my calculations based on the Sardinian sample suggest an even larger time span, so 1500 years seems to be a lower limit. I agree that the high-quality sequencing results should provide much more accurate estimates, but I really doubt that this will result in a significantly lower distance between the TMRCAs for L23 and P312, especially when the high quality results seem to confirm my previous estimates for an interval between the L23 and Z2103/5 nodes (about 1000 years). Also, I am pretty sure that the above calculations would be more strongly affected by using different mutation rates than by using a higher quality sequencing procedure.

Diverclic
12-19-2013, 01:23 AM
OK, I went through my analysis of Morley's phylogeny. Basically what made the comparison between R1a and R1b easy was a correcting factor that I applied. Geno 2.0 is mainly european while R1a is also in India. The R1a/R1b ratio is about 750/1000 ; so I applied a correction factor of 0.75 (only to the part of the tree below R1a and R1b). It happens that with the correcting factor the average branch length is similar. As discussed by several people on this thread and elsewhere the branch length varies but for a first comparison I took an average of 14 SNPs below M417 ; it's obviously a figure that can change a little bit.
From the CT node (and including it) the number of SNPs is 367 and my way of analyzing the phylogeny is to consider the CT node as the period of climate change in north east Africa that started 115000 years ago and lasted about 20000 years (so, until 95000 BP). So, with this analysis 1 SNP is for every 320 years.

Now the results for R1b and R1a.
L51 (R1b) started 5120 years ago (4800 years ago for early L11) and early L23 was then 6000 years ago. Early M269 is 16500 years old, when glaciation ended, while te first stages of R1b are at last glaciation times and it seems that the R1a/R1b split occurred at the same time ; possibly 2 different strategies of survival when the whether started to change.
M417 is about 5000 years old (so, M417 would be same age as L51) while M17 is dated 7000 years old (rounded figure). R1a1 would be from 19000 years ago, an earlier change than in the R1b branch ; this might go with a southern position of R1a1. R1a is dated 26000 years old, to be compared with 25000 years found for R1b, with this calculation, and this is roughly the same for the 2 branches..
R group, with this timing, started 41000 years ago and the K node started some 67000 years ago. From the same K node, the peopling of Europe started slowly for the IJ branch, leading to I as one main group around 55000 years ago, probably linked to U5 mitochondrial lineage.

Generalissimo
12-19-2013, 01:33 AM
This is extremely doubtful. What is your reasoning as to when and how that happened?

It's not extremely doubtful at all. It has a lot of support from ancient DNA and physical anthropology (recent work on tooth traits in Bronze Age Europeans).

Indo-European Corded Ware mixing with non-Indo-European Bell Beaker in Central Europe via female exogamy eventually = Indo-Europeans in Western Europe with a lot of R1b.

rms2
12-19-2013, 01:45 AM
Remember how this thread began?


We have had a lot of R1a discussions but I would like to start this thread to exclusively discuss iR1b branching and how it matches the linguistic branching of IE languages associated with R1b today. This thread is for those who do believe in R1b having a primary (not exclusive) role in PIE. That is a premise of the thread so if you do not believe in this premise please do not participate . . .


Could we stick with that rather than be forced to endure all of the many baseless assumptions that accompany the tired, old "aR1an" agenda?

Generalissimo
12-19-2013, 01:49 AM
Could we stick with that rather than be forced to endure all of the many baseless assumptions that accompany the tired, old "aR1an" agenda?

Can you be more precise and point out which of my assumptions was baseless and why?

newtoboard
12-19-2013, 01:55 AM
Remember how this thread began?



Could we stick with that rather than be forced to endure all of the many baseless assumptions that accompany the tired, old "aR1an" agenda?

Not saying I agree with David's assertions but why is there no agenda when we assume R1b represents PIE? Great logic. Since you want to characterize others can we leave out the 20th century propaganda about Western Europeans representing PIE speakers the best?

parasar
12-19-2013, 01:55 AM
Can you be more precise and point out which of my assumptions was baseless and why?

Do we know of any other such widespread and numerous haplogroup that almost all switched to another language? It is like saying that R1a1 folk were Dravidian or Turkic and IE J2a (recall early Dienekes) transformed their language.

Generalissimo
12-19-2013, 02:05 AM
Do we know of any other such widespread and numerous haplogroup that almost all switched to another language? It is like saying that R1a1 folk were Dravidian or Turkic and IE J2a (recall early Dienekes) transformed their language.

The case with R1b is different, because unlike R1a, it's associated with language groups in Western Europe and West Africa which didn't have intimate relationships with the early Indo-Europeans, and this is corroborated by their autosomal DNA.

Obviously I'm talking about Basques and Chadic speakers. On the other hand, what we see with Turks and Dravidians is very clear genetic introgression from the steppe.

So R1b covered a lot of geography before the Indo-Europeans came on the scene, while R1a didn't. The latter appears to be exclusively tied to the Indo-European expansions, and then language shifts from Indo-European to Turkic and Dravidian.

Kopfjäger
12-19-2013, 02:19 AM
The case with R1b is different, because unlike R1a, it's associated with language groups in Western Europe and West Africa which didn't have intimate relationships with the early Indo-Europeans, and this is corroborated by their autosomal DNA.

Obviously I'm talking about Basques and Chadic speakers. On the other hand, what we see with Turks and Dravidians is very clear genetic introgression from the steppe.

So R1b covered a lot of geography before the Indo-Europeans came on the scene, while R1a didn't. The latter appears to be exclusively tied to the Indo-European expansions, and then language shifts from Indo-European to Turkic and Dravidian.

I'm not sure why you subscribe to these thoughts of "R1a racial purity". Such distinctions are baseless, and were actually first devised by race peddlers (such as the Nazis) from Western Europe.

In other words, it's ironic for a Pole to be making these arguments.

Generalissimo
12-19-2013, 02:27 AM
I'm not sure why you subscribe to these thoughts of "R1a racial purity". Such distinctions are baseless, and were actually first devised by race peddlers (such as the Nazis) from Western Europe.

In other words, it's ironic for a Pole to be making these arguments.

Are you saying that using all the evidence available to us, like patterns in autosomal DNA, as well as uniparental DNA, is unacceptable because of political and social reasons? If so, I don't agree with you, and neither do any scientists working on this problem, as you can see here...

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0076748


I'm not sure why you subscribe to these thoughts of "R1a racial purity".

Oh, hang on, I see what you're doing: no argument, therefore build a straw man. Nice one!

DMXX
12-19-2013, 02:37 AM
Two reminders:

1) This thread is titled "R1b and IE branching". Although the connection between Y-DNA R1a-M17 and the IE languages is almost undeniable (supported by literature), this thread was specifically created to avoid any bleed-over of R1a-related posts on this topic.

2) Strawman or ad hominem attacks are not tolerated on this forum irrespective of how justified they may appear to be. The emphasis should be on the argument and not those arguing. Those comments concerning "Polish irony" etc. will be reviewed very shortly.

Kopfjäger
12-19-2013, 02:42 AM
Are you saying that using all the evidence available to us, like patterns in autosomal DNA, as well as uniparental DNA, is unacceptable because of political and social reasons? If so, I don't agree with you, and neither do any scientists working on this problem, as you can see here...

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0076748

No, I think just about anyone with a knowledge of history would agree with what I posted.

Generalissimo
12-19-2013, 02:48 AM
No, I think just about anyone with a knowledge of history would agree with what I posted.

But your "reply" didn't have anything to do with what was in my post. It's as if you replied to something I never said.

Are you sure you understood what I said? Otherwise it looks like you're just trolling with a strawman tactic, which is against the rules here.

Kopfjäger
12-19-2013, 03:01 AM
Oh, hang on, I see what you're doing: no argument, therefore build a straw man. Nice one!

There's no need to re-read what I wrote and make subsequent edits to your postings. It was pretty straightforward, and I apologize if it came across in such a way. Everyone can proceed on-topic now, sorry for the digression.

Generalissimo
12-19-2013, 03:05 AM
There's no need to re-read what I wrote and make subsequent edits to your postings. It was pretty straightforward, and I apologize if it came across in such a way. Everyone can proceed on-topic now, sorry for the digression.

Maybe it was straightforward to you, but in fact it made no sense at all. It was like you were talking to yourself.

Kopfjäger
12-19-2013, 03:07 AM
Maybe it was straightforward to you, but in fact it made no sense at all. It was like you were talking to yourself.

Please, let's stay on-topic here. Forget about the peddling thing, and let's all discuss R1b and IE as the title originally purported.

Humanist
12-19-2013, 03:09 AM
I do not want to see anybody lose their posting privileges, so let us please get back to "R1b and IE branching."

rms2
12-19-2013, 09:02 AM
We have had a lot of R1a discussions but I would like to start this thread to exclusively discuss iR1b branching and how it matches the linguistic branching of IE languages associated with R1b today. This thread is for those who do believe in R1b having a primary (not exclusive) role in PIE. That is a premise of the thread so if you do not believe in this premise please do not participate . . .


The above is from the person who started this thread. It was the premise with which he began it, i.e., the very first thing he typed.

I think he did it to prevent what so often happens when the topic of the semi-mythological Proto-Indo-Europeans comes up: two or three R1a guys appear and derail the thread to make sure their claims of priority are asserted - again and again and again - despite the very speculative nature of the whole IE controversy and the fact that no one really knows who the first Indo-European-speaking peoples were or precisely where they lived.

So, can we simply respect his wishes?

newtoboard
12-19-2013, 10:00 AM
The above is from the person who started this thread. It was the premise with which he began it, i.e., the very first thing he typed.

I think he did it to prevent what so often happens when the topic of the semi-mythological Proto-Indo-Europeans comes up: two or three R1a guys appear and derail the thread to make sure their claims of priority are asserted - again and again and again - despite the very speculative nature of the whole IE controversy and the fact that no one really knows who the first Indo-European-speaking peoples were or precisely where they lived.

So, can we simply respect his wishes?

Agreed but if it is so speculative how does he know R1b had a primary role in PIE?

nuadha
12-19-2013, 10:28 AM
I posted in the R1a section a proposal for IE expansion and the R1b part is my main interest at the moment. If the tree post by Alan in the first post of this thread is to be correct, then Centum languages had a leading role and that could be seen as a leading role of R1b over R1a at the onset of IE (with later a large R1a expansion).

let's not focus on the <i>centum<I/> aspect. What matters is the chronology of IE branching. The first three branchings are Anatolian, Tocharian, and Italo-Celtic. Each of these groups are associated with elevated levels of r1b, compared to their surrounding populations.

Furthermore, Anatolian and Italo-Celtic show reductions in r1a.

Diverclic
12-19-2013, 11:08 AM
let's not focus on the <i>centum<I/> aspect. What matters is the chronology of IE branching. The first three branchings are Anatolian, Tocharian, and Italo-Celtic. Each of these groups are associated with elevated levels of r1b, compared to their surrounding populations.

Furthermore, Anatolian and Italo-Celtic show reductions in r1a.

