tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post5388171610838063131..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Ancient steppe populations: hints of things to comeDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-74171452662816262072014-07-29T02:29:15.855+03:002014-07-29T02:29:15.855+03:00I always think proofs must drive the theory and as...I always think proofs must drive the theory and as new elements of knowledge accumulate I become more and more convinced that the first Indo-europeans are to be found in Khwalinsk and subsequent Yamnaya cultures . As the question to know if the Indo-european expansion is the result of "elite dominance" or partial "population replacement" both cases must have occurred : Sometime a war-band established itself as a dominant upper class ,other time they must have largely massacred the vanquished male population and keep the female population as wives or concubines as witness by the fact that Mt DNA is very divers but differ only in proportion between different European populations wile in some area Y DNA show a population replacement. <br />I am also impress by the apparent fact that Khvalinsk people is more gracille than east of the Dnieper steppe people and most of Andronovo .There seems to be a continuity between Kvalinsk,Repin,east of the Don Yamnaya ,Poltavka and Skrubnaya people and maybe Scytians.<br />I am very curious to see if Genetic confirm or contradict these hypotheses and to Know more about the Khvalinsk Paleo-anthropology . I think big discoveries will come soon and maybe forested steppes and broad lives forest peoples are more important for the Indo european question than previously thought.amrik singhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15205128894203691076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12222329601613593102014-04-25T12:28:52.205+03:002014-04-25T12:28:52.205+03:00If we look at phenotype of ancien populations wit...If we look at phenotype of ancien populations with Y haplogroups R1a1 dominant they show features that seem intermediary between proto-europides (robust bones strongly develop eyebrows ridge , medium to large size)and Mediterraneans (narrower face and straighter forehead)<br />The R1b ... Haplogroups came probably from Anatolia and apparently expended with stock breeding largely for dairy product as demonstrated convincingly by Jean Manco .<br />But the crucial point is that it is only R1b1a ant it's subclades that is a marker of the proto-Indo-Europeans (R-l21 , R-S28, R-S21 ...).The other R1a haplogroups came probably from NON_Indo-Europeans from Anatolia.<br />G2a3b1 seems to form (always?)a small companion haplogoup of Ria .<br />So it seems to me that the proto-Indo-Europeans east of the Don and in the forest steppe Indo-europeanised those living in the steppes west of the Don an that it is those who settled in western Europe.amrik singhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15205128894203691076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84647480314823556852013-10-30T17:07:02.519+02:002013-10-30T17:07:02.519+02:00To Simon W,
it is true that R1b in Italy peaks in...To Simon W,<br /><br />it is true that R1b in Italy peaks in Tuscany, but it would be a good idea to see "which Tuscany" is loaded by R1b people.<br /><br />If you see, you could notice that the R1b loaded area of Tuscany is the northern Appennine one. Also, if you do a little research, you will see that the Appennine area of northern Tuscany is one of the blondest area in Italy (where blondism reach the same percentages as in Tyrol and Aosta Valley). Some Italian scholars, from the beginning of 20th century, sayd that that area was one of the Gaulish refuge from roman expansion.<br /><br />If you, indeed, are in search of Etruscans in Tuscany, you have to look at the Casentino region, that has, according to Barbujani works, the most etruscan population. That part of Tuscany, however, is in the middle of Central Italy, next to Umbria, where a lot of R1b folks settled.<br /><br />For what I am reading, I'm more convinced in a PIE population loaded with R1b, than in a PIE population loaded with R1a.Hodo Scaritihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02321531001237192649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69403167330169359512013-07-12T19:49:12.357+03:002013-07-12T19:49:12.357+03:00Simon_W, many thanks. I read that some time ago an...Simon_W, many thanks. I read that some time ago and had forgotten the genetic component of his argument.<br /><br />"Expect" might be too strong a word but I should certainly not be surprised to find DNA from south Central Asia in the Tarim Basin at a very early date. A material culture certainly seems to have expanded east as far as the Zarafshan Valley by 3000 BCE. Whether we can assign a language to any such expansion is another question entirely.<br /><br />For the record, I find the conventional wisdom that pushes some ancestor of Tocharian across the steppe in the fourth millennium BCE most improbable. I am as certain as one can be about such things that the language arrived via the proto-Silk Route. My only question is when.Va_Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671547664669092756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47297353680313552392013-07-11T22:00:55.109+03:002013-07-11T22:00:55.109+03:00@ Va_Highlander
Dienekes wrote a blog entry on th...@ Va_Highlander<br /><br />Dienekes wrote a blog entry on that topic:<br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.ch/2011/05/on-tocharian-origins.htmlSimon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26264045682693781412013-07-11T21:48:49.868+03:002013-07-11T21:48:49.868+03:00Hence, I would suggest that the West_Asian admixtu...Hence, I would suggest that the West_Asian admixture in the Balto-Slavs, who are dominated by R1a, came from J2, probably via the Caucasus region. And I still think that R1b/Gedrosia came from the Baden culture, which had roots in eastern Anatolia.<br /><br />This article by Roland Menk<br />http://slavanthro.mybb3.ru/viewtopic.php?t=929 <br />reassured me in my opinion that the brachycephalic type of the eastern Bell Beaker folks had its origin in West Asia. At least Menk states that the same type is ascertained for the Baden-Vucedol culture. Apparently, this was really an important source for the eastern Bell Beaker people.