Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans and Y-Haplogroup R

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

  • freddie
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • freddie
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by Stevo; 11 October 2006, 07:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul_Johnsen
    replied
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by paitenceofjob

    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.
    Last edited by Stevo; 9 October 2006, 07:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • paitenceofjob
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    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.

    Originally posted by Stevo
    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?


    Originally posted by Stevo
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    Do you really believe that all of these authors, and the authorities whom they rely upon to support their conclusions, have built their entire deck of cards upon the erroneous presumption that the Basque are virgin specimen of aboriginal Europeans?
    Yes, I do.

    Read what they say.

    "We interpret this to mean . . ."

    "[T]he phylogeographic pattern of R1b3-
    M269 lineages in Europe suggest . . ."

    "The phylogenetic and spatial distribution of its equivalent in Europe . . . the R1-M173 (xM17) . . . implies. . ."

    That is the language of speculation.

    The last two phrases mean, "Based on where we see a lot of this stuff now . . ."

    No real, hard evidence is ever offered for the speculation that R1b has been in Western Europe since before the LGM. It's all a matter of the interpretation of facts that are seen and described as implying or suggesting what the authors speculate to be true.

    The authors of these papers approach their subject assuming that R1b is aboriginal in W. Europe because they still hold the faulty belief that the Basques are the remnant of the first peoples of the region.

    I am not awed by titles that are not accompanied by compelling arguments.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    No, John. The point is WHERE R1b was and when, not how old it is. Your argument here is kind of a "bait and switch" tactic: Semino, et al, used science to estimate the age of R1b, therefore they must be right when they label it as Aurignacian. The latter conclusion does not follow logically upon the former.

    Semino, et al, could be right about the age of R1b (although their paper itself urges caution at that stage) but wrong when it speculates about a connection between R1b and the Aurignacian settlement and culture. There is no science that currently connects the two.

    R1b's closest genetic relatives are all in Eastern Europe and Asia. The oldest R1b itself is in the Ural-Volga region. The great bulk of R1b is found where centum Indo-European languages are spoken, just as the great bulk of R1a is found where satem Indo-European languages are spoken.

    Because of the Basque anomaly, we are to believe that R1b left Central Asia sometime during the Paleolithic Period, crossed all of Europe, and holed up in Iberia during the last Ice Age, re-emerging and spreading from there at its end. It eventually became, as it is today, the most prolific and populous y-haplogroup in Western Europe and possibly all of Europe. Meanwhile, R1a and the other subdivisions of R just stayed where they were for the time being.

    Of course, there is no proof that this occurred. The "proof" is that there is a lot of R1b in Western Europe today.

    Indo-European languages, in this scenario, were spread to predominately R1b Western Europe by some unknown means. R1as have been connected with IE in the East, but there is not enough R1a in the West to account for its spread that way. What R1a is in the West can be accounted for by later, historically-documented movements.

    The very obvious connection between R1b and the centum Indo-European languages has apparently gone unexplored.

    No one said they were an "easy target" or biased. But the "conclusions" that R1b has been in W. Europe since before the LGM and is connected to the Aurignacian culture and Cro-Magnon man are entirely speculative. They are really based on two things: 1) There's a lot of R1b in W. Europe now, and 2) the assumption that the Basques represent the W. European aboriginal remnant.

    The first reason is no good reason at all. The second has already been shown by Levy-Coffman and others to be incorrect.

    Her forthcoming paper should entirely put the Basques=Euro-aborigines question to rest.

    Arguments based on authority are insufficient in and of themselves when the authority alone is all that is offered as "proof."

    "Semino, et al, believe R1b has been in W. Europe since been before the LGM" is only a good argument if there is some real substantive evidence behind that belief. There is not.

    I have already offered some authority for what I am arguing. You missed it.

    Of course, what I am offering is my own opinion, but it is not without basis in fact. I have already cited evidence to support it.

    You, on the other hand, have merely appealed to the speculations of geneticists. Those speculations are worthy of serious consideration and respect, but they should not be accepted hook, line, and sinker merely because "experts" have engaged in them.

    It is fairly to easy to see they are unproven and really rest on a pretty flimsy foundation.

    Stevo: Have you read Cinnioglu et al.'s paper titled: Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia?

    http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publication...4_p127-148.pdf

    "Role of R1b3-M269 in the Aurignacian and Neolithic eras

    Haplogroup R1b3-M269 is one of the most common binary
    lineages observed in Turkey. The phylogenetic and
    spatial distribution of its equivalent in Europe (Cruciani et
    al. 2002), the R1-M173 (xM17) lineage for which considerable
    data exist (Semino et al. 2000a; Wells et al. 2001;
    Kivisild et al. 2003) implies that R1b3-M269 was well established
    throughout Paleolithic Europe, probably arriving
    from West Asia contemporaneous with Aurignacian
    culture. Although the phylogeographic pattern of R1b3-
    M269 lineages in Europe suggest that R1-M173* ancestors
    first arrived from West Asia during the Upper Paleolithic,
    we cannot deduce if R1b3-M269 first entered Anatolia
    via the Bosporus isthmus or from an opposite eastward
    direction. However, archeological evidence supports
    the view of the arrival of Aurignacian culture to Anatolia
    from Europe during the Upper Paleolithic rather than
    from the Iranian plateau (Kuhn 2002).
    Haplogroup R1b3-M269 occurs at 40–80% frequency
    in Europe and the associated STR variance suggests that
    the last ice age modulated R1b3-M269 distribution to
    refugia in Iberia and Asia Minor from where it subsequently
    radiated during the Late Upper Paleolithic and
    Holocene. The R1b3-M269 related, but opposite TaqI
    p49a, f ht 15 and ht35 distributions reflect the re-peopling
    of Europe from Iberia and Asia Minor during that period.
    The R1b3-M269 variances and expansion time estimates
    of Iberian and Turkish lineages are similar to each other
    (Table 2) but higher than observed elsewhere (Table 4).
    Low variances for R1b3-M269 lineages have also been
    reported for Czech and Estonian populations (Kivisild et
    al. 2003).
    In contrast, the R1-M173 related but offsetting clade
    R1a1-M17, is frequent (30–60%) in East Europe, Central
    Asia, and Northwest India (Semino et al. 2000a; Wells et
    al. 2001; Passarino et al. 2001; Kivisild et al. 2003). This
    pronounced R1-M173 related Y-chromosome substructure
    contrasts to the observed uniform frequency spectrum
    of the major mitochondrial DNA haplogroups in Europe.
    The higher frequency of R1a1-M17 lineages in eastern
    Turkey is consistent with an entry into Anatolia via the
    Iranian plateau where the associated variance is appreciably
    higher (Quintana-Murci et al. 2001). The most common
    R1a1-M17 haplotype in Armenia (Weale et al. 2001)
    matches the most common in Turkey."

    Do you really believe that all of these authors, and the authorities whom they rely upon to support their conclusions, have built their entire deck of cards upon the erroneous presumption that the Basque are virgin specimen of aboriginal Europeans?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X