I answer quickly to this post as I didn't follow on your previous comment. I have no problem with R1b associated with IE and even with pre-IE. I proposed, and I still hold that there isn't any culture encompassing these areas at th time IE is supposed to have expanded because IE was carried by a population of metal workers and this population expanded with copper work. A comparison can be made with the Bantoo expansion in Africa at Iron age.
The present question I am addressing is about Z2105 spread and position in the IE scenario. I wasn't expecting much Z2105 in the Balkan but this possible new data can be accouted for with some changes. The Balkan were probably seen as some kind of "Eldorado" by copper worker when large mines were opened, hence a quick diffusion to southern Europe from the middle east. So, while I expected only the L478 lineage (ancient L23*) , it's very possible that the Z2105 lineage came too. Not sure but the L277 sublineage (more or less associated, so far, with jewish ancestry) could be seen as the origin of the Ashkenaze split (later augmented by other jewish). If I take the risk to mention it it's because it could explain some semitic (or pre-semitic) influence on IE.
These population in the Balkan probably went north to the Cucuteni culture and the border line with R1a people might have been mainly there, as early as 6000 BP, with the Maykop city arising on the other edge of the R1a domain a little later , 5700 BP. I still hold that Yamna expanded in correlation with Maykop.
Anatolia was probably populated early with a back migration from the Balkan, while Celtic is in the other direction and fits with L51 expansion.

nuadha
12-19-2013, 11:09 AM
Indeed, the early Indo-Europeans who left their homeland first would've had more time to mix with non-Indo-Europeans (R1b, I, etc).

On the other hand, the Indo-Europeans who stayed in and near their homeland didn't have anyone to mix with except each other, hence they mostly preserved their Proto-Indo-European gene pool (R1a).

First of all, Anthony suggests that the branch leading to balto-slavic moved out of the PC steppe, with a recently merged group of Cucuteni-Trypillians and IE steppic peoples, and up some river valleys. This would necessarily happen around the time of the late Cucuteni-Trypillian culture...

Secondly, ancient DNA from the steppe has shown that modern Europeans are more similar to early steppe peoples (eneolithic types and yamnaya) and less similar to the latter catacomb. This goes to show just how much the PC steppes were changing, and how Europeans may have been shielded from some of those shifts.

Diverclic
12-19-2013, 11:14 AM
Yes, but language is another matter. I insist that a small community with a high influence , for example through priests and the metal work (traders) can have deeply modified the language.

Generalissimo
12-19-2013, 11:26 AM
Secondly, ancient DNA from the steppe has shown that modern Europeans are more similar to early steppe peoples (eneolithic types and yamnaya) and less similar to the latter catacomb.

Wait, what? Are you claiming that Bell Beaker mtDNA was Yamnaya-like? If so, you're setting yourself up for a massive fall.

Eneolithic-like, yeah, but only if you're talking about Portugal, not the steppe.

newtoboard
12-19-2013, 11:28 AM
let's not focus on the <i>centum<I/> aspect. What matters is the chronology of IE branching. The first three branchings are Anatolian, Tocharian, and Italo-Celtic. Each of these groups are associated with elevated levels of r1b, compared to their surrounding populations.

Furthermore, Anatolian and Italo-Celtic show reductions in r1a.

Alan specifically said leave Tocharian out of the discussion but here you are promoting the idea of R1b Tocharians with ZERO evidence.

newtoboard
12-19-2013, 11:30 AM
Wait, what? Are you claiming that Bell Beaker mtDNA was Yamnaya-like? If so, you're setting yourself up for a massive fall.

Eneolithic-like, yeah, but only if you're talking about Portugal.

Yea the ancient people of Ukraniane even had mtdna C.

newtoboard
12-19-2013, 11:33 AM
And very few people associate Catacomb exclusively with R1a or Satem languages. It is late in history and I doubt it was a homegnous culture. So I don't see the need to bring up Catacomb over and over especially since it likely corresponds to multiple language groups and probably including the Balkan group which is heavy in R1b. Catacomb might explain the presence of R1b-L23+ north of the steppe and in Central Asia.

Generalissimo
12-19-2013, 11:36 AM
Did I miss something?

Were the results from Yamnaya and Catacomb released and I didn't realize? Where are they?

Here's all that I've seen to date...


Population genetic analyses revealed a steadily increasing genetic distance between these cultures from the late Copper Age to the Middle Bronze Age. The greatest genetic distance is between the Copper Age cultures and the (Bronze Age) Catacomb Culture, and this is much more pronounced than the genetic distance between the early Copper Age cultures and the (late Copper Age) Yamnaya Culture. This could indicate discontinuity and population change through migration. Archeological data suggest a migration into the North Pontic region from the Eastern Steppe, but this is not backed up by the DNA data, or at least the maternal lineages: typically Central Asian maternal lineages don't exist in the studied populations. Regardless of the genetic differences between the ancient groups, all of them can be unequivocally classified as European. DNA markers with known phenotype suggest continuity between the populations of the North Pontic Steppe of the 4th/3rd Millennia BC and modern Europeans. For example, all examined ancient individuals are inferred to have light skin pigmentation, which is prevalent in Europe today. Only their eye color is darker.

http://www.bmbf.de/pub/neue_blicke_auf_alte_kulturen.pdf

alan
12-19-2013, 12:20 PM
The problem with a simple idea of beaker people coming from the SW or natives to Europe or even the idea of a homogenous beaker people doesnt really stand up to evidence. The crania of beaker people in SW Europe are indeed like those of the Neolithic farmers of that area but the crania of beaker people elsewhere in central Europe, the isles etc contain a very different meso or brachy type crania which is unknown in much of Europe except perhaps the Balkans and north Italy in pre-beaker times. I dont think there as ever a single beaker people, just several groups who took up those cultural traits, perhaps through marriage networks. An out of Italy model seems very unlikely to its most likely the central and northern beaker phenotype has something to do with the Balkans. The Balkans before beaker times has been the scene of mixing of local and steppe cultures producing hybrid cultures for 1500 years by then.


It's not extremely doubtful at all. It has a lot of support from ancient DNA and physical anthropology (recent work on tooth traits in Bronze Age Europeans).

Indo-European Corded Ware mixing with non-Indo-European Bell Beaker in Central Europe via female exogamy eventually = Indo-Europeans in Western Europe with a lot of R1b.

Generalissimo
12-19-2013, 12:23 PM
The problem with a simple idea of beaker people coming from the SW or natives to Europe or even the idea of a homogenous beaker people doesnt really stand up to evidence. The crania of beaker people in SW Europe are indeed like those of the Neolithic farmers of that area but the crania of beaker people elsewhere in central Europe, the isles etc contain a very different meso or brachy type crania which is unknown in much of Europe except perhaps the Balkans and north Italy in pre-beaker times. I dont think there as ever a single beaker people, just several groups who took up those cultural traits, perhaps through marriage networks. An out of Italy model seems very unlikely to its most likely the central and northern beaker phenotype has something to do with the Balkans. The Balkans before beaker times has been the scene of mixing of local and steppe cultures producing hybrid cultures for 1500 years by then.

What makes you think cranial shape is good for anything like that? Does anyone still treat this methodology seriously? Sounds like early 20th century pseudo-science to me.

alan
12-19-2013, 12:26 PM
You cant us V88 in Africa for any inferences on the rest of R1b. They didnt share a common ancestor SNP with the rest of R1b since P25 back in the end of the ice age. There is no such thing as an R1b language in general. You have to at least divide it into the P297 branch and the V88 branch as they are almost as remote from each other today in terms of MRCA as R1a and b.


The case with R1b is different, because unlike R1a, it's associated with language groups in Western Europe and West Africa which didn't have intimate relationships with the early Indo-Europeans, and this is corroborated by their autosomal DNA.

Obviously I'm talking about Basques and Chadic speakers. On the other hand, what we see with Turks and Dravidians is very clear genetic introgression from the steppe.

So R1b covered a lot of geography before the Indo-Europeans came on the scene, while R1a didn't. The latter appears to be exclusively tied to the Indo-European expansions, and then language shifts from Indo-European to Turkic and Dravidian.

alan
12-19-2013, 12:32 PM
I think Catacomb is very interesting and probably deserves its own thread some time.


And very few people associate Catacomb exclusively with R1a or Satem languages. It is late in history and I doubt it was a homegnous culture. So I don't see the need to bring up Catacomb over and over especially since it likely corresponds to multiple language groups and probably including the Balkan group which is heavy in R1b. Catacomb might explain the presence of R1b-L23+ north of the steppe and in Central Asia.

nuadha
12-19-2013, 12:35 PM
Wait, what? Are you claiming that Bell Beaker mtDNA was Yamnaya-like? If so, you're setting yourself up for a massive fall.

Eneolithic-like, yeah, but only if you're talking about Portugal, not the steppe.

what I actually said comes from the study titled Schritte I'm weiten Raum: Neue Blicke auf Zivilisation der Eurasischen Steppe. Its the one that we needed to have translated, last summer.

Generalissimo
12-19-2013, 12:37 PM
You cant us V88 in Africa for any inferences on the rest of R1b. They didnt share a common ancestor SNP with the rest of R1b since P25 back in the end of the ice age. There is no such thing as an R1b language in general. You have to at least divide it into the P297 branch and the V88 branch as they are almost as remote from each other today in terms of MRCA as R1a and b.

V88 fits the pattern of R1b being all over the place. It doesn't have that coherence of R1a, which appears to have been an exclusively Indo-European marker at one point.

I love the mystery of R1b. That's why I partake in these discussions. But I get the feeling that not many people really want to solve this mystery; rather, what they'd like to do is to write the script that suits them.

So how about it alan, are we going to try and solve the mystery that is R1b?

Generalissimo
12-19-2013, 12:39 PM
what I actually said comes from the study titled Schritte I'm weiten Raum: Neue Blicke auf Zivilisation der Eurasischen Steppe. Its the one that we needed to have translated, last summer.

This article certainly doesn't say what you claim it says.

Seriously, if you think Yamnaya DNA will look Western European, then forget it, time to get another hobby. :amen:

nuadha
12-19-2013, 12:58 PM
Alan specifically said leave Tocharian out of the discussion but here you are promoting the idea of R1b Tocharians with ZERO evidence.

lulz!!! you've done nothing to contribute to what Alan asked for in this thread. You've only questioned people holding the r1b early ie theory...

One obvious reason I associate r1b with Tocharian is because of the overlap between the path of tocharians and the modern distribution of r1b. Actually, the more important part is that r1b is elevated around the former afanasievo territory since afanasievo is derived straight from the yamnaya culture.

but its flat out stupid to say I have no evidence on an issue which does not have definitive evidence. if we actually got solid evidence, like DNA from afanasievo we probably wouldn't be discussing this.

alan
12-19-2013, 01:00 PM
I have an open mind on R1b weighing up all the data of various types. I have to accept the evidence of its absense among the ancient DNA of Neolithic farmers to date. I also have to accept for now that the vast majority of people doing calculations do not put the SE Europe/SW Asia clades before 5500-3500BC and do not put the clades that dominate the rest of Europe (L11) before 4000-2500BC. So, that all points to an intrusion in post-early Neolithic times which entered first into the Balkans part of Europe in the late Neolithic/copper age and subsequenly reached western and northern Europe at some point c. 4000-2500BC.

At the moment it could be a western fringe of steppe thing that moved into the Balkans any time from 4500BC onwards or it could relate to middle Neolithic dairy farmers coming from Marmara into the east Balkans c. 5500BC. I dont think anyone can answer it further due to a complete lack of reference ancient DNA samples for places like Marmara and the Balkans c. 5000BC or the western steppes in the 1000 years after. All I will say is the evidence points to R1b being a new intrusion after the first waves of farmers.

So, archaeologically for R1b we must be looking at a broadly east to west movement across Europe that commenced after 5500BC with likely first footfall in or near the Balkans and whose spread was completed before 2500BC. That seems to be the solid ground. Beyond that is speculation. I would say, as a professional archaeologist, that the evidence for a move in those chronological and geographical parameters is not great. That is not to say there is no evidence, but that there is no blatant wave-like horizon that jumps out. The earliest end of the possible dating ranges such as some recent SNP counting evidence from Michal does remind me somewhat of the spread of dairying whose first footfall in Europe was in eastern Bulgaria c. 5500BC. However, that spread passes through and transforms may cultures rather than being a single cultural horizon. The other possibility I like is the Suvorovo and general pre-Yamnaya outpouring from the steppes c. 4300BC onwards for a number of centuries. In general I do not hugely favour a link between M269 and Yamnaya per se.