<br /><br />There is quite some disagreement between archeologists on the cultural and social importance of the Yamnaya impact in the west. Whereas M. Gimbutas for instance, also Heyd, it seems, ascribe a decisive role to the incursion of Yamnaya people to the Carpathian basin, A. Häusler for instance noted that there was only some weak Yamnaya immigration in the late phase of the Baden culture, and it wasn't culturally determining at all. Soon after their arrival, the immigrants gave up their funerary customs, which means that they were assimilated, not the other way round. He asserts that the Baden culture was superior, both in the construction of wagons and in copper metallurgy. Conclusion: If one isn't in the position to judge for oneself, at least it isn't advisable to blindly follow the Kurganist interpretation.<br /><br />I'll stand by my opinion that the Raeto-Etruscans had their roots in the eastern Bell Beaker group. But possibly the latter also included some proto-Celts. At least, if R1b was originally associated with the IE spread and with Italo-Celtic, this assumption is likely, given the R1b in eastern Bell Beaker people. In fact, my theory requires the Urnfield culture to be multiethnic, partly Celtic, but also Raeto-Etruscan. And if that's possible for the Urnfield culture, it was no less possible for the Bell Beaker East group. Etruscans and Gaulish Celts seem to share R1b-U152, which is a subvariant of R1b-S116. And the latter is also shared between Celts and Basques. So in any case such a sharing between unrelated languages isn't unrealistic.<br />Simon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83313743129641239262013-07-11T21:47:54.180+03:002013-07-11T21:47:54.180+03:00Having thought about the whole issue again, I came...<br />Having thought about the whole issue again, I came to the following conclusions.<br /><br />I think Colin is right with his observation that R1b is linked with the earliest splits of IE.<br /><br />I was wrong with questioning the early split-off of Italo-Celtic. (I was misled by the Bouckaert et al. Paper. The critique by Martin Lewis and Asya Pereltsvaig however has convinced me of dismissing its results.) Afaik Ringe et al. made two different trees of IE, one based on the lexical data, the other on morphological and phonological data. If we take the latter tree, the succession of splits is as follows:<br /><br />1. Anatolian (dominated by R1b + J2)<br />2. Tocharian (R1b + J2?)<br />3. Italo-Celtic (R1b / R1b + J2)<br />4. Germanic (R1b + R1a (+ I1)) and Albanian (R1b + J2 (+ E-V13))<br />5. Greek (R1b + J2 (+ E-V13)) and Armenian (R1b + J2)<br />6. Indo-Iranian (R1a + J2) and Balto-Slavic (R1a / R1a (+ N))<br /><br />I guess if we put more weight on morphology and less on phonology, then Balto-Slavic would move away from Indo-Iranian and end up between Germanic and Albanian. But in any case, the pattern is striking how the early splits are connected with R1b and J2.<br /><br />However, this fact only suggests an R1b-rich Yamnaya if one is already convinced of the Kurgan theory! It could, quite to the contrary, also be used as evidence <i>against</i> the Kurgan theory.<br /><br />As I said, the phylogeography of R1b rather suggests a West Asian origin. And the STR-variance of R1b-M269* points to an Iranian origin. (Maybe it was associated with pre-PIE, i.e. with IE before reaching the PIE homeland, which presumably was more to the west, close to J2.)<br /><br />There is one important argument against a Yamnaya origin of R1b that I didn't mention yet: It's very likely that the Yamnaya people were rich in the Globe4 Amerindian component. And Armenians have a lot of R1b and a strong Gedrosia component, but their Amerindian component is 0%. Therefore it's extremely unlikely that their R1b has a Yamnaya origin.<br /><br />Furthermore, the contemporary lack of R1b in the north Pontic area would entail a near complete population replacement, if we assumed that Yamnaya was dominated by R1b. However, according to all morphometrical analyses (by Bunak, by Menk, by Schwidetzky...), there was quite a lot of population continuity in the north Pontic area, starting from Yamnaya down through the ages. <br /><br />So, I would suggest that Yamnaya was dominated by R1a. The Maikop influence from the south was probably rather associated with J2, as is suggested by the strong diffusion of J2 in southern Russia north of the Caucasus.<br /><br />It's by the way striking how the West Asian admixture differs between the Celts and the Balto-Slavs. In the former this shows predominantly, in Ireland exclusively, as the K12b Gedrosia component. In the latter, Gedrosia is virtually nonexistent, and the West_Asian admixture shows mostly as K12b Caucasus. As I have suggested before, I think European Gedrosia is correlated with R1b. The Caucasus component on the other hand seems correlated with J2 admixture.Simon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-1323918963916523392013-07-07T17:17:10.463+03:002013-07-07T17:17:10.463+03:00Simon_W:
"Tocharian: possibly or even likely...Simon_W:<br /><br /><i>"Tocharian: possibly or even likely connected with R1b, though that's just an educated guess at the moment."</i><br /><br />What is the basis of your educated guess? The Xiaohe mummies, from the Tarim Basin, were R1a1a but of course it is impossible to know what language they spoke and they predate the appearance of Tocharian by around a thousand years or more.<br /><br /><i>"So maybe, M269 spread from Iran to the Maikop culture (as attested by cultural influence!) and got diffused from there?"