Genetic history of the British Isles

Have you not read anything on the R1b page I wrote ? PIE language originated in the steppe, when R1b, R1a, G2a3b1 and J2b2 people all merged together into a single society (Yamna culture). Before that there was no Indo-European language. Some words came from R1a tribes, others from R1b tribes. R1b-V88 split from M269 right after the domestication of cattle 10,500 years ago. PIE is only 5,500 years old. The 5,000 year gap explains why R1b-V88 didn't speak the same language as M269 when they reached the steppe, and even if it were, the language of R1b-M269 tribes only became Indo-European after the cultural merger with R1a tribes.

why do you consider J2b2 part of Yamna?
why do you think Yamna was the first Indo-European culture?
don't Anatolian and Tocharian language origins predate Yamna?
 
why do you consider J2b2 part of Yamna?
why do you think Yamna was the first Indo-European culture?
don't Anatolian and Tocharian language origins predate Yamna?

Anatolian languages were probably brought by one of the earliest out-of-the-steppe migrations, from which descend the Hittites and Trojans. They are an isolated branch because they split early and conquered an already heavily populated and highly cultured region, so that Anatolian languages became hybridised with non-IE. The same thing happened with Greek and Albanian, but later.

My theory is that Tocharian descends from the equally early migration of steppe people to the Altai, which created the Afanasevo culture (c. 3600-2400 BCE), contemporary to Yamna. So in all fairness it could be said that an archaic form of Proto-IE existed just before Yamna. Since the Tocharian branch split before PIE was fully formed, it remained archaic and evolved in isolation for several millennia.

J2b2 was surely part of Yamna because it is the main type of J2 found among the Scandinavians, tribes of the Volga-Ural (Tatars, Bashkirs), the Altai, and among upper caste Indians. This is also true for G2a3b1. There is also a lot of J2a in India and Central Asia but that is due to the proximity to West Asia/Iran.
 
Anatolian languages were probably brought by one of the earliest out-of-the-steppe migrations, from which descend the Hittites and Trojans. They are an isolated branch because they split early and conquered an already heavily populated and highly cultured region, so that Anatolian languages became hybridised with non-IE. The same thing happened with Greek and Albanian, but later.

My theory is that Tocharian descends from the equally early migration of steppe people to the Altai, which created the Afanasevo culture (c. 3600-2400 BCE), contemporary to Yamna. So in all fairness it could be said that an archaic form of Proto-IE existed just before Yamna. Since the Tocharian branch split before PIE was fully formed, it remained archaic and evolved in isolation for several millennia.

J2b2 was surely part of Yamna because it is the main type of J2 found among the Scandinavians, tribes of the Volga-Ural (Tatars, Bashkirs), the Altai, and among upper caste Indians. This is also true for G2a3b1. There is also a lot of J2a in India and Central Asia but that is due to the proximity to West Asia/Iran.

ok Tocharian split just before Yamna
Anatolian is a mystery. Troy is 5000 years old and we don't know whether the founders were allready IE. Hittites entered history only some 3800 years ago.
How did those Anatolians do that? Coming out of obscurity and conquering a heavily populated and highly cultured region?

Do you still subscribe the Pontic steppe origin theory as described by David Anthony?
It may still hold, but my biggest reservation is about the role of horse riding by early IE.
What do you think about the collapse of Gumelnita and the invasion of steppe people 6000 - 6200 year ago?
 
ok Tocharian split just before Yamna
Anatolian is a mystery. Troy is 5000 years old and we don't know whether the founders were allready IE. Hittites entered history only some 3800 years ago.
How did those Anatolians do that? Coming out of obscurity and conquering a heavily populated and highly cultured region?

Do you still subscribe the Pontic steppe origin theory as described by David Anthony?
It may still hold, but my biggest reservation is about the role of horse riding by early IE.
What do you think about the collapse of Gumelnita and the invasion of steppe people 6000 - 6200 year ago?

The collapse of Gumelnița–Karanovo was probably caused by incursions of steppe people, but that happened 700 years before the Yamna culture so it's hard to say if these were already R1b people. Probably, but not necessarily. They might be the ones who continued to Anatolia and became the ancestors of the Trojans/Luwians and Hittites. In fact that sounds like the most probable scenario. Another possibility is that the Proto-Hittites originated in Maykop and migrated (by sea or across the Caucasus) to northern Anatolia.
 
