Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans and Y-Haplogroup R

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • F.E.C.
    replied
    I don't know how far North people could find refugia. The only thing that seems obvious to me (I'm astonished some people don't realize it) is that, if any R1b European refugia existed during the LGM, they were not only in the Iberian peninsula.

    Leave a comment:


  • nas
    replied
    Ice Age Refugia

    Originally posted by freddie
    My next query. Why is it conventionl wisdom that the Ice Age refugia were so far south? The southern limit of glaciation went through England, Holland, Germany. Why couldnt substantial populations have stayed north of the Alps and Pyrenees?

    (Igmayka, thanks for your reply. I'll return to it later).
    Hello,
    Good point,about the Ice Age Refugia,Freddy.
    Cro-Magnon wasn't south...but more north.To compare with the climat the Saami-people are living now.
    Nas

    P.S.:Thank you all...very good discussion (CHAPEAU!)

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by lgmayka
    15K-23K: E3b, I1b, J1, Q
    And K2. These are all haplogroups that are sprinkled lightly all over Europe--sometimes with a plausible explanation, other times with none (except, perhaps, as Paleolithic remnants).

    Leave a comment:


  • freddie
    replied
    My next query. Why is it conventionl wisdom that the Ice Age refugia were so far south? The southern limit of glaciation went through England, Holland, Germany. Why couldnt substantial populations have stayed north of the Alps and Pyrenees?

    (Igmayka, thanks for your reply. I'll return to it later).

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    Are all the researchers cited wrong? Where is the genetic evidence for invasion, other than the minor invasion from anatolia to southern europe during the neolithic? Where is the archeological or anthropological evidence for that matter?

    Are you one of those people on this site who believes that R1b is not indigenous to western europe? If so, what haplogroup do you believe to be indigenous?

    There is certainly mtDNA evidence available that indicates little influence on western european mtDNA from invaders from the neolithic and beyond. To me, all evidence cited points to paleolithic continuity.

    S21 and M222 appear to have originated in Europe. What age do you ascribe to these subclades? What I have read of S21, it appears to go back at least 10,000 years.
    1) Most researchers take what is often called the 'parsimonious' approach. In other words, Assume the simplest scenario unless facts indicate otherwise. The difficulty is that they are behind on their facts. They have continued to use puny 7-, 10-, or 12-marker haplotypes, in western Europe alone, when we now have an extensive database of 37-marker haplotypes, extending farther east. And those 37-marker, Europe-wide haplotypes are telling a very different story.

    2) The single best reference on age of haplogroups is the data and calculations compiled from 37-marker haplotypes by McEwan:

    http://www.geocities.com/mcewanjc/p3asd.htm

    The calculated haplogroup ages are, in years:
    5K-10K: R1a, R1b, I1a, N
    10K-15K: E3a, G, I1c, J2
    15K-23K: E3b, I1b, J1, Q

    (It is true that McEwan, in a bow to the conventional wisdom, offers some weasel words about how a severe population bottleneck--down to a single male line!--could mimic the "rebirth" of a haplogroup. But do the advocates of the Iberian R1b refugium actually claim that only a single male line survived the Ice Age? If so, do they expect us to believe such an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence?)

    According to these ages, today's most common north-central European haplogroups (R1a, R1b, I1a, N) are young ones that arose after the LGM. This makes perfect sense, and is actually the most 'parsimonious' scenario, because it doesn't require the 'rebirth' of a haplogroup through a single male line surviving in a refugium.

    3) Invasion--or more correctly, the spread of Indo-European by whatever means, whether military, economic, or social--is another issue, separate from and apparently much later than the initial repopulation of Europe after the LGM.

    4) R1b1c is probably not indigenous to western Europe. If it were, it should substantially co-exist with at least its immediate predecessor, R1b1*. The most likely birthplace of R1b1c is some locale which has substantial percentages of both R1b1* and R1b1c. I don't think we know where all such places are yet.

