No, I didn't mean this, that point does not look relevant to me. I was just remarking that R1b was present in the late Neolithic, so definitely before the Bronze Age. What maybe we should consider, is that IE languages arrived before the Bronze Age, and R1b could still fit. But you know, late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age...it's pretty much the same. What would be really surprising, is to find R1b in the "middle Neolithic".

Thanks, and I agree.

What seems clear, is that Basques were the same affected by R1b compared to other groups (Irish, Welsh, Scots, and so on), and they lack the West Asian related componenets or have very low levels, while the others do have noticeable percents usually. So what seems to not fit, is West Asian = R1b, although perhaps only some subclades carried the component. I'm not able to speculate more on the issue as I said, possibly other forumers would do it better than me.

We did speculate a lot and when I speculate of R1b then I immediately think of the Gedrosia component and the Basques.
 
Bell Beakers found in:
Iberian peninsula around 2900 BC
Ireland and England around 2500 BC
Central Europe and Balkans around 2500 BC
Sardinia around 2000 BC

This probably means that BB was already R1b, based on the ages of R1b subclades. We know that Corded Ware was IE and a contemporary of BB. We just don't know what language did BB speak (assuming a language family was associated with BB). My hunch is that it was a caucasian language simmilar to basque. So Basque never became R1b; Basque always was R1b, just everybody else became IE.
 
We did speculate a lot and when I speculate of R1b then I immediately think of the Gedrosia component and the Basques.
The correct thing, in my honest opinion, is to check as much admixture experiments as possible. And when doing this, one definitely must recognise that Basques, along with Sardinians, are the least afected by the West Asian related components. That's what we usually see, so whatever it is present among them, it's little relevant compared to other groups. Keep in mind in that particular run the Atlantic-Med component was so remote, even compared to the North European. So for instance, it's not the same 8% Gedrosian among the Irish, and 8% Gedrosian among Basques. Admixture proportions make the picture fairly different, I think it's clear what I mean.
 
The correct thing, in my honest opinion, is to check as much admixture experiments as possible. And when doing this, one definitely must recognise that Basques, along with Sardinians, are the least afected by the West Asian related components. That's what we usually see, so whatever it is present among them, it's little relevant compared to other groups.

Even if they are least affected (apart from Saami and Finns), they are not completely unaffected. And R1b would be an elegant explanation. Also remember that Sardinians have lowest Gedrosia admixture and coincidentally much lower R1b too, but much more G instead. The higher West Asian component further east in Italy, Balkans and Alps can be explained by other than R1b-only intrusions (LBK,...).
 
Then how do you explain the utter disconnectedness of the Basque language? I agree that most of R1b arrived by the method you've mentioned, but here we are talking only about the Basque people. A large fleet of ships wouldn't be needed-- just 40 or so kayaks or canoes would be more than enough to get the job done. If Iberian was lightly populated at the time of their arrival, the founder population wouldn't have to be very large. Especially if they had a more efficient organizational/governing system than the existing tribe(s).


I think Iberia was the most populated place in Europe at the time of IE migrations into europe because de glaciations. And I think R1a was IE, R1b was Iberian mutation on R1a. So R1a cames to Iberia several time before the IE biggest migration waves.
 
Even if they are least affected (apart from Saami and Finns), they are not completely unaffected. And R1b would be an elegant explanation. Also remember that Sardinians have lowest Gedrosia admixture and coincidentally much lower R1b too, but much more G instead. The higher West Asian component further east in Italy, Balkans and Alps can be explained by other than R1b-only intrusions (LBK,...).
I think so..but this Gedrosia component is most time hidden into the Western/Atlantic type of components. If you lookt at the experiments of Dieneks, correlating components between different calculators, you'll see that Atlantic components are a mix of West-Asian (makes sense, it's where R1b originated) and old Northern-euro probably Mesolithic-Palaeolithic.
 
Concerning the run he mentions, it's not the Atlantic-Med component the one hiding this admixture, but rather the North European. There's a clear Asian shift there (lacking inside Atlantic-Med), so that's what really makes sense to me.
 
