Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans and Y-Haplogroup R

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

  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    You are arguing that Central European men traded their daughters to "native" British Isles R1bs for trade goods?
    Or for the British daughters. You scratch my daughter and I'll scratch yours. I'm sure the men in Central Europe were as reluctant to marry their own sisters as the men in the British Isles were.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by paitenceofjob
    Spencer Wells discusses patrilocality in his book Journey of Man on p. 175, and he states that 70% of world societies practice this social behavior.

    Furs, beads, flint, precious stones and good hunting / guard dogs could have all been trade items. As the wave of advance came, cattle, pigs and goats would have been the commerce of matrimony. Women may have been exhanged for other women. Women in some cultures to this day are still purchased with cattle.

    These trade networks could have dispersed mtdna haplogroups very effeciently, much as airport travel disperses viruses today. As the mtdna haplogroup diversity grew, y-dna haplogroup diversity would have dminished through genetic drift. That's not to say all the men "stayed put". It's just they did not much nearly as much as the women.
    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.

    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, 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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    Semino et al. estimated the age of M173 by using the variation of three microsatellites, namely DYS19, YCAIIa, and YCAIIb. Therefore, their conclusions are not based on bald assumptions but scientific analysis. Perhaps you should read Semino's work more carefully.
    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.

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    If Semino's conclusions are such an easy target and biased, why wouldn't one of Semino's competitors have published something to the contrary? Perhaps Coffman will have something to offer .
    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.

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    In terms of your claim that my argument is simply an appeal to authority, at least it is based on some authority. If your claim is based in any way on science, please enlighten those of us who like to rely on authorities in order to reach an informed opinion.

    I will admit that you are right about M173=R1...I waited too long to edit my post .

    John
    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.
    Last edited by Stevo; 3 October 2006, 06:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • T E Peterman
    replied
    In "The Seven Daughters of Eve", by Bryan Sykes (which might be outdated info), he pointed out that in terms of mtDNA, the Basques lacked J (aka Jasmine). They had the other major groups (H, V, T, U, K, & X), but not J. All of the IE populations contained J. The interpretation was that the pop that brought J into Europe also brought the IE languages (not that all IE were necessarily J; IE just had J as one component; non-IE didn't). This goes back to the old observation of mine that if parents speak a different language & everything else being equal, the children will be more likely to pick up the mother's language than the father's.

    If the Basques were matri-local, this would do a lot to explain why they never got mt-J, but did get a heavy infusion of R1b.

    Timothy Peterman

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by paitenceofjob
    That's not to say all the men "stayed put". It's just they did not much nearly as much as the women.
    I believe the most important difference was that when men moved, they moved as clans or tribes, whereas women also moved individually.

    Leave a comment:


  • paitenceofjob
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    So, you are maintaining there was a such a huge trade in women between the British Isles and Central Europe that the mtDNA of the former came to resemble that of the latter and lost its "native" character?

    Central Europe traded its women to the British Isles, but the British Isles did not reciprocate in kind with its native women, is that it?

    The native men of Britain just stayed put and enjoyed an influx of Central European females that they bought for what? Furs? Beeswax?

    Yeah, that makes sense.

    Not.

    Spencer Wells discusses patrilocality in his book Journey of Man on p. 175, and he states that 70% of world societies practice this social behavior.

    Furs, beads, flint, precious stones and good hunting / guard dogs could have all been trade items. As the wave of advance came, cattle, pigs and goats would have been the commerce of matrimony. Women may have been exhanged for other women. Women in some cultures to this day are still purchased with cattle.

    These trade networks could have dispersed mtdna haplogroups very effeciently, much as airport travel disperses viruses today. As the mtdna haplogroup diversity grew, y-dna haplogroup diversity would have dminished through genetic drift. That's not to say all the men "stayed put". It's just they did not much nearly as much as the women.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    There is nothing to refute in what you quoted from Semino, et al, John.

    They offer no proof that R1b is aboriginal in Western Europe. They simply assert that it is.

    You offer their bald assertions as "proof," which is simply an appeal to authority, which is, naturally, not proof either.

