The Proto-Indo-Europeans and Y-Haplogroup R

[Stevo]

I have yet to see anyone adequately address the amazing correspondence between the East/West-satem/centum split in the Indo-European languages and the East/West-R1a/R1b split in y-haplogroup R.

The presence of Indo-European, kurgan-style burial mounds in Western Europe, in places where there is little or no R1a, also goes unexplained. Take, for examples, the grave hill, or kurgan, of the Hochdorf Chieftain in the heart of R1b country near Stuttgart, Germany, and the Sabini burial mound in largely R1b Central Italy, complete with chariot.

There are other examples that could be cited.

[paitenceofjob]

As I said before, R1b's closest genetic relatives are in far Eastern Europe and Asia. We know pretty certainly that R1b arose among the other descendants of K probably on the Eurasian steppe somewhere.

Many distinguished linguists have posited a Eurasiatic supper language family from which both Uralic and Indo-European emerged.

We know that R1b came to W. Europe from the East, from Central Asia.

The real question being debated here is when.

I've been able to follow that much.

It is well known that R1b in the West is relatively uniform in its WAMH majority and notoriously difficult to parse into geographically meaningful subclusters.

That does not bespeak great age for the R1b in Western Europe.

On the other hand, R1b becomes more diverse (older) as one travels east toward the Ural-Volga region.

So R1b is older the farher east one goes. I don't recall anyone arguing otherwise. Oppenheimer and Wells themselves discuss how the R1b haplogroup migrated westward. Like you said, it's a question of when. To me, it doesn't really matter, though it does make more sense to my mind that R1b was in Western Europe shortly after the LGM. The reason it makes more sense is the very lack of y-dna diversity in Western Europe to which you alluded. A founder effect, where a group moved into a vacant area,would explain this lack of diversity real nicely. What's an alternative explanation for it?

So, even though we know R1b came from outside of Western Europe, you are arguing that the reason British mtDNA has more in common with Central European mtDNA than British y-dna has with Central European y-dna is that the women moved from Central Europe into the British Isles?

You are arguing that Central European men traded their daughters to "native" British Isles R1bs for trade goods?

I'm not arguing that they did. It's just a good possibility. In one of your posts, you stated that it made no sense that there could be a trade-network for women. I just offered a concrete example of where it happens still today. At any rate, some agent(s) must explain why the mtdna is more diverse than the y-dna haplogroups.

[PDHOTLEN]

my R1a1 results

October 8, 2006

My old eyes tire easily, and trying to read all of the messages in this long thread is hopeless. However, my y-dna results with deep snps from "Family Tree DNA" stem from my distant Norwegian paternal ancestry. The only trouble is that I don't know who they were before my paternal grandfather from Wisconsin (at least for now).

These results were given to me by FTDNA:
M173+, M198+, M207+, M124-, M157-, M343-, M56-, M87- and SRY10831.2-. I scribbled that down and is therefore second hand, so I hope it is still accurate. I don't have a clue what it all means, but maybe this is useable data for some of you scholars.

What a revolution DNA analysis is!

[Stevo]

So R1b is older the farher east one goes. I don't recall anyone arguing otherwise. Oppenheimer and Wells themselves discuss how the R1b haplogroup migrated westward. Like you said, it's a question of when. To me, it doesn't really matter, though it does make more sense to my mind that R1b was in Western Europe shortly after the LGM. The reason it makes more sense is the very lack of y-dna diversity in Western Europe to which you alluded. A founder effect, where a group moved into a vacant area,would explain this lack of diversity real nicely. What's an alternative explanation for it?

The problem with that is you posit the same group in the same area since the last Ice Age and yet lacking in the sort of diversity that would be in keeping with a long stay there. Lack of diversity and founder effect in a region seem to argue relative youth in that place. Diversity increases and founder effects lessen with great age in a particular locale.

Then there is the truly amazing correspondence between the East/West R1a/R1b split in y-haplogroup R and the East/West satem/centum split in the Indo-European languages.

