PDA

View Full Version : Does the connection of M269 with copper skills go right back to its invention



alan
06-20-2014, 04:55 AM
There is a lot of pretty convincing talk about P312 being linked to beaker people and copper working. It has also been suggested that pre-beaker groups with Stele or Remedello groups could be linked to L51* down to P312. However, I dont think this has been seen through to its ultimate conclusion. I think its worth considering the possibility that M269 actually invented copper smelting c. 5000BC or just before somewhere in the Balkans/Anatolia/Iran zone where the earliest Eurasian copper smelting (as opposed to hammering native copper) originated. There has always been a puzzling lack of a clear wave pattern with M269 and the solution may be that the lineage expanded almost one for one with the spread of copper smelting.

It has long been recognised that P312 spreads like a very mobile lineage at incredible speed rather than a slower wave of advance of a whole population. P312 is clearly the biggie in terms of R1b expansion in Europe and the beaker link and lineage model seems pretty safe and sound to me at least as a large part of its story.

However, pre-beaker copper working had a more gradual advance. Clearly the Balkans stands out as one area where copper was extremely early - some people still argue its oldest there while others say its too much of a coincidence that it takes off is several places at a similar time to be anything other than diffusion. I will sit on the fence. However, we do know that the Balkans was the oldest place in Europe to smelt copper. It is kind of hard to ignore the fact that the central Balkans also is one of the major concentrations of M269* and the whole zone if the peak European area of L23xL51. Was M269 linked with copper from the very start - did they actually invent copper smelting and 'keep it in the family' as a source of huge power.

It therefore gets interesting when it is considered that after the Balkans the likely oldest, or equally old depending on who you read, area of copper smelting is Iran and Anatolia. Now look at the map of M269*

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

It has on the surface a weird distribution but when you consider early copper smelting locations a great deal of it fits very well with the Balkans-Anatolia-Iran zone that is considered the earliest copper smelting zone of Eurasia c. 5000BC.

Now even when you look at the lesser blobs like in north-central Italy, Tyrol and the south Urals area these correspond with areas where copper smelting next expanded into in Europe - the Tuscan mines, the Inn valley and the Kargaly area c. 4000-3300BC. I suspect by that date M269* would have been a relic lineage travelling with other M269 derived lines.

So should we take the R1b-metals link back to its ultimate conclusion that the connection existed right back to the point of the invention of copper smelting? I think there could be a case.

alan
06-21-2014, 09:59 AM
It probably goes without saying that the possibility that M269 and the secret of copper working were linked from its invention rather depends on the age of M269. Still as far as I recall the STR calculation for M269 as a whole was around 6000 years. While Michal's dating of the SNP is more like 8500 years his date for the M269* clade is around 7500 years which is not so far away. The first copper extraction and smelting seems to be being placed around 7000 years ago in the Balkans. So I think its not outwith the bounds of possibility that there could be a link with the first Balkans copper working and it certainly doesnt seem improbably given the distribution of M269* and L23xL51 clades in Europe today.

I think there is little doubt that the initial take off of R1b in non-steppe Europe was the Balkans and I would interpret the various types of dating evidence to show some sort of initial take off as dating to the 5500-3500BC sort of time range. So, IMO it is a viable option in simple chronological-geographical-phylogenic terms. Its worth adding to what I think is a relatively small pile of options that fit the sudden take off of a moribund bare-survival lineage in the late Neolithic/early copper age period in and around SE Europe.

The main problem with this theory is that it places its take off within cultures like Vinca whose origins are disputed and unclear, as of course is the origin of copper extraction and smelting. Other problems are M73 is hard to explain in any conventional way given its near-absence in areas like the south Caucasus, Iran etc.

Agamemnon
06-21-2014, 10:47 AM
Another problem lies with the actual dating: ~7500 BP/5500 BCE predates PIE's diversification (which took place during the second half of the 4th millenium BCE).

RCO
06-21-2014, 11:44 AM
The key European R1b SNP was not M269 but P310/L11. I think the expansion of P310/L11 in Western Europe is related to the development of a new mode of production of food in a sparsely populated region. Metals were important bu they needed food to expand the newly arrived population and multiply the number of people and downstream P310/L11 SNPs like P312 and U106.

alan
06-21-2014, 12:18 PM
I was leaving aside the whole PIE /y lineage thing. I sometime think it can be a distraction. I am not too bothered whether my ancestors were the first people to speak PIE in some spot. Simple genetic lingeage=a language='real' IEs is still a dangerous idea IMO.

I also think its probably incorrect and that languages evolved in geographical networks of interaction rather than the silly idea that one small tribe living in one small area spread it everywhere. I dont think its controversial to see Sredny Stog as PIE or the earliest form of it and the skeletal evidence is clear that that culture had a big mix of steppe and farming genes and socio-economic attributes. So, IMO PIE first formed in a mixed group whose important main role seems to have been as middle men in the interaction between the rather backwards steppe peoples and the advanced metal using Balkans groups up to about 4000BC. So, IMO IE evolved in what was a go-between group around the Dnieper at the farming-steppe boundary and it was spread by the elite of that group as far as the Volga and slightly later deep into the Balkans, all in pre-Yamnaya times. I see Yamnaya as a secondary wave.

I dont think we give enough credit to the non-steppe elements in the genesis of IE culture. Without the influence and contact farmers/early copper users in the Balkans and Caucasus, the steppe peoples would just be hunter-fishers living on the edge of existence - something that is demonstrated by the lack of much branching in R1a before 3500BC. The problem is that there has been a bit of a noble savage indigenist thing going on in discussion about places like the Ukraine steppe while in reality they seem to have been very strongly influenced and probably significantly settled from peoples from the Balkans and Caucasus. The Stedny Stog and post-Mariopal cultures clearly were not of a predominantly steppe proto-Europoid types and there are several others. So, IMO the emerging early PIE zone virtually certainly featured a very mixed population c. 5000-3500BC.