Have you not read anything on the R1b page I wrote ? PIE language originated in the steppe, when R1b, R1a, G2a3b1 and J2b2 people all merged together into a single society (Yamna culture). Before that there was no Indo-European language. Some words came from R1a tribes, others from R1b tribes. R1b-V88 split from M269 right after the domestication of cattle 10,500 years ago. PIE is only 5,500 years old. The 5,000 year gap explains why R1b-V88 didn't speak the same language as M269 when they reached the steppe, and even if it were, the language of R1b-M269 tribes only became Indo-European after the cultural merger with R1a tribes.

So after all these people met up and invented the PIE language they all just shook hands and parted ways? That convinently explains why the irish and basques have such a homogeneous make up. I dont buy it.
 
So after all these people met up and invented the PIE language they all just shook hands and parted ways? That convinently explains why the irish and basques have such a homogeneous make up. I dont buy it.

Just read the page.
 
Just read the page.
From my hard and deep research into genealogy and history the Irish and Basques are indeed the most homogeneous populations in Europe. The Irish have a tiny bit of admixture from the Norse Vikings though. And a tiny bit of French Huguenot contribution too.

I have Cajun French ancestry and share ancestors and am a bit homogeneous myself. It makes me laugh a little when foreigners suggest that we Cajuns are a mulatto people; when the chances of this are extremely unlikely. They get us confused for French Creoles. (In my analogy; calling Cajuns a mulatto people or Creole is the same equivalent to saying Norwegians and Saami are mixed/the same people. The Saami evidently look Caucasian but are mixed with Siberian Mongoloid from the East.)

In comparison; it is actually more likely for a Scandinavian to have Mongoloid Hun due to haplogroup Q. Neo-Nazi Nordicists in Scandinavia believe themselves to be the most homogeneous peoples in Europe; but history and genetics will tell you that this is most likely not true.
 
So after all these people met up and invented the PIE language they all just shook hands and parted ways? That convinently explains why the irish and basques have such a homogeneous make up. I dont buy it.

This is just the Y chromosome so it's very well possible the R1b founder could have been far more West Asian than he was even at the time of the Hinxton Celt which was 3000 years after the arrival of PIE speakers to Europe.

A very key example are the C-V20 males whose autosomal DNA looks exactly like the surrounding Hungarian farmers of the LBK who consisted of G-P15 intrusive Middle-Eastern lineages. The Y chromosome doesn't tell us anything about the overall genome of an individual. Being R1b Irish vs R1b Basque tells us nothing about the origin of the R1b male or where he came from.
 
The collapse of Gumelnița–Karanovo was probably caused by incursions of steppe people, but that happened 700 years before the Yamna culture so it's hard to say if these were already R1b people. Probably, but not necessarily. They might be the ones who continued to Anatolia and became the ancestors of the Trojans/Luwians and Hittites. In fact that sounds like the most probable scenario. Another possibility is that the Proto-Hittites originated in Maykop and migrated (by sea or across the Caucasus) to northern Anatolia.

As i read recently................where west-semetic language ends , so begins Luwian ............on the modern borders of Turkey and Syria

Is ancient Anatolia region refferred to as European for auDna genetics ( autosomal ) or not..........clearly it is not Middle Eastern or Levant. The answer will, IMO, will conclude that Yamna took R1b to the atlantic sea and the R1b in Anatolia only supplied the "greek" islands
 
A very key example are the C-V20 males whose autosomal DNA looks exactly like the surrounding Hungarian farmers of the LBK who consisted of G-P15 intrusive Middle-Eastern lineages. The Y chromosome doesn't tell us anything about the overall genome of an individual..

Interesting. Can you tell me where you got that info?
 
From my hard and deep research into genealogy and history the Irish and Basques are indeed the most homogeneous populations in Europe. The Irish have a tiny bit of admixture from the Norse Vikings though. And a tiny bit of French Huguenot contribution too.

I have Cajun French ancestry and share ancestors and am a bit homogeneous myself. It makes me laugh a little when foreigners suggest that we Cajuns are a mulatto people; when the chances of this are extremely unlikely. They get us confused for French Creoles. (In my analogy; calling Cajuns a mulatto people or Creole is the same equivalent to saying Norwegians and Saami are mixed/the same people. The Saami evidently look Caucasian but are mixed with Siberian Mongoloid from the East.)