    This is a general rule, by the way. The most likely birthplace of I1a and I1b is a locale such as Greece which retains considerable I1*; the most likely birthplace of Q and R is a locale which retains some P*.

    5) The most likely European haplogroups during the Paleolithic period are the ones that (a) are old enough to have existed then, and (b) still survive in at least small amounts in Europe today. These are E3b, I1b, J1, and Q. These haplogroups show their age in their great haplotype diversity. In fact, their haplotypes are so diverse as to often defy recognition by both automatic and expert haplogroup predictors. J1 and J2 share 12-marker haplotypes; Athey's predictor finds false-Q in so many R1b haplotypes; and Ken Nordtvedt has specifically said that 12 markers is insufficient to recognize I1b. (In fact, I1b has diversified so far as to look all too much like D2!)

    6) The mtDNA evidence you cite actually says the opposite of what you claim, but it is often misinterpreted. Western, northern, and central European mtDNA shows little evidence of encroachment from the Middle East. But European mtDNA shows massive encroachment from both eastern Europe and the Balkans. Where do you think the ubiquitous mtDNA Hg H comes from? Eastern Europe, of course, which has large quantities of H*, whereas western Europe has greater percentages of H1 and H3.

    Once again, apply the rule: A haplogroup such as mtDNA H1 or H3 probably had its birthplace in a location that has plenty of H*.

    7) From McEwan's table, the various subclades of R1b1c are generally about 5000 years old. I don't see how S21 or M222 can be older than R1b1c itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    Those who believe in "Paleolithic Continuity" are wrong.

    I have already mentioned both archaeological and anthropological evidence. The "Long Duree" paper you cited also mentions that many archaeologists and historians hold the intrusion point of view.

    The linguistic evidence is also against "Paleolithic Continuity."

    That is what one would expect in a population replacement scenario: females remain in place. That is why, for example, British Isles mtDNA has an affinity with Central Europe that its y-dna does not have.

    We do not know where S21 and M222 originated. I don't believe either SNP is as old as you are saying, but if they are, they probably did not originate in Europe, at least not in Western Europe.

    Both SNPs began with a single individual each. The male descendants of those individual founders would have carried their ancestor's SNP to whatever place the tribe wound up.

    Both S21 and M222 were discovered only fairly recently. Not that many people - even in the West - have been tested for them, so we do not know if S21 might be found in Asia. Even if there is no S21 in Asia, that in itself is not proof that R1b is "aboriginal" in W. Europe.

    I would ask you the same thing. None of the "experts" you cite produces any real proof; it's all just speculation. And there are good reasons to question their conclusions.

    They look at India, see R1a, and say, "Aha! The Indo-Europeans!" But none of them seems to have noticed that R1a is connected to satem IE languages and largely goes missing in the centum-speaking regions.
    Stevo: Wilson accepts the view that the Basque are representative of pre-Neolithic European Y chromosomes, and in his article showed that "...Neolithic, Iron Age, and subsequent cultural revolutions had little effect on the paternal genetic landscape of the Celtic-speaking populations (there has been continuity from the Upper Paleolithic to the present). However, comparison with mtDNA and X-linked microsatellites reveals that at least one of these cultural revolutions had a major effect on the maternal genetic heritage of the Celtic-speaking populations." All that this means is that Wilson, shows that the celtic speakers showed a balance of paleolithic and neolithic influences in terms of mtDNA, while showing virtually no neolithic influence on Y-DNA.

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/9/5078.pdf

    We would all like to have proof of who was where and when in history. Absent a time machine, the best we can do is to make the best inferences possible based on the best information available. That said, based on the current information available, the old hypothesis of intrusion must be abandoned for paleolithic continuity.

    Do you have any recent scientific articles, based on the much larger databases now available, that support your position that R1bs are relative recent intruders in western europe? Why aren't any of the experts in the fields of genetics, archeology, and anthropology supporting your analysis of the data available? The modern consensus among researchers appears to be paleolithic continuity in western europe.