</i><br /><br />That is an interesting and, at least at first glance, plausible possibility.Va_Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671547664669092756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68347228477486960312013-07-07T01:36:54.489+03:002013-07-07T01:36:54.489+03:00There is no evidence that Italic ever was in north...There is no evidence that Italic ever was in northern Italy, prior to the spread of Latin. Anyway, that's irrelevant, because what I noted was an undeniable, striking connection between the areas occupied by the Italics with the southeastern y-DNA pole on the one hand, and a no less striking connection of the formerly Etruscan areas with the northwestern pole on the other. According to the study in question the former shows connections with the Balkans and Anatolia, the latter with central and western Europe. My point was actually the derivation of the Etruscans from central Europe and, presumably, from the BB East group, at least along the Danube. I elaborated on this in the comment section of that Italian study. Actually I do think there was an Italic substrate in Etruria. Ancient sources report of an Umbrian substrate, and in the middle bronze age, this area belonged to the Apennine culture, just like the rest of the peninsula. But that's irrelevant, because later the Etruscans arrived and with them haplogroups which shifted Etruria away from the southeast.<br /><br />No, it's not a problem to decouple Celtic and Italic, because after all they did split at some point.<br /><br />And no, I don't subscribe to the R1a PIE theory, I just found it plausible that the R1a1a in central/southern Italy may be Yamnaya derived in the first place. <br /><br />At the moment I tend to think that the Italo-Celtic nucleus was in the Vucedol culture. So, yes, around the Danube, but not in Southern Germany/Austria. What good arguments do „most linguists“ have for placing Italo-Celtic further west?<br /><br />As for the correlation between haplogroups and languages, I see it like this:<br />Anatolian: J2a is strongest there. <br />Tocharian: possibly or even likely connected with R1b, though that's just an educated guess at the moment.<br />Italo-Celtic: yes, R1b is strong there, though with different variants, and in Italic J2a is strong too<br />Basque: strong in R1b<br />Iberian: ditto<br />Raetic and Etruscan: ditto<br /><br />Also I would question the assumption that Italo-Celtic split particularly early from the rest. Obviously according to Ringe et al, that holds true, but the lexical data suggests otherwise.<br /><br />And I don't think the Corded Ware can be reduced to Satem. Although early Balto-Slavic may well have been a part of it, there's no reason why the same shouldn't apply to early Germanic as well.<br /><br />Furthermore, while most of the area dominated by R1a is indeed Satem, there is strong admixture of non-Slavic R1a in parts of the Germanic area. (I myself have got one of these.) Also note that Armenian and Albanian, in spite of being Satem-languages, have very little R1a. So the association isn't all that perfect.<br /><br />But, on a second thought, I have to admit, maybe you're not completely wrong with your theories:<br />As I wrote, in my view there is a partial correlation between R1b-M269 / -M73 and the Gedrosia component. Also, just slightly less so, with the Dagestan-component of earlier analyses. Accordingly, the Lezgins from Dagestan are relatively rich in R1b.<br />Furthermore, the rare R1b-M269* haplotypes appear to have the highest STR-variance in Iran.<br />So maybe, M269 spread from Iran to the Maikop culture (as attested by cultural influence!) and got diffused from there? But this would be earlier than Yamnaya. And I don't believe this was an IE influence. I would deduce European IEs rather from the copper cultures of SE Europe. Simon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58891972018514752792013-07-06T23:13:04.892+03:002013-07-06T23:13:04.892+03:00The yamnaya did settle in the same region where th...<i>The yamnaya did settle in the same region where the Eastern Beakers set out from. Archeological and isotopic studies both point to this event. </i><br /><br />I don't think so. <br />First of all: The Bell Beaker package reached the eastern province from the West! The Bell Beaker phenomenon originated in Iberia. <br />Sure, as I have stated in a previous post, the domestic ware of the BB East group has been compared to Vucedol pottery. Vucedol influence has even been found in southern France. But afaik there was no real Vucedol substrate in the area where the BB East group developped. A large part of it was covered by the Corded Ware instead. Furthremore, from what I've read, the typical domestic ware developped later, after the installation of the Bell Beaker package; it wasn't part of a substrate. So what we've got are possible stylistic influences, nothing more – hardly enough to assume a strong genetic or linguistic impact. There's also the fact that the area that was really occupied by the Vucedol culture barely succumbed to the Bell beaker influence. There was a tiny Hungarian group, clearly intrusive, and then only centuries after the beginning of the BB East group, the syncretistic Maros-Perjamos culture and the Cetina culture.<br />I would add that furthermore, Vucedol and Yamnaya are quite different cultures which shouldn't be equated.<br /><br /><i>Heyde also claimed yamnays input. </i><br /><br />In the BB East group? Quotation please, I don't believe this.Simon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2897147655303604812013-07-06T23:09:43.964+03:002013-07-06T23:09:43.964+03:00Again, I understand that your theory isn't abo...Again, I understand that your theory isn't about autosomal DNA, I always did! Please stop repeating that I don't. I was just trying to make an argument in favour of a Near Eastern origin of the Bell Beaker people's R1b, i.e. that it seems more likely than a Steppe origin. But thinking about it, I'm not very convinced myself, given the elusiveness of Dinaroid skulls in West Asia at that time, and given the similarity of the German and Czech Bell Beaker skulls with the Danish TRB skulls. <br /><br />That said, I very much doubt that western European R1b has been completely decoupled from the autosomal DNA of its original bearers. In do see a correlation with the K12b Gedrosia component there. Also, just slightly less so, with the Dagestan-component of earlier analyses.