Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 79

Thread: ATP9 (MBA Iberia, ca. 1600 BC)

  1. #26
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    What do you think ???

    IMO it shows that there were no Indo-Europeans in Iberia before 1500 BC.
    Not necessarily. There could have been early smaller incursions of Steppe into Iberia. You know the hobby of steppe warriors was to plunder the rich farmer societies. Gold and silver was already precious commodity. Not mentioning a lot of "fun" with their women.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  2. #27
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,506
    Points
    59,617
    Level
    75
    Points: 59,617, Level: 75
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 433
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    By the way,

    When testing ancient samples with GEDmatch, sometimes a problem called the "calculator effect" can occur.

    And this problem can lead to misleading results.

    Davidski wrote about this here: http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2012/0...or-effect.html

    And also here: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/201...or-effect.html

    AFAIK this problem occurs especially when you try to check how much of admixture from someone younger did someone older have. For example if you are using Gedrosia K14 Neolithic which has "Yamnaya-Afanasievo" admixture, and you are testing Loschbour WHG with it. And our result is that Loschbour had, for example, 25% of Yamnaya. Of course it makes no sense if interpreted literally, because Loschbour lived thousands of years before Yamnaya.

    But according to Davidski, his calculators ("Eurogenes") do not suffer from this problem. So testing ancients with them should be safe.

    He wrote:

    "Here's the good news: the Eurogenes calculators don't suffer from the calculator effect. That's because the reference samples are treated in the same way as the test samples, so there's only one variable: ancestry. What this means is that when you run a modern or ancient genome with a Eurogenes calculator you can confidently compare the result to those of the reference samples (provided enough SNPs are used), and then be able to make sensible inferences about its genetic origins."

    And here about testing HGDP genomes: http://bga101.blogspot.com/2016/09/o...or-effect.html

    HGDP = Human Genome Diversity Project. These are modern people who are used as reference populations, and that's why there is no point in testing them with these calculators etc. For example I uploaded an Orcadian from HDGP to DNA.Land and the result was "100% North-Western European" - of course only because this guy was used as one of reference samples for this component.
    Last edited by Tomenable; 28-11-16 at 01:41.

  3. #28
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,506
    Points
    59,617
    Level
    75
    Points: 59,617, Level: 75
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 433
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    What the data actually shows is that after an almost complete discontinuation of human activity in the British Isles before the beginning of the third millennium B.C. as demonstrated by McLaughlin et al. [McLaughlin, T.R., Whitehouse, N.J., Schulting, R.J. et al. J World Prehist (2016) 29: 117. doi:10.1007/s10963-016-9093-0] earlier this year, people not too dissimilar from modern Celtic speakers of North-Western Europe settled in Ireland and Britain. Unless these humans had iPhones to communicate with their Gaulish kinfolk in continental Europe, they could not possibly have been the linguistic ancestors of the Gaels and the Britons. This means your 'Celtic genetic structure' is untenable.
    I am not insisting that Rathlin1 was for sure a Celtic-speaker. He could be some other Indo-European.

    Maybe he spoke something else, closely related to Celtic. But Rathlin1 is only one of many samples that I used. The remaining ones were Proto-Celts according to archaeologists (many archaeologists agree that the Unetice culture was Proto-Italo-Celtic). Hinxton4 lived around 170 BC - 80 AD, in times of Roman expansion into Celtic lands, so there is no doubt that he was Celtic.

  4. #29
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,506
    Points
    59,617
    Level
    75
    Points: 59,617, Level: 75
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 433
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    Quite to the contrary, R1b1a1a2 in Eneolithic Spain would change the general picture drastically. Let's wait for official confirmation though.
    Why drastically ??? One singleton R1b flowing in an ocean of Non-R1b would not really change anything.

    Especially considering that there is an ocean of R1b1a1a2 in Eastern European samples from similar periods.