    Semino, et al, like the authors of a number of other studies, simply assume R1b is aboriginal in Western Europe because they have accepted the conventional wisdom concerning the Basques. Their reports then contain assertions based on that basic assumption. They offer no actual evidence for them.

    BTW, the "preponderance of the science out there" does not prove R1b is aboriginal in Western Europe. It simply assumes it. The age of R1b says nothing about where it was at any given time.

    ...

    By the way, M173=R1, not R1b.
    Semino et al. estimated the age of M173 by using the variation of three microsatellites, namely DYS19, YCAIIa, and YCAIIb. Therefore, their conclusions are not based on bald assumptions but scientific analysis. Perhaps you should read Semino's work more carefully.

    If Semino's conclusions are such an easy target and biased, why wouldn't one of Semino's competitors have published something to the contrary? Perhaps Coffman will have something to offer .

    In terms of your claim that my argument is simply an appeal to authority, at least it is based on some authority. If your claim is based in any way on science, please enlighten those of us who like to rely on authorities in order to reach an informed opinion.

    I will admit that you are right about M173=R1...I waited too long to edit my post .

    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Semino, et al
    We estimated the age of M173 by using the variation of three microsatellites, namely DYS19, YCAIIa, and YCAIIb (22). Although an estimate of ~30,000 years for M173 must be interpreted cautiously (23), it is consistent with our hypothesis that M173 marks the Aurignac settlement in Europe or, at least, predates the LGM.
    What is that but an assertion based on the variation of three STRs? First, an estimate of the age of M173 (R1), then a leap across Europe to the Aurignac settlement!

    STR variation is a legitimate way to estimate the age of a y-haplogroup. But the Aurignac thing had to be an assumption, as there is nothing in the age of R1 to tie it to a particular location.

    One cannot legitimately say, "Oh, R1 is about 30,000 years old, therefore it must have been at the Grotte d'Aurignac in France among the Cro-Magnons back then!"

    That's kind of like saying, "John Smith is 86 years old, therefore he must have been at the Battle of Stalingrad!"

    Hey, isn't he old enough to have been there?

    Science!

    Right.

    Originally posted by Semino, et al
    The mutation is most frequent in central Eastern Europe and also occurs in Basques and Sardinians that have accumulated a subsequent mutation (M26) that distinguishes Eu8. The closest phylogenetic predecessor is the M89 mutation, from which the most important Middle Eastern lineages originated. We propose that M170 originated in Europe in descendants of men that arrived from the Middle East 20,000 to 25,000 years ago, who have been associated with the Gravettian culture (16). This migration may have coincided with that of mtDNA haplogroup H to Europe. It has been suggested that Gravettian and Aurignac groups coexisted for a few thousand years, maintaining their identities despite occasional contacts. During the LGM, Western Europe was isolated from Central Europe, where an Epi-Gravettian culture persisted in the area of present-day Austria, the Czech Republic, and the northern Balkans (16). After climatic improvement, this culture spread north and east (16). This finding is supported by the present Eu7 haplotype distribution. In this scenario, haplotype Eu8 would have originated in the western Paleolithic population during the LGM, as local differentiation of the M170 lineage. The frequency and the distribution of haplogroup H across Europe support gene flow between Gravettian and Western European Aurignac groups and suggest differential gender migratory phenomena (24)."
    Interesting. The assumption is that y-haplogroup I is "Gravettian," although there is no real proof of that.

    It is interesting that there are Basques who belong to that Sardinian clade of I1b, which is also found in the British Isles in small amounts.

    Semino, et al, then remark on "differential gender migratory phenomena," which is the same thing the Wilson, et al, study (2001) observed concerning British Isles mtDNA.

    Okay, so either there was an invasion of the British Isles by Central European women or, as Eki suggested, there was a thriving prehistoric trade in females between the two locations.

    Of course, there is a third alternative.

    The Central European-type females were already in place in the British Isles, and it was the men who moved in.
    Last edited by Stevo; 2 October 2006, 06:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    The problem with Stevo's theory about R1b introducing IE to western europe is that they are too ancient based on the preponderance of science out there. Yes R1bs are older in the east, but if they were in the east 40,000 years ago and in the west 30,000 years ago, how does that make any difference? Until someone convincingly refutes Semino and company, Stevo's theory remains implausible.
    There is nothing to refute in what you quoted from Semino, et al, John.

