PDA

View Full Version : R1b's arrival in Europe - Tumulus culture or Bell Beaker?



bertrand
26-07-12, 17:35
Hello,

After reading David Anthony's book "The wheel the Horse and Language" i became fairly convinced that the R1b and R1a haplogroups where at the origin of IE languages and spread to Western Europe through the Steppes thanks to early domestication of the horse and the mutation providing milk tolerance for adults.

This culture was nomadic, so it left little archeological remains except for tumuli where the dead were burried.

Anthony makes a convincing demonstration how such tumuli started to spread westward first to Romania (around 4200 BC and then up the danube valley until it reached Eastern Hungary around 2500BC.

Later, the spread of the tumuli continued west to West germany, Switzerland and Alsace where the tumuli appeared in the forest of Haguenau around 1500BC. Still later the wave spread to Northern Italy and Eastern France.

The spread of the Tumuli culture is consistent with the spread of the middle bronze age. But the recent discovery in Germany of two R1b dating back to 2500BC seems a little early to be part of the Tumulus culture and more consistent with a bell beaker spread.

Does anyone have any information with respect to the presence of tumuli in the bell beaker culture that could indicate an assimilation of tumuli people in the bell beaker without destruction?

Thanks

Bertrand

Olga
26-07-12, 17:42
Interesting, I can't answer your question but is the book worth reading?

bertrand
26-07-12, 18:27
Interesting, I can't answer your question but is the book worth reading?

A must in my opinion for whoever is interested in the origin of Indo-European languages and the domestication of the horse.

I should add to my previous quote that since the Bell Beaker culture originates in Portugal around 2900BC and then spreads east, it is unlikely that the spread of Bell Beakers is related to the spread of R1bs; rather it seems that the diffusion of the bell beaker "cultural package" east of the Rhine was welcome by the arriving R1bs up the Danube valley.

Bertrand

Malsori
26-07-12, 21:52
Bell Beaker obviously.Anyway the succeeding of Central European cultures goes like this Bell Beakers>Unetice Culture>Tumulus Culture.

zanipolo
26-07-12, 23:04
A must in my opinion for whoever is interested in the origin of Indo-European languages and the domestication of the horse.

I should add to my previous quote that since the Bell Beaker culture originates in Portugal around 2900BC and then spreads east, it is unlikely that the spread of Bell Beakers is related to the spread of R1bs; rather it seems that the diffusion of the bell beaker "cultural package" east of the Rhine was welcome by the arriving R1bs up the Danube valley.

Bertrand

I thought this was the case as well,
R1 into europe via the caucauses and north of the black sea and G into europe via anatolia and the balkans.

GloomyGonzales
27-07-12, 10:03
Hello,

After reading David Anthony's book "The wheel the Horse and Language" i became fairly convinced that the R1b and R1a haplogroups where at the origin of IE languages and spread to Western Europe through the Steppes thanks to early domestication of the horse and the mutation providing milk tolerance for adults.

This culture was nomadic, so it left little archeological remains except for tumuli where the dead were burried.

Anthony makes a convincing demonstration how such tumuli started to spread westward first to Romania (around 4200 BC and then up the danube valley until it reached Eastern Hungary around 2500BC.

Bertrand

I’ve thought about it for a while coz I could not explain why the majority of R1a Z283+ Z282- and R1a Z283+ Z282+ M458- Z280- Z284- clades were found so far to the West from the Pontic Steppe (see the map below)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7655052340/in/photostream

Red pins – R1a Z283+ Z282-
Green pins – R1a Z283+ Z282+ M458- Z280- Z284-

Now I think such distribution can be explained if we presume that R1a Z283+ guys migrated from the present day Romania and moved by the Danube to the South Germany where Z282 SNP appeared.
Further some R1a Z283+ Z282+ guys moved in the Western Germany and then some to the Britten while R1a Z283+ Z282+ Z284+ guys moved to the Northern Germany, R1a Z283+ Z282+ M458+guys to the Central Poland and R1a Z283+ Z282+ Z280+ guys to the Northern Poland (Baltic seashore) and from there part of R1a-Z280 guys moved to the East in the Central Russia and Ukraine (Fatyanovo and Middle Dnepr) and to the Volga and Ural Region (Abashevo).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7655057224/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7655059874/in/photostream

According to this scenario Thracians, Cimmerians and Mycenaean (those who did not take part in migrations) should be R1a-Z93*/Z283* maybe with some R1a-Z280.
Fatyanovo - R1a-Z280
Middle Dnepr - R1a-Z280 and R1a-Z93*/Z283*
Abashevo - R1a-Z280 and R1a-L342
Andronovo - R1a-L342

sparkey
27-07-12, 18:11
A must in my opinion for whoever is interested in the origin of Indo-European languages and the domestication of the horse.

I should add to my previous quote that since the Bell Beaker culture originates in Portugal around 2900BC and then spreads east, it is unlikely that the spread of Bell Beakers is related to the spread of R1bs; rather it seems that the diffusion of the bell beaker "cultural package" east of the Rhine was welcome by the arriving R1bs up the Danube valley.

Bertrand

I think that the finding of R1b in a Beaker sample is good evidence for the spread of R1b being linked to Beaker culture. But that doesn't mean that R1b was necessarily part of the earliest Beaker population. It's very possible that it could have been a minority clade to the east of Beaker culture in Beaker culture's early days, which was able to spread throughout the extent of the Beakers' geographic area once Beaker culture reached it. That's what I've meant before when I've speculated that Beaker culture could have been a "catalyst" for R1b.

The first major culture coming directly out of an R1b dominant population, in that case, would probably have been Unetice Culture.

Mikewww
28-08-12, 18:53
I think that the finding of R1b in a Beaker sample is good evidence for the spread of R1b being linked to Beaker culture. But that doesn't mean that R1b was necessarily part of the earliest Beaker population. It's very possible that it could have been a minority clade to the east of Beaker culture in Beaker culture's early days, which was able to spread throughout the extent of the Beakers' geographic area once Beaker culture reached it. That's what I've meant before when I've speculated that Beaker culture could have been a "catalyst" for R1b.

The first major culture coming directly out of an R1b dominant population, in that case, would probably have been Unetice Culture.