    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    Igmayka: Are all the researchers cited wrong? Where is the genetic evidence for invasion, other than the minor invasion from anatolia to southern europe during the neolithic? Where is the archeological or anthropological evidence for that matter?
    Those who believe in "Paleolithic Continuity" are wrong.

    I have already mentioned both archaeological and anthropological evidence. The "Long Duree" paper you cited also mentions that many archaeologists and historians hold the intrusion point of view.

    The linguistic evidence is also against "Paleolithic Continuity."

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    There is certainly mtDNA evidence available that indicates little influence on western european mtDNA from invaders from the neolithic and beyond. To me, all evidence cited points to paleolithic continuity.
    That is what one would expect in a population replacement scenario: females remain in place. That is why, for example, British Isles mtDNA has an affinity with Central Europe that its y-dna does not have.

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    S21 and M222 appear to have originated in Europe. What age do you ascribe to these subclades? What I have read of S21, it appears to go back at least 10,000 years. Is there evidence for S21 in Asia?
    We do not know where S21 and M222 originated. I don't believe either SNP is as old as you are saying, but if they are, they probably did not originate in Europe, at least not in Western Europe.

    Both SNPs began with a single individual each. The male descendants of those individual founders would have carried their ancestor's SNP to whatever place the tribe wound up.

    Both S21 and M222 were discovered only fairly recently. Not that many people - even in the West - have been tested for them, so we do not know if S21 might be found in Asia. Even if there is no S21 in Asia, that in itself is not proof that R1b is "aboriginal" in W. Europe.

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    Show me the money.

    John
    I would ask you the same thing. None of the "experts" you cite produces any real proof; it's all just speculation. And there are good reasons to question their conclusions.

    They look at India, see R1a, and say, "Aha! The Indo-Europeans!" But none of them seems to have noticed that R1a is connected to satem IE languages and largely goes missing in the centum-speaking regions.
    Last edited by Stevo; 27 October 2006, 01:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    Igmayka: Are all the researchers cited wrong? Where is the genetic evidence for invasion, other than the minor invasion from anatolia to southern europe during the neolithic? Where is the archeological or anthropological evidence for that matter?

    Are you one of those people on this site who believes that R1b is not indigenous to western europe? If so, what haplogroup do you believe to be indigenous?

    There is certainly mtDNA evidence available that indicates little influence on western european mtDNA from invaders from the neolithic and beyond. To me, all evidence cited points to paleolithic continuity.

    S21 and M222 appear to have originated in Europe. What age do you ascribe to these subclades? What I have read of S21, it appears to go back at least 10,000 years. Is there evidence for S21 in Asia?

    Show me the money.

    John

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    Loring Brace, a University of Michigan anthropologist, says the craniofacial remains of late Stone Age Europeans reflect those of earlier inhabitants who lived 35,000 to 10,000 years ago.
    ...
    In terms of S21, it is likely that this marker is prevalent among the Frisian R1bs (my ancestors on many lines of descent!).
    ...
    As I understand it, this is an ancient marker that became a subclade shortly after the last ice age. Again, indigenous western european dna.

    M222, or the Irish Modal Haplogroup, is also not exactly a recent marker.

    My point on this thread is that the vast majority of western european dna appears to be indigenous. By indigenous I mean from ancestors living in western europe in the late paleolithic.
    ...
    Who is this 70,000 year old Noah?
    1) You have cited absolutely zero evidence of paleolithic continuity, except for the very weak craniofacial argument (which is highly subject to interpretation). That is the major point here: There is absolutely no genetic evidence linking pre-Ice Age and post-Ice Age populations.