<br /><br />As for your speculations about the North_European shift, I'm not convinced either. What evidence do we have so far? There is one woman from the Swedish TRB. And there is Ötzi. That's all so far! The latter, even though for sure more Sardinian-like and more „Southern“ than modern north Italians and Alpine people, is still from Italy after all, from southern Europe, where the Cardium pottery once flourished. As to the Swedish TRB, even if it sounds pretentious, this may as well have been expected to have been rather „Southern“, autosomally, because craniometrically it was closely related with the LBK-derived Rössen culture. I strongly suspect that there were at the same time groups which were more North_European like. The Danish TRB for instance, differed craniometrically a lot from the Swedish TRB. It would be rash to suppose that they were autosomally the same. And morphologically we know that it included the massive „Borreby“ type. We may suppose that there were other hunter-gatherer derived pockets around in other places. As user Rokus keeps mentioning in the comments, the late neolithic cultures (beware, sometimes referred to as „middle neolithic“, also by Rokus) differed quite a bit from the eary LBK and LBK-daughter groups. I guess they were the result of a symbiosis of northern and southern influences. For instance, in that recent study on Bell Beaker mt-DNA, it was striking how the central German „middle neolithic“ was already similar to the modern Germans, and how much it differed from the LBK. This middle neolithic is probably late neolithic in different terminology, but one thing's for sure: It was earlier than the Corded Ware and Yamnaya time frame.<br /><br />Not sure what you're talking about when referring to the influence of Eastern Beakers in Western Europe. The Eastern Bell Beakers were the eastern variant of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. Western Europe had its own variants, not derived from Eastern Beakers. What's true is that the Bell Beaker people from Britain appear to have come from the lower Rhine area, the Zoned Beaker complex, a Corded Ware-Bell Beaker fusion area.<br /><br />The admixture date for the North European influence in Spain is 3600 BP +/- 400. This translates into roughly 1600 BC. This is the middle bronze age. The Bell Beaker culture in central Europe ended at 2200 BC, with the beginning of the early bronze age. So, it's very anachronistic to explain that North_European shift in Spain with an expansion of Eastern Beakers, at a time, when in central Europe the Tumulus culture was thriving.Simon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-1076220069189717012013-07-04T08:12:15.537+03:002013-07-04T08:12:15.537+03:00Continued...
The Italics on the other hand were ...Continued...<br /><br /><i> The Italics on the other hand were most of all the Oscan-Umbrian group of tribes and the Latino-Faliscan group. Maybe South Picene was a third group, but I think I read it was close to Oscan-Umbrian. In any case, these Italic tribes were in the centre (excluding Etruria) and south of Italy. The Umbri were the northermost of them.<br />These are the facts we know from ancient ethnography. </i><br /><br />The problem is that you assume Italic wasn't ever in Northern Italy. An even bigger problem is that you decouple the main IE influences in Italy, Celtic and Italic, then somehow suggest that it supports the r1a PIE theory over the r1b PIE.<br /><br />Most linguists place Italo-Celtic, whether it be a language or a continuum, around the upper Danube region, whereby Italic shifts/ moves southward via North Italy and Celtic stays in the vicinity to exchange influence with Germanic.<br /><br /><i> Finally some general words about your theory: It's actually a composite of two independent sub-theories:<br />1. That PIE and/or the centum languages are associated with R1b (M269 and M73)<br />2. That the Yamnaya people were dominated by R1b and actually the main source of European R1b.<br /><br />In theory it's possible that only one of the two assertions will be proven to be true. Yet, at the moment I find neither very convincing. </i><br /><br />You do realize that I wasn't really trying to convince you? My theory would not be broken or solidified by these criticisms. No theory of the same nature looks great with every individual price of evidence; it would be amazingly lucky for all events to turn out just the way we expect. It all comes down to choosing the best sufficient theory IMO.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i> I also have the feeling that there is some inconsistency in your theory. You suggest that the PIE were R1b and the satem languages were R1a. But the satem languages are descended from PIE too! So you're suggesting that in the case of the Centum branch, the expansion was mostly effected by the original PIE people, without much admixture from the substrate populations (as far as y-DNA is concerned). In the case of the satem languages on the other hand, you're advocating the opposite: R1a people adopted IE languages virtually without admixture from the original PIE. </i><br /><br />Essentially, yes. The earliest and thus "purest" IE settlements outside the steppe (Anatolia/Caucasus and Hittite, Altai Mountains and Tocharian, upper Danude and Italo-Celtic) are best connected by r1b ESPECIALLY when you consider how r1b peaks in the first two. Corded-Ware (?) and Satem is only one of these four "early" branchings and it is one step further removed from PIE compared to the rest. <br /><br />Additionally, I see the ratio of r1a to r1b in Western Europe as far more troublesome for an r1b conversion than the ratio of r1b to r1a in Eastern Europe for an r1a conversion. <br /><br />How could I believe that r1a Corded Ware, likely a region long dominated by Satem, taught r1b people Celtic. That whole r1a dominated area has nothing but Satem. <br /><br />pnuadhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11902973565704018427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33408023403637045892013-07-04T06:50:22.851+03:002013-07-04T06:50:22.851+03:00Y-DNA may be quickly decoupled from autosomal DNA,...<i> Y-DNA may be quickly decoupled from autosomal DNA, if the incoming males prefer local women for a couple of generations. But in the very beginning, the guys who had actually brought the haplogroup to central Europe will have had the autosomal make-up of their homeland. So if they had come directly from the Near East to central Europe, the first ones will have had a Near Eastern autosomal make-up. (I know, I know, you're saying the Yamnaya autosomal make-up may have been strongly diluted already, when they reached central Europe, but that's not the point.) The typical skull type of the eastern Bell Beaker people matches their apparently Near Eastern haplogroup. Do you think this is a coincidence? If their R1b did in fact come from Yamnaya steppe people, the eastern Bell Bearker people's skull type would have to have originated in a population with different haplogroups, but none would fit as well as R1b, except J2 possibly, but the ones tested so far didn't have J2. </i><br /><br />You're still not understanding that my theory is primarily about ydna, not autosomal DNA. The question of whether or not there was direct autosomal influence from West Asia during the genesis of the eastern Beakers has no effect on my theory which asserts what happened with ydna.