World Families Forums - Paleolithic Continuity Theory

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 20, 2014, 01:04:48 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Paleolithic Continuity Theory
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Paleolithic Continuity Theory  (Read 6682 times)
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« on: October 05, 2012, 12:04:25 PM »

How many scholars if any,support the thoery of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory?
The reason I'm asking is because this person I'm having a discussion with is quoting people like Sykes and others to support the theory!
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 11:51:36 AM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2012, 12:18:07 PM »

How many scholars if any,support the thoery of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory?
The reasdon I'm asking is because this person I'm having a discussion with his quoting people like Sykes and others to support the theory!
Proto-Indo-European includes words for many things that didn't exist in Paleolithic times. Therefore proto-IE must have existed before then.

As for Sykes et. al, their theories in regards to European origins are outdated now.

Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2012, 12:33:52 PM »

I think the idea of R1b having Paleolithic Continuity in Europe has been slaughtered once again.

There is a brand new paper reviewing the Y chromosome haplogroups.
"A calibrated human Y-chromosomal phylogeny based on resequencing" by Wei.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2012/10/04/gr.143198.112

Quote from: Wei
... the node representing the major European Y lineage, R1b, to 4-13 thousand years ago, supporting a Neolithic origin for these modern European Y chromosomes

The concept that R1b was among the Cro-Magnon folks of Old Stone Age Europe just isn't proven out - once again. Even the early Neolithic may be too early.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 01:23:11 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2012, 12:41:54 PM »

So what does the expansion of R1b represent: some form of overall population replacement or a male dominated expansion?
Logged

I-L126
H3
A_Wode
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2012, 12:58:13 PM »

So what does the expansion of R1b represent: some form of overall population replacement or a male dominated expansion?

This is one of the things that has puzzled me about YDNA since I started looking at the distributions. There does seem to be some male sexual selection at work. Why are I1 and R1b by far the most dominant Y lineages in western Europe? Why I1 and not I2b1 or I2a1?

In particular why was R1b-P312 successful in southern Europe where as I2a1, who has very similar distribution in the south not successful? Why was I1 successful and not I2b1 in the north of Europe?
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2012, 01:03:09 PM »

@ Bren

Paleolithic Continuity Theory is the work of one former academic, Mario Alinei, who has no supporters among linguists specialising in Indo-European languages as far as I know. PCT is so staggeringly far from the mainstream that I ended up not bothering to mention it in my coverage of debates on PIE.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 01:12:02 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2012, 01:11:22 PM »

So what does the expansion of R1b represent: some form of overall population replacement or a male dominated expansion?

It varies over Europe. In the north-west it looks mainly like families spreading into areas that had become thinly-populated because of farming failures. In places where farming was still thriving, R1b seems to have filtered in, not forming a majority. In aDNA we see a few new mtDNA haplogroups arriving with R1b in the Copper Age. Mainly though it seems that the IE incomers were carrying a mixture of Mesolithic and Neolithic haplogroups already known over most of Europe, so working out the degree of mixture with existing peoples is not easy on mtDNA alone. Y-DNA is the big, fat trail. But that does not necessarily mean that it was only men moving.     
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2012, 01:20:01 PM »

@ A_Wode

You might be interested in The Story of I. I don't claim to have all the answers, but some ideas have turned out to be supported (so far) by aDNA.
Logged
inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2012, 01:30:09 PM »

So what does the expansion of R1b represent: some form of overall population replacement or a male dominated expansion?

It varies over Europe. In the north-west it looks mainly like families spreading into areas that had become thinly-populated because of farming failures. In places where farming was still thriving, R1b seems to have filtered in, not forming a majority. In aDNA we see a few new mtDNA haplogroups arriving with R1b in the Copper Age. Mainly though it seems that the IE incomers were carrying a mixture of Mesolithic and Neolithic haplogroups already known over most of Europe, so working out the degree of mixture with existing peoples is not easy on mtDNA alone. Y-DNA is the big, fat trail. But that does not necessarily mean that it was only men moving.     

Thanks, then again modern proportions don't mean they were the same back then.
Logged

I-L126
H3
A_Wode
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2012, 01:54:36 PM »


Thanks, then again modern proportions don't mean they were the same back then.