    2) You have cited absolutely zero evidence that the humans who eventually populated western Europe came from Iberia or anyplace else in western Europe. The only argument for that is a weak one, the 'cline' (progressively declining percentage) of R1b as one looks from west to east. This could just as easily be explained by an initial expansion of R1b from the steppes to the Atlantic, followed by the northward advance of I1a and I1c through Germany to Scandinavia, followed by a northwestward advance of R1a along the Pomeranian coast and then into Scandinavia. The net result would be a preponderance of R1b along the Atlantic simply 'by default' (because other haplogroups did not or could not make it that far).

    3) 'Noah' is the man of 70,000 years ago from whom all our Y chromosomes descend. He is sometimes referred to as 'Adam', which is needlessly confusing because he lived much more recently than our mitochondrial 'Eve', who lived about 150,000 years ago. A prominent genetic-anthropological-archeological-geological theory about 'Noah' is that his was the sole male line surviving a worldwide catastrophe that brought the human race to the brink of extinction. A candidate for this catastrophe is the massive eruption of Mount Toba, which may have triggered a six-month volcanic winter and a sudden thousand-year Ice Age.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    Originally posted by lgmayka
    Until he (David Miles) shows his alleged evidence, he will continue to be a laughingstock for making such a claim. If I recall correctly, another article on his hypothesis specifically said that he was basing his claim largely on Sykes' obsolete study involving 7-10 STRs (and no SNPs at all besides those of R1b1c itself). In other words, he was simply equating R1b1c itself with Celts, which is of course utter nonsense.

    Recent work with 37-STR haplotypes, and additional higher-resolution SNPs such as M222, S21, and S28, is correctly 'parsing' the different strains of R1b1c. In particular, S21 and S28 clearly originated on the Continent and migrated to England within the last 1500 years, where they now have a very substantial presence.

    Unfortunately, the researchers' reports (discussed on the [email protected] mailing list) will probably not reach conventional publication until late 2007.

    In addition, even older strains of R1b1c such as the famous R1bSTR47Scots may have migrated from the Continent within the last 3000 years. The most obvious hint of this is that a rural southern Pole (YX8BS in Ysearch) is rather close to the Scots subclade, but not close enough to be a recent immigrant in the other direction. Further investigation is needed, but the final conclusion may very well be that R1bSTR47Scots must have stopped in southern Poland, within the last 3000 years, on its way to Scotland. We shall see.
    Igmayka: Brian Sykes, after a 10-year DNA survey involving around 10,000 samples, appears to remain of the opinion that the vast majority of people living in the UK descend from ice-age Iberians. He recently published a book called "Blood of the Isles" and is in the process of publishing a very detailed DNA map of the UK.

    Stephen Oppenheimer also recently published a book called "Origins of the British" in which he also claims that about 3/4 of white british derive from ice-age Iberian ancestors.

    Anthropologist Joachim Burger of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, has stated that his work suggests that there is a good possibility that the contribution of early farmers could be close to zero.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...age_faces.html

    Further scientists who have studied ancient skeletons from Scandinavia to North Africa and Greece, comparing ancient and modern facial features, have claimed that their analysis suggests modern Europeans are closely related to and are descended from prehistoric indigenous peoples. The study suggests that the arrival of farming did not signal a broad wave of colonization as some scientists had thought. Rather, native hunter-gatherers absorbed the farming way of life and those who brought it.

    Loring Brace, a University of Michigan anthropologist, says the craniofacial remains of late Stone Age Europeans reflect those of earlier inhabitants who lived 35,000 to 10,000 years ago.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...10_europe.html


    In terms of S21, it is likely that this marker is prevalent among the Frisian R1bs (my ancestors on many lines of descent!). This marker may indicate descent from the Anglo-Saxon invasion of the UK or the norman invasion (which included significant numbers of flemish knights) or from earlier contacts as the frisians controlled the sea trade around the North Sea during the pre-Roman period. As I understand it, this is an ancient marker that became a subclade shortly after the last ice age. Again, indigenous western european dna.

    M222, or the Irish Modal Haplogroup, is also not exactly a recent marker.

