Doggerland

[1798]

As has been put forward on this subject many times in many threads, the evidence from ancient remains so far is that in the period of 5,000-7,000 years ago the clear majority haplogroup among European men was G2. There's less data for the haplogroup of more ancient European remains, but I believe that the haplogroup of at least one such result is I2. I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that.

No ancient R1b remains have been found in the Middle East to date so what is the reason that you think that R1b came from there? Is it because some scientists think that P originated there?

[ironroad41]

Gioeillo believes that just about every haplogroup found in Europe today originated in Italy. That includes haplogroups and subclades, both yDNA and mtDNA, which population geneticists tell us originated in the Middle East.

Gioiello has also been banned from several genetic genealogy forums because of postings which seem to be anti-semitic. I believe that he's not necessarily anti-semitic, but that his hostility to the idea that certain European haplogroups originated in the Middle East (not in Italy as he believes) "sets him off," which is the cause of his seeming anti-semitism.

To summarize, his record hardly gives me the impression that his theories should be taken seriously. Frankly, I think his ideas are motivated by a nationalist agenda. And I say this as someone who has 100% Italian ancestry and is proud of that.




Well, it's more than a little odd that no R1b has been found in ancient European remains before about 4,600 years ago. You can offer all sorts of theories about why that is, but the lack of R1b is certainly making any idea that it must have been in Europe very suspect. Until some R1b is found in European Neolithic or older remains, all theories placing it in Europe before the Bronze Age are speculation which go against the evidence we do have.



As has been put forward on this subject many times in many threads, the evidence from ancient remains so far is that in the period of 5,000-7,000 years ago the clear majority haplogroup among European men was G2. There's less data for the haplogroup of more ancient European remains, but I believe that the haplogroup of at least one such result is I2. I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Let me try a different approach. I have been around long enough to be familiar with most of the arguments you present, however I am not fully persuaded.

Consider the druids. It is commonly believed that they built many stone structures in the period 2K to 3K BC. Many of them in the Isles. They represent the "soul" of Celticism. They were an anathema to Rome, who destroyed their temples, and hounded them until c. 80 AD, Rome destroyed their University on Anglesby (sp) Island. Stonehenge is commonly believed to have had religious significance.

Where did they come from? The Near East?? When and where did they establish their religion. If they were moving huge megaliths of blue stone to Stonehenge prior to 3K BC, what does that imply? It takes time to create a religious ethos, it takes organization to build a university (c.2500 BC) and develop a 20+ year oral curriculum. Finally, I believe they were predominantly R1b? AFIK there is no record of Celts in the near East, so I don't think that's where it started.

[MMaddi]

No ancient R1b remains have been found in the Middle East to date so what is the reason that you think that R1b came from there? Is it because some scientists think that P originated there?

Most people think of the area from the Arabian peninsula north to Turkey when "Middle East" is mentioned. If that's what you mean by "Middle East," in my view that's not the only candidate for the origin of R1b. So, I'm not sure why you're putting words in my mouth, making it seem as if I think that's where R1b originated.

The usual understanding of "Middle East" certainly is a possibility for where R1b originated. However, I think we should also consider nearby locations, slightly to the east and north. Think of the Caucasus or present day Iran or neighboring Afghanistan/Pakistan. Basically, the area from Turkey to western Afghanistan/Pakistan.

I do think that it's a good possibility that R1b entered Europe from Anatolia and the Caucasus in the Neolithic, but also that a later wave entered Europe from the steppes north of the Black Sea. I think the second wave may be the ancestors of the Bronze Age R1b that came to dominate Europe.

In any event, most of the DNA studies of ancient remains, at least in the Neolithic period, have been done in Europe, not the Middle East. So, I don't know how many results we have from Middle Eastern remains, but they're relatively few compared to European remains.

There are a couple of interesting studies just published which Dienekes has blogged about that shed some new light on the geography and chronology of Eurasian haplogroups.