    This R1b has not been confirmed by any other source apart from Genetiker. I'm not saying that he is unreliable, but considering that he believes in some White European ruling elite in Pre-Columbian Peru and Chile (check his blog), I would rather wait for at least one more person to confirm his result. Moreover, even if this R1b is legit, it would still be only 9% of Copper Age Iberian Y-DNA (11 samples, including one probable R1b). Compared to ca. 70% today. And Copper Age Iberians were autosomally like modern Sardinians. There were big autosomal changes in Iberia after the Copper Age - what Y-DNA did those new immigrants carry, if not R1b ???

    Time to accept the fact that Iberia has been a genetic sink, not a source of migrations to other parts of Europe.

  5. #30
    Baron Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-12
    Posts
    262
    Points
    5,680
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,680, Level: 22
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 370
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    Quite to the contrary, R1b1a1a2 in Eneolithic Spain would change the general picture drastically. Let's wait for official confirmation though.
    Not really. Even if we consider the R1b1a2 as a true result, it's possible the lineage travelled with farmers. Note that the sample appears to be xU106 and xP312 if we assume the other calls as valid. Almost all the R1b in Spain is the considerably younger DF27+. We already know R1b was spread out through northern Eurasia, there is no need to keep it in the Pyrenees simply because rare lineages have been discovered in two ancient European samples.

  6. #31
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Coriolan's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-12-12
    Posts
    178
    Points
    7,735
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,735, Level: 26
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 415
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Switzerland



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    You have a habit of coming to spectacularly wrong conclusions. What the data actually shows is that after an almost complete discontinuation of human activity in the British Isles before the beginning of the third millennium B.C. as demonstrated by McLaughlin et al. [McLaughlin, T.R., Whitehouse, N.J., Schulting, R.J. et al. J World Prehist (2016) 29: 117. doi:10.1007/s10963-016-9093-0] earlier this year, people not too dissimilar from modern Celtic speakers of North-Western Europe settled in Ireland and Britain. Unless these humans had iPhones to communicate with their Gaulish kinfolk in continental Europe, they could not possibly have been the linguistic ancestors of the Gaels and the Britons. This means your 'Celtic genetic structure' is untenable.
    Why would you think that? If ancient Britons and Irish and Gauls all descend from Central European Proto-Celts, it's only logical that they all spoke related languages.

  7. #32
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Coriolan's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-12-12
    Posts
    178
    Points
    7,735
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,735, Level: 26
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 415
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    Not necessarily. There could have been early smaller incursions of Steppe into Iberia. You know the hobby of steppe warriors was to plunder the rich farmer societies. Gold and silver was already precious commodity. Not mentioning a lot of "fun" with their women.
    These Steppe people behaved very much like Vikings. Well if Norwegians have the highest Yamna ancestry that make sense.

  8. #33
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-11-16
    Posts
    48
    Points
    1,320
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,320, Level: 9
    Level completed: 85%, Points required for next Level: 30
    Overall activity: 3.0%


