User Tag List

View Poll Results: Did the proto-Indo-Europeans carry Y-DNA R1b?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    23 38.33%
  • No

    25 41.67%
  • Maybe

    8 13.33%
  • I don't have an opinion

    4 6.67%
Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 213

Thread: R1b not proto-Indo-European2394 days old

  1. #41
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Alaron's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-07-04
    Posts
    435
    Gender
    Albania United States Union for the Mediterranean

    Default

    It's highly unlikely that R1b was present among PIE. Maybe some of R1b subclades were late Indo-Europeans who were Indo-Europeanized in Central Europe.



    Polako has written this blog post.

    The mystery of R1b has finally been solved for me, thanks to the following three abstracts from the DNA in Forensics 2012 conference booklet. Basically, I’m now convinced it’s a lineage that expanded across Western and Central Europe after arriving on the continent from the Near East during the Neolithic.

    Note the words used in the abstracts, referring to the spread of R1b as "rapid" and "extreme". This is important, because the fact that this was an explosive event, explains why R1b hasn't yet been found in any ancient DNA samples from Europe until the late Neolithic. In other words, to find it in Europe before and even during its main early expansion, we need to test very specific remains, belonging to cultures that facilitated this expansion.

    Indeed, I expect that R1b was all over Western and Central Europe like a rash by the late Neolithic, so its recent discovery in 4,700-year-old Bell Beaker remains from Germany makes perfect sense (see here).
    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2012/0...cing-data.html

    So maritime Bell Beakers made a quick conquest of Western and then Central Europe. What language did they spoke?

    Criticized Vasconic and Afro-Asiatic(Semitidic)?



    Otherwise the only ones propagating about R1b/Afro-Asiatic theory are EliasAlucard and Agrippa.
    Last edited by Alaron; 2012-09-04 at 18:26.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  3. #42
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Jonny's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-05-18
    Posts
    4,698
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    T2b
    England

    Default

    ^ So that explains how the Haplogroup got here, but doesn't enlighten us as to how they all came to adopt IE languages.

    Perhaps the seeming similarity between the bell beaker region and the Celtic speaking region is a red herring. They can't have carried an IE language when they arrived in Europe at that date, can they?

    But at the same time, how would one group of people (R1a) manage to get the other half of the continent (R1b) to adopt a totally different language, while leaving very little genetic evidence, no evidence of their culture being adopted widescale and the specific language family (Celtic) being adopted in only that area with relatively little overlap.
    Last edited by Jonny; 2012-09-04 at 18:09.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jonny For This Useful Post:

    Alaron (2012-09-04), Padre Organtino (2012-09-04)

  5. #43
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2014-04-22 @ 00:42
    Join Date
    2012-05-19
    Posts
    134
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    I2a-L-147+ (Din-N)
    mtDNA
    U5a1b3
    Metaethnos
    European
    Ethnicity
    Ukrainian
    Canada Ukraine

    Default

    An ancient but still useful reference is the work of the great Celticist Henri Hubert. Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Hubert

    One of his better points was that Halstatt and La Tene, while the most flamboyant (and later) examples of Celticism, were hardly the beginning. It led him to conclude that the first wave of Celts arrived in Britain long before Halstatt.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to dmytro For This Useful Post:

    EliasAlucard (2012-11-04)

  7. #44
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Jonny's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-05-18
    Posts
    4,698
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    T2b
    England

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmytro View Post
    An ancient but still useful reference is the work of the great Celticist Henri Hubert. Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Hubert

    One of his better points was that Halstatt and La Tene, while the most flamboyant (and later) examples of Celticism, were hardly the beginning. It led him to conclude that the first wave of Celts arrived in Britain long before Halstatt.
    But we have to be very careful about equating "celtic" culture with "celtic" language without solid evidence.
    In Britain today, we speak a Germanic language, use a Latin alphabet, worship various Middle Eastern and Asian Gods and use products made all over the world.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Jonny For This Useful Post:

    Jaska (2012-09-04)

  9. #45
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2014-04-22 @ 00:42
    Join Date
    2012-05-19
    Posts
    134
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    I2a-L-147+ (Din-N)
    mtDNA
    U5a1b3
    Metaethnos
    European
    Ethnicity
    Ukrainian
    Canada Ukraine

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny View Post
    But we have to be very careful about equating "celtic" culture with "celtic" language without solid evidence.
    In Britain today, we speak a Germanic language, use a Latin alphabet, worship various Middle Eastern and Asian Gods and use products made all over the world.
    Very true. In the absence of reliable historical documentation about the Celts of Britain prior to Caesar all that one can do is to hypothesize on the basis of linguistic analysis (just as tricky as DNA) and retrospective archaeology (also tricky). Anyway there seems little difficulty in accepting the thesis of massive language replacement in Britain during the first millennium CE.