I think what we are being fooled by in the ancient DNA so far is the focus of looking at remains from after that period when mobile pastoralism on wagons with narrow male lineages moving into practically empty areas of inter-fluve dry steppes started to take place.

IMO the archaeological and physical anthropological remains screams out that the farmers-steppe interface around the Dniester was very porous c. 5000-4000BC and the steppes during the likely rise of the earliest PIE was controlled by the Stedny Stog/Skelya elite who controlled this interfacing, settled from the Dnieper to the Don and who networked from the Carpathians to the Volga-Urals. That networking phase and that culture must be the origin of archaic PIE and even Anthony agrees with that. Add the eclectic mix among Sredny Stog peoples c. 5000-4000 and indeed similarly mixed populations in the post-stog/post-steppe hiatus groups like post-Mariopal then I think its fair to say that archaic PIE evolved in a zone that might have had R1a, R1b, I, G and even E in it.

I personally think there is a child-like wish to claim a y lineage as 'THE PIE' line when in fact we have no ancient DNA from the right time or place to have any knowledge on who lived in the zone of the emergence of PIE - probably the Dnieper/Don area IMO.

One warning I think I should give people who really deeply want to know which DNA was linked to what language etc is to not waste your time expecting a definitive answer. We do not know and will never know who spoke what and will not be able to infer it with confidence once you go back beyond 3000BC. It will never be entirely settled because, while genes and cultures can be linked, languages pre-3000BC in Europe of those cultures and genes is not recoverable.


Another problem lies with the actual dating: ~7500 BP/5500 BCE predates PIE's diversification (which took place during the second half of the 4th millenium BCE).

alan
06-21-2014, 02:50 PM
I dont know, that is kind of western Europe-centric way of looking at things and pretty limiting. L11 derived R1b tells us nothing about the history of M269 in earlier times and looking to the SE of Europe for the earlier history looks pretty rational to me. There is a fairly substantial M269xL23/L23xL51 block in SE Europe and a big drop off in L11 derived R1b. I wouldnt play down the importance of those M269xL51 clades - they are a pretty substantial amount in SE Europe when you consider SE Europe has seen large historically recorded intrusions of likely non-M269xL51 peoples like Celts, Germans and Romans from the west and Bulgars, Magyars, a great deal of Slavs among the many groups from the east.

I personally think there were two clear stages in R1b in old Europe

1. An early SE European phase involving L23xL51 and M269* at some point c. 5000-3500BC
2. A later expansion involving L11 probably commencing around 3000-2500BC in west Alpine Europe.
3. There was possibly an intermediate smallscale linking movement that is both geographically and chronologically intermediate between the above phases, perhaps represented by L51* passing along the Alps c. 3500-3000BC

I think when you delete out the probably later movements of L11 derived clades eastwards into east central/eastern Europe and likely later movements of L23xL51 along the Med, there was probably once a basic split in European R1b along something approaching the old Iron Curtain line. I dont for a moment buy the idea that the noise level scatter of non-L11 R1b in western Europe is anything other than noise and a straw for people who hang onto the idea of a deeper western history of R1b to clutch.

IMO until otherwise proven, you have to look at the data in a simple intuitive way - very counter-intuitive interpretations of current evidence often means preconceived ideas or bias to me. I dont think anyone can truly look at R1b evidence in Europe and conclude in all honesty that the belief that it appeared first on the west side of the old Iron Curtain is the intuitive one.



The key European R1b SNP was not M269 but P310/L11. I think the expansion of P310/L11 in Western Europe is related to the development of a new mode of production of food in a sparsely populated region. Metals were important bu they needed food to expand the newly arrived population and multiply the number of people and downstream P310/L11 SNPs like P312 and U106.

Silesian
06-21-2014, 03:35 PM
Now even when you look at the lesser blobs like in north-central Italy, Tyrol and the south Urals area these correspond with areas where copper smelting next expanded into in Europe - the Tuscan mines, the Inn valley and the Kargaly area c. 4000-3300BC. I suspect by that date M269* would have been a relic lineage travelling with other M269 derived lines.

So should we take the R1b-metals link back to its ultimate conclusion that the connection existed right back to the point of the invention of copper smelting? I think there could be a case.

How do you explain the Tocharians. Don Ringe et al phylogeny has branch between Hittites and Latin/Celtic.

http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af183/EliasAlucard/Indo-European/ringe.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q_tqVQHwFw


In James Mallory lecture the, Tocharians pick up the word for Iron [24-27 minutes]from least related Indo-Iranian[5-6 minutes] languages which surround them?
Yet some early forms of Iron/Steel are from Anatolia[Hittite region]

Geolocke
06-21-2014, 03:45 PM
Was M269 linked with copper from the very start - did they actually invent copper smelting and 'keep it in the family' as a source of huge power.

Alan, there is a paper (Thesis) about early/ancient copper mining in Great Brittan and specifically The Great Orme Mine in Wales, which cites an earlier paper that seems to follow your reasoning.