    They offer no proof that R1b is aboriginal in Western Europe. They simply assert that it is.

    You offer their bald assertions as "proof," which is simply an appeal to authority, which is, naturally, not proof either.

    Semino, et al, like the authors of a number of other studies, simply assume R1b is aboriginal in Western Europe because they have accepted the conventional wisdom concerning the Basques. Their reports then contain assertions based on that basic assumption. They offer no actual evidence for them.

    BTW, the "preponderance of the science out there" does not prove R1b is aboriginal in Western Europe. It simply assumes it. The age of R1b says nothing about where it was at any given time.

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    I do not believe that the germanic people were I1a and were subsequently conquered by the R1b people, who then came to dominate the distribution. I believe that the proto-germanic people were from a number of different haplogroups, particularly R1b and I1a, similar to today.
    John, who said, "the Germanic people were I1a and were subsequently conquered by the R1b people"?
    There were no "Germanic people" before the rise of Proto-German, and all those who spoke Proto-German and its successor tongues were Germanic people.

    What I said was that I1as and I1cs were non-Indo-European speakers whose language influenced the centum Indo-European introduced by the R1bs so that the Germanic consonant shift occurred.

    I did not mention anything about conquest or subjugation. R1bs could have introduced Indo-European to the I population in North Germany and Scandinavia via trade and intermarriage.

    By the way, M173=R1, not R1b.
    Last edited by Stevo; 2 October 2006, 05:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo

    Central Europe traded its women to the British Isles, but the British Isles did not reciprocate in kind with its native women, is that it?
    No, it was two-way traffic. That's why the differences in mtDNA between the British Isles and Central Europe diminished or even disappeared.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    I do not agree that R1b is classified as being present in western europe before the LGM simply because of the Basque. Semino et al. have not seriously been refuted by any paper I have read since. I quote:

    "We interpret the differentiation and the distribution of haplotypes Eu18 and Eu19 as signatures of expansions from isolated population nuclei in the Iberian peninsula and the present Ukraine, following the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). In fact, during this glacial period (20,000 to 13,000 years ago), human groups were forced to vacate Central Europe, with the exception of a refuge in the northern Balkans (16). Similar discrete patterns of the flora and fauna in Europe have been attributed to glaciation-modulated isolation followed by dispersal from climatic sanctuaries (18). This scenario is also supported by the finding that the maximum variation for microsatellites linked to Eu19 is found in Ukraine (19). In turn, the maximum variation for microsatellites linked to 49a,f Ht15 and its derivatives (and then to the Eu18 lineage) is in the Iberian peninsula (19). This is consistent with the diffusion of M173-marked Eu18 from its refuge after the LGM, in agreement with mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup V and some of the H lineages (20). Haplotype Eu19 has been also observed at substantial frequency in northern India and Pakistan (12) as well as in Central Asia (12). Its spread may have been magnified by the expansion of the Yamnaia culture from the "Kurgan culture" area (present-day southern Ukraine) into Europe and eastward, resulting in the spread of the Indo-European language (21). An alternative hypothesis of a Middle Eastern origin of Indo-European languages was proposed on the basis of archaeological data (3).

    We estimated the age of M173 by using the variation of three microsatellites, namely DYS19, YCAIIa, and YCAIIb (22). Although an estimate of ~30,000 years for M173 must be interpreted cautiously (23), it is consistent with our hypothesis that M173 marks the Aurignac settlement in Europe or, at least, predates the LGM.