  10. #46
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Paul_Johnsen's Avatar
    Last Online
    2012-09-06 @ 17:55
    Join Date
    2009-10-26
    Posts
    308
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a1
    mtDNA
    H13a1a1
    Metaethnos
    European
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Phenotype
    Borreby + nordic
    Religion
    Cod
    Norway

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post

    For R1b-P311 to be proto-Indo-European, it has to fulfill the following requirements:

    1) Correlation with non-European Indo-European speakers, such as Kurds, Persians, Indians and so on.
    2) Found in aDNA from known Indo-European archaeological sites, such as the Tarim Basin (Centum speakers), Yamnaya and so on.

    So far, R-P311 has failed both requirements, and we can safely rule it out as a PIE subclade, per Occam's razor.
    NO!!!! For R1b-P311 to be considered PIE. IT HAS TO HAVE BEEN PRESENT IN PIE-PEOPLE.

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    By the way:

    http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...1b_Y-DNA.shtml

    ^^ It's funny how Maciamo conjectures R1b in the proto-Indo-Europeans, without any evidence.
    Yes, typical from eupedia. I am not a fan.

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    You know what they say about certainty...

    “The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” —Bertrand Russell

    This is an excellent quote. You should take lesson from it (like I did when I made the statement you quoted. Please note the word: "pretty").

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    As far as I'm concerned, R-P311 was non-Indo-European speaking and at some point, Indo-Europeanised by R1a males.
    And I am not concerned with what you think, but why you think this. I am not impressed with your evidence. Your constant insistences is not useful to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    How does that make it a PIE marker?
    I didn't say it did.

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    R1b has highest diversity in Anatolia, not in the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
    This is true. However the differences isn't statistically significant for R1b-P311. This subclade could be from Eastern Europe potentially. For that matter it is consivable that R1a-M417 itself orignated in Anatolia.

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    You a believer in the Anatolian hypothesis?
    Not really. I think the Kurgan hypothesis works well for explaining the living IE-languages. I do however believe that the Anatolian branch branched of from the rest of IE much earlier than about 6,000 years ago, and as such would not fit into the Kurgan-model.


    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    I repeat: dating of proto-Indo-European has nothing to do with the dating of proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic may have evolved anywhere between 2,000 BC to 500 BC, that still doesn't affect when proto-Indo-European originated, unless of course, if you can find evidence for the existence of proto-Germanic at 9,000 BC, which would logically have to set proto-Indo-European before 9,000 BC, but such evidence does not exist. And if proto-Indo-European actually originated 9,000 years ago, proto-Germanic could have originated at 500 BC even so, because there's no fixed rate for language evolution; some languages/dialects go through a much more rapid evolution than their sister/cousin languages. So with a PIE at say, 7,000 BC, you can still have proto-Germanic at 500 BC, and so on.

    Proto-Indo-European is dated independently of proto-Germanic, based on the reconstructed vocabulary of PIE words denoting flora, fauna and technology (linguistic palaeontology), which gives PIE its own date, time and geography in the archaeological record; linguistic palaeontology is the best way to date a language family/group based on the environmental fingerprint each language family has. The age of PIE is also not negotiable; it's not something you push back five thousand years based on glottochronology, and the age of PIE is not something you "predict", and similar nonsense; only the archaeological record compatible with the known environmental vocabulary in PIE sets the age of PIE. If you read something about linguistics for a change instead of Y-STR and Y-SNP mutations, you'd understand this.
    I have read other things as well including the cited paper, which you clearly haven't read. I suggest you do.