<br /><br />That said, it is most certainly the case that r1b has been decoupled from autosomal DNA given the high concentration of r1b on the Atlantic fringe, as is repeatedly the case for other haplgroups. In fact the East-West divide of European ydna doesn't match the North-South autosomal divide. Now, I don't know if the Eastern Beaker skull type reflects a large amount of West Asian autosomal input, a merger of local neolithic elements and yamnaya, a population X which migrated north and south (to West Asia), the yamnaya themselves with genetically or culturally driven skull shape changes, or something in between the above suggestions.<br /><br />But inferring the autosomal composition of ancient populations, to the resolution you are talking about, is generally very difficult and inaccurate. Then, to try and coordinate these inferences with the story of ydna amounts to drastically complicating the story and adding inaccuracies. <br /><br />I opted to not make autosomal DNA an important part of my theory, both in terms of explaining the autosomal situation during that time period and in using autosomal DNA as supporting evidence. As such, autosomal DNA is largely outside the scope of my theory, though not entirely... So if you are wondering whether or not the yamnaya could have formed an important component of the Eastern Beakers when considering the available autosomal evidence, the answer is most certainly yes. It may even be suggested. In the late Neolithic much of Europe, including a good deal of Western Europe, seemed to be "otzi-like". There is a very good chance that Europeans became less otzi-like and more North European-like during the migrations of the metal ages. One of the best candidates for this transition is Western Europe is the Eastern Beakers (accompanied by ydna, mtdna, and language shifts). The inferred North European-like shift in Spain around 2k bce fits with the timing of Eastern Beaker influence in what's now Spain. The yamnaya were almost surely North European-like and they did settle in the same region where the Eastern Beakers set out from. Archeological and isotopic studies both point to this event. Heyde also claimed yamnays input. While I believe the possibility of yamnaya input into Eastern Beakers on the is certainly plausible on the grounds of autosomal, even more so than the evidence for direct autosomal input from West Asia, I don't pay too much attention to either. My theory is primarily about the travels of ydna.<br /><br />pnuadhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11902973565704018427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63483567287449450942013-07-03T21:17:16.932+03:002013-07-03T21:17:16.932+03:00Slumbery,
Yes indeed, the Bell Beaker package ori...Slumbery,<br /><br />Yes indeed, the Bell Beaker package originated in the Iberian peninsula, afaik, at least most of its main characters. And that mt-DNA study lately has proven that there was also some geneflow from Iberia associated with it.<br /><br />However, it was quite a superficial spread of just a few typical items, like e.g. the maritime Bell Beaker. The domestic, utilitarian pottery (or „Gebrauchskeramik“ in German) of the East group for instance, cannot be derived from Iberia. Accordingly, the study by J. Desideri on tooth morphology showed that at least in the East group, there was also some biological population continuity.<br /><br />According to A. Gallay the domestic ware of the Bell Beaker East group can be derived from the Vucedol culture. (As a side note I guess this also explains why M. Gimbutas characterized the Bell Beaker culture complex as an amalgam of Vucedol and Yamna traditions. Those alleged Yamnaya influences however might be rather Corded Ware influence.)<br /><br />Vucedol developped from the Baden culture. I think it was basically a late phase of Baden. And Baden had connections to eastern Anatolia. By the way, there is also a recent study by Joachim Köninger, Martin Kolb and Helmut Schlichtherle showing that there were elements from Baden and Boleraz in the humid soil settlements of southwestern Germany and that these possibly had some bearing on the transformation process of the local aeneolithic.<br /><br />It's gonna be interesting what this anthropological study on the large Bell Beaker cemetery at Hoštice za Hanou in Moravia is going to find:<br />http://www.muni.cz/press/research/projects/1863 <br /><br />The earliest findings of the Baden culture are from Moravia.<br /><br /><i>Middle Eastern is not a homogeneous type of people, especially not if time is a factor too. </i><br /><br />True, actually the short-/high-vaulted „Taurid“ types (like the modern Armenoids and Pamirids etc) are quite elusive in prehistory, in the Middle East, too. Most of the ancient Middle East was dominated by longheaded peoples. In the western part there was also an Alpinoid tendency, at times stronger, then weaker again... There is one early and clear centre of a Taurid type known, that is in bronze age Cyprus. I think in western Anatolia, there was a diluted influence. Compared to many modern samples these bronze age Cypriots had a somewhat less elongated upper face. The earliest known cranial sample of a Middle Eastern Taurid type with elongated upper face was from iron age Tepe Sialk in Iran.<br /><br /><i> Do the Beaker people actually have detectable similarity to specifically to Pit Grave people? </i><br /><br />If you mean the Bell Beaker people from western and central Germany and the Czech republic, the answer is a clear no. Rather they had some similarity with the TRB in Denmark. Maybe a consequence of intermixture, as Coon guessed.Simon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21083444900852659312013-07-03T17:02:02.389+03:002013-07-03T17:02:02.389+03:00>> Looks like the paper is out.
