IE language originated from who?R1a or R1b?

[sparkey]

"The I1 subclade of Haplogroup I is estimated to be 4000 to 5000 years old (the old "15,00-20,000years ago in Iberia" information was wrong), and confirmed by the single nucleotide polymorphism, SNP, known as M253."

Another source - from Family Tree DNA

You switched from I to I1 here. The "age" (specifically TMRCA, not the clade age) of I1 is indeed generally estimated at between 4000 and 5000 years, per Nordtvedt and others. Also, its center of diversity is somewhere around northern Germany, and its closest relative is the very European I2 clade, with which it shares a common ancestor who lived about 22,000 years ago.

Did you click my link to Nordtvedt's tree?

 

[JFWR]

We're talking about when Haplogroup I arrived in the steppes, though, and whether or not it's older than R1a there. Obviously there has been some I2a-Din-N expansion there, as well as some apparent Germanic introductions (I1, I2a2a-Cont, etc.) as you get closer to places like Crimea, but the point is, it all seems to be young there.

It seems fairly odd that the Ukraine should have no older examples of I than simply recent, historical movements of people. I shall try to do a bit of research later on about this tos ee if there is any existent examples of older clades and sub-clades that may account for what seems to be a big gap in I's expansion if not.

 

[JFWR]

It may have, but nowadays, the Balkans has very low Haplogroup I diversity, so if it did, modern populations don't give an obvious indication of it. Most Balkans Haplogroup I is of the I2a-Din-S variety, which looks to be a 1st millennium CE introduction, probably as a result of gene flow from around Ukraine via southern Poland. We've talked about this a lot on this forum, here and elsewhere.



I think that IE was in Europe long before I2a-Din-S was introduced to the Balkans, so I don't think that your observation tells a lot. But, I concede that Haplogroup I-dominant populations being absorbed into IE populations has been an important part of the history of the development of different IE cultures in Europe (and even a bit outside Europe--see the minor expansion of Haplogroup I in Kurds and Armenians).

As with my last post, I'll do some research as it seems intuitively disarming that I should not have some presence previous to the first millennium AD in this area.

 

[JFWR]

There is genetic evidence (from cattle, amongst other things) that the Etruscans arrived from Asia Minor. Additionally, there is the Lemnian language which was apparently similar to Etruscan. Beyond that, I agree that a Semitic or Afroasiatic connection for Etruscan is spurious, other than the fact that the Etruscans traded heavily with the Phoenicians, and as a result the Etruscan language also borrowed Semitic words. But by their grammatical structure and core vocabulary, Etruscan was very different from the Semitic languages.

Having cattle from Asia Minor does not imply deriving from Asia Minor. There is no native European domesticated cattle. Must all Europeans then be Mesopatamians? No, we can speak of trade wedded to some population movements.

Considering the epicentre of the Etruscan language family is in Italy, it may be just as likely as the Lemian language was associated with Etruscan movements Eastward. If Asia-Minor was the homeland of the Etruscans, we would find evidence of their influence in that area, and outside of the Lemnian language, we find very little.

 

[JFWR]

The Etrsucan god Tarchon was inspired from Luwian god Tarhunt. Moreover, Etruscan were famous for practising Haruspicy which originated in Mesopotamia. So I would localize their Heimat in the Border region between Anatolia and Mesopotamia, in one of the NeoHittite state. Their language was maybe a remanant of the old Hattic dialect.


View attachment 5692Distribution of the Luwian language

NeoHittite states

Adonis was a Middle Eastern, too. Must we then say the Greeks were ultimately from Babylon?

Mediterrenean religion, even amongst Indo-European peoples, has some admixture from the Middle and Near East. We see this throughout classical religion, and we do see it in Etruscan religion and customs, also.

Exchange of people, trade, war, and all other factors alter the means of worship amongst the people.

 

[Taranis]

Having cattle from Asia Minor does not imply deriving from Asia Minor. There is no native European domesticated cattle. Must all Europeans then be Mesopatamians? No, we can speak of trade wedded to some population movements.

Considering the epicentre of the Etruscan language family is in Italy, it may be just as likely as the Lemian language was associated with Etruscan movements Eastward. If Asia-Minor was the homeland of the Etruscans, we would find evidence of their influence in that area, and outside of the Lemnian language, we find very little.

I should have provided you with links earlier, here they are:

The mystery of Etruscan origins: novel clues from Bos taurus mitochondrial DNA

The Etruscan timeline: a recent Anatolian connection

Also, I didn't imply that there was an easy solution to the problem. The way I see it though, there's no particular reason either to assume that the Etruscan language(s) are native to Italy.