    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    Yes, and it's the reason why R1a-M17+ / R1a-M198+ (aka R1a1a+) is the proto-Indo-European Y-DNA, because it's the only haplotype that correlates with the Indo-European languages in Europe and in Asia.

    My logic is that PIE was developed purely by male descendants of one man, whose Y-DNA was R1a1a* (R1a-M17+ and R1a-M198+ mutations), and that at the time of R1a-Z93+ and R1a-283+, proto-Indo-European was a dying language. The group evolutionary strategy of this one man, carrying R1a1a, was to kill off other foreign males, and that's why during the proto-Indo-European period, there were no R1b males in the PIE urhiemat, or I1, I2 and so on (actually, there may have been some non-Indo-European I2 at the western edges of Yamnaya, given its vicinity to Cucuteni-Tripolye).

    The proto-Indo-European males were not one or two men sharing thousands of women. They were a relatively large group of males, all fairly closely related and descended from the same R1a1a* ancestor. If they would have been genetically tested, they'd probably all show up as tenth generation cousins on 23andMe's Relative Finder.

    As far as I'm concerned, R1a-L664+ is Indo-European too.

    You know what's funny here? I remember Ezana aggrandising you at some point back on AF (or maybe it was HBF), when he compared me with you, and according to him, how much better educated you were on haplogroups and so on. I can't remember why he compared me with you of all people, but it was part of the usual "Elias knows nothing" mantra they had going on at the time in their social clique. It was ridiculous of Ezana. And not to belittle you or anything, but I'm not impressed by your skills on the subject. This is where I teach you a thing or two about your own Y-DNA.

    Anyone who knows anything about haplogroups, also knows that Y-SNP mutations are rare, because SNPs are relatively stable. So that's why during thousands of years and all over Europe and Asia, R1a-M417+ only has a few Y-SNP sub-branches. Not even with Y-STR (which is less stable and mutates faster than Y-SNP) you'd have only two men migrating out of the urheimat in different directions and simultaneously evolving two different Y-STRs; the chances for that happening are one in a billion. In other words, these Y-SNP mutations take their time, and they are the result of separation during a long time, many descendants and rapid evolution.

    The original R1a-Z93+ and R1a-Z283+ males were closely related, and both of them came from the same R1a-Z85+ grandpa. By the time of proto-Indo-Iranian, there was a group of R1a males who all carried the Z93+ mutation and they were together migrating south-east from Andronovo. At this time, they were still genetically European, which their modern descendants in Iran and India aren't. It's possible, of course, that R1a-Z93* wasn't the proto-Indo-Iranian marker, but rather that R1a-Z93+ was a pan-Tocharian-Aryan clade. More deep-clade research needs to be done on the Tarim/Scythian mummies.

    Absurd as it may be, it's how it went down, and the Z93+ and Z283+ markers attest to that. Let me know when you find an R1b Y-SNP with a distribution in both Asia and Europe along the lines of Indo-European expansions. Then we can talk.

    No, there weren't:

    “All linguistic evidence suggests that Proto-Indo-European society was patrilineal in descent and male dominated according to that much overworked term patriarchal.”
    — J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, ISBN 050005052X, p. 123

    ^^ The linguistic evidence corroborates that the proto-Indo-Europeans were very adamant about determining ancestry after the male lineage, and judging by the Y-DNA frequencies, they didn't allow non-R1a1a males (of course, without knowing anything about their haplogroups) into their group. This is classical male tribalism.
    The fact that sciety was partrilieal in decent and male dominated, does not mean that there would only be one single haplogroup with a TMRCA at the same time as the proto-language. The same thing can be said for Iceland, and you can find plenty of different haplogroups in Iceland. One man does not make a people.

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    The age estimate of R1b (all subclades; European or otherwise) is of minor importance. What's of major importance is that highest R1b diversity is roughly in Anatolia, whereas highest R1a diversity is in eastern Europe. The PIE urheimat was in eastern Europe.

    What's also of major importance is that R-M17+ correlates perfectly with PIE from Eulau, Germany to Krasnoyarsk, Siberia—already during the bronze age. Unless you believe that's a development since the stone age of inexplicably wide nomadic R1a migrations? A more parsimonious explanation would be that proto-Indo-European R1a males expanded rapidly from Yamnaya to Germany and Siberia with the domesticated horse. Show me any R1b subclade that matches the Eulau-Krasnoyarsk pattern, and I'll revise my view. Until then, I expect the R1b=PIE crowd to just shut the hell up already.