V88 fits the pattern of R1b being all over the place. It doesn't have that coherence of R1a, which appears to have been an exclusively Indo-European marker at one point.

I love the mystery of R1b. That's why I partake in these discussions. But I get the feeling that not many people really want to solve this mystery; rather, what they'd like to do is to write the script that suits them.

So how about it alan, are we going to try and solve the mystery that is R1b?

nuadha
12-19-2013, 01:12 PM
This article certainly doesn't say what you claim it says.

Seriously, if you think Yamnaya DNA will look Western European, then forget it, time to get another hobby. :amen:

when the did I say that. I suspect you actually believe that is what I'm saying, but its a straw man none the less.

I said that modern Europeans are closer to eneolithic steppe peoples and yamnaya, then they are to catacomb. I did not mention or insinuate western Europeans or bell beakers would look like the yamnaya. The PC steppes changed, quickly. some of that change probably did not happen to
europeans away from the steppes. Both statements are logical deductions. I point it out to question (but not disprove) your simplistic model that earlier steppe peoples must be most related to later steppe peoples of some later period.

it would be as silly as saying that ancient central Asians are most related to contemporary central Asians just because they live in the same area .

I this this very derailing (bell beaker straw man) is why alan asked to keep this thread about r1b.

newtoboard
12-19-2013, 01:17 PM
lulz!!! you've done nothing to contribute to what Alan asked for in this thread. You've only questioned people holding the r1b early ie theory...

One obvious reason I associate r1b with Tocharian is because of the overlap between the path of tocharians and the modern distribution of r1b. Actually, the more important part is that r1b is elevated around the former afanasievo territory since afanasievo is derived straight from the yamnaya culture.

but its flat out stupid to say I have no evidence on an issue which does not have definitive evidence. if we actually got solid evidence, like DNA from afanasievo we probably wouldn't be discussing this.

I didn't even post in this thread until rms2 decided to talk about an "aR1an" agenda. Since then I have had one post on the Catacomb where I mentioned R1b in relation, one on Neolithic Ukranian mtdna and one post questioning rms2's statement that there nobody knows where PIE speakers lived or their genetic composition (it is one thing to say R1b has a role in PIE and another to say it had a primary role since as rms2 said nobody knows where they lived or what they were like)

As to the R1b association with Tocharian so what? There is no reason to assume that any region in the world has such continuity much less the Tarim where multiple language shifts have occurred and was a big stop on the Silk Road.

What is stupid is you making definitive statements if there is no evidence. Leave it out of the discussion as the thread stated or don't whine when people question that statement. There is some evidence (the Tarim mummies). Whether you choose to accept it is up to you. Jean was right that people will senselessly argue against it with no evidence because those mummies didn't have tattoos in Tocharians.

alan
12-19-2013, 01:18 PM
However, the core fact from direct ancient DNA and all the variations on clade dating from modern populations is that R1b's spread post-dates the first farmer waves of the Balkans, LBK and Cardial. It is pretty certain that the spread went SE to west/north-west judging by phylogeny and the overall picture of R1b. So, whatever ones preferred options, I think we are basically looking at a SE-west movement at some point from the mid Neolithic to copper age (that is not to say that later subsequent movements didnt go in other direction). Any models outside those parameters IMO are not correlating to what little data we have.

I have posted before that I am not really a steppe enthusiast. They were an extremely unimpressive group of cultures barely farming and light years behind Europe-proper and the Caucasus in the period 6000-400BC. I am pretty sure the neighbouring farmers on the other side of the Dnieper thought of them as utter barbarians with maybe the Sredny Stog and other groups around the Dnieper/Crimea area who were heavily in contact with the farmers, a little more agriculturally developed and running the metal trade etc getting a little more credit. The steppe peoples didnt invent dairying, the wheel etc. Even in the Yamnaya phase I dont see the big deal about what were basically basically cattlemen in caravans.

newtoboard
12-19-2013, 01:19 PM
when the did I say that. I suspect you actually believe that is what I'm saying, but its a straw man none the less.

I said that modern Europeans are closer to eneolithic steppe peoples and yamnaya, then they are to catacomb. I did not mention or insinuate western Europeans or bell beakers would look like the yamnaya. The PC steppes changed, quickly. some of that change probably did not happen to
europeans away from the steppes. Both statements are logical deductions. I point it out to question (but not disprove) your simplistic model that earlier steppe peoples must be most related to later steppe peoples of some later period.

it would be as silly as saying that ancient central Asians are most related to contemporary central Asians just because they live in the same area .

I this this very derailing (bell beaker straw man) is why alan asked to keep this thread about r1b.

There is no reason modern Europeans should look like Catacomb since it represents Greco-Armenian or Greco-Armeno-Aryan in most people's views. And I doubt modern European mtdna is close to any sort of steppe mtdna.

alan
12-19-2013, 01:23 PM
Just to make clear by 'primary role', I dont mean THE primary role. I mean that R1b was ONE among the lineages in the mix when archaic PIE was arising. IMO the zone archaic IE arose in was wide and ran from the Dnieper to the Volga and the main group who spanned that area and controlled a major trade network at the time was Sredny Stog. A wide geography like that could have meant that c. 4000BC there was considerable yDNA differences from one end to another. As wagon dwelling didnt exist then, the areas between the major rivers was probably largely empty and so each river valley may have had its own mix. The western end may have been especially complex due to constant contact with the farming world soon after 5000BC.


I didn't even post in this thread until rms2 decided to talk about an "aR1an" agenda. Since then I have had one post on the Catacomb where I mentioned R1b in relation, one on Neolithic Ukranian mtdna and one post questioning rms2's statement that there nobody knows where PIE speakers lived or their genetic composition (it is one thing to say R1b has a role in PIE and another to say it had a primary role since as rms2 said nobody knows where they lived or what they were like)

As to the R1b association with Tocharian so what? There is no reason to assume that any region in the world has such continuity much less the Tarim where multiple language shifts have occurred and was a big stop on the Silk Road.

What is stupid is you making definitive statements if there is no evidence. Leave it out of the discussion as the thread stated or don't whine when people question that statement. There is some evidence (the Tarim mummies). Whether you choose to accept it is up to you. Jean was right that people will senselessly argue against it with no evidence because those mummies didn't have tattoos in Tocharians.

newtoboard
12-19-2013, 01:31 PM
Just to make clear by 'primary role', I dont mean THE primary role. I mean that R1b was ONE among the lineages in the mix when archaic PIE was arising. IMO the zone archaic IE arose in was wide and ran from the Dnieper to the Volga and the main group who spanned that area and controlled a major trade network at the time was Sredny Stog. A wide geography like that could have meant that c. 4000BC there was considerable yDNA differences from one end to another. As wagon dwelling didnt exist then, the areas between the major rivers was probably largely empty and so each river valley may have had its own mix. The western end may have been especially complex due to constant contact with the farming world soon after 5000BC.

My apologies then. I interpreted primary role differently from what you meant. Srendy Stog is interesting. Like you said it controlled a wide zone. Anthony also said the transformation of Dnieper Donets to Sredny Stog probably came with horseriders from the Volga region and introduced a different sort of pottery style and burial practice to the Dnieper region. And of course Tripoyle had influences on Srendy Stog as well. If you believe in the value of craniometrics then Sredny Stog was closest to the Khvalynsk culture.

nuadha
12-19-2013, 01:42 PM
What is stupid is you making definitive statements if there is no evidence.

I stated that the two are associated. that is actually definitive based on what I said. its not compelling to you, but I don't care. This thread wasn't for you.


Jean was right that people will senselessly argue against it with no evidence because those r1b people didn't have tattoos in Tocharians.

ftfy

honestly, get off your high horse. there was 1000 years separating afanasievo from Tarim mummies along with a geographic distance you assume was crossed. then its another 2000 years plus till we actually find the Tocharian language. we don't even know that Tocharian was actually spoken in the Tarim basin. but, you're right, the evidence is so plain and simple... its not like finding a rare genetic pattern (r1b) on top of the culture in question (afanasievo) which can only be explained by a few alternatives.

newtoboard
12-19-2013, 01:56 PM
Can you even post anything that indicates M73 is elevated in former Afanasievo territory? As far as I know M73 is not very strong in the Altai or Siberia. I think Alan looked at this as well.

Also can you stop misquoting me? I never wrote "because those r1b people didn't have tattoos in Tocharians. "

alan
12-19-2013, 04:26 PM
I dont totally dismiss craniology myself but it is sensitive to lifestyle, diet, climate etc (as is body shaped and stature) so it can only ever be possible evidence. On Dienekes a review by Mallory of some new study said they found the males to have a mix of both proto-Europoid and Med/farmer types although the females were proto-Europoid. That suggests a mix. I also saw a plot which surprisingly put Cuc-Tryp close to steppe groups if I recall correctly.


My apologies then. I interpreted primary role differently from what you meant. Srendy Stog is interesting. Like you said it controlled a wide zone. Anthony also said the transformation of Dnieper Donets to Sredny Stog probably came with horseriders from the Volga region and introduced a different sort of pottery style and burial practice to the Dnieper region. And of course Tripoyle had influences on Srendy Stog as well. If you believe in the value of craniometrics then Sredny Stog was closest to the Khvalynsk culture.

alan
12-19-2013, 04:53 PM
I must admit I dont think the studies cover enough area at present. There were good ones for Altai, Caucasus and Hindu Kush recently but there is a vast area of north central Asia that no decent study exists ASAIK. The problem with the Hindu Kush study is when we try and extrapolate for an ethnic group from a minority subset of them within the Hindu Kush we might get it wrong. Both ethnicity and locality have a bearing so I wouldnt assume Turkemen of Tajiks or Uzbeks within the Hindu Kush fringe are representative of the heartlands of these peoples. All it really shows is the situation in the Hindu Kush just as the Altai study does for Altai. What is badly need is a similar study of the central Asian countries than run east from the Caspian area towards Altai. This seems to be a major gap in terms of studies with good clade resolution.

In general though I dont see a big role in Asia now that the information has improved although there is nowhere as bad as the steppes for discontinuity so anything is possible. I still see M73 as having some location around the north-east side of the Caspian or Urals and spreading from there. It just doesnt seem to fit in anywhere else being boxed in by virtual absence in the Iran, Caucasus, Hindu Kush, Altai, Bulgarian and Moldova studies. I have a feeling it might peak in the Urals and be spread through Kazakhstan and towards Tarim too but until up to date studies are done its unclear. I dont think its easy to work out its linguistic identity because it is always a minority that appears only in certain local subsets of ethnic groups and not in other subsets of the same ethnic group. So, I dont think its language exists today.

we dont know if the ethnic groups in that area were the same genetically as people of the same ethnic groups elsewhere.


Can you even post anything that indicates M73 is elevated in former Afanasievo territory? As far as I know M73 is not very strong in the Altai or Siberia. I think Alan looked at this as well.