    Country: Peru



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Why drastically ???
    Because just about everybody, yourself included, claims that R1b-M269, Eastern European autosomal DNA, and Indo-European languages didn't spread to Western Europe until well after 3000 BC. ATP3 and the other El Portalón samples prove them wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Especially considering that there is an ocean of R1b1a1a2 in Eastern European samples from similar periods.
    And so far it's all R1b-Z2103, not the R1b-L51 that now dominates Western Europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    This R1b has not been confirmed by any other source apart from Genetiker. I'm not saying that he is unreliable, but considering that he believes in some White European ruling elite in Pre-Columbian Peru and Chile (check his blog)
    All you can ever do is insinuate that the idea of pre-Viking transatlantic contact is somehow absurd, when of course there's nothing absurd about it. You never dispute the mountain of historical, archeological, anthropological, and genetic evidence proving the presence of Europeans in the Americas before the Vikings, because you can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    I would rather wait for at least one more person to confirm his result.
    If you're incapable of analyzing Y chromosomes yourself, as you obviously are, then you have no business calling my work into question. Either use the ATP3 data to show which of my Y-SNP calls are incorrect, or stop calling into question my R1b-M269 assignment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Moreover, even if this R1b is legit, it would still be only 9% of Copper Age Iberian Y-DNA (11 samples, including one probable R1b). Compared to ca. 70% today. And Copper Age Iberians were autosomally like modern Sardinians. There were big autosomal changes in Iberia after the Copper Age - what Y-DNA did those new immigrants carry, if not R1b ???
    All of the Copper Age Iberian samples we have so far come from one location, the Atapuerca Mountains, and even within that one location there's autosomal complexity, with the El Portalón samples having Eastern European admixture and the El Mirador samples lacking it. Almost all of Copper Age Iberia remains unsampled, and it's possible that within that vast territory there were populations that were contemporaneous with the Copper Age El Portalón population that had higher frequencies of R1b-M269 and higher proportions of Eastern European admixture. Later mixing with those other populations would explain the higher frequency of R1b-M269 and higher proportion of Eastern European admixture in modern Iberians compared to the El Portalón samples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Time to accept the fact that Iberia has been a genetic sink, not a source of migrations to other parts of Europe.
    You should reflect on the fact that the Bell Beaker culture began in Iberia around 2900 BC, and later spread northward and eastward throughout Western and Central Europe. And also on the fact that the Bell Beaker samples we currently have from Central Europe carry mitochondrial haplogroups like H1 and H3 that originated in Southwestern Europe.

    By the way, your assertion that the Unetice people spoke proto-Italo-Celtic is wrong. The R1b-P312 men of the Bell Beaker culture spoke proto-Italo-Celtic. The men of that culture who spread to the British Isles around 2500 BC gave rise to R1b-L21 men, like those on Rathlin Island, who spoke proto-Insular-Celtic.

  9. #34
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-11-16
    Posts
    48
    Points
    1,320
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,320, Level: 9
    Level completed: 85%, Points required for next Level: 30
    Overall activity: 3.0%


    Country: Peru



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1981 View Post
    Even if we consider the R1b1a2 as a true result, it's possible the lineage travelled with farmers.
    No, it isn't, because none of the early farmers were R1b-M269. Some were R1b-V88, but none were R1b-M269. And again, ATP2, ATP3, ATP7, ATP9 and ATP20 had significant Eastern European autosomal DNA, which none of the early farmers had.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1981 View Post
    Note that the sample appears to be xU106 and xP312 if we assume the other calls as valid. Almost all the R1b in Spain is the considerably younger DF27+.
    It's not known whether ATP3 was L23, L51, L151, U106, P312, U152, DF27, or L21, because it doesn't have any calls for those SNPs or their equivalents.

  10. #35
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolan View Post
    These Steppe people behaved very much like Vikings. Well if Norwegians have the highest Yamna ancestry that make sense.
    I think some of us wrongly view them as solely warrior invaders. As much as that might be true, they also brought entire populations with old/young and men/women to Europe.

    Corded Ware culture is the best example. They made Eastern Europe their permanent home and made themselves the dominate people there within a few hundred years. In that sense they're more similar to Americans(United States) who expanded Westward in the 1700/1800s than Vikings.

  11. #36
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Coriolan's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-12-12
    Posts
    178
    Points
    7,735
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,735, Level: 26
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 415
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Switzerland



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    I think some of us wrongly view them as solely warrior invaders. As much as that might be true, they also brought entire populations with old/young and men/women to Europe.

    Corded Ware culture is the best example. They made Eastern Europe their permanent home and made themselves the dominate people there within a few hundred years. In that sense they're more similar to Americans(United States) who expanded Westward in the 1700/1800s than Vikings.
    The same is true with the Vikings. Sometimes they led raids to plunder and rape. But they also migrated with their families and built settlements. Usually the raids came first and the migrations followed. I think it was the same with the Steppe people.

  12. #37
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,084
    Points
    8,674
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,674, Level: 27
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 76
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Finally a Bronze Age Iberian uploaded to GEDmatch:

    ATP9 (Middle Bronze Age Iberia, 1700-1518 BC).