Take the time to investigate the satem and centum Indo-European languages. Note the clear connection of R1a to the former and of R1b to the latter.

I don't see how anyone can miss it.

Besides, there are indications that the R1bs did not move into a "vacant area," although it probably was sparsely populated. I have already pointed out how mtDNA indicates the presence of a pre-R1b population in W. Europe.

[lgmayka]

These results were given to me by FTDNA:
M173+, M198+, M207+, M124-, M157-, M343-, M56-, M87- and SRY10831.2-.

Here is the latest haplogroup tree for R:

http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

Your SNP results indicate you are R1a1*. FTDNA generally (and wisely) avoids the '*' notation, because new SNPs may be discovered later.

[Paul_Johnsen]

October 8, 2006

However, my y-dna results with deep snps from "Family Tree DNA" stem from my distant Norwegian paternal ancestry. The only trouble is that I don't know who they were before my paternal grandfather from Wisconsin (at least for now).

What is your last name?

[Johnserrat]

Indo-European Goat Lovers?

Attached is a link to National Geographic, which has an interesting article about the spread of goats in Europe during the neolithic when farmers from the near east are generally believed to have migrated to Europe in relatively small numbers introducing agriculture:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-history.html

Perhaps the aboriginal R1b people were forced to learn IE in order to buy goats as status symbols?

John

[Stevo]

Attached is a link to National Geographic, which has an interesting article about the spread of goats in Europe during the neolithic when farmers from the near east are generally believed to have migrated to Europe in relatively small numbers introducing agriculture:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-history.html

Perhaps the aboriginal R1b people were forced to learn IE in order to buy goats as status symbols?

John

Are you attempting to ride a goat to dodge the pretty obvious correspondence between the East/West-satem/centum split in Indo-European and the East/West-R1a/R1b split in y-haplogroup R?

There are many problems with the whole Neolithic out-of-Anatolia Colin Renfrew scheme of Indo-European advance.

One of them is the fact that the y-haplogroups involved - J, E3b, and G - are all strongly associated with non-Indo-European languages: Semitic, Hamitic, and Caucasian, respectively.

It doesn't seem likely they got together and cooked up Indo-European to go along with the non-Indo-European languages spoken by their fellows in their old Middle Eastern homelands.

[Johnserrat]

Are you attempting to ride a goat to dodge the pretty obvious correspondence between the East/West-satem/centum split in Indo-European and the East/West-R1a/R1b split in y-haplogroup R?

There are many problems with the whole Neolithic out-of-Anatolia Colin Renfrew scheme of Indo-European advance.

One of them is the fact that the y-haplogroups involved - J, E3b, and G - are all strongly associated with non-Indo-European languages: Semitic, Hamitic, and Caucasian, respectively.

It doesn't seem likely they got together and cooked up Indo-European to go along with the non-Indo-European languages spoken by their fellows in their old Middle Eastern homelands.

As I understand it, semitic and hamitic are both subgroups of the Afro-Asiatic languages group. According to Wikipedia:

"Proto-Semitic is the hypothetical proto-language of the Semitic languages. The earliest attestations of a Semitic language are in Akkadian, dating to ca. the 23rd century BC (see Sargon of Akkad). Early inscriptions in the (pre-)Proto-Canaanite alphabet, presumably by speakers of a Semitic language, date to ca. 1800 BC. Proto-Semitic would most probably have been spoken in the 4th millennium BC, roughly contemporaneous to Proto-Indo-European. The distribution of the related Afro-Asiatic languages, and especially the Egyptian branch most closely related to Semitic, suggest an original immigration of the Proto-Semites to the Arabian peninsula from the Horn of Africa."

