Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans and Y-Haplogroup R

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

  • #91
    Website Information

    I suggest Stevo, you read this theory.. It may give ideas. Btw, there are 4 pages.
    Paleolithic Indo-Europeans
    Last edited by Downer101; 4 December 2006, 04:55 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by lgmayka
      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.

      Wow that is very interesting. In this scenario then did J2, G and I1c come to Europe suring the Neolithic from the Middle East still? Or earlier possibly during the Mesolithic?



      Y-DNA: J2a*

      Comment


      • #93
        Excellent thread !
        Wonderful reading.

        How could Proto-Indo-European develop in the middle of the Eurasian Steppe ? In the middle of "nothing" ? Where can we find complex agriculture, urban life, trade, craft, army, States, hierarchies, organized religions and cultural systems - so complex words and languages !

        No complexity, no civilization !

        I would guess the Proto-Indo-Europeans were a mix of E3b,G, I, J, K, L and Rs too in Anatolia, the Aegean, Southern Caucasus, Iran. "Ethnic and linguistic" groups were always a mix of different Haplogroups.

        And we must remember that the Barbarians invasions after the Roman Empire haven't changed the original Latin-Romance languages of most of Western Europe, the newcomers that changed their language. How could the R alone "civilize" the world with the Proto-Indo-European language ? J1 was the Semitic Group, but J and J2 is everywhere from India to Iberia, from Greece to Italy and Central Europe. And why would the I-J continuum in Central Europe break a possible R continuum in Europe from Portugal to the Eurasian Steppe ?

        I would guess the Proto-Indo-Europeans were as mixed as we are nowadays.

        And why the Q haplogroup wouldn't have a related language to the R if they conquered "empty lands" to the East ?

        Just ideas for this debate.

        RCO

        Comment


        • #94
          I have remembered another thing. One of the early Jesuits in Brazil, a Basque, wrote that he had facility to understand the Tupi Indians language because it was "similar in the logic" to the Euskadi-Basque. Now with the modern genetic genealogy we can fly and think that may be the old Tupi language, from the Q Haplogroup had some relation with the old Basque language ?
          What a flight ?
          After that I am going to sleep !

          Thank you

          RCO

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Bracari
            Excellent thread !
            Wonderful reading.

            How could Proto-Indo-European develop in the middle of the Eurasian Steppe ? In the middle of "nothing" ? Where can we find complex agriculture, urban life, trade, craft, army, States, hierarchies, organized religions and cultural systems - so complex words and languages !

            No complexity, no civilization !

            I would guess the Proto-Indo-Europeans were a mix of E3b,G, I, J, K, L and Rs too in Anatolia, the Aegean, Southern Caucasus, Iran. "Ethnic and linguistic" groups were always a mix of different Haplogroups.

            And we must remember that the Barbarians invasions after the Roman Empire haven't changed the original Latin-Romance languages of most of Western Europe, the newcomers that changed their language. How could the R alone "civilize" the world with the Proto-Indo-European language ? J1 was the Semitic Group, but J and J2 is everywhere from India to Iberia, from Greece to Italy and Central Europe. And why would the I-J continuum in Central Europe break a possible R continuum in Europe from Portugal to the Eurasian Steppe ?

            I would guess the Proto-Indo-Europeans were as mixed as we are nowadays.

            And why the Q haplogroup wouldn't have a related language to the R if they conquered "empty lands" to the East ?

            Just ideas for this debate.

            RCO
            Fascinating that the Indo-Europeans developed in the early Neolithic. This also goes with the new dating of R1b around 17 000 ybp.. Unfortunately, Stevo declines this theory off the bat, he seems to be determined in his own theory. I'll wait until he has thoroughly read the essay. This article obviously shows logical evidence of Indo-European development! Although, I must say, I am highly interested in knowing how the Upper Paleolithic shamanism changed into the common Indo-European paganism..
            Last edited by Downer101; 4 December 2006, 08:26 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by J Man
              In this scenario then did J2, G and I1c come to Europe suring the Neolithic from the Middle East still? Or earlier possibly during the Mesolithic?
              If the dating is correct--that the three haplogroups you mention are 10-15 thousand years old--then perhaps they did expand as the glaciers receded. I guess that would be Mesolithic.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Bracari
                How could Proto-Indo-European develop in the middle of the Eurasian Steppe ? In the middle of "nothing" ? Where can we find complex agriculture, urban life, trade, craft, army, States, hierarchies, organized religions and cultural systems - so complex words and languages !