It could be that the Unetice Culture was the first one with a R1b dominant population and that R1b was a minority in the Bell Beaker populations. I don't know.

What's your reasoning?

sparkey
28-08-12, 19:10
It could be that the Unetice Culture was the first one with a R1b dominant population and that R1b was a minority in the Bell Beaker populations. I don't know.

What's your reasoning?

Some evidence:



R1b was found in a Beaker sample (so must have been part of the culture somehow)
STR dating of major modern R1b subclades has tended to place their origin as contemporary with Beaker culture (or even after), rather than before, indicating that their spread came largely later
Beaker culture apparently spread west-to-east, but R1b-L11 has ancestors that apparently spread east-to-west


Of course, I don't know, either. It just seems like a reasonable proposal to me at the moment. I'm willing to reconsider if we start finding overwhelming R1b frequency at every time and location of Beaker culture, or a dip in R1b frequency in Unetice culture, or something. Better subclade testing of ancient R1b samples would also help a lot.

oriental
28-08-12, 22:41
I thought I should include the domestication of goats which occurred 10,000 years ago to put perspective for those who banter about "European" features.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/goats.htm (http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/goats.htm)

http://www.mnh.si.edu/highlight/goats/

oriental
28-08-12, 22:50
A must in my opinion for whoever is interested in the origin of Indo-European languages and the domestication of the horse.

Domestication of horses may have occurred in Arabia 9,000 years ago or 7,000 years ago in Kazakhstan.

http://animals.about.com/od/hoofedmammals/a/domesticationof.htm

http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/horses.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse

http://news.discovery.com/animals/horse-domestication-saudi-arabia-110825.html

http://www.ariaarabians.com/arabian-horse-history/

Domestication of cattle 10,500 years ago near the Ice Age:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120327124243.htm

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ab57

http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications

/qt/cattle.htm (http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/cattle.htm)

http://archaeology.about.com/od/dterms/a/domestication.htm

http://domesticationofplantsandanimals.weebly.com/timeline-of-domestication.html

http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000832

Malsori
29-08-12, 20:30
Some evidence:



R1b was found in a Beaker sample (so must have been part of the culture somehow)
STR dating of major modern R1b subclades has tended to place their origin as contemporary with Beaker culture (or even after), rather than before, indicating that their spread came largely later
Beaker culture apparently spread west-to-east, but R1b-L11 has ancestors that apparently spread east-to-west



Balkans is noted for having older R1b clades than Western Europe and younger than West Asia.

sparkey
29-08-12, 20:44
Balkans is noted for having older R1b clades than Western Europe and younger than West Asia.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm getting at, although it's worth noting that most Balkans R1b is ht35, which is a cousin, rather than an ancestor, of R1b-L11. I'm thinking specifically of the L51* distribution, which is very thin, but telling, including a Balkans sample or two IIRC.

Sennevini
29-08-12, 23:04
There are so many scenarios possible according the arrival of R1b in Western Europe;
if we look at the different branches, (from L11 onwards) it looks to me, the center of diversity lies in France. (need more French data...).
Lastly, I was thinking, what if R1b was an Indo-Europeanized marker. A scenario like that might have been the following:

If R1b-M269 was a non-Indo-European marker, and spread first to the Balkan from Anatolia, later on over sea to southern France - R1b's seem good sea men, I think we should not underestimate the faring skills -, where it soon became part of the spread of Bell Beaker.
Then, in southern-Germany, parts of it would have come in touch with the R1a Indo-European elite, and take over their PIE-dialect (Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic, then happening before anything satem-like), spreading it as R1b folk (Urnfield etc.) over Western Europe (as Proto-Italo-Celtic), not influencing the Basque R1b's.
For a parallel: Romans imposing their language over the Iberian people, who, later, as Spaniards dominate in some American colonies.

Just a thought experiment I think may be worth looking at.

sparkey
29-08-12, 23:33
I like the thought process, Sennevini. Some remaining things to square if your hypothetical model of a purely non-IE introduction of R1b-M269 to Europe is correct:



R1a and R1b would have been part of entirely different populations under that model, but it's not realistic to expect that these populations would have been purely a single haplogroup. What are the minority clades each would have been associated with?
Why do Basques not have greater R1b-M269 diversity if they are the non-Indo-Europeanized, non-expanded representatives of the initial R1b-M269 expansion on Europe? As you indicate, the French seem to have greater R1b-M269 diversity than they do.
How do we explain the fact that within Iran, there is a positive correlation between R1b-M269 and ethnic groups that speak an IE language? A separate, Eastern Indo-Europeanization of R1b-M269?

GloomyGonzales
30-08-12, 13:35
There are so many scenarios possible according the arrival of R1b in Western Europe;
if we look at the different branches, (from L11 onwards) it looks to me, the center of diversity lies in France. (need more French data...).
Lastly, I was thinking, what if R1b was an Indo-Europeanized marker. A scenario like that might have been the following:

If R1b-M269 was a non-Indo-European marker, and spread first to the Balkan from Anatolia, later on over sea to southern France - R1b's seem good sea men, I think we should not underestimate the faring skills -, where it soon became part of the spread of Bell Beaker.
Then, in southern-Germany, parts of it would have come in touch with the R1a Indo-European elite, and take over their PIE-dialect (Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic, then happening before anything satem-like), spreading it as R1b folk (Urnfield etc.) over Western Europe (as Proto-Italo-Celtic), not influencing the Basque R1b's.
For a parallel: Romans imposing their language over the Iberian people, who, later, as Spaniards dominate in some American colonies.

Just a thought experiment I think may be worth looking at.
For a while this scenario is considered as the bestexplanation of spreading IE in the Western Europe.The majority of non-R1b biased guys sooner or later come to the similar model. Yes.You are not the first one. To make this scenario more solid it would be perfectto clarify the following details:
1. What R1a and R1b clades were initially involvedin the fusion of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker guys that resulted in appearanceof proto-italo-celtic culture?
2. Other haplogroups involved in this process. Inmy opinion we should more seriously consider participation in this process ofsome clades of I1.
3. More information about R1a clades from placesassociated with spread of Urnfield culture.

Sennevini
30-08-12, 13:59
Well, a lot to cover;


For Sparkey:


Maybe R1b then was accompagnied with small amounts of J2; todays maps show a
significant amount of J2 in western Europe; where is it in the ancient DNA
(might be a question for a different tread).