In terms of the caucasian languages, Wikipedia says:

"Many of the Caucasian languages have case systems (noun inflection rules) of a particular kind, known as ergative, which sets them typologically apart from most European languages. The impossibility to link Basque, an isolated language spoken in the Pyrenees, with its Indoeuropean neighbours has made many scholars to seek its relatives elsewhere. Lexical and morphological clues (ergativity among them) have been reminiscent of the languages spoken in the Caucasus. Comparisons have been made to all the three language families, Northeast Caucasian, Northwest Caucasian and Kartvelian, the most elaborate being the Dene-Caucasian hypothesis of John D. Bengtson's, yet the suggested evidence, though tempting, is considered as yet undecisive by many linguists, and the question of Basque's distant relatives thus remains open."

PIE could have been baking in anatolia, while PS (proto-semitic) and other Afro-Asiatic languages were still stewing in northern africa. Even recognizing the limitations of Wikipedia, it does not appear that the current dominance of the Afro-Asiatic languages, in the areas where the majority of haplogroup J and E3b reside, is proof that PIE originated outside of anatolia or the near east. Otherwise, the same argument could be applied to argue that PIE originated in western europe with R1b (and I1a?) aboriginals. We certainly would not want THAT!

Furthermore, perhaps those Basques are the most stubborn people in the world and held onto their proto-caucasian language despite 6,000 years of isolation. About 8% of men in northern spain belong to haplogroup G2 according to the Basque project. I deem it likely that the Basque language was brought to spanish Iberia (there is another Iberia in the Caucacus, coincidence?) with one group of farmers about 6,000 years ago from the east. Of course, PIE was brought by J and E3bs .

It is time you embrace your aboriginal western european roots, Stevo...sorry I'm becoming emotional .

John

[Stevo]

There is archaeological evidence of movement from West to East in Anatolia during the 3rd millenium B.C., John. There is also evidence of movement and spread of Indo-European from West to East through Anatolia at the same time.

If Basque is part of the Dene-Caucasian language family, as some linguists believe, then it doesn't seem likely the Basques were originally R1b.

The ancient Basque matrilocal marriage custom (of the groom going to live with the bride's family) is tailor-made for the introduction of outsider y-dna and the simultaneous preservation of the bride's language and culture. Hence the Basques, whose mtDNA looks Middle Eastern and whose language may have originated in that vicinity, took on the y-dna of their neighbors (including some E3b and J, as well as R1b) while retaining much that was originally theirs.

It seems to me that those who argue that R1bs were not Indo-European have a much bigger elephant to explain than those who argue that they were.

The former must explain how Western Europe, with its disproportionately large R1b population, came to speak Indo-European.

The latter need merely explain the non-Indo-European speech of a small, fairly unique ethnic minority in the Pyrenees.

Given what we know of ancient Basque mtDNA and the Basque language, that doesn't seem to be much of an elephant at all.

[milestone]

Hello all, iam new round here. I think the basque lingo would explain a great deal if proved to have some relation.
Do the basque still speak that language or spanish? Is it related to any non indoeuropean language, are there any clues? Couse its strange, there is no links whatsoever, every language has some relation to a wider geographical spectrum, perhaps to protoceltic languages of british isles. There are clues that iberians sailed to Britain. I know that protoceltic is indoeuropean but it may have retained some vocabulary that is basque realated.Any links to arabic languages?

[freddie]

I'm new too but I know a bit about Basque so I'll risk a comment.

Yes, many of them still speak it. Under Franco's dictatorship Spanish Basques werent allowed to speak it outside the home, but the numbers of speakers are increasing again now. In the countryside its the main language though in the towns you'll hear much more Spanish.

Various linguists have tried to prove relationships with some of the languages in the Caucasus, etc, but the whole question is so confused by national pride. It is so part of the Basques self-image that they are the original Europeans that its difficult to get past that. Some Basques also claim that they were the ones who invented sea-fishing!

They were certainly in the Pyrenees before the Romans arrived on the Atlantic coast of Western Europe. Presumably there were lots of other languages spoken in Western Europe before the Celts and Romans appeared (some of which were maybe similar to Basque) which all died out.