 

[JFWR]

I should have provided you with links earlier, here they are:

The mystery of Etruscan origins: novel clues from Bos taurus mitochondrial DNA

The Etruscan timeline: a recent Anatolian connection

Also, I didn't imply that there was an easy solution to the problem. The way I see it though, there's no particular reason either to assume that the Etruscan language(s) are native to Italy.

Thanks for these links, these are quite interesting.

The second is very odd, though. According to it, they identify Tuscan lineages as only going back to 700-300 BC. However, we have evidence that Etruscans were almost certainly in Italy by 900 BC. Might the Anatolian lineage then be something aside from the Etruscan cultural progenitors, and be later assimilators into the picture?

Also, whereas clearly Etruscans have a high degree of Near East Y and MTDna haplogroups, most of these haplogroups were in Southern Europe by the neolithic at latest. As domestication of the cow occurred during the later neolithic, it could be conceivable that the Etruscan progenitors were in Europe by the 6th millennium B.C.

The question that all that raises is this: Did they bring with them Proto-Etruscan? If so, it would place the group language elsewhere from Italy, but it would retain Italy as the source for Etruscan and Rhaetic (if maybe not Lemnian?).

 

[Goga]

"Combining this insight with an analysis of Y chromosome variation within the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan group, it appears that Graeco-Armenian is characterized predominantly by J2+R1b related lineages, while Indo-Iranian by J2+R1a related lineages. The evidence for Tocharian would involve J2+R1b related lineages. Overall, it would appear that the earliest J2 core of PIE affected two different groups of populations living on complementary sides of the Caspian:"

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/07/complex-y-chromosome-structure-in-east.html

 

[Taranis]

"Combining this insight with an analysis of Y chromosome variation within the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan group, it appears that Graeco-Armenian is characterized predominantly by J2+R1b related lineages, while Indo-Iranian by J2+R1a related lineages. The evidence for Tocharian would involve J2+R1b related lineages. Overall, it would appear that the earliest J2 core of PIE affected two different groups of populations living on complementary sides of the Caspian:"

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/07/complex-y-chromosome-structure-in-east.html

This is very interesting (although I'm sceptic, read below), but the bit about Tocharian clearly shows that apparently some people cannot think outside of the Centum/Satem box, given how we do have R1a from the Tarim Basin mummies. If the Graeco-Armenian-Aryan grouping is valid, this alone criss-crosses the Centum-Satem split, so why should Tocharian be grouped with R1b? Besides, the subclade of R1b (M73) that is usually thought by people to be associated with the Tocharians is simply too old to be reasonably associated with the spread of the Indo-Europeans in any scenario (note that this includes both Neolithic and Bronze Age scenarios). From that perspective, I'd like to pinpoint that Dienkes statement that 'There is also no reason to assign R1a to "Tocharians"...' is just wrong. We do have the Tarim basin DNA samples, plus R1a is frequent enough nowadays in the areas formerly inhabited by the Tocharians.

 

[spongetaro]

This is very interesting (although I'm sceptic, read below), but the bit about Tocharian clearly shows that apparently some people cannot think outside of the Centum/Satem box, given how we do have R1a from the Tarim Basin mummies. If the Graeco-Armenian-Aryan grouping is valid, this alone criss-crosses the Centum-Satem split, so why should Tocharian be grouped with R1b? Besides, the subclade of R1b (M73) that is usually thought by people to be associated with the Tocharians is simply too old to be reasonably associated with the spread of the Indo-Europeans in any scenario (note that this includes both Neolithic and Bronze Age scenarios). From that perspective, I'd like to pinpoint that Dienkes statement that 'There is also no reason to assign R1a to "Tocharians"...' is just wrong. We do have the Tarim basin DNA samples, plus R1a is frequent enough nowadays in the areas formerly inhabited by the Tocharians.

According to David Anthony the Tocharian separation from proto IE took place around 3700 BC and started from the Samara river.

Sinstashta (2100-1800 BC) is the culture ancestral to the Indo Iranien branch. Sintshta itself formed out of Abashevo (2500-1900 BC) and Poltavka cultures. Even if the author is not sure, the Western catacomb culture around 2500 BC is likely to be ancestral of the Greek branch.

I guess that Tocharian, Proto Indo Iranian, Proto Armanian and Greek all carried R1a. R1b M73 is in my opinion the haplogroup of the hunter gatherers of the Botai culture.

 

[Mkk]

Hammer and Zugura 2002 is the only publication I know of to have given anywhere near that low an estimate, so I'm quite sure that it's inaccurate. Every other publication I've seen has given something in the 20,000s.Nordvedt's tree is my favorite... it gives ~22,000, corresponding closely to Karafet's 22,200 YBP estimate.

In another paper including the same authors, they come to a different conclusion for I:

(Table 2)

22,200 (15,300–30,000) YBP

New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree. Genome Res. 2008 May;18(5):830-8