Considering the Basques, maybe with the arrival of R1b there, the land became
saturated, full, and wasn't there any option left for the Indo-Europeanized
tribes (U152, L21?) to access Basque lands. (Maybe they had a culture in which
Indo-European was not conceived as the prestigious language).

France is large, and full of forests, rivers, and some open land. Place enough
to travel, settle, battle, without the land "getting full" - if there
is a difference between Basque and French lands.

In Iran there may have happened a same kind of language switching - I know this
is not a stong argument that it did, but it could.


For Gonzales:

I don't know a lot about the western R1a clades; but in any case, the frequency
of it, weakens when going to the west. I don't think R1a participated - or
maybe as a trace group within R1b- in the spread of Proto-Italo-Celtic.

Isn't I1 associated with later Germanic expansions, when it became
Germanicized?

Mikewww
30-08-12, 14:56
Why do Basques not have greater R1b-M269 diversity if they are the non-Indo-Europeanized, non-expanded representatives of the initial R1b-M269 expansion on Europe? As you indicate, the French seem to have greater R1b-M269 diversity than they do.



Yes, I don't think the Basques are the key. They have low diversity in their R1b. They do have one form of hg I that is unusual and is also found in Sardinia so there may be some other kind of correlation there.

Mikewww
30-08-12, 15:02
Well, a lot to cover;
I don't know a lot about the western R1a clades; but in any case, the frequency
of it, weakens when going to the west. I don't think R1a participated - or
maybe as a trace group within R1b- in the spread of Proto-Italo-Celtic.

Isn't I1 associated with later Germanic expansions, when it became
Germanicized?

It's a bit interesting that R1b-U106 is a bit thicker in traditional Germanic areas. R1b-P312 is very, very thick in old Celtic areas although it also appears to some degrees in Germanic and Italic areas.

Mikewww
30-08-12, 15:14
A must in my opinion for whoever is interested in the origin of Indo-European languages and the domestication of the horse.

Domestication of horses may have occurred in Arabia 9,000 years ago or 7,000 years ago in Kazakhstan.

http://animals.about.com/od/hoofedmammals/a/domesticationof.htm

http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/horses.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse

http://news.discovery.com/animals/horse-domestication-saudi-arabia-110825.html

http://www.ariaarabians.com/arabian-horse-history/

Domestication of cattle 10,500 years ago near the Ice Age:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120327124243.htm

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ab57

http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications

/qt/cattle.htm (http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/cattle.htm)

http://archaeology.about.com/od/dterms/a/domestication.htm

http://domesticationofplantsandanimals.weebly.com/timeline-of-domestication.html

http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000832

Here is a list of the PIE base word set that are hypothesized to be the ancestral words for commonly derived words in all IE languages.

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/PokornyMaster-X.html

I went through it and it is clear, in my opinion, that PIE didn't start breaking up until after the secondary agricultural products revolution. There are words for cattle, pigs, horses, milk, etc.

There is a word for ore (metal) as well as army/warrior and of course, wheel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_products_revolution
Wikipedia says, "The seeming contradiction between the zooarchaeological and residue studies appears to be a matter of scale. The residues indicate that milking may have played a role in domestic animal exploitation from the later Neolithic. The zooarchaeological studies indicate that there was a massive change in the scale of such production strategies during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age."

I can't find any reference ito either emmer or einkhorn wheat in PIE, which were the two main kinds in the Early Neolithic expansions.

I can't find any references to olive trees or olive oil in PIE, even though animal fats and butter are referenced. Are the words for olive in the old Celtic and old Italic languages derived from the same base? Does anyone know? If they were, that might tell us something about the Celtic/Italic split. They might have picked up the use of olive products before their split but after PIE if they have the same base word.

Mikewww
30-08-12, 15:26
There are so many scenarios possible according the arrival of R1b in Western Europe;
if we look at the different branches, (from L11 onwards) it looks to me, the center of diversity lies in France. (need more French data...).
Lastly, I was thinking, what if R1b was an Indo-Europeanized marker. A scenario like that might have been the following:

If R1b-M269 was a non-Indo-European marker, and spread first to the Balkan from Anatolia, later on over sea to southern France - R1b's seem good sea men, I think we should not underestimate the faring skills -, where it soon became part of the spread of Bell Beaker.
Then, in southern-Germany, parts of it would have come in touch with the R1a Indo-European elite, and take over their PIE-dialect (Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic, then happening before anything satem-like), spreading it as R1b folk (Urnfield etc.) over Western Europe (as Proto-Italo-Celtic), not influencing the Basque R1b's.
For a parallel: Romans imposing their language over the Iberian people, who, later, as Spaniards dominate in some American colonies.

Just a thought experiment I think may be worth looking at.

This is a good point to analyze. A good test for it might involve trying to understand the timing and location of the split between pre-Germanic and pre-Italo-Cetic. I think this is quite old so that doesn't support this hypothesis, at least at a point in Bavaria. I would think the split would have occurred closer to the PIE homeland. Any thoughts on that?

Another test for the hypothesis might be R1a in Celtic and Italic lands. You'd think that if R1a transferred PIE to R1b in southern Germany that some Celtic or Italic areas would be strong in R1a. Are there any? or is it completely MIA?

I guess for that matter, is R1a strong in any of the Centum languages? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is way east in China. Tocharian is supposed to be Centum, right, or at least not Satem? Is R1a a little stronger in Turkey?

GloomyGonzales
30-08-12, 17:59
This is a good point to analyze. A good test for it might involve trying to understand the timing and location of the split between pre-Germanic and pre-Italo-Cetic. I think this is quite old so that doesn't support this hypothesis, at least at a point in Bavaria. I would think the split would have occurred closer to the PIE homeland. Any thoughts on that?

Another test for the hypothesis might be R1a in Celtic and Italic lands. You'd think that if R1a transferred PIE to R1b in southern Germany that some Celtic or Italic areas would be strong in R1a. Are there any? or is it completely MIA?

I guess for that matter, is R1a strong in any of the Centum languages? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is way east in China. Tocharian is supposed to be Centum, right, or at least not Satem? Is R1a a little stronger in Turkey?