But of course thats not the same thing as saying they were necessarily the first Europeans - just that their culture and identity survived whereas others didnt, so we know about them. There's 10,000 years plus between the Ice Age and the coming of the Romans so who knows at what point other non-Indo-European languages in Western Europe died out.

[freddie]

As I say Im new to this but I'm puzzled about how modern-day (last 2000 years) cultures, languages, ethnic groups are supposed to relate to these haplogroups.

If I understand it correctly all the various haplogroups and sub-groups and what have you originated thousands of years before. So surely even by, say 5000 BC, speakers of any given language, or members of any particular tribe if you prefer, would already have been thoroughly mixed, DNA-wise.

Even if one tribe had been completely homogenous to begin with, they'd already had 200-plus generations to interbreed with their neighbours, conquered peoples, etc. Even by 5000 BC. So how can it relate to modern language groups? Or am I missing something?

[lgmayka]

Even if one tribe had been completely homogenous to begin with, they'd already had 200-plus generations to interbreed with their neighbours, conquered peoples, etc. Even by 5000 BC. So how can it relate to modern language groups? Or am I missing something?

I think you are projecting several modern practices--mobility, intermarriage, monogamy, etc.--onto the distant past.

First, an ancient tribe could not stretch over more than a small area (at least until the domestication of the horse and invention of the wheel). Such a tribe was subject to 'genetic drift', which means that over time, randomly, most male (Y chromosome) lines would die out. Eventually, only one or a very few paternal lines would survive.

Second, ancient tribes did not follow the Geneva Convention. Even the Judeo-Christian Bible essentially advocates that the victor tribe kill all the men in the conquered tribe, then either marry all the women and adopt their children, or simply kill all the women and children too. Thus, the losing side of a tribal war might very well lose its entire yDNA, and possibly its mtDNA too.

The result of all this is that yDNA was probably quite homogeneous in most ancient tribes. This changed only with the introduction of 'civilized' practices such as the enslavement (instead of the extermination) of conquered men, and the prostitution (instead of the polygamy) of conquered women.

[Irubak]

As an ethnic Georgian and a linguist by profession I want to say few words about the relationship between the Basque and the Caucasian languages.

First of all, despite about 200 years of research, genetic relationship among South Caucasian (Georgian, Svan, Laz, Megrelian), North-West Caucasian (Abkhaz, Circassian) and North-East Caucasian (Chechen, Lakian etc.) sub-families was never satisfactorily proved. Certainly there are some similarities and common words but it can be due to at least 3000 years of common living in the Caucasus. Among Caucasian languages only Georgian has original literature which can be traced back to at least 2000 years. So, early stages of other Caucasian languages are unfortunately unaccessible.

About the Basque: indeed, Caucasian languages share Ergative construction and vigesimal system with Basque, as well as certain words, (e.g. beri 'young' in Kartvelian and berri 'new' in Basque, eri 'nation' in Georgian and herria 'nation' in Basque etc.) place names etc. But the linguistic data what we have at the moment is not enough to make a plausible theory. So, now we can only speculate.

Following issues for the speculation:

One of the old names of Georgia was Iberia. (Etymology of this word goes to ber 'wolf' in Georgian, wolf being a totem and sacral animal for proto-Georgians. Note that Assyrians and Persians 2800-2500 years ago called Georgia Gur-zan and Gur-gan which both mean land of the wolves/wolve people. This name was borrowed by Greeks, hence the Georgia in modern times.

Romans called Siculi, Corsi and Sardi Iberian tribes. Etruscs are beleived to migrate from Anatolia. (remember here she-wolf feeding Romulus and Remus)
Georgians share with Corsicans unique polyphonic singing which doesn't exist among neighboring peoples. So, maybe there was a chain of related tribes from Caucasus to Iberian peninsula?

One of the West-Caucasian tribes was called Abasg. 'A' is a formation morpheme in West-Caucasian languages, so we have curious similarity between A-Basg and Basque.