                No complexity, no civilization !
                ...
                And we must remember that the Barbarians invasions after the Roman Empire haven't changed the original Latin-Romance languages of most of Western Europe, the newcomers that changed their language. How could the R alone "civilize" the world with the Proto-Indo-European language ? J1 was the Semitic Group, but J and J2 is everywhere from India to Iberia, from Greece to Italy and Central Europe. And why would the I-J continuum in Central Europe break a possible R continuum in Europe from Portugal to the Eurasian Steppe ?
                ...
                And why the Q haplogroup wouldn't have a related language to the R if they conquered "empty lands" to the East ?
                1) Your description of the steppe peoples and their culture as "nothing" is incorrect and highly derogatory.

                2) Your basic question--as to how a people less advanced in the ways we usuually consider cultured, could nevertheless have swept across 1-1/2 continents, totally eliminating almost every language in their path--is indeed the strongest argument in favor of the conventional Kurgan hypothesis: That these "primitive" people nevertheless invented the wheel and domesticated the horse, together constructing the chariot and the wagon. This amazing new land mobility was an unmatched advantage. The most advanced cultures--in the Middle East and China--were strong enough to withstand and eventually assimilate this onslaught, but the less advanced cultures of Europe and Central Asia fell to it.

                3) The more advanced culture you describe was not present among the original Proto-Indo-Europeans. We know this because they did not have common words for such concepts. Here is a typical description of ancient Proto-Indo-European culture, reconstructed from linguistic evidence:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

                4) Your example of the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire is irrelevant to the Indo-European case, because the Romans already had a written language. Once a language is written down--and especially once it gains a significant body of literature--it can never completely die, and it has an enormous advantage over one that has little or none of its own writing.

                5) The so-called interjection of Hg I into central Europe, from the Balkans to Scandinavia, actually appears to consist of three distinct events. I1a, like Finnish N, apparently found refuge in Scandinavia from the onslaught of R, which apparently pushed west rather than north. I1c was apparently strong enough (militarily?) to assimilate Indo-European while avoiding genetic annihilation. I1b in central-eastern Europe (now called I1b1-Dinaric) now appears to be a rather recent northerly movement from the Balkans, as shown by the remarkable lack of haplotype spread:

                http://www.ysearch.org/search_result...matches_max=36

                Notice how, at the very revealing 67-marker level, I1b1-Dinaric is bunched up within a genetic distance of 18, beyond which there is no one all the way through a genetic distance of 36. This indicates that, at least north of the Balkans, I1b1-Dinaric is quite young.

                6) Q separated from R long before the spread of Proto-Indo-European. Q certainly has an amazing story of its own, but it is downright shocking that we find R1a in both ancient and modern Mongolia and China.

                Comment


                • #98
                  And that's what it says, good work!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Wow I am really enjoying this thread and I find it fascinating with all these new insights and questions. Personally I could see haplogroup R spreading the Indo-European languages around from the steppes, to me it makes sense. R1b could have been the big spreaders of the centum Indo-European languages in western Europe and R1a spread the satem Indo-European languages in the east.

                    These steppe people with the horse and chariot could have swept into Europe and with their experience in warfare and excellent weapons and horses could have pretty much anilihated a lot of the indigenous Neolithic population who were not accutomed to such warfare.

                    The indigenous groups such as haplogroups J1, J2, E3b, I1a, I1b, I1c and G were possibly mostly destroyed in the north with the exception of I1a in Scandinavia (which as Lawrence mentioned acted as a refuge) and I1c in certain pockets. These haplogroups possibly also had a very strong representation in the south of Europe and there were too many of them there for the Rs to completely take over and destroy them.

                    Now I know that this could easily also not be true but it is just cool to soeculate.





                    Y-DNA: J2a*

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=J Man]Wow I am really enjoying this thread and I find it fascinating with all these new insights and questions. Personally I could see haplogroup R spreading the Indo-European languages around from the steppes, to me it makes sense. R1b could have been the big spreaders of the centum Indo-European languages in western Europe and R1a spread the satem Indo-European languages in the east.

                      These steppe people with the horse and chariot could have swept into Europe and with their experience in warfare and excellent weapons and horses could have pretty much anilihated a lot of the indigenous Neolithic population who were not accutomed to such warfare.