I guess East Germanic tribes (e.g. Goths and Vandals) were predominantly R1a-Z280 with some I1 and I2b. I think U106 was not Germanic but more likely Celtic and was in fact germanized lately. The distribution of R1a(Z284, Z280)/I1&I2b clades fits better Germanic tribes migrations than U106/I1&I2b. By the way both R1a and I1 have cline from NE to SW while U106 moved kinda in opposite direction.

spongetaro
30-08-12, 19:06
I guess East Germanic tribes (e.g. Goths and Vandals) were predominantly R1a-Z280 with some I1 and I2b. I think U106 was not Germanic but more likely Celtic and was in fact germanized lately. The distribution of R1a(Z284, Z280)/I1&I2b clades fits better Germanic tribes migrations than U106/I1&I2b. By the way both R1a and I1 have cline from NE to SW while U106 moved kinda in opposite direction.


I agree with you. U106 is actually high in the area that some scholars call the "Nordwestblock" that was neither Germanic nor Celtic. The Nordic migrations in the iron age towards the south had the effect of making several of those languages disappear, especially in the Benelux area. U106 is probably older than the Iron age scandinavian migrations towards the south that brought the Germanic languages (and I1) there. The age of U106 fits rather with the acient bronze age culture of Northwestern Europe (Hilversum, Collared urns) that precedes the "Celtic" Tumulus culture. Links between Benelux and Eastern England already existed during the ancient bronze age and could account for some of the England's U106.

http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/pottery-cultures-in-the-middle-bronze-age.png
This map shows the ancent bronze age cultures of NW Europe that rose
out of Bell Beaker substratum, probably already carrying R1b L11.

I have a German magazin about the ancient Germans that says regarding the Frisians: "Unklar ist bis heute, ob sie ursprünglich Germanen waren oder erst durch Zuzug, möglicherweise der Sachsen, zu desen". Even though I don't speak German, I guess it means that the Frisians were "Germanicized" by the Saxons.

Sennevini
30-08-12, 21:39
I have a German magazin about the ancient Germans that says regarding the Frisians: "Unklar ist bis heute, ob sie ursprünglich Germanen waren oder erst durch Zuzug, möglicherweise der Sachsen, zu desen". Even though I don't speak German, I guess it means that the Frisians were "Germanicized" by the Saxons.

Translation: "It is till now not clear, whether they [Frisians] were originally Germanic, or only by influx, possibly from the Saxons."

This is another question to look at; around the North Sea of course there were people, lending their words (most notably "herring") to the Germanic tribes.

Germanic holds a position between the Italo-Celtic and the Balto-Slavic family, combining features of both.

And, dont confuse Germanic with German :).

Mikewww
30-08-12, 23:37
I agree with you. U106 is actually high in the area that some scholars call the "Nordwestblock" that was neither Germanic nor Celtic. The Nordic migrations in the iron age towards the south had the effect of making several of those languages disappear, especially in the Benelux area. U106 is probably older than the Iron age scandinavian migrations towards the south that brought the Germanic languages (and I1) there.
U106 is definitely older than what is considered the Proto-Germanic language timeframe. For that matter so is I1 and R1a1. All three preceded Proto-Germanic languages. The mostly likely to be speaking IE in pre-Germanic times, I think (just speculating), would be R1a1 and R1b.

I don't really know the Germanic language/Nordwest block thing other than just a little reading. My understanding is that one hypothesis is that Proto-Germanic really got going in the Jastorf Culture. It's not really a Fenno-Scandinavian thing, though, it's more of the base of the Jutland Peninsula and Northern Germany.


The age of U106 fits rather with the acient bronze age culture of Northwestern Europe (Hilversum, Collared urns) that precedes the "Celtic" Tumulus culture.

How do we know the Tumulus culture was Celtic speaking? It could have just as easily been a western dialect of IE.

So here is my ultimate question - How do you know that a pre-Germanic IE dialect came to the Jastorf from the north? Couldn't it have come from the south or east, or maybe even from multiple directions.

spongetaro
31-08-12, 02:08
U106 is definitely older than what is considered the Proto-Germanic language timeframe. For that matter so is I1 and R1a1. All three preceded Proto-Germanic languages. The mostly likely to be speaking IE in pre-Germanic times, I think (just speculating), would be R1a1 and R1b.

I don't really know the Germanic language/Nordwest block thing other than just a little reading. My understanding is that one hypothesis is that Proto-Germanic really got going in the Jastorf Culture. It's not really a Fenno-Scandinavian thing, though, it's more of the base of the Jutland Peninsula and Northern Germany.

I agree with you, Jastorf extended into Northern and Central Germany but not westward along the North sea and in a lots of places which are today U106 hotspots. According to the Nordwestblock theory, the Harpstedt-Nienburger culture (yellow on the map), located southwest of the Jutland peninsula, (the area of the future Northsea Germans) and more generally, all the lands located west and south of the Ems river, were germanized by a small elite only during the last century BC. If so, an elite move can not account alone for all the U106 in Norwestern germany and the Netherlands. Like U152 people (Italo-Celtic) , U106 people may have changed their linguistic affiliation over time, from a Nordwestblock language to a Germanic one or belonged to both since the begining.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/ArcheologicalCulturesOfCentralEuropeAtEarlyPreRoma nIronAge.png/240px-ArcheologicalCulturesOfCentralEuropeAtEarlyPreRoma nIronAge.png


How do you know that a pre-Germanic IE dialect came to the Jastorf from the north?

I notice that most of the iron age migrations in the area describe a North-South move, not the opposite . So the lands located north of the Jutland may have been "Pre proto Germanic" (Proto Germanic lacking the Grimm's law) before the iron age.The way I see it is that it developped during the Nordic bronze age in the Juland and spread to Northern Germany with the Jastorf culture then centuries later to the vast area that the Roman called "Magna Germania".

Otherwise I don't see how Norway and Sweden could be among the Germanic speaking countries since Jastorf never extended there. What is sure is that the Jutland peninsula experienced both the Nordic bronze age and the jastorf culture. So it coud have been the mean by which the proto Germanic languages spread southward.


How do we know the Tumulus culture was Celtic speaking? It could have just as easily been a western dialect of IE.