The first one is a study - see http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/06...up-k-m526.html - that has some breakthrough SNP discoveries related to haplogroup K, which is the gg-granddad, so to speak, of R and Q, via P. It shows that with the discovery of these new SNPs, the K haplotree is firmly rooted in southeast Asia and that P and its sons R and Q are more closely tied to that geographic origin than thought before. The abstract says, "Interestingly, the monophyletic group formed by haplogroups R and Q, which make up the majority of paternal lineages in Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, represents the only subclade with K2b that is not geographically restricted to Southeast Asia and Oceania. [my bolding] Estimates of the interval times for the branching events between M9 [SNP defining K] and P295 [defines P] point to an initial rapid diversification process of K-M526 [defines K2, P is actually K2b2] that likely occurred in Southeast Asia, with subsequent westward expansions of the ancestors of haplogroups R and Q [my bolding]." (This is something that Dr. Hammer referred to in his November presentation on R-M269.) So, this study is firmly placing P, father of R, very far to the east, which gives its descendant haplogroups a very long (geographically and timewise) trip to reach Europe.

The second study - see http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/06...age-altai.html - deals with the results of DNA testing of remains from Bronze Age Altai, again far to the east of Europe. For both yDNA and mtDNA, the haplogroups found (although none are R1b) are a mix of east and west Eurasian. This shows, as late as the Bronze Age, some genetic flow from between Europe and east Asia. That may indicate that at that time R1b may have still been found at a good percentage between Europe and east Asia - in Central Asia.

So, the first study is telling us that R and its subclades certainly had a long way to go to reach Europe. And the second study hints, at least by my inference, that perhaps R1b in the Bronze Age might be found somewhere between Europe and east Asia, perhaps in the area of the steppes.

[MMaddi]

Where did they come from? The Near East?? When and where did they establish their religion. If they were moving huge megaliths of blue stone to Stonehenge prior to 3K BC, what does that imply? It takes time to create a religious ethos, it takes organization to build a university (c.2500 BC) and develop a 20+ year oral curriculum. Finally, I believe they were predominantly R1b? AFIK there is no record of Celts in the near East, so I don't think that's where it started.

The Celts may have been at least partially R1b, I don't know. As far as the culture and religious rituals of Celts, I don't know much about that. Someone who's more knowledgeable about that (perhaps someone who's read Cunliffe's books) can speak to that.

In the absence of much knowledge of Celts on my part, I've consulted Wikipedia. (Yes, I know their articles are not always reliable.) According to what's written at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#Linguistic_evidence, "The Proto-Celtic language is usually dated to the Late Bronze Age." If this is right, it sounds like you're making Celtic people and culture older than most academics believe to be the case.

And Wikipedia - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge - has this to say about Stonehenge: "Archaeologists believe it was built anywhere from 3000 BC to 2000 BC. Radiocarbon dating in 2008 suggested that the first stones were raised between 2400 and 2200 BC, whilst another theory suggests that bluestones may have been raised at the site as early as 3000 BC." So, radiocarbon dating seems to indicate that Stonehenge was first built several hundred years after you believe it was built.

[1798]

Let me try a different approach. I have been around long enough to be familiar with most of the arguments you present, however I am not fully persuaded.

Consider the druids. It is commonly believed that they built many stone structures in the period 2K to 3K BC. Many of them in the Isles. They represent the "soul" of Celticism. They were an anathema to Rome, who destroyed their temples, and hounded them until c. 80 AD, Rome destroyed their University on Anglesby (sp) Island. Stonehenge is commonly believed to have had religious significance.

Where did they come from? The Near East?? When and where did they establish their religion. If they were moving huge megaliths of blue stone to Stonehenge prior to 3K BC, what does that imply? It takes time to create a religious ethos, it takes organization to build a university (c.2500 BC) and develop a 20+ year oral curriculum. Finally, I believe they were predominantly R1b? AFIK there is no record of Celts in the near East, so I don't think that's where it started.