    There is enough evidence. It's a matter of how biologically correct one is capable to interpret and understand the available scientific evidence.

    It's not irrelevant at all. R1b-V88 is very relevant, because it confirms that R1b descendants didn't speak IE languages. Had R1b had any correlation with PIE, the R1b-V88 descendants wouldn't be speaking the Afro-Asiatic Chadic languages, but rather, an Indo-European-like language, a sort of sister/cousin language to PIE. Moreover, the fact that R1b in Europe is mostly found in
    western and southern Europe, it's exactly why R1b has no PIE association whatsoever.

    Poll added.

    //mod
    The TMRCA for R1b-V88 and R1b-P311 is what about 14,000 years. This is makes it utterly meanigless when it comes to the PIE-question.

    Btw Poll should include "maybe"

  11. #47
    Established Member
    Member
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-01-29
    Posts
    6,302
    Location
    New York, US
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    G1*
    mtDNA
    HV4a2a
    Metaethnos
    Mesopotamian
    Ethnicity
    Suraya
    Religion
    Transhumanism
    United States Assyria United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    You know what's funny here? I remember Ezana aggrandising you at some point back on AF (or maybe it was HBF), when he compared me with you, and according to him, how much better educated you were on haplogroups and so on. I can't remember why he compared me with you of all people, but it was part of the usual "Elias knows nothing" mantra they had going on at the time in their social clique. It was ridiculous of Ezana. And not to belittle you or anything, but I'm not impressed by your skills on the subject. This is where I teach you a thing or two about your own Y-DNA.

    Anyone who knows anything about haplogroups, also knows that Y-SNP mutations are rare, because SNPs are relatively stable. So that's why during thousands of years and all over Europe and Asia, R1a-M417+ only has a few Y-SNP sub-branches. Not even with Y-STR (which is less stable and mutates faster than Y-SNP) you'd have only two men migrating out of the urheimat in different directions and simultaneously evolving two different Y-STRs; the chances for that happening are one in a billion. In other words, these Y-SNP mutations take their time, and they are the result of separation during a long time, many descendants and rapid evolution.
    I value Paul Johnsen's opinions. Wish he would post more often.
    I [Nebuchadnezzar] made a trench searching for the old foundation deposits ( . . . ), and I found the foundation of Naram-Sin, the king of Babylon, a remote ancestor, and I did not remove his inscription, but put my own inscription together with his inscription.
    The Pious King: Royal Patronage of Temples
    By Caroline Waerzeggers

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Humanist For This Useful Post:

    Paul_Johnsen (2012-09-06)

  13. #48
    Regular Member
    Race Scientist nuadha's Avatar
    Last Online
    2013-09-11 @ 06:04
    Join Date
    2012-05-28
    Posts
    135
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polako
    Who are these people?
    Perhaps your focusing on my calling the beakers an early ie group, but the idea that beakers introduced ie to central/western European is pretty common due to the overlap of beaker and Celtic.

    Quote Originally Posted by polako
    The fact that the Bell Beakers spread from Portugal means they couldn't have been early Indo-Europeans.
    Beaker you mean...

    It's not that simple. I already made a lengthy post at your site (which has been removed!!!) explaining that 1) iberia is not the only male sourced spread in the beaker/bell beaker world. Bohemia was an independent source and hungry could have been too. 2) women also migrated in the beaker/bell beaker world and elsewhere. So if the women migrated with the men (best guess), how would western europe have added enough autosomal "North European" to explain the levels of today?

    And not only do we know that women migrated to Central Europe during the bronze age, but the bronze age beaker women are uniquely connected to Andronovo women (U2e, U4, U5a1). The latter being people you think are IE.

    So, how do you explain the migration of women to central Europe, the connections of Central European women to Central Asian women, and the autosomal changes to Central Europe around the same time if they aren't connected by a simple event of pre beakers moving west out of eastern Europe?

    Oh, the beaker-andronovo connection was pointed out by jean http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/i...7995#msg137995

    Quote Originally Posted by polako
    Because the early Indo-Europeans were highly patriarchal and patrilineal...
    Do you think one single guy invented PIE, which then only passed to his sons? That makes no sense!!! PIE involved a group of men who could surely have both r1a and r1b.