In comparison; it is actually more likely for a Scandinavian to have Mongoloid Hun due to haplogroup Q. Neo-Nazi Nordicists in Scandinavia believe themselves to be the most homogeneous peoples in Europe; but history and genetics will tell you that this is most likely not true.

By homogeneous, which do you mean ?

1) lacking genetic diversity (i.e. individuals in that population are closely related to one another because they descend from a small founding population, like the Finns or the Jews)

2) descending from a population isolated from the rest of the world for a very long time, and therefore having few outside "admixtures" (like the Sardinians or the Inuits)


In the first case, the height of genetic homogeneity would be found on a tiny island with a lot of consanguinity.

In the second, it would be a very isolated population like the Australian aborigines or the Andaman islanders, who supposedly haven't mixed with anyone from outside for over 40,000 years.


Actually, in both cases, the acme of genetic homogeneity and purity would be the Andaman islanders. I suppose that by Neo-Nazi standards they should be the ones ruling the world. Too bad they still live in the Palaeolithic and will shoot arrows at anyone trying to approach their island.
 
This is just the Y chromosome so it's very well possible the R1b founder could have been far more West Asian than he was even at the time of the Hinxton Celt which was 3000 years after the arrival of PIE speakers to Europe.

What makes you think that the admixture that is now most common in West Asia, and hence was subjectively labelled 'West Asian', was already the most common in the region 10,000 years ago ? Do you understand that the admixture does not have GPS coordinates attached to it ? If R1b brought what is now labelled Northwest European admixture (not necessarily the one from Dodecad, it is merely an example to make a point), then that admixture would have followed R1b people from the West Asia and probably would represent only a minority of present-day West Asia. Of course that admixture would have become diluted, but it would have spread far and wide and would now be more common in Northwest Europe than in its place of origin.
 
By homogeneous, which do you mean ?

1) lacking genetic diversity (i.e. individuals in that population are closely related to one another because they descend from a small founding population, like the Finns or the Jews)

2) descending from a population isolated from the rest of the world for a very long time, and therefore having few outside "admixtures" (like the Sardinians or the Inuits)


In the first case, the height of genetic homogeneity would be found on a tiny island with a lot of consanguinity.

In the second, it would be a very isolated population like the Australian aborigines or the Andaman islanders, who supposedly haven't mixed with anyone from outside for over 40,000 years.


Actually, in both cases, the acme of genetic homogeneity and purity would be the Andaman islanders. I suppose that by Neo-Nazi standards they should be the ones ruling the world. Too bad they still live in the Palaeolithic and will shoot arrows at anyone trying to approach their island.
1) lacking genetic diversity

Also, I don't believe that Finns are very homogeneous as is claimed ... it seems only their maternal side is homogeneous. If you look at their history and their haplogroups it seems they are an Eastern European (or Northwest Asian) people that migrated into Nordic Scandinavia and mixed with the locals.

It is quite apparent to me that they are a genetic group that is a cross of indigenous Nordic peoples of Scandinavia and Finno-Ugrics that migrated from the East; as well as other possible indigenous and migrant people that got picked up; originating from what is now Russia. I believe the Basques are far more homogeneous in comparison. Given that they have a higher incidence of R1b in their population than the Finns have N1c too; and the Basque population in 1800 was around 100,000 people; wheras the Finns were around 400,000 or so. (This is a rough estimate though. I haven't checked in a while.) This means that the Basques had an extreme baby boom at one point; moreso than the Finns.

Even though the Basques are definitely mixed at one point; and may not have had R1b ancestors at one point; their massive spike in population suggests to me that they must descend from the same ancestors at some point; in total isolation; moreso than the Finns.

Edit: I just checked the population for Finland in 1800 and it was actually around 832,700. Compared to the Basque country which was around less than 500,000 people. According to the website populstat.info
 
Just read the page.