    GEDmatch kit number: M116706

    Results in Eurogenes K15:

    Admix Results (sorted):

    # Population Percent
    1 Atlantic 44.39
    2 West_Med 37.4
    3 North_Sea 17.71
    4 Baltic 0.49

    Single Population Sharing:

    # Population (source) Distance
    1 French_Basque 12.34

    2 Spanish_Aragon 17.77
    3 Southwest_French 18.44
    4 Spanish_Cantabria 18.47
    5 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha 19.44
    6 Spanish_Valencia 20.59
    7 Spanish_Andalucia 20.65
    8 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 22.53
    9 Spanish_Murcia 22.72
    10 Spanish_Cataluna 22.81
    11 Spanish_Extremadura 23.01
    12 Portuguese 23.92
    13 Spanish_Galicia 24.93
    14 North_Italian 28.02
    15 Sardinian 28.73
    16 French 29.09
    17 South_Dutch 32.41
    18 Southwest_English 32.89
    19 Tuscan 33.54
    20 Southeast_English 34.42

    Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

    # Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
    1 79.9% French_Basque + 20.1% Sardinian @ 10.35
    2 100% French_Basque + 0% Abhkasian @ 12.34
    3 100% French_Basque + 0% Adygei @ 12.34

    4 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Hazara @ 12.34
    5 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Pashtun @ 12.34
    6 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Tadjik @ 12.34

    7 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Turkmen @ 12.34
    8 100% French_Basque + 0% Afghan_Uzbeki @ 12.34
    9 100% French_Basque + 0% Algerian @ 12.34
    10 100% French_Basque + 0% Algerian_Jewish @ 12.34
    11 100% French_Basque + 0% Altaian @ 12.34
    12 100% French_Basque + 0% Anzick-1 @ 12.34
    13 100% French_Basque + 0% Armenian @ 12.34
    14 100% French_Basque + 0% Ashkenazi @ 12.34
    15 100% French_Basque + 0% Assyrian @ 12.34
    16 100% French_Basque + 0% Austrian @ 12.34
    17 100% French_Basque + 0% Austroasiatic_Ho @ 12.34
    18 100% French_Basque + 0% Azeri @ 12.34
    19 100% French_Basque + 0% Balkar @ 12.34
    20 100% French_Basque + 0% Balochi @ 12.34

    ==========================

    In a PCA (based on Eurogenes K15 scores), ATP9 plots far away from modern Spanish guy:

    http://i.imgur.com/zDUZ41R.png


    Conclusion: the actual local population is autosomaly similar to ATP9, so no big population replacements after ATP9. The BB stay long there also.
    "What I've seen so far after my entire career chasing Indoeuropeans is that our solutions look tissue thin and our problems still look monumental" J.P.Mallory

    "The ultimate homeland of the group [PIE] that also spread Anatolian languages is less clear." D. Reich

  13. #38
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    13,128
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,128, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Latvia



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    I don't know if I can provide evidence because the study with Trzciniec genomes has not yet been published.

    And I know these results (Y-DNA haplogroups, autosomal data) but I should probably stay silent until it gets published.
    Oh no, you should not, you should not :)

    Too much silence this year in regards to aDNA, just promises, promises, promises and no publications. At least we get some leaks now and then to speculate :)

  14. #39
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,084
    Points
    8,674
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,674, Level: 27
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 76
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    Yet in every test he consistently shows an ANE signal. No matter how you spin it he had Steppe ancestry.
    I think that bellow 3% it could be assumed to be noise?

  15. #40
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,084
    Points
    8,674
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,674, Level: 27
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 76
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    If ATP9 is the first ancient from Iberia with Steppe admixture, then it means that it took Indo-Europeans ca. 1500 years to get to Iberia from the Steppe. Assuming that they started expanding from the Steppe ca. 3500-3000 BC, and first groups came to Spain ca. 2000-1500 BC. Of course those groups did not enter Iberia directly from the Steppe, but from somewhere in the middle of Europe.
    Sorry to say but your argument is not backed by archaeology. It will be necessary to wait till 1200 BC to see in Iberia Central European cultures (Urnfield), which was by sure the first Celtic wave.