    My point on this thread is that the vast majority of western european dna appears to be indigenous. By indigenous I mean from ancestors living in western europe in the late paleolithic. I do buy Stevo's argument that IE languages were brought to western europe by small bands of R1b nomads. I believe that most strains of R1b are indigenous to western europe.

    John

    p.s. Who is this 70,000 year old Noah?

    Leave a comment:


  • F.E.C.
    replied
    Originally posted by lgmayka
    In particular, S21 and S28 clearly originated on the Continent and migrated to England within the last 1500 years, where they now have a very substantial presence.
    What a glorious day when they find out S21 first came to Britain with Roman troops from Italy

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by freddie
    BUT my problem is that the quantities seem so different. You can trace the haplogroups back to 28 (?) original ancestors but if the language figures are right there were presumably far more old languages. Many more than one language family per haplogroup*.
    First, you are only judging by the currently known haplogroups. Geneticists tell us that there are probably actually thousands of SNPs on the human Y chromosome, just 'waiting to be discovered' (because there are so many millions of places where an SNP can occur). In fact, they say it is possible that an SNP occurs roughly with every generation! This, one might say, is analogous to the fact that if defines 'language' tightly enough (as an idiolect), it is slightly different for every individual and from one generation to the next. Classification of human idiolects into a small number of languages is to some extent an academic convenience, just as the classification of human Y chromosomes into a small number of haplogroups is to some extent a convenience.

    Second, if we imagine the world's population of, say, 15000 years ago, before the invention of agriculture and the formation of towns, I do believe that each tribe of hunter-gatherers had both its own language and its own haplogroup. What I mean is that over centuries, the tribe's language would become incomprehensible to other tribes; and also over centuries, only one founding father's offspring would survive, and hence any (undiscovered) SNP he had would be the tribe's haplogroup. War between tribes would, of course, typically result in the disappearance of the victim tribe's language and haplogroup.

    Third, remember that both languages and haplogroups are presumed to branch off ultimately from a single stem. We have reason to believe that Noah, the man of 70000 years ago from whom all our Y chromosomes descend, did speak a language; and we have no reason to believe that any of his descendant communities deliberately made up a new language from scratch. (Indeed, one can argue that such an invention is literally unthinkable, because the human mind would automatically look to the previously known language for patterns.) But language changes so rapidly that we cannot reliably chart its family tree farther back than, say, 10000 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • freddie
    replied
    I didnt express myself clearly. I agree both language and haplogroups followed that model. BUT my problem is that the quantities seem so different. You can trace the haplogroups back to 28 (?) original ancestors but if the language figures are right there were presumably far more old languages. Many more than one language family per haplogroup*. ????

    (*20,000 or 10,000 years ago, for example. I.e., the story of language was analogous but it happened much more rapidly than the genetic story, so the correlation would between the two would diminish pretty early in both stories.)
    Last edited by freddie; 26 October 2006, 10:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by freddie
    So the speakers of Proto-Indo-European (or any ancient language) presumably represented a tiny fraction of the worlds population at that time, one would guess not more than 1%.
    But that is precisely the similarity between haplogroups and languages. Remember, each yDNA haplogroup started out with an individual man! But through good luck (having male descendants when others had none) or deliberate action (attacking other clans), the descendants of that individual man came to number in the millions, whereas a thousand other men's Y chromosomes were lost in history.

    Similarly, an ancient language started out as the medium of communication for a single tribe, but through both good luck and deliberate action, the language's descendants have ended up taking over 4-1/2 out of 6 inhabited continents!

    Leave a comment:


  • freddie
    replied
    Igmayka. on your reply to my earlier post about the homogeneity of old tribes, I take the point that the menfolk of defeated tribes were often wiped out.

    I suppose the general question is whether you had to be born into a tribe or whether individual newcomers were admitted ad hoc irrespective of kinship. Is there any evidence about that?
    Last edited by freddie; 26 October 2006, 08:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X