Then how do you explain the utter disconnectedness of the Basque language? I agree that most of R1b arrived by the method you've mentioned, but here we are talking only about the Basque people.

Like I explained at the beginning of this thread. During the first invasion of Iberia by R1b, the male-only elite assimilated the local culture and language within a few generations, just like the Germanic tribes who invaded the Roman Empire. Celtic languages may only have taken hold during the Iron Age, when the La Tène culture "receltisied" northern and western Iberia.

A large fleet of ships wouldn't be needed-- just 40 or so kayaks or canoes would be more than enough to get the job done. If Iberian was lightly populated at the time of their arrival, the founder population wouldn't have to be very large. Especially if they had a more efficient organizational/governing system than the existing tribe(s).

How would have horses have travelled on canoes ? Btw, Neolithic Iberia was not that lightly populated. Mediterranean regions were always much more populated than northern Europe and especially the steppes.
 
No, I didn't mean this, that point does not look relevant to me. I was just remarking that R1b was present in the late Neolithic, so definitely before the Bronze Age. What maybe we should consider, is that IE languages arrived before the Bronze Age, and R1b could still fit. But you know, late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age...it's pretty much the same. What would be really surprising, is to find R1b in the "middle Neolithic".

R1b has never been found in Neolithic sites in Europe. The earliest was a late Bell Beaker site in Thuringia that was adjacent to the Bronze-age Corded Ware culture (to the north) and the Bronze-age Danubian cultures that I associated with the spread of R1b. The spread of Bronze Age cultures from the Pontic steppes is undeniable from an archaeological point of view. It follows this path :

First Phase

- Yamna culture (3500-2200 BCE) in Ukraine and southern Russia.
- Usatovo culture (3500-3000 BCE) in Romania, Moldavia, and southern Ukraine.

Second Phase

- Coţofeni culture (3300-2500 BCE) in northern and western Romania and north-east Serbia.
- Ezero culture (3300-2700 BCE) in Bulgaria.

Third Phase

- Sighişoara-Wietenberg culture (2200-1550 BCE) in central Transylvania.
- Ottomány/Alföld culture (2100-1700 BCE) in Hungary.
- Unetice culture (2300-1600 BCE) in Czechia, Austria, southern and central Germany, and western Poland.

Fourth Phase

- Tumulus culture (1600-1200 BCE) in Central Europe and eastern France.
- Terramare culture (1700-1150 BCE) in northern Italy (Po valley).
 
Sorry, but you're assuming R1b comes from R1a, and that's completely wrong. R1a and R1b share a common ancestor (R1), so what you say makes absolutely no sense.Check this: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_haplogroups_timeline.shtml
Probably I was wrong in any term, but it does not meant all that I'd said have no sense. If all what we talk in a forum would be right, the forum would haven't sense we only would need a blog. In the tree you did put isn't refered to any sourcesneither data, We only can see a drawing, even in that tree appear on the top; "some ESTIMATIONS are owns, when no reliable source was available" this is not to serious when all forum readers can see how exceptics are some of the forum admins about the Celts From the West theory. I would like to know the link between r1 and r1b, but mAybe there are no reliable data, I don't know.I'd liked the maciamo's expression "receltization of Iberia" cause it is probed in Iberia were celts before halstatt la tenne people cames.
 
R1b has never been found in Neolithic sites in Europe.

Just clarify I said LATE NEOLITHIC, exactly what the abstract pointed. So that's what it is:

At this period during the Late Neolithic (ca. 2,800–2,000 BC), regionally distinctive burial patterns associated with two different cultural groups emerge, Bell Beaker and Corded Ware, and may reflect differences in how these societies were organized. Ancient DNA analyses of human remains from the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker site of Kromsdorf, Germany showed distinct mitochondrial haplotypes for six individuals, which were classified under the haplogroups I1, K1, T1, U2, U5, and W5, and two males were identified as belonging to the Y haplogroup R1b.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/search?q=bell+beakers

PD: Thanks for the summary though.