The first Megalithic tombs in Ireland are known as Court Tombs built around 4000 BC mostly found in the north of Ireland around the time that the LBK arrived in Ireland from northern Europe.
If some ancient remains of R1b are lying under the North Sea then it would be difficult to find them.

[Stevo]

Let me try a different approach. I have been around long enough to be familiar with most of the arguments you present, however I am not fully persuaded.

Consider the druids. It is commonly believed that they built many stone structures in the period 2K to 3K BC. Many of them in the Isles. They represent the "soul" of Celticism. They were an anathema to Rome, who destroyed their temples, and hounded them until c. 80 AD, Rome destroyed their University on Anglesby (sp) Island. Stonehenge is commonly believed to have had religious significance.

Where did they come from? The Near East?? When and where did they establish their religion. If they were moving huge megaliths of blue stone to Stonehenge prior to 3K BC, what does that imply? It takes time to create a religious ethos, it takes organization to build a university (c.2500 BC) and develop a 20+ year oral curriculum. Finally, I believe they were predominantly R1b? AFIK there is no record of Celts in the near East, so I don't think that's where it started.

Druidism was an entirely Indo-European institution very much resembling Brahminism among the Indo-Europeans in India. The etymology of the word itself is very old Indo-European from dru ("true" and "tree", especially the oak) and wid (to know).

Indo-European languages are believed to have spread west into Europe from the Pontic-Caspian steppe beginning in the Copper or Bronze Ages. A number of scholars attribute Italo-Celtic to the Beaker Folk. As has been mentioned before, the only ancient Beaker Folk y-dna yet recovered was R1b (U106-).

[Stevo]

It might be a little premature to mention this, but there is some information circulating that Russian scientist and archaeologist Alexei Kovalev has recovered ancient R1b in some male remains from the Afanasievo Culture and the Okuneva Culture in the Altai Mountains in Mongolia. Two out of three Afanasievans and one Okunevan were R-M269, and one Afanasievan tested R-P25. Radiocarbon dates were 3000 - 2600 BC.

There are stone stelae present like those from the Yamnaya Culture that spread across Europe all the way to Iberia.

[ironroad41]

Druidism was an entirely Indo-European institution very much resembling Brahminism among the Indo-Europeans in India. The etymology of the word itself is very old Indo-European from dru ("true" and "tree", especially the oak) and wid (to know).

Indo-European languages are believed to have spread west into Europe from the Pontic-Caspian steppe beginning in the Copper or Bronze Ages. A number of scholars attribute Italo-Celtic to the Beaker Folk. As has been mentioned before, the only ancient Beaker Folk y-dna yet recovered was R1b (U106-).

I'll accept your etymology of the word, since I am not a linguist. Your assumptions about the evolution of the language is probably based on ideas from David Anthony, who also is not a linguist?

Anatolia is another possible source for the Indo-European per a paper published in 2012. This source places the origin much further back in time (8K or so BC) and not on the Russian steppes. It is still a near-east origin, but much older.

My point here would be that Linguists, like almost every other "science" have disagreements. There is some Scottish literature that "remembers" invaders from the Steppes.

I am, primarily, betting on Climatology, which would suggest the time to look for E/W movements in northern Europe would be in the 9K BC to 6K BC time period, or after 4K BC. There is a raft of types of info to support 4K BC, but it doesn't gainsay the another assumption.

[Stevo]

Not just David Anthony: Mallory, Chadwick, Dillon, and Hubert, among others.

The out-of-Anatolia hypothesis, i.e., that IE spread with Neolithic farmers, was mainly Renfrew's idea. It does not fit the linguistic chronology at all, requiring much too long a period for PIE to remain unchanged and not accounting for the steppe horse-related vocabulary.

[1798]

The majority of Beaker burials in Britain were locals from isotope analysis. Mike Parker Pearson made that clear in a documentary.

[ironroad41]

Not just David Anthony: Mallory, Chadwick, Dillon, and Hubert, among others.

The out-of-Anatolia hypothesis, i.e., that IE spread with Neolithic farmers, was mainly Renfrew's idea. It does not fit the linguistic chronology at all, requiring much too long a period for PIE to remain unchanged and not accounting for the steppe horse-related vocabulary.