"Tylecote (1986) proposes that the early copper smiths may have been revered, and were allowed many privileges by the community, as they possessed the unique ability to turn coloured stone into a useful and visually attractive material - metal. These advances during the Chalcolithic or Copper Age have been considered to progress from east to west across Europe (Tylecote 1986), a view supported by radiocarbon dates centred around 4000BC at Aibunar - Bulgaria, 3800BC at Rudna Glava - Serbia, 3000BC in S.W. Spain and 2500BC at Mitterberg - Austria, also reaching Ireland about 2500BC. However much of this interpretation is based on the typology of ceramic remains and tool artefacts, typically stone hammers, found at the sites. The quoted C14 dates are often infrequent and may represent only one phase of activity at the sites, with other phases not yet realised or simply destroyed by subsequent activity (Craddock 1992). The increasing use of copper during this early period is likely to have brought many social, economic and technological changes, leading to further exploitation of the ores through advancements in mining methods, for example the use and perfection of firesetting for the removal of hard rock."

The whole paper can be found HERE (http://www.greatormemines.info/MPhil.htm).

alan
06-21-2014, 05:18 PM
I personally think the confidence that Tocharians=Tarim Mummies=Afansievo is higher than it should be. If you read Mallory he always accepts doubt. People tend to gloss over that doubt. You could say they are three chance survivals out of a myriad of non-survivals. Tempting though it is to link the three things together I think that seems just a little too convenient. I know that is a bit negative but who knows how many cultures have not yet been detected in central Asia, how many cultures have not left magnificent mummies and how many IE languages simply did not survive to be recorded. I am a little more confident that Tocharian and Afanasievo are linked than either of them are linked to Tarim mummies. Its pretty unlikely to say the least that we can ever know what anyone was speaking. Just different grades of educated guessing and inference.

The core problem with Tocharian is we do not know when it got into its historically attested position as its only recorded far later. I dont think it could be ruled out that it headed west later than Afansievo. I dont think its good to make Tocharian a major plank in an overall model of IE. It seems that it shed off between Anatolian and Celto-Italic from the tree but then who knows the geography of where it might have had a temporary home?

People suggest a centum language cannot have passed through a satem zone after satemization but the world is full of examples of satem, centum and Anatolian languages living side by side such as in late prehistoric Anatolia. Celtic ended up in Turkey after passing through a zone of presumed satem languages.

There is even a possible reference in Ptolemy's geography of the 2nd century AD to a branch of the Tectosages very close to Altai and they were perhaps a branch off from the same Celtic tribe who migrated into Turkey. So, you can get peoples and languages well out of their origin positions and somehow retaining their language in a sea of other languages. Can it be completely ruled out that the Tocharian branch was not a relatively western branch of IE like its other centum compatriots that actually did not hit the Silk Road until much much later. I have always been a believer that there are a lot of lost dialects of IE. Please note that this is not supporting the erroneous idea that the Tocharian language is literally Celtic. I just am demonstrating that age or sequence of branching and historically recorded geography of a particular branch may be completely out of harmony which is not surprising giving a suspected 4000 years or so between the branching time and records of the language.

Another thing is that Mallory in a typical self deprecating stance does point out the problems with the Afansievo-Tocharian theory in that Tocharian has a rich IE agricultural vocabulary which is out of step with what is expected of nomads commencing near the Volga end of the western steppe. I have an open mind that Tocharian might be an early branching but also did not head to its current eastern position until long after Afansievo. The Silk route is not a place I would go looking for continuity. The Uyghurs who moved the short distance from Mongolia to the Tocharian lands have a wide mix of west Eurasian markers, suggesting an eclectic population was conquered by the Uyghurs as they passed into the Tocharian area. In general I have my doubts about Tocharian=Afanasievo but its possible. For me its too mysterious and kind of side tracks things. Far more interesting is how R1a is not a very good candidate for a language defining group in so many IE languages. Celto-Italic if of course a very clear case of this and it is allegedly the next branch off after Tocharian. R1a is not exactly prolific in the former Anatolian speaking areas either - the branch that broke off before Tocharian. So Tocharian is sandwiched between two IE branches that are not high on R1a associations.


How do you explain the Tocharians. Don Ringe et al phylogeny has branch between Hittites and Latin/Celtic.

http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af183/EliasAlucard/Indo-European/ringe.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q_tqVQHwFw


In James Mallory lecture the, Tocharians pick up the word for Iron [24-27 minutes]from least related Indo-Iranian[5-6 minutes] languages which surround them?
Yet some early forms of Iron/Steel are from Anatolia[Hittite region]

alan
06-21-2014, 05:25 PM
The possibility of a revered clan of people with the sacred knowledge so much revered and desired would be a good fit for the general feel of M269 derived R1b as a group of lineages rather than a population wave. If so, it also might well explain why its not easy to point to a consistant autosomal signal for R1b populations across Europe. It also explains why a low numbers lineage was allowed to penetrate so many areas which would be impossible if it was a hostile thing in its early phases. I am pretty convinced M269 lineages in Europe were usually welcomed although there may have been exceptions where other groups may have been rivals with the same niche. The question is whether there were non-R1b groups with similar desired knowledge of metals and that is not easy to answer without a lot of ancient DNA.


Alan, there is a paper (Thesis) about early/ancient copper mining in Great Brittan and specifically The Great Orme Mine in Wales, which cites an earlier paper that seems to follow your reasoning.



The whole paper can be found HERE (http://www.greatormemines.info/MPhil.htm).

Agamemnon
06-21-2014, 05:31 PM
I was leaving aside the whole PIE /y lineage thing. I sometime think it can be a distraction. I am not too bothered whether my ancestors were the first people to speak PIE in some spot. Simple genetic lingeage=a language='real' IEs is still a dangerous idea IMO.

I also think its probably incorrect and that languages evolved in geographical networks of interaction rather than the silly idea that one small tribe living in one small area spread it everywhere. I dont think its controversial to see Sredny Stog as PIE or the earliest form of it and the skeletal evidence is clear that that culture had a big mix of steppe and farming genes and socio-economic attributes. So, IMO PIE first formed in a mixed group whose important main role seems to have been as middle men in the interaction between the rather backwards steppe peoples and the advanced metal using Balkans groups up to about 4000BC. So, IMO IE evolved in what was a go-between group around the Dnieper at the farming-steppe boundary and it was spread by the elite of that group as far as the Volga and slightly later deep into the Balkans, all in pre-Yamnaya times. I see Yamnaya as a secondary wave.