Also can you stop misquoting me? I never wrote "because those r1b people didn't have tattoos in Tocharians. "

alan
12-19-2013, 05:17 PM
I think because Sredny Stog was essentially the big networking culture of the period 4800-4000BC on the steppes that the entire breadth of that culture probably spoke archaic PIE dialects of some sort. I think the evidence that exists suggests they were probably variable in make up. I suppose that puts me in the broad zone model of IE when considering the steppe model. You could say that the entire western steppe and the parts of the Balkans and Danube that Suvorovo invaded were all part of the archaic PIE world c. 4000BC and in theory with continuing contact after that dialects could have evolved across a similarly broad area even before Yamnaya. In fact in theory PIE could have evolved anywhere across the western steppe and Balkans because the archaic PIE base was throughout that area a little before 4000BC. If you take the PIE-Uralic shaky evidence out of the equation then that is doubly true. I wouldnt push that too hard though as I dont see a large amount of west-east movements far enough into the steppe. So, I would settle for PIE evolving from archaic PIE across a broad zone from the Volga to the Balkans c. 4000-3500BC. That sort of tweak to the model makes it far easier to understand the non-steppe PIE languages IMO and to work in the sort of model Jean has put forward of a spread west c. 3500BC.

I personally do not see any possibility of real Yamnaya culture intrusion except on the eastern fringes of Old Europe and the evidence of Yamnaya influence across the rest of Europe is small and very poor evidence of migration as such. However there was a long period of hybrid cultures in the Balkans c. 4000-3500BC in which the non-Balto-Slavic branches could have been hiding. That sort of model also gives time for the Suvorovo and local Balkan groups to form the sort of cultures that could operate in a non-steppe already well settled world. It is then easier to look at cultures like Remedello as being linked to these hybrid Balkans groups.

The only other real show in town for western European languages is corded ware, another hybrid culture. It has the advantage of being rather more of a handy wave west. I am not quite so ready to dismiss it as potentially having a role in Celto-Italic as others. It did have a pretty dramatic leap west and I am fairly convinced that Celtic, Italic and Germanic split off similarly. Two sites so far are R1a and I respectively but its a tiny example and I wouldnt have a heart attack if after a few more sites are tested some R1b turns up. It doesnt seem all that likely but I wouldnt dismiss it yet. Corded Ware did overlap with bell beaker over a wide area and also neither early beaker or corded ware featured the Brachycephalic types so there is quite a mystery there.



My apologies then. I interpreted primary role differently from what you meant. Srendy Stog is interesting. Like you said it controlled a wide zone. Anthony also said the transformation of Dnieper Donets to Sredny Stog probably came with horseriders from the Volga region and introduced a different sort of pottery style and burial practice to the Dnieper region. And of course Tripoyle had influences on Srendy Stog as well. If you believe in the value of craniometrics then Sredny Stog was closest to the Khvalynsk culture.

alan
12-19-2013, 05:28 PM
I keep citing the evidence of a mix in the period when Anatolian/archaic PIE was probably spoken in the steppes and Balkans. They therefore could all be said to have had role in PIE. Here is the actual quote

Reviewed by J.P. Mallory, JIES vol. 32, 3/4, p. 363-366.

"The third section of the book surveys the anthropological literature concerning the Sredny Stog and Novodanylovka cultures. For the twenty Sredny Stog burials from Igren, we find the somewhat unusual situation of women outliving males on an average of 7.8 years (males - 35.8 years, females - 43.6); only one individual lived passed 55 years. In terms of the craniological analysis of physical characteristics the Sredny Stog females tend to exhibit a homogeneous Proto-Europoid type that is most similar to the earlier inhabitants of the region. The series of male crania, however, tend to vary more and indicate both more robust Proto-Europoid and more gracile southern European (or Mediterranean) components. The analysis of six Novodanilovka skulls from three sites suggests again the presence of both Proto-Europoid and Mediterranean types. The cranial evidence as a whole suggests a mingling of local Proto-Europoids (seen especially in the east) with more gracial south-east European types in the west, a attern that might be explained by the flow of populations from the Balkan Neolithic (Tripolje) into the western Ukraine."

alan
12-20-2013, 01:25 PM
I think that is about as clear evidence, short of ancient DNA from those cultures, that there was a mixed male population on the western steppe cultures in what is probably normally seen as the period when archaic PIE/Anatolian was spoken and this especially was true for males. Sredny Stog was characterised by these contacts with the farming world and it was also probably the primary conveyor of archaic PIE because it was the only pre-Yamnaya culture widespread enough and networking like that. On the other hand Sredny Stog is a pretty loosely defined culture and I think it will have genetically had variation in the different river valleys of the western steppes. To me it is the single most crucial steppe culture to DNA test as it is the root of PIE in the steppe model. Obviously one would suspect more of a mix with farmers towards the west of its distribution and less towards the east end


I keep citing the evidence of a mix in the period when Anatolian/archaic PIE was probably spoken in the steppes and Balkans. They therefore could all be said to have had role in PIE. Here is the actual quote

Reviewed by J.P. Mallory, JIES vol. 32, 3/4, p. 363-366.

"The third section of the book surveys the anthropological literature concerning the Sredny Stog and Novodanylovka cultures. For the twenty Sredny Stog burials from Igren, we find the somewhat unusual situation of women outliving males on an average of 7.8 years (males - 35.8 years, females - 43.6); only one individual lived passed 55 years. In terms of the craniological analysis of physical characteristics the Sredny Stog females tend to exhibit a homogeneous Proto-Europoid type that is most similar to the earlier inhabitants of the region. The series of male crania, however, tend to vary more and indicate both more robust Proto-Europoid and more gracile southern European (or Mediterranean) components. The analysis of six Novodanilovka skulls from three sites suggests again the presence of both Proto-Europoid and Mediterranean types. The cranial evidence as a whole suggests a mingling of local Proto-Europoids (seen especially in the east) with more gracial south-east European types in the west, a attern that might be explained by the flow of populations from the Balkan Neolithic (Tripolje) into the western Ukraine."

R.Rocca
12-20-2013, 07:09 PM
I think that is about as clear evidence, short of ancient DNA from those cultures, that there was a mixed male population on the western steppe cultures in what is probably normally seen as the period when archaic PIE/Anatolian was spoken and this especially was true for males. Sredny Stog was characterised by these contacts with the farming world and it was also probably the primary conveyor of archaic PIE because it was the only pre-Yamnaya culture widespread enough and networking like that. On the other hand Sredny Stog is a pretty loosely defined culture and I think it will have genetically had variation in the different river valleys of the western steppes. To me it is the single most crucial steppe culture to DNA test as it is the root of PIE in the steppe model. Obviously one would suspect more of a mix with farmers towards the west of its distribution and less towards the east end

What we don't know however is what Y-DNA was present in the nix. We could very well be talking about R1a mixed with Neolithic types like I2, G2a and E-V13.

newtoboard
12-20-2013, 07:23 PM
I think the mix with farmers was even present on the east end. Andronovo even showed links with Tripoyle mtDNA and I actually recall reading something about Tripoyle like pottery in South Central Asia.

newtoboard
12-20-2013, 07:26 PM
I wonder what was on the steppe prior to R1? I1? I2? C-V20? Q? R2?

TigerMW
12-20-2013, 07:33 PM
... The only other real show in town for western European languages is corded ware, another hybrid culture. It has the advantage of being rather more of a handy wave west. I am not quite so ready to dismiss it as potentially having a role in Celto-Italic as others. It did have a pretty dramatic leap west and I am fairly convinced that Celtic, Italic and Germanic split off similarly. Two sites so far are R1a and I respectively but its a tiny example and I wouldnt have a heart attack if after a few more sites are tested some R1b turns up. It doesnt seem all that likely but I wouldnt dismiss it yet. Corded Ware did overlap with bell beaker over a wide area and also neither early beaker or corded ware featured the Brachycephalic types so there is quite a mystery there.
This may be a red herring or a clue, but don't forget that in Desideri's study of the Czech Republic region; the Eastern Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Unetice women were different but them men were essentially the same (dental trait-wise). I'll re-iterate that I think we should Corded Ware and Bell Beaker as horizons rather than monolithic cultures, similar to how David Anthony considers Yamnaya an horizon.

On another front Maciamo Hay is firmly convinced that R1b's initial large expansion west was in the Unetice people.

newtoboard
12-20-2013, 07:39 PM
This may be a red herring or a clue, but don't forget that in Desideri's study of the Czech Republic region; the Eastern Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Unetice women were different but them men were essentially the same (dental trait-wise). I'll re-iterate that I think we should Corded Ware and Bell Beaker as horizons rather than monolithic cultures, similar to how David Anthony considers Yamnaya an horizon.

On another front Maciamo Hay is firmly convinced that R1b's initial large expansion west was in the Unetice people.

Can Unetice be anything but a mixed culture? I'd suspect a mix of lineages including R1a, R1b, I2, G and E and possibly others.

R.Rocca
12-20-2013, 08:01 PM
This may be a red herring or a clue, but don't forget that in Desideri's study of the Czech Republic region; the Eastern Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Unetice women were different but them men were essentially the same (dental trait-wise). I'll re-iterate that I think we should Corded Ware and Bell Beaker as horizons rather than monolithic cultures, similar to how David Anthony considers Yamnaya an horizon.

On another front Maciamo Hay is firmly convinced that R1b's initial large expansion west was in the Unetice people.

I think his conviction is largely misplaced as Unetice was nothing more than a melding of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware which were already heavily R1b and R1a respectively.

alan
12-20-2013, 08:06 PM
True but if c. 5000-4000BC R1b was neither on the western steppes or in the neighbouring Balkans farmers, it really is leaving few rational scenarios for R1b. As there are no movements from Anatolia into Europe in the period 4000-3000bc that would only leave R1b hiding places in the Caucasus or some unexpected eastern location like central Asia (which would have to pass through the steppes or Anatolia anyway).


What we don't know however is what Y-DNA was present in the nix. We could very well be talking about R1a mixed with Neolithic types like I2, G2a and E-V13.

alan
12-20-2013, 08:07 PM
I think I have read similar stuff from Yuri Rassamakin.


I think the mix with farmers was even present on the east end. Andronovo even showed links with Tripoyle mtDNA and I actually recall reading something about Tripoyle like pottery in South Central Asia.

R.Rocca
12-20-2013, 08:19 PM
True but if c. 5000-4000BC R1b was neither on the western steppes or in the neighbouring Balkans farmers, it really is leaving few rational scenarios for R1b. As there are no movements from Anatolia into Europe in the period 4000-3000bc that would only leave R1b hiding places in the Caucasus or some unexpected eastern location like central Asia (which would have to pass through the steppes or Anatolia anyway).

The Alps? The mouth of the Rhine? Portions of the western Balkans? Still plenty of places that still haven't been sampled.

alan
12-20-2013, 08:32 PM
I totally agree that beaker does not look like a single group of people to me. I suspect beaker was initially down to females and strategic marriage networks but I think two or three unrelated male groups adopted beaker.

Although I respect his huge efforts on DNA, I think his archaeological ideas are often odd and he is not a good source for archaeological correlation IMO.


This may be a red herring or a clue, but don't forget that in Desideri's study of the Czech Republic region; the Eastern Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Unetice women were different but them men were essentially the same (dental trait-wise). I'll re-iterate that I think we should Corded Ware and Bell Beaker as horizons rather than monolithic cultures, similar to how David Anthony considers Yamnaya an horizon.

On another front Maciamo Hay is firmly convinced that R1b's initial large expansion west was in the Unetice people.

newtoboard
12-20-2013, 08:32 PM
True but if c. 5000-4000BC R1b was neither on the western steppes or in the neighbouring Balkans farmers, it really is leaving few rational scenarios for R1b. As there are no movements from Anatolia into Europe in the period 4000-3000bc that would only leave R1b hiding places in the Caucasus or some unexpected eastern location like central Asia (which would have to pass through the steppes or Anatolia anyway).