I means "traditionally associated with the Proto Celts", I could have said Urnfields or whatever. I personnaly think that the Tumulus were rather Celto-Ligurian.

Mikewww
31-08-12, 06:02
I notice that most of the iron age migrations in the area describe a North-South move, not the opposite . So the lands located north of the Jutland may have been "Pre proto Germanic" (Proto Germanic lacking the Grimm's law) before the iron age.The way I see it is that it developped during the Nordic bronze age in the Juland and spread to Northern Germany with the Jastorf culture then centuries later to the vast area that the Roman called "Magna Germania".

Otherwise I don't see how Norway and Sweden could be among the Germanic speaking countries since Jastorf never extended there. What is sure is that the Jutland peninsula experienced both the Nordic bronze age and the jastorf culture. So it coud have been the mean by which the proto Germanic languages spread southward.

I'm challenging you on the north to south assumption of movement of a pre-Germanic speakers into the Jastorf Culture.

The reason is I don't see a real or clear consensus that is true.

Why don't you see how Norway and Sweden could be pre/proto-Germanic speaking unless it originated there?


The Jastorf culture was characterized by its use of cremation burials in extensive urnfields and link with the practices of the Northern Bronze Age. Archeology offers evidence concerning the crystallization of a group in terms of a shared material culture, in which the (impoverished) Northern Bronze Age continued to exert cultural influence, and in which the northward thrust of Hallstatt into the same area was instrumental, while extensive migrations "should be discounted". No homogeneous contribution to the Germanic-speaking northerners has been determined

I'm not trying to trick you into anything, I just have never understood how the pre-Germanic speakers came from Scandinavia into the proto-Germanic culture, if it was Jastorf.

The backdrop for my line of questioning is the genetic data. I1 did not come from the PIE homeland, as far as I can see. R1b-U106 may well have, as well as R1a1. R1a1 is heavy in Balto-Slavic lands generally across the board. Germanic languages are NOT Balto-Slavic, which are Satem. Germanic languages are Centum based. U106 looks like a likely suspect for carrying a Centum based pre-Germanic western IE dialect.

The other part of this is I've done a number of STR variance/diversity analyses on R1b-U106. It is not old in Scandinavia. It is no more diverse in Scandinavia than it is in England so I think it might be a latecomer to Scandinavia, emanating out of the Jastorf at or about the same time as it pushed west through Frisia and onto England.

U106 variance is higher east of Germany, along Poland and into the Baltic states, rather than south into Austria. That's a bit of puzzler though, unless David Anthony was right that the pre-Germanic IE speakers came towards the Baltic from around the north side of the Cartpathian Mountains and U106 was with them.

Mikewww
31-08-12, 06:15
How do we know the Tumulus culture was Celtic speaking? It could have just as easily been a western dialect of IE.


I means "traditionally associated with the Proto Celts", I could have said Urnfields or whatever. I personnaly think that the Tumulus were rather Celto-Ligurian.

Okay, but how do we know the Tumulus culture was Celtic speaking? We don't.

The Urnfield people could have been just a western dialect of IE, which could have contributed to pre-Germanic speakers. This actually makes a lot of sense which is why I keep checking to see if variance of U106 is higher south of northern-Germany (Jastorf territories) but I don't get that. I'm getting U106 is older into Poland and along the Baltic.

I don't have the answer to this riddle. I'm just trying to figure it out.

GloomyGonzales
31-08-12, 10:36
I'm challenging you on thenorth to south assumption of movement of a pre-Germanic speakers into theJastorf Culture.


The reason is I don't see a real or clearconsensus that is true.

Why don't you see how Norwayand Swedencould be pre/proto-Germanic speaking unless it originated there?

I'm not trying to trick you into anything, I justhave never understood how the pre-Germanic speakers came from Scandinaviainto the proto-Germanic culture, if it was Jastorf.


I doubt that there were any migrations fromScandinavia to Poland or Jutland more likely otherwise. I think the distribution of R1a-Z284 clade is very indicative it'sabsent in Central and Eastern Europe and even in Germanythis clade is very rare and restricted to North Germany.





The backdrop for my line of questioning is thegenetic data. I1 did not come from the PIE homeland, as far as I can see. R1b-U106may well have, as well as R1a1. R1a1 is heavy in Balto-Slavic lands generallyacross the board. Germanic languages are NOT Balto-Slavic, which are Satem.Germanic languages are Centum based. U106 looks like a likely suspect forcarrying a Centum based pre-Germanic western IE dialect.


Baltic and Slavic languages are only partiallysatemized and this can be a result of interactions with Iranian-speakingnomads. So those R1a guys who did not get in contact with Iranian-speakingnomads could be centum.
By the way the biggest number of linguisticinnovations Germanic languages share with Baltic languages - 24, while withCeltic languages they share only 18. And we should not forget that we haveloanwords in Finnic from Proto-Germanic but I have never heard about borrowingsfrom Proto-Germanic in Celtic languages. I guess we have correct location forProto-Germanic (Jastorf culture) but we are trying to connect it with wronghaplos.




The other part of this is I've done a number ofSTR variance/diversity analyses on R1b-U106. It is not old in Scandinavia.It is no more diverse in Scandinavia than it is in England so I think it mightbe a latecomer to Scandinavia, emanating out of the Jastorf at or about thesame time as it pushed west through Frisia and onto England.

U106 variance is higher east of Germany, along Polandand into the Baltic states, rather than south into Austria. That's a bit of puzzlerthough, unless David Anthony was right that the pre-Germanic IE speakers cametowards the Baltic from around the north side of the Cartpathian Mountains andU106 was with them.