I dont think we give enough credit to the non-steppe elements in the genesis of IE culture. Without the influence and contact farmers/early copper users in the Balkans and Caucasus, the steppe peoples would just be hunter-fishers living on the edge of existence - something that is demonstrated by the lack of much branching in R1a before 3500BC. The problem is that there has been a bit of a noble savage indigenist thing going on in discussion about places like the Ukraine steppe while in reality they seem to have been very strongly influenced and probably significantly settled from peoples from the Balkans and Caucasus. The Stedny Stog and post-Mariopal cultures clearly were not of a predominantly steppe proto-Europoid types and there are several others. So, IMO the emerging early PIE zone virtually certainly featured a very mixed population c. 5000-3500BC.

I think what we are being fooled by in the ancient DNA so far is the focus of looking at remains from after that period when mobile pastoralism on wagons with narrow male lineages moving into practically empty areas of inter-fluve dry steppes started to take place.

IMO the archaeological and physical anthropological remains screams out that the farmers-steppe interface around the Dniester was very porous c. 5000-4000BC and the steppes during the likely rise of the earliest PIE was controlled by the Stedny Stog/Skelya elite who controlled this interfacing, settled from the Dnieper to the Don and who networked from the Carpathians to the Volga-Urals. That networking phase and that culture must be the origin of archaic PIE and even Anthony agrees with that. Add the eclectic mix among Sredny Stog peoples c. 5000-4000 and indeed similarly mixed populations in the post-stog/post-steppe hiatus groups like post-Mariopal then I think its fair to say that archaic PIE evolved in a zone that might have had R1a, R1b, I, G and even E in it.

I personally think there is a child-like wish to claim a y lineage as 'THE PIE' line when in fact we have no ancient DNA from the right time or place to have any knowledge on who lived in the zone of the emergence of PIE - probably the Dnieper/Don area IMO.

One warning I think I should give people who really deeply want to know which DNA was linked to what language etc is to not waste your time expecting a definitive answer. We do not know and will never know who spoke what and will not be able to infer it with confidence once you go back beyond 3000BC. It will never be entirely settled because, while genes and cultures can be linked, languages pre-3000BC in Europe of those cultures and genes is not recoverable.

I agree with much of what you say.

Stay assured, I'm not trying to proclaim R1b as "The PIE marker", that would be outlandish.
The lineage A = exclusive language bearer mantra isn't simply a dangerous idea, it's a self-defeating one above all.

Though the fact is I cannot help but associate R1b (xV88, M73) and R1a to the spread of Indo-European, both of these lineages seem to have a very deep history with this language family and their respective phylogenies further hint towards such a relationship.

Of course, many other lineages would've been present in the PIE-speaking community, as you said the farmers-steppe interface was quite porous and it is difficult not to picture neighbouring lineages - such as I2a and G2a, which probably were to be found in the neighbouring Cucuteni-Tripolye horizon - joining hands with the PIEs.
I'd go even further and add that several lineages such as J2b (and E-V13 to some extent though it does seem to have spread with the advance of the Neolithic) also seem to have a very long Indo-European past.

In the end, this is all speculation of course and time will tell (by which I mean "aDNA will tell").

I hear your plea regarding the hazard associated to genetic-linguistic connections, and indeed prior to 3000 BCE things start getting very blurry.
Afroasiatic being my subject of expertise, I'd be the first to know about the comparative method's limitations the farther back we go in time.
But even at such a remote date (the most realistic estimates for PAA lie between ~12,000 BCE and ~15,000 BCE) some markers do display very obvious connections to the spread & divergence of a given language family (here, for instance, E-M35 and its subclades happens to be the perfect match while J1 is a serious contender for Afroasiatic's later stages [Boreafrasian, but it could've been there earlier]).
So I wouldn't discard all hopes just yet, though it's very obvious that the comparative method reaches its limits slightly beyond 3000 BCE.

Either way, I'm pretty sure no language family is associated with a single lineage, that defies the concept of language itself.
As for R1b, well I'm still undecided as of now. I think a connection with copper smelting is likely, but yet again, no theory is perfect and we're still speculating.
My guess was that it probably stayed around the Caucasus and merged with the neighbouring IE speakers, which could account for some of the Kartvelian and (more trivial albeit real) NW Caucasian links linguistically-speaking (I have little to no doubt that there were early contacts between Forest-steppe groups and neighbouring groups in the N. Caucasus). I wouldn't be surprised if R1b was non-IE all along (I'm no R1b-IE nationalist), and the Balkans seem to have played a major role in this lineage's history (as you said, there are high concentrations of M269* in the Balkans and L23xL51 practically peaks there as well).

What we're more or less sure of is that R1b was a latecomer (post-Neolithic, Copper age) in Western-Central Europe, it clearly looks intrusive and the fact that it doesn't show up in Neolithic samples just goes on to prove that if you ask me.


I think when you delete out the probably later movements of L11 derived clades eastwards into east central/eastern Europe and likely later movements of L23xL51 along the Med, there was probably once a basic split in European R1b along something approaching the old Iron Curtain line. I dont for a moment buy the idea that the noise level scatter of non-L11 R1b in western Europe is anything other than noise and a straw for people who hang onto the idea of a deeper western history of R1b to clutch.