  16. #41
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,084
    Points
    8,674
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,674, Level: 27
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 76
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    Oh no, you should not, you should not :)

    Too much silence this year in regards to aDNA, just promises, promises, promises and no publications. At least we get some leaks now and then to speculate :)
    I agree with you
    ;)

    Or he may just link some wiki haplos in some post about his "cousins"
    ;)

  17. #42
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,692
    Points
    689,607
    Level
    100
    Points: 689,607, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    I am not insisting that Rathlin1 was for sure a Celtic-speaker. He could be some other Indo-European.
    There was no Celtic language in 2000 BCE. That was still Proto-Italo-Celtic. Keep in mind that the Italic branch only split from 1300 BCE, when R1b tribes crossed the Alps to invade the Italian peninsula. As for Rathlin, R1b-L51 people having expanded from central Europe from circa 2500 BCE, all of them must still have spoken reasonably close languages across all western and central Europe around 2000 BCE. The question is whether Gaelic descend directly from that Proto-Italo-Celtic tongue of the first R1b-L21 in Britain and Ireland, or if it is a later import from the continent? What is certain is that Brittonic Celtic languages were more closely related to Gaulish (P-Celtic group) than to Goidelic Celtic in Ireland, and must therefore have come later, probably with Hallstatt migrants, but reinforced later with the arrival of Belgic tribes.

    Goidelic Celtic and Celtiberian both belonged to the older Q-Celtic group. The P-Celtic group is composed mostly of Gaulish and Brittonic. The Italic branch kept the Q (e.g. the word for horse is equus in Latin vs epos then eponos in Gaulish Celtic). The Q to P shift happened after R1b-L21 tribes had settled to Britain and Ireland, but also after R1b-D27 spread over Iberia, and after R1b-U152 invaded Italy, so after 1300 BCE. But it probably happened before the Hallstatt expansion to Britain around 500 BCE.
    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  18. #43
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Keep in mind that the Italic branch only split from 1300 BCE, when R1b tribes crossed the Alps to invade the Italian peninsula.
    I know this is probable but it isn't fact so you should insert a "probably" next time. Language aside, IMO, there's no room for debating whether Bell Beaker introduced L21 to the British Isles and U152 to Central Europe/France because of Ancient Y DNA. We have no confirmation but I'm pretty confident DF27's origin in Iberia is also Bell Beaker or at least people from the era Bell Beaker lived in. There is a confirmed, not by academics, DF27 from German Bell Beaker.

    The only area we can debate about is Italy because Bell Beaker had a weak presence there. A U152 arrival after Bell Beaker wouldn't supine me. All I'm saying here is that Bell Beaker appears to have a close link with P312. The trend is that Indo European languages expanded with lots of genes. So unless Y DNA in Iberia, France, and Britain hardly changed as a result of the expansion of Celtic languages maybe they expanded with Bell Beaker and P312. Maybe the age estimates for the origins of different Celtic branches are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Goidelic Celtic and Celtiberian both belonged to the older Q-Celtic group. The P-Celtic group is composed mostly of Gaulish and Brittonic. The Italic branch kept the Q (e.g. the word for horse is equus in Latin vs epos then eponos in Gaulish Celtic). The Q to P shift happened after R1b-L21 tribes had settled to Britain and Ireland, but also after R1b-D27 spread over Iberia, and after R1b-U152 invaded Italy, so after 1300 BCE. But it probably happened before the Hallstatt expansion to Britain around 500 BCE.
    Isn't there hardly any writing remaining from the Gaulish language(s)? Plus, only having some writings and no living speakers definitely hurts any efforts to understand the language. Isn't it possible contact between Gaul and Britain caused them to exchange vocab and pronunciation(q-p). Or maybe after a first arrival of Celtic languages in Britain in 2300 BC, France and Britain stayed in constant contact and their languages changed together, then broke off, then exchanged vocab. If a place as large as Gaul spoke basically the same language in 50 BC why couldn't, for a time maybe in 1800 BC or whatever, Britain and France have spoken the same language?