High variance of U106 in Poland and in Balticstates can be explained by the fact that those lands were occupied by TeutonicOrder that enrolled warriors from all the North Europe and as well those landwere occupied by Danes and Swedes.

zanipolo
31-08-12, 12:14
Why are people thinking that U106 in austria and netherlands originated after the Roman period?
The fact are that there where no austrians until 1000AD, there where no frisians until after the collapse of the Roman empire ( frisians ruled from holland to jutland) Paul the deacon wrote the first clash between the longobards and the slavs happened in 610AD in vienna area.
So, why do we not envisage that pre the celtic period in the alps, resided the illyrians, venetics and rhaetian people, these people in the late bronze age ruled this "austria". Why is it not easy to realise that U106 merged from this and migrated westwards along the danube and then northward along the Rhine to the netherlands. Its not hard to do now ...sailing from amsterdam to the black sea

Should u106 really be called germanic?


plenty of U106 in tyrol from august 2012 data



Tirol (http://tirol-studie.at/)
East Tyrolean Dissection of Y Chromosome Variation (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041885), Niederstätter, Rampl, Erhart, Pitterl, Oberacher et al. 2012 (270 samples, 17 Y-STRs, 27 Y-SNPs)
R1b-U106/S21 18,9%, I1-M253 15,9%, R1a-M17 14,1%, R1b-U152/S28 12,6%, J-M304 8,9%, G2a-P15 7,4%, R1b-M412/S167* 4,8%, E1b-M78 4,4%, R1b-S116* 3,0%, I2-M223 2,6 %, R1b-L23/S141* 1,9%
Tyrol Y-SNPs Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2007.10.158), Niederstätter et al. 2008 (135 individuals)
R1b-U106/S21 60%, R1b-U152/S28 21%, R1b-U198 2%, R1b* 19%

Mikewww
31-08-12, 21:29
I doubt that there were any migrations fromScandinavia to Poland or Jutland more likely otherwise. I think the distribution of R1a-Z284 clade is very indicative it'sabsent in Central and Eastern Europe and even in Germanythis clade is very rare and restricted to North Germany.

I don't know if there were migrations from Scandinavia to Poland/Jutland. I'm just saying I think the pre-Germanic form of IE may have come from the south or east of Germany into the Jastorf Culture (of N.Germany and the lower Jutland.) If so, R1b-U106 might be a good candidate carrier for that pre-Germanic language.

Mikewww
31-08-12, 21:37
High variance of U106 in Poland and in Balticstates can be explained by the fact that those lands were occupied by TeutonicOrder that enrolled warriors from all the North Europe and as well those landwere occupied by Danes and Swedes.

There still has to be a source. I'm saying that the STR variance calculations on long haplotypes show highest variance to the east of Germany, in places like Poland, Lithuania, etc. I think the Myres study showed the same thing.

Germany, itself, as well as the Nordic Countries, England and Austria all had lower variance. U106 had to come from somewhere and that somewhere should have higher diversity. There is no better candidate than lands directly east of present day Germany. There were Germanic wanderings all over Europe but I can't find a place with higher diversity than the area to the east of Germany.

Do you have a better candidate for a source for R1b-U106?

I throw in the caveat that we have very little data from Austria and U106, as was noted, is supposed to have a hot spot there. I would not take off the table the possibility that some place like Austria and/or Hungary. I just haven't seen enough U106 data from there to calculate anything that might be representative.

In any case I don't see how U106 came into Jastorf from Scandinavia. If so, the Centum based IE dialect that became pre-Germanic may have come from Eastern or Central/Southern Europe.

GloomyGonzales
26-09-12, 09:32
There still has to be a source. I'm saying that the STR variance calculations on long haplotypes show highest variance to the east of Germany, in places like Poland, Lithuania, etc. I think the Myres study showed the same thing.

Germany, itself, as well as the Nordic Countries, England and Austria all had lower variance. U106 had to come from somewhere and that somewhere should have higher diversity. There is no better candidate than lands directly east of present day Germany. There were Germanic wanderings all over Europe but I can't find a place with higher diversity than the area to the east of Germany.

Do you have a better candidate for a source for R1b-U106?

I throw in the caveat that we have very little data from Austria and U106, as was noted, is supposed to have a hot spot there. I would not take off the table the possibility that some place like Austria and/or Hungary. I just haven't seen enough U106 data from there to calculate anything that might be representative.

In any case I don't see how U106 came into Jastorf from Scandinavia. If so, the Centum based IE dialect that became pre-Germanic may have come from Eastern or Central/Southern Europe.

The STR variance calculations can be misleading. Now we have pretty much SNPs and tested for SNPs guys so there’s no need to bulk together all STRs without regard of their SNPs.
I’ve checked out Polish DNA Project at FTDNA and I should say that all lines of R1b-U106 in Poland are pretty young, maximum 1500 bp. It looks like U106 guys came in Poland at historical times (Drang nach Osten, Partitions, Jewish migrations and so on).

I think it’s more reasonable to look for U106 origin where we have maximum of U106* and old clades like L217, Z381 and Z18.
The majority of all U106* for a while have been found in England, Scotland and Germany.
L217+ was found in England
The distribution of R1b-Z381, R1b-Z18 (below on the map) points towards England, North-West Germany and Netherlands.

http://imageshack.us/a/img19/1329/u106.jpg

Purple pins – R1b-Z381
Light green pins – R1b-Z18

By the way the distribution and age of U106 clades in Britain does not fit the story of its arrival with Anglo-Saxons. If U106 came in Britain with Anglo-Saxon invasion we would have a set of U106 lines with age of ~ 1500 years but in fact majority of lines much older. It means that U106 colonized Britain long before Anglo-Saxon invasion.

So I think association of U106 with the NorthWestBlock (Hilversum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilversum_culture), Elp and Wessex cultures) is pretty much solid.

MOESAN
26-09-12, 13:42
I find this thread posts quality very interesting - no curse no 'malediction', it is like a good rest!
Y-R1b/U106 could very well be arrived in W-Europe South the baltic shores for a big part, maybe too through Donau river - as a whole it appears to some scholars that a big part of R1b came via this northern road - (see L11?) - some isolated old forms or R1b-U106 could have done their way to West where the knew demographic growth in short enough time giving birth to a numerous but not too variated bunch of downstream clades? I think that if U106 is now a good marker of germanic tribes as a whole, it was very present also North placed but included on margins of ancient proto-celtic-ligurian-italic(-germanic) people (so, among N-W-block I-E speakers), being the future celtic or celtized Belgae source? these Belgae can explain the "excess" of U106 in Brittain compared to Y-I1 by instance? and maybe (I wait numerous enough samples for it) "excess" among Walloons?
Sorry for ma generalizations.