IMO until otherwise proven, you have to look at the data in a simple intuitive way - very counter-intuitive interpretations of current evidence often means preconceived ideas or bias to me. I dont think anyone can truly look at R1b evidence in Europe and conclude in all honesty that the belief that it appeared first on the west side of the old Iron Curtain is the intuitive one

I agree entirely on that one.

alan
06-21-2014, 05:58 PM
I think people tend to overegg the violence of our ancestors. Sure it happened but it a risky business with simple weapons with a fairly high chance of getting killed. So I think there was a lot more networking, wheeling and dealing, striking alliances, marriages of alliance, clientship etc than people think.

RCO
06-21-2014, 10:12 PM
It's interesting because the frequencies of R1b are more or less the same from Turkey to the Balkans (Bulgaria, Romenia, Serbia, Greece, Albania) and Southern Italy, approximately no more than 15% R1b straight from Anatolia to the Central Mediterranean and big holes in mountainous places like Bosnia with very low R1b frequencies and then suddenly, after Slovenia, Austria, Eastern Germany, the proportions climb for the first time to more than 25% increasing abruptly towards Western Germany and Northern Italy with more than 50%. Of course we need a complete investigation of the SE European R1b M269 SNPs but I presume the European P310/L11 were not derived of Balkanic or Anatolian L51-M412 or L23 but they could be directly derived from the West Asian L23 (close to regions like where the Bashkir live) without a Balkanic or Anatolian stay because they were different branches, just different unrelated cousins arriving from the same distant Western Asian sources (where R1b M-73 is found) and there had never been a continuous R1b frontier of expansion from Anatolia and the Balkans in direction to Central Europe because the frontier would homogeneize, carry and drag all the ancient Balkanic haplogroups together with the SE European R1b to NW Europe. Another possible option would be a fast Northern penetration via the Ukrainian and Hungarian Plains just South or even before R1a (located to the Northern areas of Poland-West Russia) as R1b would had arrived before and moved further West to Germany, Austria and started the complex maritime connections of R1b in Western Atlantic Europe. A Northern via of penetration would explain the centromere of the P310/L11 massive bifurcation as the cradle of P312-U106 close to the R1b/R1a big divide, the European regions where R1b reached more than 50% of the total population meaning the pioneerism and the big expansion of R1b P312-U106 in Central-Western Europe, so the SE European R1b and the NW European R1b would be different branches from the same West Asian sources and not a basal-derived continuously moving frontier from Anatolia-Balkans-West Germany. Let's wait for more data ?

Humanist
06-21-2014, 10:45 PM
It's interesting because the frequencies of R1b are more or less the same from Turkey to the Balkans (Bulgaria, Romenia, Serbia, Greece, Albania) and Southern Italy, approximately no more than 15% R1b straight from Anatolia to the Central Mediterranean...

The Alawites of the Turkey/Syrian border area have greater than 30% R1b*.

* Y-STR haplotypes in populations from the Eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey
Dönbak et al. (2006)

Relevant haplotypes:


n=1 12 23 14 10 11 14 xx xx xx 14 13 30
n=1 12 24 14 10 10 14 xx xx xx 12 13 29
n=1 12 24 14 10 11 14 xx xx xx 13 13 29
n=1 12 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx xx 14 13 30
n=2 12 24 14 12 11 14 xx xx xx 14 13 30
n=1 12 24 14 12 11 14 xx xx xx 13 13 29
n=3 12 25 14 11 11 14 xx xx xx 13 13 29
n=1 12 25 14 12 11 14 xx xx xx 14 13 30
n=5 13 24 14 11 11 15 xx xx xx 13 13 29 <-- Secondary
n=2 13 24 14 11 11 15 xx xx xx 12 13 28
n=12 13 24 14 11 11 15 xx xx xx 14 13 30 <-- Modal
n=1 13 24 14 10 11 15 xx xx xx 14 13 30
n=1 13 24 14 11 11 15 xx xx xx 15 13 31
n=1 13 24 14 11 10 15 xx xx xx 15 13 31
n=1 13 24 16 10 11 14 xx xx xx 14 13 30

ADW_1981
06-22-2014, 03:01 AM
The Alawites of the Turkey/Syrian border area have greater than 30% R1b*.

* Y-STR haplotypes in populations from the Eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey
Dönbak et al. (2006)

Relevant haplotypes:


n=1 12 23 14 10 11 14 xx xx xx 14 13 30
n=1 12 24 14 10 10 14 xx xx xx 12 13 29
n=1 12 24 14 10 11 14 xx xx xx 13 13 29
n=1 12 24 14 11 11 14 xx xx xx 14 13 30
n=2 12 24 14 12 11 14 xx xx xx 14 13 30
n=1 12 24 14 12 11 14 xx xx xx 13 13 29
n=3 12 25 14 11 11 14 xx xx xx 13 13 29
n=1 12 25 14 12 11 14 xx xx xx 14 13 30
n=5 13 24 14 11 11 15 xx xx xx 13 13 29 <-- Secondary
n=2 13 24 14 11 11 15 xx xx xx 12 13 28
n=12 13 24 14 11 11 15 xx xx xx 14 13 30 <-- Modal
n=1 13 24 14 10 11 15 xx xx xx 14 13 30
n=1 13 24 14 11 11 15 xx xx xx 15 13 31
n=1 13 24 14 11 10 15 xx xx xx 15 13 31
n=1 13 24 16 10 11 14 xx xx xx 14 13 30

I second that. Albanians have closer to 20%, I believe 18%, southern Greeks and western Turks have 20-25%. Anywhere in Italy is above 30%, and as RCO says 50% or higher in the north.