Carpathian basin? Doesn't the steppe also extend past the Dnieper and even into Hungary?

Jean M
12-20-2013, 09:16 PM
I think I have read similar stuff from Yuri Rassamakin.

Can you recall the paper?

alan
12-20-2013, 10:37 PM
I could be wrong it was him. Its just he tends to do a lot of work on looking at the farmer influence of the steppes.


Can you recall the paper?

alan
12-20-2013, 10:39 PM
I was just using Balkans as shorthand. I also mean to include the Lower Danube area. All I was saying was it would be very odd if R1b wasnt known in either the steppes or SE Europe/Lower Danube in c. 4000BC. That would be really unexpected and impossible to correlate with archaeology.

I so agree with RR that the sample of ancient DNA is still very small and doesnt cover a lot of cultures and areas of that sort of period.


Carpathian basin? Doesn't the steppe also extend past the Dnieper and even into Hungary?

alan
12-20-2013, 10:45 PM
Actually I didnt read Newtoboards post correctly. I havent heard of C-Trp parallels with central Asia. It was more the steppe or caucasus type area but I cannot recall.


Can you recall the paper?

nuadha
12-21-2013, 09:58 AM
I could be wrong it was him. Its just he tends to do a lot of work on looking at the farmer influence of the steppes.


take a look at Mallory's video on YouTube, the last time he shares the conference with Renfrew. Mallory talks about the Cucuteni-Trypillian descendants moving eastward into the steppe. He is actually referencing another guys work. I think this may be what brought r1a dominance to the PC steppe.


it looks like this group would have the numbers to make such a replacement. population size is actually the last thing I want to include in my model before I totally kick back and wait for results. what do you know the population sizes of the cultures we care about?

nuadha
12-21-2013, 10:02 AM
btw, this supposed Cucuteni-Trypillian movement eastwards was after the yamnaya ascendancy as I recall

Ian B
12-21-2013, 10:28 AM
alan:
I totally agree that beaker does not look like a single group of people to me. I suspect beaker was initially down to females and strategic marriage networks but I think two or three unrelated male groups adopted beaker. On another forum it was argued that the spread of Bell Beaker Pottery was brought about by population movement. From what I've read, it seems more likely to me that the spread was due, in part to migration, but also due to trade and intermarriage as the making of pottery ware was strictly the province of women. I also question the use of the word "culture" closely associated with Bell Beaker, kitchen ware is only one very small part of a community culture.

Generalissimo
12-21-2013, 10:46 AM
take a look at Mallory's video on YouTube, the last time he shares the conference with Renfrew. Mallory talks about the Cucuteni-Trypillian descendants moving eastward into the steppe. He is actually referencing another guys work. I think this may be what brought r1a dominance to the PC steppe.

This doesn't make any sense, because Poles and Western Russians (ie. the two populations with the highest R1a frequencies in Europe and pretty decent R1a SNP diversity too) are among the most Northern European (ie. least Neolithic and most Mesolithic) groups in Europe. They are certainly more Northern European than any population with a high R1b frequency.


I suspect beaker was initially down to females and strategic marriage networks but I think two or three unrelated male groups adopted beaker.

This isn't true. Bell Beakers first moved into Central Europe as male dominated groups, and got their women from the local communities. That's probably why the burials at Kromsdrorf, where the Bell Beaker R1b was found, showed very Eastern European-like mtDNA structure (it looked practically like Unetice Culture) and atypical archeological traits.

The early movements of Bell Beaker males from the west into Central Europe, and female exogamy with the natives, are discussed in this German thesis on the Austrian and Hungarian Bell Beakers:

http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2004/320


This may be a red herring or a clue, but don't forget that in Desideri's study of the Czech Republic region; the Eastern Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Unetice women were different but them men were essentially the same (dental trait-wise). I'll re-iterate that I think we should Corded Ware and Bell Beaker as horizons rather than monolithic cultures, similar to how David Anthony considers Yamnaya an horizon.

The males were similar because they came from admixed neighboring communities, while the females were different because they were imported from near and far (female exogamy).

newtoboard
12-21-2013, 01:01 PM
Trying to associate r1a on the steppe with tripoyle means we end up with communities with extremely high r1a frequencies ( higher than modern populations) as well as Mesolithic components because a mixed farming community moved into the steppe? And which subclade of r1a did they carry? It doesn't make any sense to disassociate Indo Iranian languages from yamnaya and try to magically derive Poltavka out of the Balkans or corded ware as previously attempted.

Didn't tripoyle results show ydna I2 ? None of that in asia.

nuadha
12-21-2013, 04:18 PM
This doesn't make any sense, because Poles and Western Russians (ie. the two populations with the highest R1a frequencies in Europe and pretty decent R1a SNP diversity too) are among the most Northern European (ie. least Neolithic and most Mesolithic) groups in Europe. They are certainly more Northern European than any population with a high R1b frequency.

Well I didn't exactly say they were the only ones with r1a or that they didn't mix with people with much higher levels of north European. But your point is well taken. Maybe it is too much to expect high levels of r1a in both the corded ware and the Cucuteni-Trypillian.

I know that pre balto-slavs did not need the yamnaya for their eventual high levels of north European. the groups they would mix with as they moved north could certainly have a lot of Mesolithic admixture.

I will reevaluate how r1a got into the the PC steppe (cw or ct or something else) but not whether the yamnaya were strong in r1a; that has nothing to do with the problem you posed.

nuadha
12-21-2013, 04:38 PM
It doesn't make any sense to disassociate Indo Iranian languages from yamnaya and try to magically derive Poltavka out of the Balkans or corded ware as previously attempted.

oh, I definitely do that. I see no reason to expect that the afansievo (east yamnaya derived or just a bit earlier from the same region) would be much like the indo Iranians. they are separated by 1000 years, very different languages within the ie world, and they probably had different mtdna too. I expect the afanasievo to be very high in mtdna U. In the eastward push of satem (which I think produces the Tarim mummies) we see less mtdna U and more H, T, and K. Finally that German study (dillenburger?), I referenced to earlier, talks about genetic discontinuity between the yamnaya and the catacomb. is between the earlier staple people and the latter steppe people.


Didn't tripoyle results show ydna I2 ? None of that in asia.

no, but it may have been found in the corded ware. but the problem of how much of the steppe cultures, around 2k BC and after, seem so dominant in r1a is a problem for all of us. at some point in time, r1a people came to totally dominate a region...

newtoboard
12-21-2013, 05:02 PM
There is zero evidence for any of your points and they all rely on fringe theories. Even the people arguing that pie speakers were soley r1b carriers don't disassociate r1a from yamnaya particularly it's z93 subclade.

alan
12-21-2013, 05:25 PM
I remember reading about the C-T movements east. I dont know a lot about it but I remember thinking that the steppe/C-T interaction sounds rather more complex than cowering from steppe peoples. I think we tend to think too much along nativist when considering steppe groups. Ukraine archaeologists see a lot of farmer influence and input and I think the realisation of how powerful the flow of influence from the farmers was is growing.

What people tend to forget about steppe groups is that c. 5000-4000BC when perhaps archaic PIE was spoken most of them were not even only not mobile pastoralists but barely pastoralists at all - basically hunter-fishers living in river valleys with a sideline in livestock. The meeting of Cuc-Trp and Balkans groups was a meeting of two cultures on a radically different level of development rather like in historical colonial times.

That is why I always have had some doubts about the current steppe model even though I am going long with it. In some ways it would make more sense in terms of the huge gulf in cultural development if Cuc-Try and similar groups speaking archaic PIE spread their language through star-stuck Sredny Stog middlemen groups (which they also infiltrated) across the steppe. It appears to have been a friendly contact and involved both trade, human movement and a lot more influence.

I also wonder about the size of the steppe population in pre-Yamnaya times. Yamnaya saw the wheel, wagons and the ability to exploit huge areas of open steppe previously impossible to exploit to anything like that degree and would undoubtedly have led to a dramatic rise in population. However before that they were just hunter-fisher-herders in valleys and favourable spots and normally we would expect their population to be tiny in comparison to the huge farming populations that appear to have existed to their west.

I tend to think in pre-Yamnaya times anyway that the big scenario for massive population dispersal and spread of language would have come from the farming groups in the Balkans and Carpathians. This seems borne out by the very limited numbers of Suvorovo type burials in the Balkans. At the collapse of Old Europe there was probably a widespread move towards more mobile and simpler strategies among the locals that owed not a huge amount to steppe groups but more to practicality.


take a look at Mallory's video on YouTube, the last time he shares the conference with Renfrew. Mallory talks about the Cucuteni-Trypillian descendants moving eastward into the steppe. He is actually referencing another guys work. I think this may be what brought r1a dominance to the PC steppe.


it looks like this group would have the numbers to make such a replacement. population size is actually the last thing I want to include in my model before I totally kick back and wait for results. what do you know the population sizes of the cultures we care about?

alan
12-21-2013, 05:33 PM
This paper by Settlement and economy in Neolithic Ukraine: a new chronology by Telegin 2003 has some interesting stuff about the diversity in the Ukraine groups. The bits about Sredny Stog II is in line with the paper I posted about them having a mix of skull types. The Lower-Mykhailivka-Kemi-Oba also are not of the proto-Europoid type. Certainly shows that the steppes may have had a mixture of genes, especially on its westernmost area and that the Sredny Stog group seem to have been responsible for a flow of farming genes across a wider area - note that the paper revied by Mallory indicated that they were especially among males so its not just wives filtering in. I think this fits the sort of Yuri Rassamakin type emphasis on the importance of the farming world on the steppe before the Old World collapse as being huge and somewhat downplayed in the popular mind which tends to see steppe peoples in the period running up to PIE as essentially natives.

Even in the Early Neolithic period the population base of Ukraine was not anthropologically homogenous...

As outlined previously (Potekhina 1998, n.d.), the Dnieper-Donets Culture populations were the descendants of Proto-European hypermorphic populations, as determined by analysis of the skeletal remains from the Mariupol-Type Culture.

According to the craniological evidence the Pit-Comb Culture groups also exhibit a suite of "softened mongoloid" features, called laponondic.

The Sredny Stog II groups, on the basis of craniometrics (bizygomatic breadth, orbital index, etc.), occupied an intermediate position, i.e. they were more massive than Tripolie groups and notably more gracile than the Dnieper-Donets Culture populations (Telegin et al. 2002, Table 2, cf. Jacobs et al. 1996).

Kruts (1972) paid considerable attention to the characteristics of anthropological type of the Lower-Mykhailivka-Kemi-Oba culture populations, who differ from the indigenous groups by features such as a high cranium, with narrow, high face, and a high orbital index (1972: 139). On the whole they are attributed to the eastern Mediterranean anthropological type.

newtoboard
12-21-2013, 06:02 PM
Possible but hasn't gracilization occurred on its own? Seems like broad heads are an adaptation to forests, mountains and coastal areas where as more Mediterranean facial types are more common in plain and steppe areas.

Also what is the east Mediterranean anthropological type defined as?

alan
12-21-2013, 06:32 PM
So far there seems better genetic evidence for the female flow in the beaker period, especially H. If the main purpose of linking up with the beaker network was originally to create relationships to get access to their metals then a flow of females in high status graves makes sense.