Mkk
26-09-12, 18:58
By the way the distribution and age of U106 clades in Britain does not fit the story of its arrival with Anglo-Saxons. If U106 came in Britain with Anglo-Saxon invasion we would have a set of U106 lines with age of ~ 1500 years but in fact majority of lines much older. It means that U106 colonized Britain long before Anglo-Saxon invasion.
This is flawed reasoning. If we look at European American lineages, we don't see them coalescing to less than 400 years ago., This is because, during the migration, the Euros didn't go under a bottleneck.

So if the Anglo-Saxon and Viking migration did indeed bring most of the U106 to the Isles, then we wouldn't expect a bottleneck of population as the population movement would have been large.

GloomyGonzales
26-09-12, 20:13
This is flawed reasoning. If we look at European American lineages, we don't see them coalescing to less than 400 years ago., This is because, during the migration, the Euros didn't go under a bottleneck.

So if the Anglo-Saxon and Viking migration did indeed bring most of the U106 to the Isles, then we wouldn't expect a bottleneck of population as the population movement would have been large.


From mathematical point of view there's no reason to compare migration from Europe to America with migration of Anglo-Saxons to Britain. We talk about incomparable figures and models. Longtime prolongated migration of huge masses of population from Europe to America can not result in any detectable bottlenecks especially if event (migration) itself happend no so long ago.

Mkk
26-09-12, 21:24
From mathematical point of view there's no reason to compare migration from Europe to America with migration of Anglo-Saxons to Britain. We talk about incomparable figures and models. Longtime prolongated migration of huge masses of population from Europe to America can not result in any detectable bottlenecks especially if event (migration) itself happend no so long ago.
Ofcourse the AS migration was smaller numerically than white emigration to America. But my point is, unless there is a very small population movement causing a large number of founder effects with haplogroups, then there's no reason to think that the AS U106 lineages would have to coalless to just 1500 years ago. They would go back to their actual founder, many of whom lived many years before then.

Another example is:

I suspect the South Asian and Afro-Carribean lineages don't coalless to less than 60 years ago in Britain.

MOESAN
26-09-12, 21:42
to come back closer to the thread I 'm not sure Y-R1b/U106 bearers was centered in the nucleus of Tumuli culture, lesser yet found among BB previous spread -

MOESAN
25-10-12, 13:56
just to feed the debate: you can search for "Le Second Mésolithique d' Europe occidentale" by Thomas PERRIN (a froggy!) on the net - it would be easy to find I suppose (I've no more the link) -
it speaks about a second wave of Mesolithic people from unknown geographical source (for now: possibly from N Africa, from ex-Yugoslavia, from Ukraina, according to different theories) - this wave reached Western Europe by Mediterranea, not by the Donau river - thinking in the theory about a 'neolithic' origin of Y-R1b, it is to say for the period, not obligatory for the kind of culture, this abstract could give some help? ( a sea travel for some of the Y-R1b? pushed by the neolithic people, in some way?)

MOESAN
28-10-12, 19:37
other bell sound (after my post which is a bit aventurous) -
in a Russian paper (based partially on a post of De Beule) about Y-I2a2 (ex I2b ex I2c) SNP L38, the conclusions was (I 've no competence to judge) that the geofraphically origin of this Y-I2a2 SNP was in Eastern Europe, in the Carpathians regions (it recalls me the old opinion of old PEAKE about Bell Beakers successors of Tripolje culture, going westwards to reach Bavaria, maybe a hative conclusion?) - this paper seamed considering thise Y-I2-L38 having flourished in Upper Rhine valley (Bavaria B-Wurttemberg) along Y-R1b, dating it to about the La Tène period - would it not be possible to go back farther in past and tying it also to the B.B. phenomenon and after (by origin or contamination) to the Urnfields ??? I2a2L38 could be tied to La Tène but more generally other Y-I2a2 (other brother SNPs) of Northern Germany could not be linked to the more ancient B.B. of N-W Europe type? associated with some I2a1b (I shall not speake here of 'dinaric' phénotype even if it could be of some worth)

MOESAN
28-10-12, 20:04
By the way, this same paper said this I2-L38 went Northwards to Flanders and South Netherlands, before passing to Brittain at celtic times

Wilhelm
29-10-12, 04:32
Considering the Basques, maybe with the arrival of R1b there, the land became
saturated, full, and wasn't there any option left for the Indo-Europeanized
tribes (U152, L21?) to access Basque lands. (Maybe they had a culture in which
Indo-European was not conceived as the prestigious language).

The problem with this theory is that there is 15-20% of R-L21 in Basque lands.

MOESAN
03-11-12, 01:20
I will not resolve here the question or absolute datation of Y-R1b first arrival in Europe -
just some feelings - but maybe I missed some up-to-date intresting posts about new SNPs?
So you 'll see...

DNA-Y R1b first travels in Europe


Based on the work of Myre (I think because I only transfered the cyphers into a 'Open Office classeur' without note scrupulously the name, and others as Cruciani or Balaresque did some similar work) I made some suppositions (surely made by others yet) :
when looking at the maps of L23, L51 and L11 distributions, I am tempted to conclude :


L11 was born yet between Caucasus and Anatolia, so the same for L51 -

a Northern way from Caucasus could have send L23 to Russia and Ukraina : the absence of presence of L51 or/and L11 can have two sources : the mutation was new (weak %s of R1b) and died on the way, or the few people that took this way had not it (sam reason : weak %s) – I think the few Y-R1b we find today in Karelia are from these pioneers -

a Western way went over the Bosphore to Balkans and Greece, the most of the R1b's going along the Danau river – without any proof, only a bet, I think thses ones had L51 and L11, at weak %s too -

as very too often, more than a possibility stand in front of us : the Danau river could have seen R1B coming from Anatolia as well as from Moldavia-Western Ukraina (going along the Black Sea shores, after having left others going northwards)!

The bulk of the Y-R1b that took foot in the Western Balkans lost there their L51/L11 or they had left them already before – they was not numerous and the % of L51/L11 was very tiny -

the few people that reached Central Europe (Hungaria, Slovakia, Czechia) with L51/L11 surely was a bit more numerous : maybe P310 and U106 found birth there ?