Heres the reference:
Science 24 August 2012:
Vol. 337 no. 6097 pp. 957-960
DOI: 10.1126/science.1219669
•Report


Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family

Remco Bouckaert1,
Philippe Lemey2,
Michael Dunn3,4,
Simon J. Greenhill5,6,
Alexander V. Alekseyenko7,
Alexei J. Drummond1,8,
Russell D. Gray5,9,
Marc A. Suchard10,11,12,
Quentin D. Atkinson5,13,*


+
Author Affiliations
1Department of Computer Science, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
2Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Rega Institute, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
3Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Post Office Box 310, 6500 AH Nijmegen, Netherlands.
4Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, Kapittelweg 29, 6525 EN Nijmegen, Netherlands.
5Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
6School of Culture, History & Language and College of Asia & the Pacific, Australian National University, 0200 Canberra, ACT, Australia.
7Center for Health Informatics and Bioinformatics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA.
8Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
9Department of Philosophy, Research School of the Social Sciences, Australian National University, 0200 Canberra, ACT, Australia.
10Department of Biomathematics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
11Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
12Department of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
13Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6PN, UK.
↵*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract




There are two competing hypotheses for the origin of the Indo-European language family. The conventional view places the homeland in the Pontic steppes about 6000 years ago. An alternative hypothesis claims that the languages spread from Anatolia with the expansion of farming 8000 to 9500 years ago. We used Bayesian phylogeographic approaches, together with basic vocabulary data from 103 ancient and contemporary Indo-European languages, to explicitly model the expansion of the family and test these hypotheses. We found decisive support for an Anatolian origin over a steppe origin. Both the inferred timing and root location of the Indo-European language trees fit with an agricultural expansion from Anatolia beginning 8000 to 9500 years ago. These results highlight the critical role that phylogeographic inference can play in resolving debates about human prehistory.

I said 8K BC, that should have been 6K to 7.5K BC. Note that this coordinates well with the Storegga/Great Flood time period, when the Black Sea was inundated. Again, climatological forces produce displacements.

[Stevo]

The majority of Beaker burials in Britain were locals from isotope analysis. Mike Parker Pearson made that clear in a documentary.

Perhaps the later ones were, but the Beaker Folk came to the Isles from the Continent, which was certainly true of the subject of one of the most well known Beaker burials, that of the Amesbury Archer.

Besides that, isotope analysis gives a range of possible places of origins. Many of those that could apply to Britain can also be applied to the Continent.

R1b got to the Isles somehow. It did not just spring from the ground there.

[Stevo]

. . .
Russell D. Gray5,9 . . .

Quentin D. Atkinson5,13,*


. . . An alternative hypothesis claims that the languages spread from Anatolia with the expansion of farming 8000 to 9500 years ago . . .

Russell Gray and Quentin Atkinson developed a glottochronology for Proto-Indo-European that the consensus of IE experts believes is seriously flawed, since it requires PIE to remain essentially unchanged for much too long a time.

David Anthony discusses it at length in his book, The Horse the Wheel and Language.

It was archaeologist Colin Renfrew who first introduced the Anatolian Neolithic hypothesis for the origin of Indo-European. It is an appealing hypothesis, but there are too many holes in it.

[1798]

Perhaps the later ones were, but the Beaker Folk came to the Isles from the Continent, which was certainly true of one of the most well known Beaker burials, that of the Amesbury Archer.

Besides that, isotope analysis gives a range of possible places of origins. Many of those that could apply to Britain can also be applied to the Continent.

R1b got to the Isle somehow. It did not just spring from the ground there.

I think that there is no such thing as the Beaker folk. It doesn't take a whole population movement to bring a a few Beakers to an island or any other item.

[Stevo]

I think that there is no such thing as the Beaker folk. It doesn't take a whole population movement to bring a a few Beakers to an island or any other item.

Well, good for you.

You probably form a crowd of one in holding that opinion.