    The polymorphism M170 represents another putative Paleolithic mutation whose age has been estimated to be ~22,000 years (22, 23). With the exception of idiosyncratic distributions indicative of recent gene flow, M170 is confined to Europe (Eu7). The mutation is most frequent in central Eastern Europe and also occurs in Basques and Sardinians that have accumulated a subsequent mutation (M26) that distinguishes Eu8. The closest phylogenetic predecessor is the M89 mutation, from which the most important Middle Eastern lineages originated. We propose that M170 originated in Europe in descendants of men that arrived from the Middle East 20,000 to 25,000 years ago, who have been associated with the Gravettian culture (16). This migration may have coincided with that of mtDNA haplogroup H to Europe. It has been suggested that Gravettian and Aurignac groups coexisted for a few thousand years, maintaining their identities despite occasional contacts. During the LGM, Western Europe was isolated from Central Europe, where an Epi-Gravettian culture persisted in the area of present-day Austria, the Czech Republic, and the northern Balkans (16). After climatic improvement, this culture spread north and east (16). This finding is supported by the present Eu7 haplotype distribution. In this scenario, haplotype Eu8 would have originated in the western Paleolithic population during the LGM, as local differentiation of the M170 lineage. The frequency and the distribution of haplogroup H across Europe support gene flow between Gravettian and Western European Aurignac groups and suggest differential gender migratory phenomena (24)."

    For those who do not know M173=R1b and M170=I1a.

    Semino's belief that R1b and I1a coexisted prehistorically mirrors my own belief. I do not believe that the germanic people were I1a and were subsequently conquered by the R1b people, who then came to dominate the distribution. I believe that the proto-germanic people were from a number of different haplogroups, particularly R1b and I1a, similar to today.

    I agree with Stevo that many scientific papers are given titles for non-scientific reasons. Books about celts and vikings are in high demand (I know I am constantly tempted to buy more books ).

    I still do not believe that IE was spread by invasion. I believe R1bs, I1as, etc. adopted IE as a common language for some reason (maybe trade?). They may even have spoken some version of proto-IE to begin with. There is no really good explanation to-date.

    The problem with Stevo's theory about R1b introducing IE to western europe is that they are too ancient based on the preponderance of science out there. Yes R1bs are older in the east, but if they were in the east 40,000 years ago and in the west 30,000 years ago, how does that make any difference? Until someone convincingly refutes Semino and company, Stevo's theory remains implausible.

    In terms of the Tocharians, they were around well after the LGM. They could be R1bs from europe who adopted IE and then travelled to the far east along the Silk Road. I don't see how this violates the existing orthodoxy . I have no difficulty in agreeing that R1bs introduced IE to China.

    Given the amount of SNP and STR data that is now available, why hasn't any legitimate scientist come out with a different perspective from Semino et al? Could it be that R1b are western europe's true aboriginals .

    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Remember the Uyghurs. How did they get to have such a high proportion of R1b?

    They claim descent from the Tocharians, who, like the modern Uyghurs, lived in what is now northwestern China.

    The Tocharians were Indo-Europeans who spoke a Western or centum speech akin to Celtic but not itself Celtic.

    The basic and fundamental division in the Indo-European languages is that between centum and satem, and it is fundamentally a West/East division, with rare exceptions, like Tocharian. Where that rare centum exception is found, one also finds a relatively high level of R1b, as in all of the other centum languages.

    That centum/satem, West/East split mirrors almost exactly the fundamental West/East, R1b/R1a split in y-haplogroup R.

    The obvious answer, it seems to me, is that R1as were the original spreaders of the satem Indo-European languages and that R1bs were the original spreaders of the centum or western branch of the Indo-European languages.
    Last edited by Stevo; 2 October 2006, 02:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    And why not?

    I suspect that women were treated as "trade commodity". FtDNA says that mtDNA H1b makes about 5% of H, which is clearly a European haplogroup, among the Finno-Ugric Mansis near the Ural mountains. I suspect the traders who brought Y-DNA N to Finland also took wives back to their place of origin:

    http://www.familytreedna.com/hclade2.html

    "H1b – H1b is detected at its highest frequency in Eastern Europe and North Central Europe. It is also found in about 5% of haplogroup H lineages in Siberian Mansis".
    So, you are maintaining there was a such a huge trade in women between the British Isles and Central Europe that the mtDNA of the former came to resemble that of the latter and lost its "native" character?

    Central Europe traded its women to the British Isles, but the British Isles did not reciprocate in kind with its native women, is that it?

    The native men of Britain just stayed put and enjoyed an influx of Central European females that they bought for what? Furs? Beeswax?