I see no direct link between Poland and Estonia, on one side, and Karelia, Bielo-Russia or Northern Russia on another side – I think the first Y-R1b that reached Southern Sweden, Denmark and Northern Germany, maybe Estonia (uneasy to date the coming of U106 in Estonia without deaper study) was coming from South-West Poland and previously from Czechia through Moravia ; they was surely rich for U-106 -

Westwards the progression kept ahead into Southern Germany and Switzerland, and then into East-Southern France and Northern Italy (the %s don't push me to think they passed by present day Slovenia and Venetia) – surely richer for P312 -

a two choices quiz now : Iberia was reached by France or by Sea, from Southern Italy ?Valencia (Levante) seam having been rich for L51/L11 too and South Italy is reacher in internal % L23 and L11 than North Italy even if it is poorer for L51(?!?) - the Creta richness is too a confusing thing – is a pity this study give no data for Cataluña by instance – doubful situation ! But I prefer give the first place to travel by land from South-Eastern France to Iberia for now... - the big richness of Southern Italy for L23 is easy to explain by Greeks colonization – Creta is still a mistery, for the richest region of the island today about Y-R1b is in a considered 'archaïc' region of inland South-East... perhaps the study didn't focalize on these local R1b ? - someones spoke about Italian (Venitian) late influence -

the less « ancestral » Y-R1b according to these facts seam being Western Iberia and Northern Iberia and the Netherlands -

some lands as Russia, Bielo-Russia, Ukraina, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, appear to me as having received re-introduction of more recent donwstreams of Y-R1b (U106, P312 and descendants) – surely a « va-et-vient » occurred in more northern Central Europe (Danau) but there Y-R1b never disappeared and then produced its own descendants – in the Western Balkans and parts of Greece, Caucasus, Anatolia, Y-R1b vegetated until today -





the big difficulty is to date these evenments : here only appear (if I'm not too wrong) the paths and a possible relative (internal) chronologic order, no datations : the way along the Danau river could have been long enough or very short, even if we can imagine a demographic explosion a) in Central Europe – b) in the Western Alps – what is very evident is a rupture between West and East and a very impressive bottleneck in South-Eastern Europe, I think -
What I see here is the quasi impossibility for these occidental Y-R1b to be the result of a huge amount of tribes that should be numerous already before leaving the western shores of the Black Sea or the the Danau delta... I cannot figure it out ! And I don't exclude totally the possibility that some P312 (not all of them) could have navigated from the Adriatic Sea to S-W Europe...Maybe some future addition of new surveys will change my thought -


I believe that :
when speaking about small populations, by the action of hazard, the new mutated SNPs can disappear quickly (« sur-place » figure : the older SNPs survives), and that in a bigger population, with time, older SNP disappear slowly, and new SNPs can survive, giving way to a small geographic almost familial set of this bigger population to magnifiy the %s of one of its new SNPs when leaving the bulk of the population (it is the famous and sometimes too used 'wave of 'advance?) -
Now, what archeological, historical data can help to put dates for that ? Someone evoques a Neolithic possibility, or a late Mesolithic lost among Neolithic times) – I admit the male elite bias for Y chromosom, but if at bronze Age, it obliged us to figure out a small tribe of intrepid male warriors subjuging huge populations of affraid wives on their road, in concurrence with bigger tribes and upon very more numerous invaded populations: no too easy -
on an other side if P312 was born in Central Danau and around, it could have given birth to well separate downstreams of itself, some going by land, other by sea (Mediterranea) ???

MOESAN
03-11-12, 01:21
evenments = events : oups!

Vico
09-11-12, 18:48
If R1b-M269 was a non-Indo-European marker, and spread first to the Balkan from Anatolia, later on over sea to southern France - R1b's seem good sea men, I think we should not underestimate the faring skills -, where it soon became part of the spread of Bell Beaker.
Then, in southern-Germany, parts of it would have come in touch with the R1a Indo-European elite, and take over their PIE-dialect (Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic, then happening before anything satem-like), spreading it as R1b folk (Urnfield etc.) over Western Europe (as Proto-Italo-Celtic), not influencing the Basque R1b's.
For a parallel: Romans imposing their language over the Iberian people, who, later, as Spaniards dominate in some American colonies.It is a strange version.
It turns out that someone from "Indo-European elite" (someone from R1a) sat and developed "Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic" dialects specifically for people R1b-group. "Indo-European elite" waited and abused, when they come and will take away their dialects?!!

Regardless of whether there have one Proto-Italo-Celtic language, or Italic and Celtic split from Proto-Indo-European itself, this(these) languag(es) is(are) older than time of the possible appearance R1b-people in southern Germany on your version. "Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic" languag ((if it is considered as late a dialect of Indo-European)) is older than Urnfield and Tumulus archaeological cultures.

Another detail, please. We will not take into account the Celtic languages​​, but I do not know any of the researchers, which would be found in the Latin some bedding, which could be associated with Anatolia, there is no trace of the language of Hurrians.

I'm trying to find out who suggested that the ancestors of the Celts have been in Anatolia before there came the Galatians
or Romans before the campaign of Gnaeus Manlius Vulso in 189 e. BC?

MOESAN
10-11-12, 15:47
whe know few by now about the Y-R1b arrival in S-Germany - it could be late enough, let's wait "new ancient DNA-Y" -
for pre-proto-celtic-liguric-italic, I think it's reasonable imagining the group broke off in Central Europe, in S-Moravia-Hungary-Austria, a proto-celtic-liguric group moving westwards when proto-italic group stayed more eastern -
for B.B., I'm not sure yet, but I feel it was already speaking an I-E dialect -
that said, I think the apparition of a new profile of culture doesn't prove everytime a new (complete) demic arrival and so I cannot easily link a new cultural profile to a new stage of language or to a purely new language: we have to be carefull here -
new genomes and new cultures and new languages don't get life from nowhere and "nowhen"
ancestor of celtic not-already-celtic could have been spoken in C-W Europe for long enough time -

Vico
10-11-12, 22:36
let's wait "new ancient DNA-Y" (1)-
for pre-proto-celtic-liguric-italic (2),
Let me ask you two questions, please.
(1) Why do you hope that new research DNA-Y R1b will help to clarify the situation, but will not confuse it even more?
(2) Why do you believe that proto-Ligurians belong to the Indo-European community? In terms of anthropology Ligurians are not much like with Celts of La Ten (from S-Germany). Science has not data that Ligurian language belonging to the Indo-European family. Maybe I missed something :) ...