ADW_1981
06-22-2014, 03:06 AM
The funniest thing I've noticed over the last 4 years following this stuff - NOBODY, I mean NOBODY wants to be the farming societies, at least not from a YDNA perspective. Maybe it's not sexy, I don't know.

alan
06-22-2014, 04:45 AM
I agree that R1b in Eurasia is almost freakishly hard to really understand and interpret. It clearly has a complex history and the patterns, if they ever were clear, have been really messed about by subsequent population movements, creating a broken looking pattern. I think that M73, the closest branching in R1b to M269, is a strong clue that the ancestor of both probably at some time was located further east, probably on the north side of the Pontic-Caspian zone or north central Asia.

However, that is a very deep time part of the story. From what I recall the STR based interclade placed the common ancestor c. 11000 years ago at a time when the pressure microbade technique was spreading from Siberia across the Urals. I have mentioned before that the Kukrek/Grebenki cultures using this technique who were located as far west as the east Carpathians by about 7500BC. M73 could have been part of the same movement but was within some related culture who remained closer to the Urals or north central Asia.


It's interesting because the frequencies of R1b are more or less the same from Turkey to the Balkans (Bulgaria, Romenia, Serbia, Greece, Albania) and Southern Italy, approximately no more than 15% R1b straight from Anatolia to the Central Mediterranean and big holes in mountainous places like Bosnia with very low R1b frequencies and then suddenly, after Slovenia, Austria, Eastern Germany, the proportions climb for the first time to more than 25% increasing abruptly towards Western Germany and Northern Italy with more than 50%. Of course we need a complete investigation of the SE European R1b M269 SNPs but I presume the European P310/L11 were not derived of Balkanic or Anatolian L51-M412 or L23 but they could be directly derived from the West Asian L23 (close to regions like where the Bashkir live) without a Balkanic or Anatolian stay because they were different branches, just different unrelated cousins arriving from the same distant Western Asian sources (where R1b M-73 is found) and there had never been a continuous R1b frontier of expansion from Anatolia and the Balkans in direction to Central Europe because the frontier would homogeneize, carry and drag all the ancient Balkanic haplogroups together with the SE European R1b to NW Europe. Another possible option would be a fast Northern penetration via the Ukrainian and Hungarian Plains just South or even before R1a (located to the Northern areas of Poland-West Russia) as R1b would had arrived before and moved further West to Germany, Austria and started the complex maritime connections of R1b in Western Atlantic Europe. A Northern via of penetration would explain the centromere of the P310/L11 massive bifurcation as the cradle of P312-U106 close to the R1b/R1a big divide, the European regions where R1b reached more than 50% of the total population meaning the pioneerism and the big expansion of R1b P312-U106 in Central-Western Europe, so the SE European R1b and the NW European R1b would be different branches from the same West Asian sources and not a basal-derived continuously moving frontier from Anatolia-Balkans-West Germany. Let's wait for more data ?

alan
06-22-2014, 05:10 AM
Its weird and I suspect its a bit of a hangover of racist ideas of the past.

Truth is the farming societies were vastly more advanced than those of the western steppe and in particular the especially backwards cultures at the Volga-Urals end of the steppe who were basically hunter-gathers with some pastoralism until very late in the day. Everything that dragged them out of this - pastoralism, the wheel, metals etc was borrowed from the Balkans and Caucasus. The main achievement of these backwards societies IMO was their impact eastwards because they combined pastoralism and the wheel to allow previously out of bounds dry steppe lands between river valleys to be settled. To the west I dont think it was remotely possible for them to have that sort of impact.

On a more local level, the Neolithic farmer societies in the west are far more interesting in their rituals and beliefs than the dull barrow with one person in it kind of societies of the early bronze age. Both the material culture and y chromosomes tend to point to this new society as a pretty nasty one where a minority would hog a lot of the resources rather than the more community and ritual based farming societies.


The funniest thing I've noticed over the last 4 years following this stuff - NOBODY, I mean NOBODY wants to be the farming societies, at least not from a YDNA perspective. Maybe it's not sexy, I don't know.

alan
06-22-2014, 05:23 AM
We also need to be wary of trying to see an overall R1b story. For example V88 probably has not common ancestor with any other R1b since P25 way back in the early days of the existence of R1b in the LGM. P25* and V88* are so remotely related to rest of R1b that they almost might as well be a different haplogroup.


It's interesting because the frequencies of R1b are more or less the same from Turkey to the Balkans (Bulgaria, Romenia, Serbia, Greece, Albania) and Southern Italy, approximately no more than 15% R1b straight from Anatolia to the Central Mediterranean and big holes in mountainous places like Bosnia with very low R1b frequencies and then suddenly, after Slovenia, Austria, Eastern Germany, the proportions climb for the first time to more than 25% increasing abruptly towards Western Germany and Northern Italy with more than 50%. Of course we need a complete investigation of the SE European R1b M269 SNPs but I presume the European P310/L11 were not derived of Balkanic or Anatolian L51-M412 or L23 but they could be directly derived from the West Asian L23 (close to regions like where the Bashkir live) without a Balkanic or Anatolian stay because they were different branches, just different unrelated cousins arriving from the same distant Western Asian sources (where R1b M-73 is found) and there had never been a continuous R1b frontier of expansion from Anatolia and the Balkans in direction to Central Europe because the frontier would homogeneize, carry and drag all the ancient Balkanic haplogroups together with the SE European R1b to NW Europe. Another possible option would be a fast Northern penetration via the Ukrainian and Hungarian Plains just South or even before R1a (located to the Northern areas of Poland-West Russia) as R1b would had arrived before and moved further West to Germany, Austria and started the complex maritime connections of R1b in Western Atlantic Europe. A Northern via of penetration would explain the centromere of the P310/L11 massive bifurcation as the cradle of P312-U106 close to the R1b/R1a big divide, the European regions where R1b reached more than 50% of the total population meaning the pioneerism and the big expansion of R1b P312-U106 in Central-Western Europe, so the SE European R1b and the NW European R1b would be different branches from the same West Asian sources and not a basal-derived continuously moving frontier from Anatolia-Balkans-West Germany. Let's wait for more data ?