                      The indigenous groups such as haplogroups J1, J2, E3b, I1a, I1b, I1c and G were possibly mostly destroyed in the north with the exception of I1a in Scandinavia (which as Lawrence mentioned acted as a refuge) and I1c in certain pockets. These haplogroups possibly also had a very strong representation in the south of Europe and there were too many of them there for the Rs to completely take over and destroy them.

                      Now I know that this could easily also not be true but it is just cool to soeculate. [QUOTE=J Man]

                      Just too bad that the european archeological, linguistic and genetic record does not support this speculation. I can't believe that Stevo is having such success with his pet theory...I'm a little jealous in fact!

                      Amazing how western europe's oldest y-dna haplogroup can invade europe and spread IE by conquering more recent y-dna haplogroups. I would like to steppe into this magical time machine myself.

                      John

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Johnserrat
                        Just too bad that the european archeological, linguistic and genetic record does not support this speculation.
                        ...
                        Amazing how western europe's oldest y-dna haplogroup can invade europe and spread IE by conquering more recent y-dna haplogroups.
                        Linguistics clearly tells us that Indo-European overran 1-1/2 continents within the past 6000 years or so.

                        Genetics tells us three stories:
                        1) European mtDNA shows strong influence from Balkan and Middle Eastern DNA.
                        2) European autosomal DNA shows strong influence from Balkan and Middle Eastern DNA.
                        3) European yDNA shows very little influence from Balkan and Middle Eastern DNA, and instead an overwhelming influence from central-west Asia.

                        Either an army of women came from the Middle East, killed most of the women of Europe, and took their place, or--far more likely--an army of men came from western Asia, killed most of the men of Europe, and took their place.

                        Archaeology can say whatever it wishes--it often changes its mind anyway--as long as it does not contradict the much clearer linguistic and genetic evidence.

                        Your comment on the age of haplogroups is mistaken. The best study on haplogroup age I've seen is that of McEwan, because he uses full 37-marker haplotypes:

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

                        His TMRCA for R1b is 7390 years. In contrast, he arrives at these ages for some older haplogroups:

                        E3b, 17721 years
                        I1b, 21042 years
                        J1, 19848 years
                        K2, 18394 years
                        Q, 17440 years

                        Obviously, these do not have near the accuracy their precision would imply, but nevertheless they give the correct general impression that R1b is quite young in comparison to E3b, I1b-Western, J1, K2, and Q.

                        Comment


                        • Igmayka: I agree that IE languages became prevalent in Europe over the past 6,000 or more years. However, the critical issue is whether this occurred by way of invasion or not.

                          McEwan's disclaimer is worth noting:

                          "These analyses are being undertaken to investigate the history of the R1b clusters, no claims are made about these clusters nor the methods used. They are provided for information purposes only. Specifically, many of the R1b clusters are not well supported, in addition genealogical and anthro-genealogical STR mutation estimates are a hotly disputed area."

                          Let's see what McEwan says himself about R1b:

                          "In the current context it must be remembered that these are estimates of the TMRCA for the cluster, they do not provide estimates of the time since divergence of various clusters, especially where these correspond to haplogroups. This is because narrow bottlenecks especially during the last ice age may mean the last common ancestor of a group as distinct from when the SNP derived haplogroup mutation occurred may differ. Similarly, the estimates are subject to considerable error. Perhaps what is surprising is the age estimates for the TMRCA of 7390 (1178) for R1b when it is known that the R1b1c SNP must have occurred before the start of the LGM approximately 20 Kyr bp. In part this has to do with sampling, because most individuals will be from the Iberian LGM refugia which rapidly expanded from a small group after the end of the last ice age about 9000 yrs bp. However, a further factor to be born in mind is the “effective” mutation rate used. It may still be too high."

                          Seems to be a sensible comment in light of the research done by Rootsi and others. I believe you have relied on McEwan's results in a way he has not intended.

                          In terms of Neolithic influences, I do not believe there is any research that shows levels in excess of 20%. If you do have such research, please provide the links.

                          There remains no archeological evidence to-date of a major Neolithic population replacement, making the Paleolithic survival theory the most probable at this time.

                          John

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lgmayka
                            Linguistics clearly tells us that Indo-European overran 1-1/2 continents within the past 6000 years or so.