http://link....>> Looks like the paper is out.<br />http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0683-0<br /><br />That is an unrelated 2009 paper.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84300192264198717952013-07-03T08:48:53.413+03:002013-07-03T08:48:53.413+03:00Looks like the "Siberian Ice Princess" w...Looks like the "Siberian Ice Princess" was included in the study. It appears she did not have any East Asian markers.<br />http://siberiantimes.com/culture/others/features/siberian-princess-reveals-her-2500-year-old-tattoos/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78150695253986890132013-07-03T08:33:46.930+03:002013-07-03T08:33:46.930+03:00Looks like the paper is out.
http://link.springer....Looks like the paper is out.<br />http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0683-0Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90701505812116051532013-07-02T07:20:15.449+03:002013-07-02T07:20:15.449+03:00Simon_W
Bell Beaker is later in Central Europe th...Simon_W<br /><br />Bell Beaker is later in Central Europe than in the West. It spread west to east in this region. This is a problem for the Pit Grave > Bell Beaker theory. <br /><br />Middle Eastern is not a homogeneous type of people, especially not if time is a factor too. Do the Beaker people actually have detectable similarity to specifically to Pit Grave people? <br /><br />The distribution pattern of the relevant R1b variants is not very friendly to this idea either.<br /><br />I can't see any data that would clearly support such a connection. Slumberyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05139930329199925111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19093582350387442072013-07-01T22:46:30.777+03:002013-07-01T22:46:30.777+03:00@ Colin Welling
Y-DNA may be quickly decoupled fr...@ Colin Welling<br /><br />Y-DNA may be quickly decoupled from autosomal DNA, if the incoming males prefer local women for a couple of generations. But in the very beginning, the guys who had actually <i>brought</i> the haplogroup to central Europe will have had the autosomal make-up of their homeland. So if they had come directly from the Near East to central Europe, the first ones will have had a Near Eastern autosomal make-up. (I know, I know, you're saying the Yamnaya autosomal make-up may have been strongly diluted already, when they reached central Europe, but that's not the point.) The typical skull type of the eastern Bell Beaker people matches their apparently Near Eastern haplogroup. Do you think this is a coincidence? If their R1b did in fact come from Yamnaya steppe people, the eastern Bell Bearker people's skull type would have to have originated in a population with different haplogroups, but none would fit as well as R1b, except J2 possibly, but the ones tested so far didn't have J2.<br /><br /><i>As a side note, genetic studies have inferred a North European like autosomal shift in Iberia during the late Beaker phase.</i><br /><br />From what I've read this wasn't the late Beaker phase, but the middle bronze age.<br /><br /><i>You suppose that northern Italy is non italic then "discover" that italics correlate with the southern half of Italy. That's absurd reasoning.</i><br /><br />LOL, no this isn't absurd reasoning, you're just blatantly ignorant: Northern Italy was inhabited by:<br />- Ligurians (have been stated to be non-IE, but are now usually seen as „para-Celtic“)<br />- Celtic tribes (Gaulish and Lepontic)<br />- Raeti and Etruscans (related, non-IE)<br />- Veneti (close to Italic, but with other affinities, possibly with Illyrian, certainly with Germanic)<br /><br />The Italics on the other hand were most of all the Oscan-Umbrian group of tribes and the Latino-Faliscan group. Maybe South Picene was a third group, but I think I read it was close to Oscan-Umbrian. In any case, these Italic tribes were in the centre (excluding Etruria) and south of Italy. The Umbri were the northermost of them. <br />These are the facts we know from ancient ethnography.<br /><br />Finally some general words about your theory: It's actually a composite of two independent sub-theories: <br />1. That PIE and/or the centum languages are associated with R1b (M269 and M73)<br />2. That the Yamnaya people were dominated by R1b and actually the main source of European R1b.<br /><br />In theory it's possible that only one of the two assertions will be proven to be true. Yet, at the moment I find neither very convincing.<br /><br />I also have the feeling that there is some inconsistency in your theory. You suggest that the PIE were R1b and the satem languages were R1a. But the satem languages are descended from PIE too! So you're suggesting that in the case of the Centum branch, the expansion was mostly effected by the original PIE people, without much admixture from the substrate populations (as far as y-DNA is concerned). In the case of the satem languages on the other hand, you're advocating the opposite: R1a people adopted IE languages virtually without admixture from the original PIE.Simon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11853726646575413482013-07-01T09:54:20.764+03:002013-07-01T09:54:20.764+03:00@ Simon W