The best theory on R1b right now is that it spread into Europe with the Beaker Culture. Before that it was in Crete with the Minoan civilization. The Beakers spoke Basque which is the language of Linear A/B.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2013/05/high-mtdna-affinity-between-bronze-age.html

Bell Beaker
GermanyQuedlinburg [QUEXII 3]2340-2190 BCH13a1a2cG73A C146T C152T C195T A247G A769G A825t A1018G C2259T G2706A A2758G C2885T T3594C G4104A T4312C A4745G T7028C G7146A T7256C A7521G T8468C T8655C G8701A G9025A C9540T G10398A T10664C A10688G C10810T C10873T C10915T A11719G A11914G T12705C G13105A G13276A T13506C A13542G T13650C C13680T T14766C C14872T A16129G T16187C C16189T T16223C G16230A T16278C C16311T C16519TAdler 2012; Brotherton 2013; Brandt 2013

Minoan
GreeceAyios Charalambos [2AH]4400–3700 BPH13a1a 14766CHughey 2013

I should add that these are the only two instances of H13 that have been found in any aDNA so far.
CCwZGb8.jpg



http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/linerb.htm

THE PYLOS TABLETS

PYLOS TABLET PY Fr 1184

Transcribed text: ko-ra-ro a-pe-do-ke e-ra-wo to-so e-u-me-de-i pa-ro i-pe-se-wa ka-ra-re-we.

Ventris' translation: Kokalos repaid the following quantity of olive oil to Eumedes: 648 liters of oil. From Ipsewas, thirty-eight
stirrup jars (?).

Translation from Basque:

ko ko kontrako enemy
ra ora oratu to grab
ro/ aro/ -aro all
a-pe ape apez priest
do edo edonongo from everywhere
ke oke oker unjustly, without reason
e-ra era erailketa murder
wo/ awo/ aopetik secretly
.to ito itoaldi drowning
so/ oso/ oso simple
e-u eu eupakada calling out to
me ume ume child, offspring, descendant
de ede edesti history
i ei ei they say, I am told
pa ipa ipartar northern
ro/ aro/ arrotz stranger
i-pe ipe epe luzatu to prolong, continue
se ese esetsaldi attack
wa/ ewa/ ea (emphasis)
.ka ika ikararazi to terrorize
ra ara arrapakatu to plunder
re are arestian a short time ago
we ?

The enemy grabbed all the priests from everywhere and without reason murdered them secretly by simple drowning. I am calling out to my descendants (for the sake of) history. I am told that the northern strangers continued their (terrible) attack, terrorizing and plundering (until) a short time ago.

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

I
post the above link because the Tholoi originated in the Minoan civilization and spread to Sardinia and Iberia with the Beaker Culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_Bull-leaper

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

"Crete's religious symbols included the dove, lily and double-headed ax."

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

Small bronze sculptures depicting half-man, half-bull figures have been found, as well as characters with four arms and eyes and two-headed deers: they probably had a mythological and religious significance. Another holy animal which was frequently depicted is the dove."

Dove and Bull worship were characteristics of both the Minoan civilization that Bell Beakers spread to Iberia, Sardinia, and Italy (through the Etruscan civilization).


Don't bother pointing me to your page on "why the beakers couldn't be r1b" I have read it, the points don't have this kind of weight.
 
The best theory on R1b right now is that it spread into Europe with the Beaker Culture. Before that it was in Crete with the Minoan civilization. The Beakers spoke Basque which is the language of Linear A/B.


Don't bother pointing me to your page on "why the beakers couldn't be r1b" I have read it, the points don't have this kind of weight.

Your theory doesn't have any weight at all. It's based on 1 mitochondrial lineage and incorrect linguistic facts.
 
We do not have a single Y DNA sample from Iberian Bell Beaker culture. Many people consider that proof that Iberian Bell Beaker couldn't have been R1b.
 
Your theory doesn't have any weight at all. It's based on 1 mitochondrial lineage and incorrect linguistic facts.

Well first off it isn't my theory, go look at the link I posted from the Eurogenes blog. There are also the 2 instances of R1b found in Beaker people, but the origin of R1b in the Beaker people is already pretty much accepted. This is the theory that follows Occam's Razor, no assumptions just facts. The linguistic part is debatable, but if you compare the Greek translation to the Basque one, the Basque is a lot better. Why bother chiseling a receipt into a tablet, its illogical, and he uses 2 names to explain symbols that don't fit the theory. Likewise Linear A has no known connection to Greek and yet it is ancestral to Linear B.

Look at the Linear B number system and the Basque number system.

Linear B:

linearb_numbers.gif


linearb_num_ex.gif


Basque:

220px-Errotarienzenbakiak.jpg



I should add that, from the link I posted. The Basque translation work started in 1930, and was most recently picked up again in 2001. The greek work was done in 1954 and not touched again.
 