Having considered the distinction that Harrison and Heyd make between the undeveloped earliest proto-beaker package pre-2600BC, much of it seems to belong to the female role- pottery, fancy textiles, awls etc. It has been established that the beaker people did not really add any new metal technology or improvements compared to corded ware and other pre-beaker groups. So, the interest may have been in connecting to the SW European metal sources rather than needing new skills. This would have been especially attractive to people a long distance from major pre-beaker ore sources in the Carpathians etc. There is evidence that the Ligurian mines came to an end around the time the beaker pots arrived. I think it makes a great deal more sense to see females moving along a chain of alliances sought by people wishing to connect to the emerging south-western copper sources and bringing some cultural traits with them and then several seperate 'beakerised' male populations forming beaker groups. The craniology of many of the beaker groups in central and northern Europe is very different from the early south-western groups and more resembles Balkans and north Italian pre-beaker groups. So, I do not think there was a major flow of males stemming from SW Europe. If we try to be logical about this, copper mining and metalworking of a standard equal to and arguably better (certainly more varied) existed before beaker pot in many areas of Europe except the north-west. So, they had no need to let in lineages to take over this role. They had the skills and even mining probably in many area in pre-beaker times including the Carpathians, the Alps/Liguria, Tuscany (I think), the Balkans and I understand it is suspected there was a pre-beaker copper source in the Hartz mountains in Germany. So, in terms of push-pull factors it seems more likely the beaker network may have appealed to locals furthest from these sources or where old sources were dwindling/controlled to their disadvantage or where a developed native metalworking had not yet appeared as in north-west Europe.

If the earliest beaker culture was spread by alliance marriages by females then several local male lines could have taken up beaker traits and melded them with their own traditions. In other words there were more than one 'beaker people'. IMO it is likely that elements in central and Rhine Europe were beakerised through female spread and that is why beaker cultures tend to look awful like a tweak to existing cultures across Europe. It is possible that there was then further expansion of these local beakerised groups. One of them presumably in Alpine, central and/or Rhenish Europe could have been where R1b became involved. I would suspect that this was linked to the Plano-occipital well known beaker cranial type which was not present in the earliest beaker phase in Iberia, southern France and southern Switzerland.

I would also add that there would be a certain amount of cultural randomness where you have both traits expanding by marriage networks and also by male expansions which may not have moved in the same direction. IMO beaker pot styles are more likely to relate to the females while other male cultural traits and skills would have been spread by males. That IMO is why it is hard to get a consistent subdivision of beaker cultures in Europe because it was not a simple males. For example, Rhenish people without a copper source c. 2600BC may have had alliance marriages with say the Rhone area in order to get a copper supply and hence had pottery links with that area but the males may have been local or come from somewhere else entirely - I suspect central Europe. If you look at the map of supporting pottery that arrived in the Rhine and isles it is clearly eastern as possibly is the cranial type but the beaker burial pots have links to southern Europe. Another element again wearing beaker traits previously gained through female alliance marriages to the south might have set off looking for new metal sources and extended knowledge of metallurgy into areas it was not previously known, like the isles. However, again logically considering push-pull factors, I dont think it is likely that they came from a copper rich area like Iberia. It seems most likely to me that they could have come from an area where knowledge of mining and metalwork existed but their sources were drying up or becoming unobtainable. Its all rather confusing and doesnt produce a nice simple wave but I think its closer to the reality than a single male line spread bringing skills into areas where they already existed and where its unlikely that they would simply be allowed to take over the show.

Let me put it this way. We know there was a clear difference between cranial type between SW early beaker users and beaker users in central and northern Europe. On the other hand it has been suggested that there was a homogenising effect in the beaker period on the mt side of things. Well if the females were a homogenising factor then what does that leave to explain the cranial division. IMO that has to be coming from the male lines. I doubt this was environmental as there is variation by geography in the same period and broadly similar environments.

This doesn't make any sense, because Poles and Western Russians (ie. the two populations with the highest R1a frequencies in Europe and pretty decent R1a SNP diversity too) are among the most Northern European (ie. least Neolithic and most Mesolithic) groups in Europe. They are certainly more Northern European than any population with a high R1b frequency.



This isn't true. Bell Beakers first moved into Central Europe as male dominated groups, and got their women from the local communities. That's probably why the burials at Kromsdrorf, where the Bell Beaker R1b was found, showed very Eastern European-like mtDNA structure (it looked practically like Unetice Culture) and atypical archeological traits.

The early movements of Bell Beaker males from the west into Central Europe, and female exogamy with the natives, are discussed in this German thesis on the Austrian and Hungarian Bell Beakers:

http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2004/320



The males were similar because they came from admixed neighboring communities, while the females were different because they were imported from near and far (female exogamy).

alan
12-21-2013, 06:48 PM
I think there was genuine diversity because the Mallory review mentioned a mix of skull types in the same period and cemetery among Sredny Stog type groups. Also the proto-Europoids and the Med. types are both long skulled rather than brachycephalic. Seems more of matter of rubustness rather than long vs broad skulls. I believe the proto-europoid types had shorter broader faces, wider jaws and narrower eyes. I tend to think of the current James Bond Daniel Craig when I picture them!

To be honest the skull variation does seem to match the archaeological evidence in the sense that the cultures noted all ran right up to the farming boundary and had a lot of cultural influence from them which was lesser among other groups on the steppes. I imagine that the gracile element probably did indeed intrude from the west from 5000BC onwards and perhaps also some Caucasian input of a hybrid sort from 3500BC too.

I am less clear about the movements from further east perhaps from the east Caspain which have been discussed occasionally by Michal and others but appear worryingly little discussed in modern papers. I really am not sure where things stand on that in up to date thinking.


Possible but hasn't gracilization occurred on its own? Seems like broad heads are an adaptation to forests, mountains and coastal areas where as more Mediterranean facial types are more common in plain and steppe areas.

Also what is the east Mediterranean anthropological type defined as?

newtoboard
12-21-2013, 07:46 PM
The eastern influences date to a period in between dnieper Donets II and sredny stog. As mentioned before sredny stops type was similar to khvslynsk.

alan
12-21-2013, 09:04 PM
It is possible that there were eastern inputs in the creation of Sredny Stog and I have seen this suggested by Mallory and Anthony and it looks like there input from the west too in Sredny Stog and some far west steppe cultures. IMO its incredibly difficult to know where R1a and b were as there was so much two directional movement across the whole western-steppe/nearby farmer interface 5000-3000BC.


The eastern influences date to a period in between dnieper Donets II and sredny stog. As mentioned before sredny stops type was similar to khvslynsk.

newtoboard
12-21-2013, 11:55 PM
It is possible that there were eastern inputs in the creation of Sredny Stog and I have seen this suggested by Mallory and Anthony and it looks like there input from the west too in Sredny Stog and some far west steppe cultures. IMO its incredibly difficult to know where R1a and b were as there was so much two directional movement across the whole western-steppe/nearby farmer interface 5000-3000BC.

True it's just important to realize the mixed character of later steppe cultures. There were multiple cultures with input into yamnaya but some people are still arguing for the presence of just one haplogroup. They really shouldn't be taken seriously IMO.

nuadha
12-22-2013, 01:27 AM
There is zero evidence for any of your points and they all rely on fringe theories.What are you talking about? At face value there is an increased concentration of r1b (m269 + m73) in locations settled by the earliest off shoots of IE. Increased levels of r1b sit on top of Anatolian in Anatolia, Afanasievo in the Altai, Italo-Celtic in Western Europe, and the southern Uralic stopping point for yamnaya in the southern Urals.

Are you arguing this, because it would be a simple matter of actually looking at the studies I cited.

However, I certainly don't rely on this evidence alone to support my theory. I look at multiple related problems and I see that my relatively simple theory can handle them fairly well. I also look at different types of data and see that they reinforce my story. In a nut shell I argue that:

*Problem: M269 and m73, logically, were once a part of a continuum in terms of their distribution. This continuum either took place in the Middle East/South-Central Asia or it took place in the steppe. Now, their center of gravity for each haplogroup are far apart. More importantly, there is no trail of bread crums between the bulk of their distributions. What better way to accomplish this than placing their continuum on the steppe. A similar type of problem can be formulated for the m269 in Europe and the m269 (which tends to be quite different) in central Asia. The resolution to this similar problem is the same.

*All the early offshoot cultures of IE - Anatolian, Afanasievo, and Italo-Celtic - settled in regions that now have concentrations of r1b. And keep in mind that m269 + m73 is rare outside of the traditional IE world. (Trying to argue that each of those cultures picked up m269 + m73 from non IE people while moving in different directions, when those haplogroups look very much IE is absurd IMO).

-This presents us with another problem. If the PIE were m417 dominant and m269 deficient, why is Italo-Celtic Western Europe and Anatolian Turkey dominant in m269 and deficient in m417?

My theory is supported by and consistent with both.

*The mtdna of the areas where r1b concentration overlaps early IE offshoots, reinforces r1b's early IE connection. The reasoning here is more nuanced so I'll just link the post on my blog...

* R1b seems to only appear in central/ western Europe in the bronze age. A lack of evidence for migration from the near east at that time plus the isotopic evidence of a series of migrations moving from the steppe to hungary, from Bohemia (and Hungary?) to Germany, then westward across Germany and firmly in in Western Europe. The bronze age novelty of r1b and italo-Celtic in Western/ Central Europe fits extremely well with a male lineage from the steppe.

*Then there's the r1b phylogeny which suggests an east to west movement across europe. Autosomal evidence might also suggest a similar bronze age flow.


The IE problem is one that requires different lines of reasoning which reinforce each other. It takes a holistic, big picture, kind of approach because there is no direct solid evidence yet. And mummies 1000 years after the afanasievo in a totally different location and 2000 year before Tocharian may or may not have been spoken there is not hard evidence by a long shot. You need to tag a string of arguments into a reasonable model.


Even the people arguing that pie speakers were soley r1b carriers don't disassociate r1a from yamnaya particularly it's z93 subclade.

cool... maybe you will then stop attributing Alan's arguments to mine as you did when you thought I was searching for m73 in the Altai. Hopefully you'll tone down on other strawman too.

like I said, my IE theory does not rest on small bits but a group of parallel arguments. That's why I haven't written it here in a single post or even all my previous posts combined! There is no such evidence to do that...

but since you like to criticize my points as if my whole theory should be encapsulated in a simple commentary, I'll ask you some questions.

Earlier, you argued that C-T couldn't have been responsible for the r1a in the Pontic steppe and Central Asia because of the ydna hg I you thought was discovered. In truth, we may have discovered hg I in the Corded Ware. If this gets confirmed will you take the same stance on the Corded Ware? you are trying to be consistent, right?

How do you think m269 + m73 got to the southern Urals and the Altai (and even northern China but not southern)? You did make a feeble refutation of my point about r1b in central Asia by suggesting that it was from silk road trade. Is that REALLY what you think because those areas are well outside the silk road.

how do you think r1b got to Western Europe? Mesolithic, Neolithic, or Bronze age? If its one of the later two, what migration and from where specifically? BTW, bell beaker is not an answer. Not that anyone should see a single migration which may have moved mtdna H as somehow defacto R1b...

how did italo-Celtic get to western Europe?

when did m269 start dominating Anatolia?

we now know of genetic discontinuity, on the steppe, from the yamnaya to the catacomb. Are you fine with this? As in do you still think the PC steppe was dominated almost exclusively by r1a from the yamnaya to much later?

these are pretty crucial questions so let's see if you'll contribute.

link is below.

nuadha
12-22-2013, 01:29 AM
http://distantconnections.wordpress.com/25-2/

my theory

newtoboard
12-22-2013, 01:48 AM
I'll answer the rest later but for now




Earlier, you argued that C-T couldn't have been responsible for the r1a in the Pontic steppe and Central Asia because of the ydna hg I you thought was discovered. In truth, we may have discovered hg I in the Corded Ware. If this gets confirmed will you take the same stance on the Corded Ware? you are trying to be consistent, right?