Of course this study is useful, I was j...@ Simon W<br /><br />Of course this study is useful, I was just questioning their archeological correlations - in which they claim 'eastern roots' for the yamnaya culture. All readings argue a local development from preceding hunter-gather groups, or at beast secondary colonization from the Tripolye, etcRobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-52522394628210773302013-07-01T07:29:39.722+03:002013-07-01T07:29:39.722+03:00the question seems to be if M269 reached central E...<i> the question seems to be if M269 reached central Europe via the Yamnaya people or directly from West Asia, and the skull type of the eastern Bell Beaker people, who evidentially seem to have been rich in R1b, favors a direct Near Eastern origin. I think this is an important point. Or do you think the accordance is merely a coincidence? </i><br /><br />Once again, my theory is primarily about ydna, not autosomal DNA! I make little concern about the autosomal composition of the Yamnaya to Beaker to West Europe movement, much less skull type... ydna does not remotely equate to skull type. The "concentration" of r1b in the West makes this painfully obvious. <br /><br />As a side note, genetic studies have inferred a North European like autosomal shift in Iberia during the late Beaker phase.<br /><br /><i> The Italics strongly correlate with the southeastern pole. Correlating with the northwestern pole are the Celts and Ligurians, but also the Etruscans. </i><br /><br />You suppose that northern Italy is non italic then "discover" that italics correlate with the southern half of Italy. That's absurd reasoning.<br /><br /><i> But you seem to suggest that already the Yamnaya people were a large mass of R1b folks (just as Western Europeans today are) who merely migrated through the continent. I on the other hand think there may have been drift and founder effects involved, and the origin of R1b-M269 and -M73 may have been in rather small, unspectacular groups. </i><br /><br />You are not making a point.<br /><br /><i> Well, the last time I read their theories, they suggested that R1b dominated in the southern steppe zone, and R1a more in the forest steppe to the north. Also one of their maps clearly showed that, in their mind, it was the Catacomb culture which re-introduced R1a southwards, and that it was also predominant in the Corded Ware. Even if it's not exactly the same theory as yours, it's in any case very similar. </i><br /><br />He still shows Yamnaya as, geographically speaking, being significantly composed of r1b and r1a (m417 presumably). He also argues that r1a peoples were a significant component in the formation of the yamnaya culture. [Actually, I think he used to show the southern yamnaya as being mixed with r1b and r1a, while the northern yamnaya were shown as dominant in r1a.]<br /><br />So the guy from eupedia thinks that the yamnaya were a mix of r1a and r1b from the beginning. I think the yamnaya were dominated by r1b and largely absent of r1a, especially m417.<br /><br />He thinks m417 was largely introduced to eastern-Central Europe by early, steppic, IE peoples. I think m417 was largely introduced to the post PIE steppe by eastern-Central Europeans. Thus we have m417 as being seeded in different cultures and initially having crossed the steppes in opposite directions, at different times.<br /><br />Those are pretty significant differences/predictions for an IE theory. <br /><br />pnuadhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11902973565704018427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77487727792437509872013-06-30T04:51:13.780+03:002013-06-30T04:51:13.780+03:00Eupedia and I promote the idea that r1b spread to ...<i>Eupedia and I promote the idea that r1b spread to the west with yamnaya/PIE groups. But unlike eupedia, I argue that the yamnaya/ PIE were dominated by r1b and largely lacking m417. Furthermore, I think that m417 was largely introduced to the PC steppe from eastern central Europe post PIE.</i><br /><br />Well, the last time I read their theories, they suggested that R1b dominated in the southern steppe zone, and R1a more in the forest steppe to the north. Also one of their maps clearly showed that, in their mind, it was the Catacomb culture which re-introduced R1a southwards, and that it was also predominant in the Corded Ware. Even if it's not exactly the same theory as yours, it's in any case very similar.Simon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63836337330700459332013-06-30T04:48:28.581+03:002013-06-30T04:48:28.581+03:00@ Colin Welling
R1b-M269 and -M73 are descended f...@ Colin Welling<br /><br />R1b-M269 and -M73 are descended from R1b-P297. If you look where the two sister clades of P297 occur, that is M335 in Anatolia and V88 in the Levant and northern Africa - hence it seems most likely that P297 originated somewhere in this Near Eastern area as well. From there it may possibly have crossed the Caucasus to flourish in the Yamnaya culture, but we don't know for sure. I know well that y-DNA has no influence on skull type. But as I said, the question seems to be if M269 reached central Europe via the Yamnaya people or directly from West Asia, and the skull type of the eastern Bell Beaker people, who evidentially seem to have been rich in R1b, favors a direct Near Eastern origin. I think this is an important point. Or do you think the accordance is merely a coincidence?<br /><br />You didn't understand that genetic study on Italy. It found two principal components for the y-DNA. One seperates Sardinia from the rest. The other principal component has a northwestern pole and a southeastern pole, but not with much clines inbetween, rather with a narrow border belt. No matter what „most people“ think about the origin of the Italics, the truth is: The Italics strongly correlate with the southeastern pole. Correlating with the northwestern pole are the Celts and Ligurians, but also the Etruscans. Upon closer examination it turns out that the northwestern pole is strongly associated with R1b-S116 and R1b-U152. So rather than calling U152 an Italo-Celtic marker it would be more appropriate to call it Etrusco-Celtic. In fact, in this study it even peaked in Tuscany, not in the Gaulish-Ligurian northwest. And archeology tells us that the Protovillanova culture, with its indubitably northern origin, had its most lasting impact in Etruria. It was probably Etruscan. The Italics must have been already present in the middle bronze age Apennine culture. <br /><br />And by the way, R1a1a is actually more frequent in the centre and south than in the north. <br /><br /><i>So your saying it's more believable that Raetians left a greater concentration of r1b north of the Alps than Italo-Celts. OK...