    Yeah, that makes sense.

    Not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    Originally Posted by Johnserrat: Does anyone know of a scientific paper that postulates that R1b entered western europe LESS than 8,700 years ago?



    I am really looking forward to reading Coffman's paper. Please let us know when that paper is released. I have seen no other paper that even argues that R1b arrived in Europe AFTER the LGM. If you and Coffman are right, this would be a revolutionary development.

    John
    Ellen Levy Coffman's paper is due to be published soon, but she did not give a specific date.

    If you would like to know the reason why you have seen no scientific papers that challenge the speculation (which is what it is) that R1b has been in Western Europe since the last Ice Age, I can tell you. First, it has nothing to do with science. The scientific evidence tells us things about R1b, but it does not tell us anything about where R1b was during the LGM. As a matter of fact, it does tell us that R1b gets older as one moves east across Europe, but that still leaves open the question of where the bulk of R1bs were during the LGM.

    The reason some geneticists believe R1b is the aboriginal W. Euro y-haplogroup comes down to a single people: the Basques.

    Historians in the 18th and 19th centuries were proposing that the Basques represented the remnants of the original native Western European population. That thinking has persisted. So, when it was discovered that the Basques are mostly (although not entirely) R1b, geneticists leapt to the conclusion that R1b is the aboriginal Western European y-haplogroup. It seems they did not stop to consider whether or not the original premise concerning the Basques was correct in the first place. They also apparently did not stop to consider whether or not the Basques have always been mostly R1b.

    As Ellen Levy Coffman has pointed out on the Rootsweb DNA List (her soon-to-be published paper deals with this topic) the Basques are not the pristine, isolated, aboriginal European population some consider them to be. Studies of ancient mtDNA from an old Basque cemetery revealed the presence of a mixture of mtDNA haplogroups and a connection to the Middle East. That connection does not exist for y-haplogroup R1b, however.

    The old Basque marriage custom of the groom coming 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.

    If Basque R1b represents the aboriginal W. Euro y-dna, it seems incredible that nowhere else in Western Europe, with its overwhleming level of R1b, was any similar non-Indo-European speech preserved. How odd.

    Not in insular Ireland or even the fastnesses of the Scottish Highlands or the Swiss or Bavarian Alps.

    Weird, huh?

    The Basque language has been classed by some linguists as a member of the Dene-Caucasian language family, a controversial viewpoint. If true, it would seem likely that the Basques were not originally R1b.

    I believe the unquestioning acceptance of an old, wrongheaded, 18th and 19th century tautology (i.e., that the Basques are the aboriginal W. Europeans) has led to the current misunderstanding of the place of R1b in the prehistory of Western Europe.

    Another problem with the current state of genetics papers in Western Europe is that none of them is value neutral. Everything is political. There is a certain amount of political capital for Irish researchers and others to maintain that the y-dna that predominates in Ireland has always been there. It is more appealing to some to think their ancestors are the longsuffering "natives" than to admit they might be relative newcomers in Western Europe. Such a view is also much more in keeping with the current fashion for political correctness than the old, traditional idea that the ancestors of most Western Europeans arrived as Indo-European invaders from the East.

    At any rate, a better understanding of the Basques, their dna, and their place in European prehistory should help clear things up.

    It would also be wise for researchers to remember that the Basques are an extremely small ethnic minority in Western Europe. It was never a good idea to base theories about the single most prolific y-haplogroup in Western Europe upon such an exceptional group.
    Last edited by Stevo; 2 October 2006, 02:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    The females moved from Central Europe to the British Isles while the males stayed put?

    And why not?

    I suspect that women were treated as "trade commodity". FtDNA says that mtDNA H1b makes about 5% of H, which is clearly a European haplogroup, among the Finno-Ugric Mansis near the Ural mountains. I suspect the traders who brought Y-DNA N to Finland also took wives back to their place of origin:

    http://www.familytreedna.com/hclade2.html

    "H1b – H1b is detected at its highest frequency in Eastern Europe and North Central Europe. It is also found in about 5% of haplogroup H lineages in Siberian Mansis".

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X