    Quote Originally Posted by polako
    it's no coincidence that all the remains tested to date from the early Indo-European period across Eurasia are basically 100% R1a.
    That's begging the question.

    Note that I haven't actually argued/supported the idea that pre beaker and r1b were part of PIE. What I did support, is the idea that beaker was an ie group that moved out of Eastern Europe.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to nuadha For This Useful Post:

    rosco (2012-09-07)

  15. #49
    Established Member
    Junior Member Jaska's Avatar
    Last Online
    2016-12-19 @ 19:55
    Join Date
    2010-06-26
    Posts
    1,472
    Location
    Tuusula
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    N1c1
    mtDNA
    H5a1e
    Metaethnos
    Uralic
    Ethnicity
    Finn
    Phenotype
    Fallen angel
    Politics
    ...sucks
    Religion
    Very own
    Finland

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny
    But at the same time, how would one group of people (R1a) manage to get the other half of the continent (R1b) to adopt a totally different language, while leaving very little genetic evidence, no evidence of their culture being adopted widescale and the specific language family (Celtic) being adopted in only that area with relatively little overlap.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmytro
    Very true. In the absence of reliable historical documentation about the Celts of Britain prior to Caesar all that one can do is to hypothesize on the basis of linguistic analysis (just as tricky as DNA) and retrospective archaeology (also tricky). Anyway there seems little difficulty in accepting the thesis of massive language replacement in Britain during the first millennium CE.
    It is a common misunderstanding that language replacement should show up as a huge cultural or population change – that is not the case at all. For example the Gaelicization of Scotland is not perceivable in the archaeological records, according to Mallory.

    The present language has spread there (anywhere) only once, and still there are tens of archaeologically perceivable cultural waves. One cannot just guess that the language arrived with some of them, because there is no way to see language replacement in the archaeological record. Only linguistic results can tell which of these archaeological waves happens to be in the right place at the right time – if any, because language can spread also purely with social factors, invisible archaeologically.

    It is a dead end to claim that cultural or genetic continuity could tell about linguistic continuity; Henri Hubert thus falls to the same methodological pit with Renfrew, Alinei, Makkay, Wiik etc. It is much more probable that archaeological continuity corresponds to linguistic discontinuity than to linguistic continuity:
    http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny
    The rough area of Southern France/Northern Spain seems to make just as much or more sense than Austria/Switzerland/Southern Germany (where there is zero evidence of Celtic languages actually being spoken as far as I know). Like I said, I don't outright support either option, as we don't know enough; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't weigh up different possibilities.
    About the Celtic place names in Austria, Germany etc.:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_toponymy

    So, we have now weighed the evidence, and there are clear linguistic evidence for the Central European origin of Celtic. There is no linguistic evidence for the Spanish origin at all.
    Y-DNA: N1c1 (Savonian)
    mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Finland)

    http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jaska For This Useful Post:

    EliasAlucard (2012-09-04), Jonny (2012-09-04)

  17. #50
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2014-04-22 @ 00:42
    Join Date
    2012-05-19
    Posts
    134
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    I2a-L-147+ (Din-N)
    mtDNA
    U5a1b3
    Metaethnos
    European
    Ethnicity
    Ukrainian
    Canada Ukraine

    Default

    [QUOTE=Jaska;980603].

    "It is a dead end to claim that cultural or genetic continuity could tell about linguistic continuity" (Henri Hubert) http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html

    What I put in quotes would actually be a good paraphrase of Hubert's points (:=))) He agreed with the Central European origin of Celtic BTW

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to dmytro For This Useful Post:

    Jaska (2012-09-05)

Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 90
    Last Post: 2019-01-20, 23:31
  2. Replies: 544
    Last Post: 2017-09-02, 02:37
  3. Proto-Indo-European
    By Sevastopol in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 2017-09-01, 18:48
  4. R-M17, to be or not to be proto-Indo-European?
    By EliasAlucard in forum y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 144
    Last Post: 2017-07-29, 22:42
  5. Proto Indo European nouns
    By Ubirajara in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 2014-01-15, 06:41

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<