</i><br /><br />Exactly, or more precisely the common source population of Raeti, Etruscans and Lemnians. As long as you don't assume central Europe to be the PIE homeland, there must have been a pre-IE substrate population there. And just as the PIE impact in, e.g., Sri Lanka was probably much less biological than linguistic, that may be the case in central and western Europe as well.<br /><br /><i>Ya, you don't understand the model. That's why I didn't bother responding to your earlier post.<br />By the way, we both think that r1b traveled to Western Europe from the east, where the concentration of r1b is lower. That means you also believe that r1b concentrated in the West, far from its origin. </i><br /><br />But you seem to suggest that already the Yamnaya people were a large mass of R1b folks (just as Western Europeans today are) who merely migrated through the continent. I on the other hand think there may have been drift and founder effects involved, and the origin of R1b-M269 and -M73 may have been in rather small, unspectacular groups.<br /><br />Furthermore you have to admit, it's counter-intuitive. In case of the Slavic expansion for instance, no one would suggest that the purest descendants of the proto-Slavs are to be found in northern Russia and the southern Balkans.<br /><br />Simon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29140931678952200932013-06-30T04:45:11.364+03:002013-06-30T04:45:11.364+03:00Dr Rob, I'm not convinced that for geneticists...Dr Rob, I'm not convinced that for geneticists it would be more reasonable to limit themselves to the reconstruction of local and regional demographic events. On the one hand, because the data is so scarce and scattered across big areas, on the other hand because the global genetic context, the phylogeographical background, is needed to understand the dispersal of haplogroups.<br /><br />And while the haplogroup frequencies of modern populations may indeed be compared to a palimpsest, a-DNA gives us a direct glimpse of the past.<br /><br />As for the **possible** demographic movements, sure, they're not certain, but still, I found e.g. the map with the dispersal of haplogroup N lately quite convincing, on the whole. There may be disagreement about details.<br /><br />I don't know if the subject of haplogroups will be decisive in the end, when dealing with IE origins, or if it will be necessary at all. At least, the distribution and history of haplogroups strengthens the position of some theories and weakens the position of others. But R1a1a and J2a are both very widespread in the IE world, and both would be in line with different important theories about IE origins, so they can't be decisive on their own. <br /><br />I think in every subject, be it archeology, linguistics or genetics, people should primarily base their results and assertions on their own type of evidence. Thus, it should become possible to describe for each archeological culture by which other cultures it was influenced, and which cultures it influenced in return. And linguists could tell us which other languages the speakers of PIE had contact with, or what environment and culture they were familiar with. And genetics could describe the actual movements of people, the geneflows. <br /><br />The results of genetics (and prehistoric archeology) per se don't tell us anything about the language of the people involved. Nonetheless I think they're very interesting on their own! And in the end they may flow into a synopsis...<br /><br /><i>And further reason for skepticism: apparently these scholars don't know anything about archaeology, for they claim (if the translation is in fact correct) that arcahaeology suggests that Yamnaya had 'eastern steppe' roots, which is refuted by their DNA evidence. I have not heard of a single source which claims an eastern (ie Oriental) origin for the Yamnaya type assembleges. </i><br /><br />I think it was Marija Gimbutas who claimed something like this, that Yamnaya had its roots in the Khvalynsk culture, on the lower Volga. This however isn't the mainstream view, afaik.<br /><br />Finally I would like to say that I cannot subscribe to the criticism of this genetic study in question, of which the present article is just a preview, after all. The article doesn't even touch upon the topic of PIEs, and IMO it doesn't intend to say that modern Europeans are descended from north Pontic chalcolithic groups, I think this is just formulated unhandily. The first sub-project is just about the chalcolithic and early bronze age groups north and west of the Pontic, so quite on a regional level, just as you demanded. We shouldn't mistake the assertions made by the article with the farther reaching conclusions made by some comentators here. Personally I'm glad this study was done and can't wait to see the genetic findings in more detail. In particular, it's going to be interesting in what way the Catacomb culture differed from the other ones...Simon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70493885554260111242013-06-29T16:38:21.615+03:002013-06-29T16:38:21.615+03:00correction
By the way, we both think that r1b* tr...correction<br /><br /><i>By the way, we both think that <b>r1b*</b> traveled to Western Europe from the east, where the concentration of r1b is lower. That means you also believe that r1b concentrated in the West, far from its origin</i>pnuadhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11902973565704018427noreply@blogger.com