We do not have a single Y DNA sample from Iberian Bell Beaker culture. Many people consider that proof that Iberian Bell Beaker couldn't have been R1b.

I just don't understand how anybody could read this page top to bottom and tell me that Bell Beakers weren't a migratory people.

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

Skeletal studies

Historical craniometric studies found that the Beaker people appeared to be of a different physical type than those earlier populations in the same geographic areas. They were described as tall, heavy boned and brachycephalic. The early studies on the Beakers which were based on the analysis of their skeletal remains, were craniometric. This apparent evidence of migration was in line with archaeological discoveries linking Beaker culture to new farming techniques, mortuary practices, copper-working skills, and other cultural innovations. However, such evidence from skeletal remains was brushed aside as a new movement developed in archaeology from the 1960s, which stressed cultural continuity. Anti-migrationist authors either paid little attention to skeletal evidence or argued that differences could be explained by environmental and cultural influences. Margaret Cox and Simon Mays sum up the position: "Although it can hardly be said that craniometric data provide an unequivocal answer to the problem of the Beaker folk, the balance of the evidence would at present seem to favour a migration hypothesis."[73]
Non-metrical research concerning the Beaker people in Britain also cautiously pointed in the direction of immigration.[74] Subsequent studies, such as one concerning the Carpathian Basin,[30] and a non-metrical analysis of skeletons in central-southern Germany,[75] have also identified marked typological differences with the pre-Beaker inhabitants.
Jocelyne Desideri examined the teeth in skeletons from Bell Beaker sites in Northern Spain, Southern France, Switzerland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Examining dental characteristics that have been independently shown to correlate with genetic relatedness, she found that only in Northern Spain and the Czech Republic were there demonstrable links between immediately previous populations and Bell Beaker populations. Elsewhere there was a discontinuity.[76]
 
1) lacking genetic diversity

Also, I don't believe that Finns are very homogeneous as is claimed ... it seems only their maternal side is homogeneous. If you look at their history and their haplogroups it seems they are an Eastern European (or Northwest Asian) people that migrated into Nordic Scandinavia and mixed with the locals.

It is quite apparent to me that they are a genetic group that is a cross of indigenous Nordic peoples of Scandinavia and Finno-Ugrics that migrated from the East; as well as other possible indigenous and migrant people that got picked up; originating from what is now Russia. I believe the Basques are far more homogeneous in comparison. Given that they have a higher incidence of R1b in their population than the Finns have N1c too; and the Basque population in 1800 was around 100,000 people; wheras the Finns were around 400,000 or so. (This is a rough estimate though. I haven't checked in a while.) This means that the Basques had an extreme baby boom at one point; moreso than the Finns.

Even though the Basques are definitely mixed at one point; and may not have had R1b ancestors at one point; their massive spike in population suggests to me that they must descend from the same ancestors at some point; in total isolation; moreso than the Finns.

Edit: I just checked the population for Finland in 1800 and it was actually around 832,700. Compared to the Basque country which was around less than 500,000 people. According to the website populstat.info

Haplogroup diversity within a population is not a good indicator of overall genetic (i.e. autosomal) diversity. I specifically chose the Jews for this first example, as they don't have any dominant Y-DNA haplogroup and appear very mixed. But the Ashkenazi Jews suffered a population bottleneck and re-expanded from a very small population. And since they tended to marry within the small Ashkenazi Jewish community, it kept genetic diversity low, with direct consequence that genetic diseases (e.g. Tay-Sachs) are far more common among "pure" Ashkenazi Jews today. It's a bit the same with the Finns, whose population 800 years ago was barely a few thousands (as opposed to 15-20 million in France). It doesn't matter that they have 6% of Siberian autosomal DNA. That's only interesting to historians. The Finns do have a lower genetic diversity than the European average. The highest genetic diversity in Europe would be in Italy. The highest by continent is by far Africa.
 
The best theory on R1b right now is that it spread into Europe with the Beaker Culture. Before that it was in Crete with the Minoan civilization. The Beakers spoke Basque which is the language of Linear A/B.

IMO Bell Beaker were R1b but not R1b-P312 nor R1b-U106 who later became the majority in Europe.
Bell Bekaer people were a minority group in Europe, albeit an elite ruling minority in some areas.
Connection with Minoan and theory about Basque language are bullshit.
Usatovo could be an origin of Bell Beaker.
 

This thread has been viewed 54015 times.

Back
Top