Probably I was wrong in any term, but it does not meant all that I'd said have no sense. If all what we talk in a forum would be right, the forum would haven't sense we only would need a blog. In the tree you did put isn't refered to any sourcesneither data, We only can see a drawing, even in that tree appear on the top; "some ESTIMATIONS are owns, when no reliable source was available" this is not to serious when all forum readers can see how exceptics are some of the forum admins about the Celts From the West theory. I would like to know the link between r1 and r1b, but mAybe there are no reliable data, I don't know.I'd liked the maciamo's expression "receltization of Iberia" cause it is probed in Iberia were celts before halstatt la tenne people cames.

I'm afraid there's no discussion: both R1a and R1b split from R1, so your point that R1a inhabited Iberia earlier than elsewhere and changed gradually to R1b, was completely wrong. You were speculating, I know, but not me. My focus was this one, I did no say anything about other things you posted.
 
Just clarify I said LATE NEOLITHIC, exactly what the abstract pointed. So that's what it is:

At this period during the Late Neolithic (ca. 2,800–2,000 BC), regionally distinctive burial patterns associated with two different cultural groups emerge, Bell Beaker and Corded Ware, and may reflect differences in how these societies were organized. Ancient DNA analyses of human remains from the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker site of Kromsdorf, Germany showed distinct mitochondrial haplotypes for six individuals, which were classified under the haplogroups I1, K1, T1, U2, U5, and W5, and two males were identified as belonging to the Y haplogroup R1b.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/search?q=bell+beakers

Whatever the abstract said, the Bell-Beaker culture was not Neolithic, but Chalcolithic to Bronze Age. It is an oft misunderstood fact since the Beaker folks moved into the Megalithic cultures of Western Europe, which were Neolithic. The Megalithic culture survived in juxtaposition throughout the Beaker period.

The Bell-Beaker culture is an important transitional culture since it frames the period when bronze technologies first entered into Western Europe. I believe that R1b first penetrated into Germany and Western Europe during the Beaker period. They would have been only a small minority of migrants/invaders. Just like early Neolithic farmers lived side-by-side with indigenous hunter-gathers when they moved into Europe, the Bronze-age Beaker people settling a few isolated sites and traded with their Megalithic neighbours, which is why beaker pottery ended up in Megalithic sites too. However bronze technologies were not a widely adopted by the whole of Central/Western European society yet. This only happened with later advances from the Indo-Europeans (Tumulus, Hallstatt, La Tène...), when more R1b people flocked in.

I believe that the R1b sample found in Thuringia in just one of those early adventurers who moved west from the Hungarian plain.
 
Like I explained at the beginning of this thread. During the first invasion of Iberia by R1b, the male-only elite assimilated the local culture and language within a few generations, just like the Germanic tribes who invaded the Roman Empire. Celtic languages may only have taken hold during the Iron Age, when the La Tène culture "receltisied" northern and western Iberia.

Not a great comparison from any angle... modern day Iberia is full of R1b, but where is the Germanic markers in the Roman Empire lands?

Horses absolutely love canoes, as long as you train them from an earlier age. They can be trained to row using their teeth and hoofs. R1b were fantastic horse whisperers.:rolleyes:

Actually with my theory I have the Basque as the first group into Iberia from R1b lines, and they would have moved in without horses. Other branches of R1b would have brought horses later. This is the only way to account for the strangeness of the Basque language.
 
Last edited:
Whatever the abstract said, the Bell-Beaker culture was not Neolithic, but Chalcolithic to Bronze Age. It is an oft misunderstood fact since the Beaker folks moved into the Megalithic cultures of Western Europe, which were Neolithic. The Megalithic culture survived in juxtaposition throughout the Beaker period.

The Bell-Beaker culture is an important transitional culture since it frames the period when bronze technologies first entered into Western Europe. I believe that R1b first penetrated into Germany and Western Europe during the Beaker period. They would have been only a small minority of migrants/invaders. Just like early Neolithic farmers lived side-by-side with indigenous hunter-gathers when they moved into Europe, the Bronze-age Beaker people settling a few isolated sites and traded with their Megalithic neighbours, which is why beaker pottery ended up in Megalithic sites too. However bronze technologies were not a widely adopted by the whole of Central/Western European society yet. This only happened with later advances from the Indo-Europeans (Tumulus, Hallstatt, La Tène...), when more R1b people flocked in.