How do you think m269 + m73 got to the southern Urals and the Altai (and even northern China but not southern)? You did make a feeble refutation of my point about r1b in central Asia by suggesting that it was from silk road trade. Is that REALLY what you think because those areas are well outside the silk road.

how do you think r1b got to Western Europe? Mesolithic, Neolithic, or Bronze age? If its one of the later two, what migration and from where specifically? BTW, bell beaker is not an answer. Not that anyone should see a single migration which may have moved mtdna H as somehow defacto R1b...

I have never argued for the r1a in the PC steppe coming from corded ware. I have argued the presence of I, early separated R1a lineages, and R1a-Z283 makes it very unlikely that the r1a in yamna came from corded ware.

Can you show anything indicating elevated m269 frequencies in the Urals? Or are you referring to the u152 lineage of likely roman origin that has undergone a founder effect in some groups?

R1b got to Western Europe Likely through the western steppe or the region immediately west of it.

newtoboard
12-22-2013, 02:04 AM
As for genetic discontinuity between yamnaya and catacomb, who cares? Seriously it doesn't bother me one bit. Catacomb isn't usually associated with satem languages or exclusively satem languages. It is usually associated with the Balkan group. So it is more likely catacomb represents r1b or a mixed population but never an r1a population that replaced an r1b population. The mainstream view of satem languages on the steppe is eastern yamna ( the ocher grave variant in some peoples theories) to Poltavka. So unless you can show me evidence of discontinuity between those two cultures your arguments are irrelevant.

newtoboard
12-22-2013, 02:08 AM
But thanks for letting me know know your theory rests on cultures west of the don river. I could have sworn yamnaya extended from the don to the Volga and even past the volga.

nuadha
12-22-2013, 02:33 AM
But thanks for letting me know know your theory rests on cultures west of the don river. I could have sworn yamnaya extended from the don to the Volga and even past the volga.


I didn't know the afanasievo and urals were west of the don. or that talking about yamnaya meant I was talking about yamnaya west of the don.

cmom, be serious. if you're going to make off the reservation strawman arguments at least be direct.

nuadha
12-22-2013, 02:39 AM
As for genetic discontinuity between yamnaya and catacomb, who cares? Seriously it doesn't bother me one bit. Catacomb isn't usually associated with satem languages or exclusively satem languages. It is usually associated with the Balkan group. So it is more likely catacomb represents r1b or a mixed population but never an r1a population that replaced an r1b population. The mainstream view of satem languages on the steppe is eastern yamna ( the ocher grave variant in some peoples theories) to Poltavka. So unless you can show me evidence of discontinuity between those two cultures your arguments are irrelevant.

satem belonged to the eastern yamnaya?!? news to me! David Anthony says the yamnaya were late PIE, therefore NOT satem.

where do you think satem started? let's here you're theory without automatically assuming yours is right and that I have to work around it.

newtoboard
12-22-2013, 02:42 AM
I didn't know the afanasievo and urals were west of the don. or that talking about yamnaya meant I was talking about yamnaya west of the don.

cmom, be serious. if you're going to make off the reservation strawman arguments at least be direct.

I was referring to the theory on genetic discontinuity between yamnaya and catacomb. If your theory on r1a only making it to the PC steppe post yamnaya rests on this this isn't a discussion worth having. Like I said there is no evidence of discontinuity between yamnaya and Poltavka. There is no reason to assume yamnaya was a homogenous horizon.

newtoboard
12-22-2013, 02:48 AM
satem belonged to the eastern yamnaya?!? news to me! David Anthony says the yamnaya were late PIE, therefore NOT satem.

where do you think satem started? let's here you're theory without automatically assuming yours is right and that I have to work around it.

I should have phrased that better. The chain of cultures that led to satem languages on the steppe started with eastern yamna.

As for satemization it could have spread areally in the Scythian period or it could have been spread through the middle dnieper balanovo abashevo chain of cultures and ultimately ending up in Poltavka. Or vice versa. The incomplete satemization of balto Slavic makes me believe it was the other way around (south to north then west).

Generalissimo
12-22-2013, 05:28 AM
So far there seems better genetic evidence for the female flow in the beaker period, especially H. If the main purpose of linking up with the beaker network was originally to create relationships to get access to their metals then a flow of females in high status graves makes sense.

The evidence to date, including archeological and genetic data, shows that the initial Bell Beaker colonization of Central Europe was a male mediated event. Later stages of this colonization involved more women coming from the west.

That's why the mtDNA at Kromsdorf is lacking in H (it's Unetice-like), and the later Bell Beaker burial has 60% + mtDNA H.

newtoboard
12-22-2013, 04:34 PM
oh, I definitely do that. I see no reason to expect that the afansievo (east yamnaya derived or just a bit earlier from the same region) would be much like the indo Iranians. they are separated by 1000 years, very different languages within the ie world, and they probably had different mtdna too. I expect the afanasievo to be very high in mtdna U. In the eastward push of satem (which I think produces the Tarim mummies) we see less mtdna U and more H, T, and K. Finally that German study (dillenburger?), I referenced to earlier, talks about genetic discontinuity between the yamnaya and the catacomb. is between the earlier staple people and the latter steppe people.



no, but it may have been found in the corded ware. but the problem of how much of the steppe cultures, around 2k BC and after, seem so dominant in r1a is a problem for all of us. at some point in time, r1a people came to totally dominate a region...

Can you post something indicating afanasieco is eastern yamnaya derived? Everything I have read indicates it is derived from the repin culture which is west of the don. Eastern yamnaya corresponds to the lands of the late khvalynsk and samara cultures.

newtoboard
12-22-2013, 04:40 PM
Good map of the post yamna ya cultures being discussed.

1084

alan
12-22-2013, 09:36 PM
Just to be clear I in no way am theorising R1b was the sole PIE group. When considering the steppe model I believe in a broad spectrum based on Sredny Stog who I believe were a very mixed people.


What are you talking about? At face value there is an increased concentration of r1b (m269 + m73) in locations settled by the earliest off shoots of IE. Increased levels of r1b sit on top of Anatolian in Anatolia, Afanasievo in the Altai, Italo-Celtic in Western Europe, and the southern Uralic stopping point for yamnaya in the southern Urals.

Are you arguing this, because it would be a simple matter of actually looking at the studies I cited.

However, I certainly don't rely on this evidence alone to support my theory. I look at multiple related problems and I see that my relatively simple theory can handle them fairly well. I also look at different types of data and see that they reinforce my story. In a nut shell I argue that:

*Problem: M269 and m73, logically, were once a part of a continuum in terms of their distribution. This continuum either took place in the Middle East/South-Central Asia or it took place in the steppe. Now, their center of gravity for each haplogroup are far apart. More importantly, there is no trail of bread crums between the bulk of their distributions. What better way to accomplish this than placing their continuum on the steppe. A similar type of problem can be formulated for the m269 in Europe and the m269 (which tends to be quite different) in central Asia. The resolution to this similar problem is the same.

*All the early offshoot cultures of IE - Anatolian, Afanasievo, and Italo-Celtic - settled in regions that now have concentrations of r1b. And keep in mind that m269 + m73 is rare outside of the traditional IE world. (Trying to argue that each of those cultures picked up m269 + m73 from non IE people while moving in different directions, when those haplogroups look very much IE is absurd IMO).

-This presents us with another problem. If the PIE were m417 dominant and m269 deficient, why is Italo-Celtic Western Europe and Anatolian Turkey dominant in m269 and deficient in m417?

My theory is supported by and consistent with both.

*The mtdna of the areas where r1b concentration overlaps early IE offshoots, reinforces r1b's early IE connection. The reasoning here is more nuanced so I'll just link the post on my blog...

* R1b seems to only appear in central/ western Europe in the bronze age. A lack of evidence for migration from the near east at that time plus the isotopic evidence of a series of migrations moving from the steppe to hungary, from Bohemia (and Hungary?) to Germany, then westward across Germany and firmly in in Western Europe. The bronze age novelty of r1b and italo-Celtic in Western/ Central Europe fits extremely well with a male lineage from the steppe.

*Then there's the r1b phylogeny which suggests an east to west movement across europe. Autosomal evidence might also suggest a similar bronze age flow.


The IE problem is one that requires different lines of reasoning which reinforce each other. It takes a holistic, big picture, kind of approach because there is no direct solid evidence yet. And mummies 1000 years after the afanasievo in a totally different location and 2000 year before Tocharian may or may not have been spoken there is not hard evidence by a long shot. You need to tag a string of arguments into a reasonable model.



cool... maybe you will then stop attributing Alan's arguments to mine as you did when you thought I was searching for m73 in the Altai. Hopefully you'll tone down on other strawman too.

like I said, my IE theory does not rest on small bits but a group of parallel arguments. That's why I haven't written it here in a single post or even all my previous posts combined! There is no such evidence to do that...

but since you like to criticize my points as if my whole theory should be encapsulated in a simple commentary, I'll ask you some questions.

Earlier, you argued that C-T couldn't have been responsible for the r1a in the Pontic steppe and Central Asia because of the ydna hg I you thought was discovered. In truth, we may have discovered hg I in the Corded Ware. If this gets confirmed will you take the same stance on the Corded Ware? you are trying to be consistent, right?

How do you think m269 + m73 got to the southern Urals and the Altai (and even northern China but not southern)? You did make a feeble refutation of my point about r1b in central Asia by suggesting that it was from silk road trade. Is that REALLY what you think because those areas are well outside the silk road.

how do you think r1b got to Western Europe? Mesolithic, Neolithic, or Bronze age? If its one of the later two, what migration and from where specifically? BTW, bell beaker is not an answer. Not that anyone should see a single migration which may have moved mtdna H as somehow defacto R1b...

how did italo-Celtic get to western Europe?

when did m269 start dominating Anatolia?

we now know of genetic discontinuity, on the steppe, from the yamnaya to the catacomb. Are you fine with this? As in do you still think the PC steppe was dominated almost exclusively by r1a from the yamnaya to much later?

these are pretty crucial questions so let's see if you'll contribute.

link is below.

newtoboard
12-22-2013, 09:54 PM
Just to be clear I in no way am theorising R1b was the sole PIE group. When considering the steppe model I believe in a broad spectrum based on Sredny Stog who I believe were a very mixed people.

It is not just that. There were multiple inputs into yamnaya. And it is highly unlikely all those cultures carried just one ydna.

alan
12-22-2013, 09:55 PM
I dont doubt it had a male aspect in phases but I doubt it was continuous. I think it was probably discontinuous and involved some distinct groups. I dont really strongly believe in a unified movement of a male lineage across Europe from the south-west. I dont think the evidence is very strong for a pre-beaker movement of R1b far enough west to have a simple pots=R1b correlation. For what its worth the craniological evidence shows at least a couple of groups involved and IMO its pretty hard to see the early south-west beaker group carrying R1b due to a lack of really strong evidence of a post-early Neolithic pre-beaker movement to the far west of Europe and the fairly low levels of non-p312 in Iberia.


The evidence to date, including archeological and genetic data, shows that the initial Bell Beaker colonization of Central Europe was a male mediated event. Later stages of this colonization involved more women coming from the west.

That's why the mtDNA at Kromsdorf is lacking in H (it's Unetice-like), and the later Bell Beaker burial has 60% + mtDNA H.

alan
12-22-2013, 10:10 PM
I totally agree. It is a pity so much of the literature is not available in English. Its clear from the relative lack of information on the web when copper and bronze age cultures are googled that an awful lot is in Russian Cyrillic.