                            Genetics tells us three stories:
                            1) European mtDNA shows strong influence from Balkan and Middle Eastern DNA.
                            2) European autosomal DNA shows strong influence from Balkan and Middle Eastern DNA.
                            3) European yDNA shows very little influence from Balkan and Middle Eastern DNA, and instead an overwhelming influence from central-west Asia.

                            Either an army of women came from the Middle East, killed most of the women of Europe, and took their place, or--far more likely--an army of men came from western Asia, killed most of the men of Europe, and took their place.

                            Archaeology can say whatever it wishes--it often changes its mind anyway--as long as it does not contradict the much clearer linguistic and genetic evidence.

                            Your comment on the age of haplogroups is mistaken. The best study on haplogroup age I've seen is that of McEwan, because he uses full 37-marker haplotypes:

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

                            His TMRCA for R1b is 7390 years. In contrast, he arrives at these ages for some older haplogroups:

                            E3b, 17721 years
                            I1b, 21042 years
                            J1, 19848 years
                            K2, 18394 years
                            Q, 17440 years

                            Obviously, these do not have near the accuracy their precision would imply, but nevertheless they give the correct general impression that R1b is quite young in comparison to E3b, I1b-Western, J1, K2, and Q.

                            I agree with what you say on this Lawrence. It seems much more likely that the the indigenous men of Europe were killed by invaders from the east and their Y-DNA replaced by the invaders DNA while the indigenous women were then taken as wives by the invaders. It only makes sense that if most of European mtDNA and autosomal DNA points to a Balkan Near Eastern origin then the original Y-DNA should have too.



                            Y-DNA: J2a*

                            Comment


                            • Just thought I would add this in as well I thought these sites were interesting. I do not know how reliable Wikipedia really is but these are interesting none the less.


                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y...NA_haplogroups

                              Here is a snipet from the second site:

                              Groups descended from Haplogroup F (GR)
                              The groups descending from haplogroup F are found in some 90% of the world's population, but almost exclusively outside of sub-Saharan Africa. The mutation of IJ corresponds to a wave of migration out of the Middle East or Western Asia some 45 kya that subsequently spread into Europe (Cro-Magnon). Haplogroup G originated in the Middle East or Caucasus, or perhaps further east as far as Pakistan some 30 kya, and spread to Europe with the Neolithic Revolution. Haplogroup H probably occurred in India some 30-40 kya, and remains prevalent there, spreading westwards in historical times with the gypsy migration. Haplogroup K probably originated in southwestern Asia and spread widely to Africa, Eurasia, Australia and the South Pacific.


                              Note that haplogroup IJ is the haplogroup that both haplogroups I and J stem from.



                              Y-DNA: J2a*

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by lgmayka
                                Genetics tells us three stories:
                                1) European mtDNA shows strong influence from Balkan and Middle Eastern DNA.
                                2) European autosomal DNA shows strong influence from Balkan and Middle Eastern DNA.
                                3) European yDNA shows very little influence from Balkan and Middle Eastern DNA, and instead an overwhelming influence from central-west Asia.

                                Either an army of women came from the Middle East, killed most of the women of Europe, and took their place, or--far more likely--an army of men came from western Asia, killed most of the men of Europe, and took their place.
                                You make a very strong point, which I have to agree with. This is in line with Ellen Levy-Coffman's new paper in JOGG, which has been discussed on various lists in the last few days. In my mind your point is indisputable, the only question being the timeline for all this.

                                Did R1b arrive in Europe around the time of LGM or slightly after, which made it easier to replace the existing yDNA haplogroups in Europe (probably originating from the Near East and Balkans or possibly north Africa), since the population in Europe would have been small at that time? Or did R1b arrive in Europe significantly after the Ice Age had ended, which would be more in line with McEwan's estimates for the haplogroup ages? In that case we're talking about major wars resulting in large-scale population replacement. I would think that there would be some kind of legend or folklore we'd hear about regading that kind of genocidal cataclysm. So I lean more to the first possibility, of an earlier arrival of R1b in Europe.

                                Of course, your statement above about an "army of women from the Middle East" could be true. Maybe those Amazon tribes of women warriors were more numerous and powerful than the legends say! (Just kidding.)

                                Mike Maddi
                                Last edited by MMaddi; 5 December 2006, 12:10 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X