    I'm not arguing for any of those sceniors I just think you're too confident in evidence that comes from sources as non-concrete as linguistics with extinct languages like Gaulish. I don't know anything about linguistics but I think I know enough to know it's difficult to make language age estimates or to know a lot about the origins of extinct languages and their relationship to modern languages.

  19. #44
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,692
    Points
    689,607
    Level
    100
    Points: 689,607, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Genetiker View Post
    Because just about everybody, yourself included, claims that R1b-M269, Eastern European autosomal DNA, and Indo-European languages didn't spread to Western Europe until well after 3000 BC. ATP3 and the other El Portalón samples prove them wrong.
    I personally have no problem with that R1b-M269 sample from 3400 BCE Spain. I explained here when the paper was released that ATP3 was surely a Steppe immigrant because not only his Y-DNA, but also his mtDNA and autosomal DNA were clearly Proto-Indo-European. My conclusion was that this was an early incursion of R1b-M269 into western Europe, but one on a very small scale that would not have affected much the general ethnic make-up on the Iberian peninsula. So I agree with you that this ATP3 was a Steppe immigrant, but I very much doubt that this represent a group of people large enough to establish the Bell-beaker culture.


    And so far it's all R1b-Z2103, not the R1b-L51 that now dominates Western Europe.
    The German Bell-Beaker and Unetice samples belonged to R1b-P312 and even R1b-U152.

    You should reflect on the fact that the Bell Beaker culture began in Iberia around 2900 BC, and later spread northward and eastward throughout Western and Central Europe. And also on the fact that the Bell Beaker samples we currently have from Central Europe carry mitochondrial haplogroups like H1 and H3 that originated in Southwestern Europe.
    I agree that H1 and H3 lineages probably spread across western Europe and Scandinavia during the Bell Beaker period, but this process started with Megalithic people. The Bell-beaker were Neolithic people directly descended from the Megalithic cultures. They practised common burial in passage tombs too and had no cultural trait to link them to Yamna or other Steppe culture (except for the Yamna R1b migrants in Central Europe, who were immigrants among the Bell Beaker folks). I have explained in detail why the original Bell beakers could not have been R1b Steppe people.

    - Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people

    - Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture

    - Spanish Chalcolithic mtDNA provides more evidence that Bell Beakers were non-IE

    Apparently it's particularly hard for people to understand, as a majority of people disagree with me, even on this forum. At best, isolated R1b horse-riding adventurers like the one from El Portalon could have facilitated trade routes across western Europe, which was used by Megalithic people to trade objects such as the bell-beaker pottery that gave its name to the culture. But it is clear that this bell-beaker network encompassed a wide variety of people from very different regions. Yet almost none of them were Copper or Bronze Age societies, but Neolithic ones. I think that the confusion comes from a fundamental error by the archaeologists who named the Bell-beaker culture and named it after a pottery type, not realising that, contrarily to many other Neolithic cultures, the pottery was not developed locally by one homogeneous group of people, but was on the contrary traded for the first time across half of the continent, almost certainly for what it contained (e.g. beer or mead). Unfortunately that mistake is as serious as to look at the archaeological record of the Roman era and conclude that the Scandinavians, the Balts, the Scythians, the Indians or the Chinese were Roman because Roman objects from trade were found among their remains. Likewise, it's not because you find the skeletons of Roman merchants in India and DNA tests confirm that they were genetically close to Roman-era Italians, that it means that Indians 2000 years ago were Romans. Isolated samples don't mean anything if we don't know the story of how they got there.
    Last edited by Maciamo; 27-11-16 at 15:40.

  20. #45
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,692
    Points
    689,607
    Level
    100
    Points: 689,607, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    Isn't there hardly any writing remaining from the Gaulish language(s)? Plus, only having some writings and no living speakers definitely hurts any efforts to understand the language. Isn't it possible contact between Gaul and Britain caused them to exchange vocab and pronunciation(q-p). Or maybe after a first arrival of Celtic languages in Britain in 2300 BC, France and Britain stayed in constant contact and their languages changed together, then broke off, then exchanged vocab. If a place as large as Gaul spoke basically the same language in 50 BC why couldn't, for a time maybe in 1800 BC or whatever, Britain and France have spoken the same language?