I believe that the R1b sample found in Thuringia in just one of those early adventurers who moved west from the Hungarian plain.

Not bad. There's basically a terminology consistency issue on that question. I previously remarked there wasn't much of a difference between Late Neolithic (or the transitional period you descrive above), and the Early Bronze Age. Just a concretion, I never gave it more relevance than that.

Your scenario seems plausible, although we cannot discard a surprising Neolithic finding. Let's assume you're right (I think so):

- Do you think R1b carried the West Asian related components (we can include: West Asian, Caucasus, Gedrosia, South Asian, etc. depending on the run), which seem to have something to do with IE?

- If yes, ¿Why then the Basques lack them most times?

Just want to know your point of view, some of us already posted some things.
 
I'm afraid there's no discussion: both R1a and R1b split from R1, so your point that R1a inhabited Iberia earlier than elsewhere and changed gradually to R1b, was completely wrong. You were speculating, I know, but not me. My focus was this one, I did no say anything about other things you posted.


I had read this today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M173_(Y-DNA)

I was wrong in the terminology, I could see how r1b was older than r1a, OK, but maintain my idea, so you change R1a by M173. Some M173 people cames to Iberia and was mutated to M343 before the biggest IE migration waves were arrived into Iberia. And I agree with Maciamo about the antique r1b founded in Turkey cames from western voyagers, but before Germany they stays in Iberia.

In the other hand, I must to search sources that I had read about the ancient horses in Iberia, and how its were the most powerful equestrian strains over Europe, so there nobody brought the horses to Iberia, but the oposite.
 
I was going to make a longer reply here about my own views, but I'm going for something slightly different.

Family Tree DNA
's R1b data is fairly large - large enough to have, in my opinion, a fairly representative sample size. Maciamo made this tree of R1b. If you don't like his, you can look for an other elsewhere. In any case, combine the two informations and you get a rough idea of what potential migration patterns R1b may have taken. I do not know if you will come to the same conclusions as I have, but to me it looks like R1b's expansion pattern in western Europe does not add up with the expansion pattern of the Beaker-Bell Culture. The common consensus of all semi-recent papers is that R1b arrived in Western Europe in the Neolithic or later. Since it failed to turn up in Neolithic sites with exception of the Beaker-Bell site in Germany (which is more Chalcolithic than Neolithic), it's only a logical conclusion that R1b arrived afterwards.

Wether the Beaker-Bell Culture and/or the carriers of R1b were Indo-Europeans, or not, I'm leaving you to decide for yourself. :wary2:

With regard for Celtic presence in Iberia, I disagree with Maciamo's statement that Celtic (or Indo-European) presence arrived in Iberia only in the iron age. Presence in the north and west of Iberia is so dense and there is no clear sign of a pre-Indo-European presence in western Iberia. To me thus suggests that Indo-European-speaking peoples arrived in Iberia already in the Bronze Age. The Basques of Antiquity - in contrast - lived in a more easterly area than today (Navarre, western to central Pyrenees, SW France).
 
In my opinion basques are the same indoeuropeans whose arrived to SW Iberia, then happened the mutation to R1b, migrating to the north, so basques were R1b (IE) which adopted the language of their hand to hand neighbors, the iberians (southern cromanoids) so basque language is indeed the Iberian pre-IE language (or cromanoid language)
 
I think Iberia was the most populated place in Europe at the time of IE migrations into europe because de glaciations. And I think R1a was IE, R1b was Iberian mutation on R1a.

I'm not following your thinking. R1b and R1a are parallel mutations under R1. Are you saying R1 is Iberian?

So R1a cames to Iberia several time before the IE biggest migration waves.

What happened to the R1a in Iberia?
 

This thread has been viewed 259146 times.

Back
Top