Generalissimo
06-22-2014, 05:51 AM
Truth is the farming societies were vastly more advanced than those of the western steppe and in particular the especially backwards cultures at the Volga-Urals end of the steppe who were basically hunter-gathers with some pastoralism until very late in the day. Everything that dragged them out of this - pastoralism, the wheel, metals etc was borrowed from the Balkans and Caucasus. The main achievement of these backwards societies IMO was their impact eastwards because they combined pastoralism and the wheel to allow previously out of bounds dry steppe lands between river valleys to be settled. To the west I dont think it was remotely possible for them to have that sort of impact.

What's with the silly propaganda against the Russian steppe archeological cultures?

They weren't backwards and they did have a huge impact on Europe too. Refer to the paper below.

The Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages (http://www.academia.edu/1133766/The_Bronze_Age_Expansion_of_Indo-European_Languages)

There's a video to go with it. Skip to 31 minutes, where he says "the rapid westward expansion of that military complex, which is not only a military complex, but a complex of social institutions...so this is a highly complex ranked society that is expanding here".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C4XsA5ovbg&list=PLAXoDomeFLX90fTHi0W8lYBtEoZHSBH2i&index=7

alan
06-22-2014, 11:50 AM
I maybe overdid it but I am just trying to redress a bit of balance. If anyone looked collectively at the cultural remains just before 4000BC of the Volga-Urals area and the Balkans they would undoubtedly (if they didnt know anything about them)conclude that the Balkans cultures were light years more advanced. Its just a little weird that people tend not to relate to the very impressive Balkans cultures.

I am not saying the steppe cultures didnt make an impact. The question is more was that impact for the better. In the east their development of pastoralism on wheels opened up vast nearly empty places that could not be settled before. In the west its a lot more questionable whether their impact was positive or a set back. That said, west of the east Balkans and lower Danube the IEs clearly did drop a lot of the steppe way of living. Indeed IMO one of the reasons why the eastwards movements are so mobile pastoralist in nature but in old Europe agriculture continued is because the western steppes cultures themselves were highly variable with an area around the Dnieper to Don that had much more developed agriculture and other influences from the south and west while those around the Volga/Samara area had no arable agriculture to speak of. So, you could say the westernmost steppe cultures like Sredny Stog, Post-Mariupol, Kemi-Oba, Usatovo etc were already ready adapted to move into the Old Europe with ease because of long standing relationships, long standing mixing of populations and the fact that those steppe groups had a much more developed agriculture than areas to the east. Those to the east in the Volga-Urals area had virtually zero agriculture other than pastoralism added to their hunting and they were better adapted to move east into the challenging environment of the central Asian steppes etc - something that the westernmost steppe groups would have probably not had the knowledge to do.



What's with the silly propaganda against the Russian steppe archeological cultures?

They weren't backwards and they did have a huge impact on Europe too. Refer to the paper below.

The Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages (http://www.academia.edu/1133766/The_Bronze_Age_Expansion_of_Indo-European_Languages)

There's a video to go with it. Skip to 31 minutes, where he says "the rapid westward expansion of that military complex, which is not only a military complex, but a complex of social institutions...so this is a highly complex ranked society that is expanding here".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C4XsA5ovbg&list=PLAXoDomeFLX90fTHi0W8lYBtEoZHSBH2i&index=7

razyn
06-29-2014, 09:22 PM
Sometime I'd like to see this sort of thread touch upon the research into (slightly) prehistoric viniculture, led by Patrick E. McGovern at Penn and (mostly later) others. Jean Manco's AJ book is comprehensive enough and recent enough; look at the last page (of the Index, and of the book) under "wine," and check the footnotes for the cited pages. I happened to run across McGovern's Ancient Wine last week in the gift shop of the Oriental Institute in Chicago. It's a good read, not so recent now, but there's a lot about DNA. Happens to be grape DNA rather than human, but those domesticated cultivars were not spread by bird droppings. And they point to a lot of the same geography and populations as do these discussions of copper smelting in the circumpontic. One distinction being, probably, that winemaking may have had fewer options for its routes of diffusion; it probably wouldn't move gradually (over millennia) through territories too cold to grow grapes.

Anyway, pots aren't people; but pots with wine residue are pretty good pointers to a cultural practice that might have a lot of its roots in common with those of the big R haplogroups, PIE, the immediate metallurgical precursors of bronze, the technology of sewn boats, and so on. I've wondered for a while now whether there's any chance that the R1b-Z2103 relative "outliers" in places such as Tuscany and the Loire Valley were, at some more distant time, managing vineyards in Georgia or Armenia?

I realize I get some eccentric notions about these things; but the (human, contemporary, Y-) DNA is pointing at something odd. Probably several somethings. Herders of cattle on the Danube, Celtic warriors, and Phoenician traders can account for some of it -- but they've had plenty of advocates.

Other people interested in human migration have been studying the DNA of horses, edible frogs, and chickens. Who speaks for the grape?

Agamemnon
06-29-2014, 09:29 PM
Sometime I'd like to see this sort of thread touch upon the research into (slightly) prehistoric viniculture, led by Patrick E. McGovern at Penn and (mostly later) others. Jean Manco's AJ book is comprehensive enough and recent enough; look at the last page (of the Index, and of the book) under "wine," and check the footnotes for the cited pages. I happened to run across McGovern's Ancient Wine last week in the gift shop of the Oriental Institute in Chicago. It's a good read, not so recent now, but there's a lot about DNA. Happens to be grape DNA rather than human, but those domesticated cultivars were not spread by bird droppings. And they point to a lot of the same geography and populations as do these discussions of copper smelting in the circumpontic. One distinction being, probably, that winemaking may have had fewer options for its routes of diffusion; it probably wouldn't move gradually (over millennia) through territories too cold to grow grapes.