It is not just that. There were multiple inputs into yamnaya. And it is highly unlikely all those cultures carried just one ydna.

alan
12-22-2013, 10:22 PM
It is possible that mono-lineage expansion is really a feature of the wagon clan phase from Yamnaya and later when a lineage could suddenly expand into open space. Prior to that I would feel river valley populations had a mix. The rise of expansive lineages from that mix would be unpredictable.

nuadha
12-23-2013, 01:23 AM
I was referring to the theory on genetic discontinuity between yamnaya and catacomb. If your theory on r1a only making it to the PC steppe post yamnaya rests on this this isn't a discussion worth having. It doesn't. Why would you think that? where did you get that?
Like I said there is no evidence of discontinuity between yamnaya and Polt, avka. There is no reason to assume yamnaya was a homogenous horizon. I do suspect the yamnaya were somewhat homogeneous... but that's not the point. The Afanasevo (whom I associate with r1b) have heritage from the eastern part of the PC steppe in the late 3rd millennia. I also see the r1b in the Southern Urals, which is not of the type typical to Europe, as a preserved remnant of IE people around the time of the yamnaya. As for m417, I don't see a need to place them with the early "eastern" yamnaya. I think doing so would just be adding a complication. I see the satem lineage and m417 spreading from northwest of the PC steppe into what was an r1b steppe and then continues moving eastward. satem (m417) being unlike yamnaya (significantly r1b), m417 (the early satem type) appearing to have come from eastern central Europe based on close by branchings in western Europe, balto slavic being placed north of the PC steppe with its' C-T heritage separating it from the yamnaya, satem originating after the yamnaya and quickly spreading to Central Europe and Asia, genetic replacement of yamnaya on PC steppe, and central European like mtdna H, K, and T without mtdna U seen in the Tarim around the time satem would push into central asia leads me to think yamnaya and eastern yamnaya need not and were not r1a heavy.

newtoboard
12-23-2013, 01:41 AM
Once again evidence of afanasievo deriving from eastern yamnaya? The repin culture which predates yamnaya and is west of the don is a better candidate to the ancestor of afanasievo.

Once again evidence that satem groups in Asia did not have mtdna u. Ancient DNA contradicts this.

And good luck trying to derive Asian r1a out of eastern Central Europe. Seriously good luck. You will need it.

Also I want to see evidence of this genetic replacement between yamnaya and poltavka. You avoid this question at all costs.

newtoboard
12-23-2013, 01:48 AM
And also good luck trying to explain how r1a came to dominate entire cultures when it came from a mixed farming cultures. Corded ware displayed a mix of lineages in addition to r1a but steppe satem cultures did no such thing. But also great theory about how a bunch of agriculturalists moved into the steppe and became the only IE group to have a truly pastoral economy. These farmers are obviously the most likely to invent the chariot and then dominate an area stretching from Hungary to Mongolia to India to Turkey.

GailT
12-23-2013, 05:39 AM
http://distantconnections.wordpress.com/25-2/

my theory

I'm glad to see you try to tie in the mtDNA data. This is something I've wanted to do, but the mtDNA picture seems very difficult to sort out. Dienekes has a nice summary of ancient mtDNA in this blog post (link (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/population-strata-in-west-siberian.html)) and this post on the Sarkissian dissertation (link (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/11/mitochondrial-dna-in-ancient-human.html)).

Both of these studies might be too far north to tell us much about the IE population that expanded into Europe - the presence of East Eurasian haplogroups D, C, Z and A in the forest steppe (and the lack of these groups in Europe) might indicate that the forest steppe populations of that period did not expand into Europe.

Quoting from Dienekes:


The analysis of mtDNA samples from the Chicha-1 population [Late Irmen Culture 9th-8th century BC] revealed some interesting patterns. Crucial changes in the composition of mtDNA haplogroups in the gene pool were observed as compared to the earlier Baraba groups studied (Fig. 3). Dominance of Western Eurasian haplogroups and the near absence of East Eurasian were observed. Additionally, several new West Eurasian haplogroups appeared in the region, including Haplogroups U1a, U3, U5b, K, H, J and W.

The phylogeographic analysis suggests that the distribution and diversification centres of several of these mtDNA haplogroups and specific lineages are located on the west and south west of the Baraba forest steppe region, on the territory corresponding to modern-day Kazakhstan and Western Central Asia


I would guess that the IE population included a mix of these west Eurasian haplogroup, including H. So I think the challenge is to identify specific subclades of U5a, U2e, H etc that were associated with the IE population. We need full sequencing of the ancient mtDNA samples to do this. It is not very helpful to have them identified only as U5a, U2e etc, because they are very ancient nodes on the mtDNA tree. The specific mtDNA lineages found in the samples in these studies might even have died out, so we need to the full sequences to see if they connect to modern IE speakers.

Generalissimo
12-23-2013, 07:19 AM
Both of these studies might be too far north to tell us much about the IE population that expanded into Europe - the presence of East Eurasian haplogroups D, C, Z and A in the forest steppe (and the lack of these groups in Europe) might indicate that the forest steppe populations of that period did not expand into Europe.

These populations weren't from the forest steppe. They're from the Forest Boreal Zone.

mtDNA C was found in Ukrainian Neolithic and Bronze Age Kurgan sites on the steppe. So it's a real mystery where the very Eastern European, but not at all East Eurasian, Corded Ware and Unetice populations came from that settled Central Europe during the Copper/Bronze Age period. In fact, they might have been from the Western Russian forest steppe, from which we don't have any aDNA yet.

alan
12-23-2013, 03:45 PM
Its still fairly mysterious to me how a Siberian R*/R1* group arrived in the east of Europe. It could have been pre of post LGM. If it was post-LGM and they had lingered around Altai it could have some connection with microlithic groups arriving post-LGM. On the other hand this could have been non-R and maybe had something more to do with Uralic and other clades like Q and N. The distribution of very upstream R clades today would suggest R1* headed west before or at the LGM. One way or other you would expect some Siberian cultural spread west to relate to it. If its pre-LGM you would expect a macrolithic type culture like Mal'ta to make itself known in the west c. 25000BC or just after. I cannot say I have managed to ID such a movement west yet but I havent given up hope as its a tricky subject to get info in English for free on the web.

If its post-LGM then you would expect microblade cultures of Altian and similar eastern origin to be visible spreading further west. There are definately spreads of microblades west post-LGM in eastern Europe. So, they are a possibility although the lack of very upstream R1 clades in Altai makes me think it may not be connected to R. I will keep digging around to see if I can get a better handle on this stuff.

I read some interesting stuff about some material culture of the upper Palaeolithic in India being Siberian-like which made we think that could relate to R2 retreating south.

I think there is probably a lot more info that could shed some light on R in the LGM period but we have only just recently got a fixed point of cultural location for R in the Mal'ta culture in south central Siberia in the middle-late upper palaeolithic transition phase. Even one fixed point does make a big difference IMO. I hope to read into and understand any potential Siberia to Europe late Palaeolithic or Mesolithic movements a little better over the next while as that is essentially what we are probably looking for to explaiin R in Europe (eastern Europe probably for a long time).

alan
12-23-2013, 03:58 PM
Corded Ware looks very complex to me with TRB, Cuc-Tr and steppe elements. Globular Amphorae people too must have some relevance too given the big overlap geographically. Yet it must have evolved somewhere specific given it has such a distinct material culture. I expect Corded Ware will continue to be revealed as a very mixed bag of yDNA. Clearly R1a and I were involved. R1b seems to have been minor to absent in at least chunks of it but I wouldnt be stunned it it was involved in part of it although the odds still feel that R1b was something that started with a slightly more southern trajectory. R1b is a hell of a tough nut to crack. R1a is easier to link to big waves but early R1b in Europe seems to have been biggest in a zone in the Balkans and Danube area where the cultural sequence was incredibly complex. It does seem the new SNP evidence is making R1b look older than R1a in that area but not old enough to link to the earliest farmers.


These populations weren't from the forest steppe. They're from the Forest Boreal Zone.

mtDNA C was found in Ukrainian Neolithic and Bronze Age Kurgan sites on the steppe. So it's a real mystery where the very Eastern European, but not at all East Eurasian, Corded Ware and Unetice populations came from that settled Central Europe during the Copper/Bronze Age period. In fact, they might have been from the Western Russian forest steppe, from which we don't have any aDNA yet.

alan
12-23-2013, 04:03 PM
Unetice seems to culturally owe a lot to the beaker culture element but also genetically owes something to the corded ware group, especially on the female side. Its probably some sort of hybrid.


These populations weren't from the forest steppe. They're from the Forest Boreal Zone.

mtDNA C was found in Ukrainian Neolithic and Bronze Age Kurgan sites on the steppe. So it's a real mystery where the very Eastern European, but not at all East Eurasian, Corded Ware and Unetice populations came from that settled Central Europe during the Copper/Bronze Age period. In fact, they might have been from the Western Russian forest steppe, from which we don't have any aDNA yet.

GailT
12-23-2013, 05:10 PM
These populations weren't from the forest steppe. They're from the Forest Boreal Zone.

mtDNA C was found in Ukrainian Neolithic and Bronze Age Kurgan sites on the steppe. So it's a real mystery where the very Eastern European, but not at all East Eurasian, Corded Ware and Unetice populations came from that settled Central Europe during the Copper/Bronze Age period. In fact, they might have been from the Western Russian forest steppe, from which we don't have any aDNA yet.

The authors of the study call it the "Baraba forest steppe". What is the border between the Forest Boreal Zone and the Western Russian forest steppe? Is it a meaningful distinction in terms of the cultures that lived in that area? It seems signficant that these East Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups appear not to have spread into Europe, at least not at high frequency, so does this suggest an expansion of more typically western Eurasion mtDNA haplogroups, perhaps associated with herders from the Near East, into the steppe region?

TigerMW
12-23-2013, 05:16 PM
Unetice seems to culturally owe a lot to the beaker culture element but also genetically owes something to the corded ware group, especially on the female side. Its probably some sort of hybrid.

Why do you say the "especially on the female side" as far as genetic connections between Unetice and Beaker folks. I assume you are talking about Eastern Bell Beakers.

P.S. I advocate always being specific about Beaker folks since it was a widely dispersed and varied horizon.

newtoboard
12-23-2013, 06:05 PM
The authors of the study call it the "Baraba forest steppe". What is the border between the Forest Boreal Zone and the Western Russian forest steppe? Is it a meaningful distinction in terms of the cultures that lived in that area? It seems signficant that these East Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups appear not to have spread into Europe, at least not at high frequency, so does this suggest an expansion of more typically western Eurasion mtDNA haplogroups, perhaps associated with herders from the Near East, into the steppe region?

Compare the region tested (the yellow area) to this map where the steppe/ forest steppe boundary is shown. It looks like the region in question is north of the forest steppe.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1716-R1b-and-IE-branching&p=24182&viewfull=1#post24182

alan
12-23-2013, 06:05 PM
This book gives a fairly up to date discussion of the end of the Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic in the north Pontic Caspian era.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sDYXosqZpegC&pg=PA359&lpg=PA359&dq=microliths+ukraine&source=bl&ots=rw9DMz_r0m&sig=J_2hB39jMHU6dd81-dSEp5OdWkA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rWS4UuDvFKHB7Ab2mYCYDQ&ved=0CG8Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=microliths%20ukraine&f=false

All I can say in terms of human movement into the Pontic-Caspian in that period is its complex with connections in all directions. As clear as mud lol