    I'm not arguing for any of those sceniors I just think you're too confident in evidence that comes from sources as non-concrete as linguistics with extinct languages like Gaulish. I don't know anything about linguistics but I think I know enough to know it's difficult to make language age estimates or to know a lot about the origins of extinct languages and their relationship to modern languages.
    There are about 800 surviving texts or inscriptions in Gaulish, written in Greek or Latin alphabet. That's enough to know over 1000 words and get a sense of the grammar (declensions, conjugation) and to classify the language with reasonable confidence. The Greeks and Romans also commented on Gaulish language and compared it to their language. In addition to the texts, there are thousands of place names in France, Belgium, Germany, Swizterland and northern Italy today that are derived from Gaulish.

  21. #46
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,084
    Points
    8,674
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,674, Level: 27
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 76
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    I think that the confusion comes from a fundamental error by the archaeologists who named the Bell-beaker culture and named it after a pottery type, not realising that, contrarily to many other Neolithic cultures, the pottery was not developed locally by one homogeneous group of people, but was on the contrary traded for the first time across half of the continent, almost certainly for what it contained (e.g. beer or mead).
    Not so wrong the archaeologists here, as the pots first appeared in a little region, a given dialect or language could evolve to a given idiom (or lingua franca) that thereafter would expand all over Western Europe. And pots are not the unique track, also Palmela points (for spears), winged arrowheads, wristguards, copper daggers, and so. By that I doubt much that they were simply trading beer or copper...

  22. #47
    MarkoZ
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Maybe he spoke something else, closely related to Celtic.
    So her language must have been closely related to Celtic because Celtic is spoken in the Isles in historic times? That's ludicrous. All we can say is that we don't know what language Rathlin1 spoke.


    The remaining ones were Proto-Celts according to archaeologists (many archaeologists agree that the Unetice culture was Proto-Italo-Celtic).


    As far as I know, a genetic relationship between Italic and Celtic is disputed by most linguists these days. I've never seen that claim about Unetice either. Most archaeologists see Hallstatt or La Tène as likely candidates for the dispersal of Celtic languages in the Iron Age.

  23. #48
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    So her language must have been closely related to Celtic because Celtic is spoken in the Isles in historic times? That's ludicrous. All we can say is that we don't know what language Rathlin1 spoke.
    True.

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    I've never seen that claim about Unetice either. Most archaeologists see Hallstatt or La Tène as likely candidates for the dispersal of Celtic languages in the Iron Age.
    It's essentially impossible for Hallstatt or La Tene to have anything to do with proto-Celtic because the oldest Celtic inscriptions are far away from Hallstatti(Southern Portugal, Northern Italy) and are as old as Hallstatt. If all of Gaul(inclu. ones in Italy) spoke the same language, CeltIberians spoke a slightly different language but still shared a Celtic identity(like classical writers suggest), if Britons spoke/speak a more distant but closely related language, and if Irish spoke/speak an even more distant but closely related language, then I guess an origin slightly before Hallstatt is possible.

  24. #49
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    491
    Points
    1,328
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,328, Level: 9
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 22
    Overall activity: 29.0%


    Country: Portugal



    @Maciamo
    ... And will people accept that in the absence of aDna, the best next thing is Nm dental traits such as J.Desideri work from Geneva Univ. and that work (s) clearly state that Bell beaker not only were genetics, but a genetic stock that resisted to any mixing at all.

  25. #50
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    491
    Points
    1,328
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,328, Level: 9
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 22
    Overall activity: 29.0%


    Country: Portugal



    @Genetiker.
    You are too silent on your blog.

    Anyway. - Most of us do not understand How you could call M269 on ATP3 and not other people. Can you explain how you did it?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •