Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans and Y-Haplogroup R

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

  • freddie
    replied
    The problem I have with the relationship between language (families) and genetic groupings is a question of numbers. The total number of the latter is very small, whereas linguists estimate that the total number of languages spoken during human history at anywhere between 30,000 and 500,000 (with a good average at 150,000) (David Crystal). 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%.

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    Are you aware that Archeologist David Miles claims that 80% of british genes comes from ice age hunters?
    Until he 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.
    Last edited by lgmayka; 26 October 2006, 05:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    Are you aware that Archeologist David Miles claims that 80% of british genes comes from ice age hunters?

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

    Miles claims that despite invasions by Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans, and others, the genetic makeup of today's white Britons is much the same as it was 12,000 ago. Miles' evidence for the genetic ancestry of modern Britons comes from analysis of blood groups, oxygen traces in teeth, and DNA samples taken from skeletal remains.

    Miles is of the opinion that Britain's population in the late Stone Age was much been larger than historians once supposed. Population estimates based on the size and density of settlements put Britain's population at about 3.5 million by the time Romans invaded in A.D. 43.

    The notion that large-scale migrations caused drastic change in early Britain has been widely discredited, according to Simon James, an archaeologist at Leicester University, England.

    James states: "The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old invasion model." For the English, their defining period was the arrival of Germanic tribes known collectively as the Anglo-Saxons. Some researchers suggest this invasion consisted of as few as 10,000 to 25,000 people—not enough to displace existing inhabitants.

    Analysis of human remains unearthed at an ancient cemetery near Abingdon, England, indicates that Saxon immigrants and native Britons lived side by side.

    As per Miles: "Probably what we're dealing with is a majority of British people who were dominated politically by a new elite. They were swamped culturally but not genetically."

    James agrees that "It is actually quite common to observe important cultural change, including adoption of wholly new identities, with little or no biological change to a population."

    If the majority of individuals in the british isles today are R1b, R1b must have been predominant among the ice age hunters who are the ancestors of the britons.

    I believe that you are significantly under-estimating the population of pre-historic europe. Small bands of nomads would have been (and probably were ) eaten for breakfast.

    Ipso facto ...

    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    My reply is:

    1) There is no archeological evidence for a massive intrusion of IE speakers into Europe. There is evidence of continuous occupation all over Europe since relatively shortly after the last ice age.
    Didn't we go through this "massive intrusion" thing in this thread already?

    Who has said anything about a "massive intrusion"?

    There weren't "massive" amounts of people during the period we're discussing.

    I believe the western branch of the Proto-Indo-Europeans moved from East to West in relatively small kinship bands. They moved into areas that were relatively sparsely populated. Their horse-and-chariot technology gave them an advantage in mobility.

    There is archaeological evidence for intrusions beginning in the late Neolithic Period/early Bronze Age. Fortifications appear for the first time in W. Europe. Settled sites were abandoned, some burned. New types of burial rites appear, as do new types of physical remains and artifacts.

    Many archaeologists and historians have interpreted these facts to represent the arrival of newcomers in Western Europe.

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    2) There is no evidence that europe's paleolithic population has been markedly changed in make-up since the last ice age. I do not believe there is any evidence for replacement of more than 22% of haplogroups anywhere in western europe since the late paleolithic.
    There is no evidence it hasn't either. The fact is, we do not know to what y-haplogroup or groups Western Europe's "paleolithic population" - not a large number of people - belonged.

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    3) Which Wilson article are you referring to? The only one I recall had a very limited sample size.
    The one referenced in the "Long Duree" article and earlier in this thread.

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    4) In terms of linguistics, there is no evidence that the spread of IE was accompanied by the replacement of large population groups in western europe.
    Who is claiming anything about "large population groups" in the late Neolithic Period/early Bronze Age?

    There weren't all that many people around at that time, John.

    We're not talking about modern populations. We're talking about relatively small kinship groups moving into a relatively sparsely populated area.

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    When did modern humans first occupy Europe?
    How is that relevant to this discussion? What this discussion concerns is the arrival of Proto-Indo-Europeans in Western Europe.

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    How long do you believe R1b has been in Europe?
    What part? The Ural-Volga region? A long time.

    In Iberia? Much less.

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    Who are the aboriginal europeans?

    I need to know!!!!!

    John
    I guess that depends on which part of Europe one is talking about.

    I don't have all the answers.

    Look at the distribution of the centum Indo-European languages and the distribution of the satem Indo-European languages.

    R1b is strongly associated with the former, R1a with the latter.
    Last edited by Stevo; 26 October 2006, 02:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    How long do you believe R1b has been in Europe?
    The best analysis I've seen of haplogroup ages is this one by McEwan:

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

    It lists R1b as 7400 years old.

    Needless to say, I am highly suspicious of any hypothesis which attempts to artificially extend the alleged age of one haplogroup to the exclusion of all others, merely to fit someone's political bias.

    Leave a comment:


  • nas
    replied
    Proto-Indo-European

    Hello,my name is Cro-Magnon...

    http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/a.../en/index.html

    Nas

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    My reply is:

    1) There is no archeological evidence for a massive intrusion of IE speakers into Europe. There is evidence of continuous occupation all over Europe since relatively shortly after the last ice age.

    2) There is no evidence that europe's paleolithic population has been markedly changed in make-up since the last ice age. I do not believe there is any evidence for replacement of more than 22% of haplogroups anywhere in western europe since the late paleolithic.

    3) Which Wilson article are you referring to? The only one I recall had a very limited sample size.

    4) In terms of linguistics, there is no evidence that the spread of IE was accompanied by the replacement of large population groups in western europe.

    When did modern humans first occupy Europe?

    How long do you believe R1b has been in Europe?

    Who are the aboriginal europeans?

    I need to know!!!!!

    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    John -

    You argued the "Long Duree" stuff once before. The BIG problem with it is that there is no proof R1b was in W. Europe when you or that article says it was. None.

    As I recall from the last time I read it (when you posted it before on the old R1b Forum), it even mentions that many archaeologists and historians hold the older view that the Celts arrived in W. Europe late in the Neolithic Period or the early Bronze Age.

    The "Long Duree" is one point of view that ignores a lot of the evidence we have already discussed here. It discusses the difference between Irish mtDNA and Irish y-dna but never successfully deals with the issue, choosing to say that Irish mtDNA is more like local mtDNA than it is like Central European mtDNA (duh!). The point is that Irish mtDNA, as noted by Wilson and others, as an affinity for Central European mtDNA that Irish y-dna does not have for its Central European counterpart. The "Long Duree" obfuscates and sidesteps that issue, among others.

    It takes no note of the archaeological evidence for intrusion into W. Europe, nor does it deal with the linguistic evidence I and others have brought up here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    The problem with your theory Stevo is time. Indo-european languages were introduced to Europe much later than when R1b became the dominant haplogroup along the Atlantic facade of Europe.

    Anyone interested in this subject should read: The Longue Dure´e of Genetic Ancestry: Multiple Genetic Marker Systems and Celtic Origins on the Atlantic Facade of Europe by Brian McEvoy, Martin Richards, Peter Forster, and Daniel G. Bradley:

    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJH.../41464.web.pdf

    The headnote reads as follows:

    "Celtic languages are now spoken only on the Atlantic facade of Europe, mainly in Britain and Ireland, but were spoken more widely in western and central Europe until the collapse of the Roman Empire in the first millennium A.D. It has been common to couple archaeological evidence for the expansion of Iron Age elites in central Europe with the dispersal of these languages and of Celtic ethnicity and to posit a central European “homeland” for the Celtic peoples. More recently, however, archaeologists have questioned his “migrationist” view of Celtic ethnogenesis. The proposition of a central European ancestry should be testable by examining the distribution of genetic markers; however, although Y-chromosome patterns in Atlantic Europe show little evidence of central European influence, there has hitherto been insufficient data to confirm this by use of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Here, we present both new mtDNA data from Ireland and a novel analysis of a greatly enlarged European mtDNA database. We show that mtDNA lineages, when analyzed in sufficiently large numbers, display patterns significantly similar to a large fraction of both Y-chromosome and autosomal variation. These multiple genetic marker systems indicate a shared ancestry throughout the Atlantic zone, from northern Iberia to western Scandinavia, that dates back to the end of the last Ice Age."

    The authors conclude that: "What seems clear is that neither the mtDNA pattern nor that of the Y-chromosome markers supports a substantially central European Iron Age origin for most Celtic speakers—or former Celtic speakers—of the Atlantic facade. The affinities of the areas where Celtic languages are spoken, or were formerly spoken, are generally with other regions in the Atlantic zone, from northern Spain to northern Britain. Although some level of Iron Age immigration into Britain and Ireland could probably never be ruled out by the use of modern genetic data, these results point toward a distinctive Atlantic genetic heritage with roots in the processes at the end of the last Ice Age."

    There are no credible scientific articles out there that claim that IE languages arrived in western europe relatively recently with R1b invaders who eradicated the indigenous population. All of the authorities in this field propose that R1b has been around in Europe since the last ice age, well before the introduction of IE languages. The proposed satem/centum = R1a/R1b, while amusing, is completely without any evidence to support it.

    The two questions I have for you Stevo are: 1) How long do you believe modern humans have been living in europe? and 2) What haplogroup(s) represent the indigenous european population? I believe that your answers to these questions will demonstrate where you deviate from the current scientific evidence in this field.

    John

    (p.s. I know that I am arguing from authority. No need to point that out again )

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    I think there is good evidence that Indo-European languages were spread in the East by R1as and R2s. On the other hand, there's not much R1a and R2 in the West, and what is there can be accounted for historically, for examples, the incursions of the Slavonic tribes beginning in the 6th century A.D. and the Viking invasions beginning in the late 8th century A.D.

    It is also pretty obvious that where R1a prevails, that is, where it is substantial and outnumbers R1b, there one always finds satem (Eastern) Indo-European languages.

    It is also pretty obvious that wherever one finds centum (Western) Indo-European languages, he also finds a substantial proportion of R1b.

    Coincidence?

    Not likely.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    If one takes the "groom for bride theory" then it may explain why the Basques speak Basque. If the Basque has roots in middle east, then someone who speak both the successor of the root language in middle east and Basque/(english at least), has the best chances to crack it.
    If its not gOrgian, then it can be another one down the road.

    Problem is, many languages in that region are written in Arabic. The middle east civilizations have writing records dating far back in time, so one of those protoarabic lingoes could be related.I am sure there are profis on the case who can trace it nowadays, loading computers with all they have, far more efficient than turning pages.


    Y Basque haplotype is 90% r1b or so. Plenty for a haplotype that speaks everywhere else ie. Even if we take, that ie in the west was spread by r1a kurgan culture, Basques who remained unaffected should have retained traces of proto R language shared by both R haplotypes. There is none. So the grooms must have been very isolated,not many at first and very good looking. Original Basques could have lived in one small village, like smerfs but not so goodlooking.


    Another theory would be invasion theory. Say, the Basques were originally r1b and spoke proto r language/western branch of pie
    and were invaded by non pie basque speakers, loosing the original language, keeping the DNA. Again, still, Basques,if they were rb1 group, would have kept some original r lingo.

    Hungarian springs to mind. Similar case if we follow the theory. They lost language,kept the dna, Bang in the middle of ie europe, not long ago.I don`t know a thing about Hungarian, but if they lost all pie to finnougric, the Basques by analogy could have lost proto r1b/west pie lingo and begun speaking Basque without preserving a thing from proto r1b/west pie lingo. Who were the invaders then?Basque speakers for sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • iberiandave
    replied
    Good discussion and contibution made for the forum to all of those who have contributed. I'll have to read this over a couple of times before I can absorb all of the info; thanks to all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Irubak
    So, maybe there was a chain of related tribes from Caucasus to Iberian peninsula?
    I think that is a distinct possibility. Trying to figure out to what y-haplogroup or groups they belonged may be impossible, that is, until somebody comes up with a reliable system for testing ancient y-dna. It doesn't seem likely the original Basques were R1b.

    Ellen Levy Coffman has recently posted on the Rootsweb DNA List about the apparent connection between ancient Basque mtDNA and the Near East.

    Great post, btw, Irubak. Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • Irubak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by freddie
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X