Anyway, pots aren't people; but pots with wine residue are pretty good pointers to a cultural practice that might have a lot of its roots in common with those of the big R haplogroups, PIE, the immediate metallurgical precursors of bronze, the technology of sewn boats, and so on. I've wondered for a while now whether there's any chance that the R1b-Z2103 relative "outliers" in places such as Tuscany and the Loire Valley were, at some more distant time, managing vineyards in Georgia or Armenia?

I realize I get some eccentric notions about these things; but the (human, contemporary, Y-) DNA is pointing at something odd. Probably several somethings. Herders of cattle on the Danube, Celtic warriors, and Phoenician traders can account for some of it -- but they've had plenty of advocates.

Other people interested in human migration have been studying the DNA of horses, edible frogs, and chickens. Who speaks for the grape?

Quite possible, as I said, I tend to think that R1b was confined to the Caucasus at some point... I could be wrong, I could be right, if this really was the case then we have a culprit for some of the Kartvelian & NW Caucasian loans in PIE.

David Mc
06-29-2014, 10:01 PM
I have no idea as to whether or not R1b-Z2103 has connections with ancient viniculture. I just had to give your post a like because it happens to be a really good piece of writing and it tickled me. Who speaks for the grape, indeed!

Jean M
07-17-2014, 08:35 PM
So, IMO PIE first formed in a mixed group whose important main role seems to have been as middle men in the interaction between the rather backwards steppe peoples and the advanced metal using Balkans groups up to about 4000BC.

Backwoods? Backward? Either way this sort of thinking flies in the face of history. We should know. Britain, a country so culturally retarted that it still had not manged to re-invent central heating, started exploring the world and accumulating souvenirs (like Virginia, India, Australia, and other trifles that fit nicely on the mantlepiece over the log fire in the freezing great hall). How was that possible? England in the time of Elizabeth I was barely able to hold off Spain. Clearly the British Empire should not have happened if we follow your reasoning. Plus the Mongols should never have been able to take China. Attilla the Hun wouldn't have had the smallest chance of any variety of empire. The Vandals wouldn't have got within 500 miles of Rome. Etc, etc. :biggrin1:

rokousa
08-02-2014, 08:28 AM
The Vandals wouldn't have got within 500 miles of Rome. Etc, etc. :biggrin1:

is there any scientific/forensic proof about vandals?
i think that there are much more "historical tribes", that y dna hg`s....

Baltimore1937
04-29-2016, 11:01 PM
I don't know where to put my little 2 cents worth, so I'll put it here. My latest autosomal match at FTDNA has M269. Furthermore, it shows an Irish flag with Niall of the Nine Hostages printed on it. I don't have many of those, but it does pop up now and then among my FTDNA matches. He is from Nova Scotia, where a female from there also matches me ("in common with"). I suspect those matches somehow connect to my mysterious direct maternal line that I further suspect goes back to New England in the 1600s.

A.D.
04-30-2016, 01:16 PM
Something struck me about Bell-Beaker people re-using Megalithic/Neolithic tombs and there variations of burial practices. I was thinking these people were not buried by their 'own ethnic culture' but by the 'foreign' societies they moved into. What about other practices like some Amerindian practices that have left no trace. This kind of small scale integration could have happened many if not all the time in varying degrees any/everywhere. I think pastoralism and arable farming could have benefited each other. Live stoke up the mountains in summer when the crops grow bring them down in the winter for shelter, straw, hay in return they provide fertilizer. BB is often described as a package that does not mean that its elements did not move individually and interdependently earlier and on a smaller scale. Like trails to tracks to roads to motorways, not every trail became a motorway and not every motorway started as a trail.

rms2
04-30-2016, 05:48 PM
Something struck me about Bell-Beaker people re-using Megalithic/Neolithic tombs and there variations of burial practices. I was thinking these people were not buried by their 'own ethnic culture' but by the 'foreign' societies they moved into. What about other practices like some Amerindian practices that have left no trace. This kind of small scale integration could have happened many if not all the time in varying degrees any/everywhere. I think pastoralism and arable farming could have benefited each other. Live stoke up the mountains in summer when the crops grow bring them down in the winter for shelter, straw, hay in return they provide fertilizer. BB is often described as a package that does not mean that its elements did not move individually and interdependently earlier and on a smaller scale. Like trails to tracks to roads to motorways, not every trail became a motorway and not every motorway started as a trail.

Maybe, but the earliest Bell Beaker people found in collective Neolithic tombs, especially in Iberia, look just like Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers: they are short in stature, long headed (dolichocephalic), and have gracile skeletons. They also lack what we think of as the Bell Beaker burial kit: weapons, archer's wristguards, etc.

Until we know better, I think we are looking at two different sets of Beaker people, early and later, with probably two different y-dna profiles.

We know the later Bell Beaker men tended to be P312+. We don't yet know anything about the y-dna of the earliest Bell Beaker men. I doubt it was R1b.

A.D.
04-30-2016, 07:05 PM
It does seem likely that the likes of the Balearic Isles were of different ancestry than the (presumed) Yamnaya types. It also seems they're religious practices were more close to Neolithic farmers i.e more cosmology based. I think more Northern BB were more like the IE(?) type n forerunners of Lugh, Odin, Zeus, Jupiter etc type pantheons.