The aDNA from the Canary islands would support this. Several of the remains were tested hg I. (I2a1?) Perhaps also the Sardinians would be another good example who have retained more of the original founders.

Many of the ancient German remains have yielded both R1b, and variations of I (I2b1? I2b2?) yet those levels are quite low in Germany today, especially I2b2.

@Jean

Thanks. I do check your site once in awhile, but I don't think I read that article. I will take a look.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 01:55:36 PM by A_Wode » Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2012, 03:42:06 PM »

How many scholars if any,support the thoery of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory?
The reasdon I'm asking is because this person I'm having a discussion with his quoting people like Sykes and others to support the theory!
Proto-Indo-European includes words for many things that didn't exist in Paleolithic times. Therefore proto-IE must have existed before then.

As for Sykes et. al, their theories in regards to European origins are outdated now.



I don't think we should completely dismiss Bryan Sykes, he is/was after all a Professor of Genetics.

He did say in his 2006 book that the paternal and maternal histories of the Isles were different, that the mtDNA of the isles was more ancient and showed more continuity than the Y-DNA. On the maternal side he argued for a large-scale movement up the Atlantic seaboard from Iberia in the Neolithic and I have yet to be convinced that he was wrong on this point.

My understanding is that mtDNA is much harder to date than Y-DNA so we are relying on a small number of ancient DNA samples to build a picture of mtDNA genetic origins.



Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2012, 04:19:34 PM »

I don't think we should completely dismiss Bryan Sykes, he is/was after all a Professor of Genetics.

Mark Jobling is a Professor of Genetics. He thinks R1b arrived in Europe with Neolithic farmers.

Mark Thomas is a Professor of Genetics. He thinks R1b arrived in Europe after the Neolithic farmers.

It is best to judge who is right on the basis of the evidence.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 04:26:19 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2012, 04:23:35 PM »

My understanding is that mtDNA is much harder to date than Y-DNA so we are relying on a small number of ancient DNA samples to build a picture of mtDNA genetic origins.

Not really. Dating by mutation rate is a problem overall. It is no more difficult in mtDNA than Y-DNA.

We now have hundreds of samples of mtDNA from ancient DNA - certainly enough to be sure that Sykes was wrong in Seven Daughters of Eve. That conclusion has been supported so far from those few full genomes (or a large part thereof) from ancient DNA. Mesolithic Iberians did not resemble modern Iberians, or indeed any modern Europeans very closely.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 04:26:54 PM by Jean M » Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2012, 07:15:46 PM »

So what does the expansion of R1b represent: some form of overall population replacement or a male dominated expansion?

This is one of the things that has puzzled me about YDNA since I started looking at the distributions. There does seem to be some male sexual selection at work. Why are I1 and R1b by far the most dominant Y lineages in western Europe? Why I1 and not I2b1 or I2a1?

In particular why was R1b-P312 successful in southern Europe where as I2a1, who has very similar distribution in the south not successful? Why was I1 successful and not I2b1 in the north of Europe?

Is there a suggestion here in the Wei Wei paper that R1b had a male sexual reproduction advantage. I am not familiar with USP9Y. Can someone comment?

"Although this study was not aimed at investigating Y gene function, it was striking that a variant predicted to be highly damaging to protein structure was discovered in the USP9Y gene. USP9Y loss of function has been associated with variable phenotypes ranging from azoospermia to oligoasthenoteratozoospermia and normal sperm production (Tyler-Smith and Krausz 2009). The transmission of this variant through three generations demonstrates that it is compatible with male fertility, providing further evidence for the phenotypic diversity linked to variation in this gene."

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2012/10/04/gr.143198.112.full.pdf

Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2012, 07:19:57 PM »

I think the idea of R1b having Paleolithic Continuity in Europe has been slaughtered once again.

There is a brand new paper reviewing the Y chromosome haplogroups.
"A calibrated human Y-chromosomal phylogeny based on resequencing" by Wei.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2012/10/04/gr.143198.112

Quote from: Wei
... the node representing the major European Y lineage, R1b, to 4-13 thousand years ago, supporting a Neolithic origin for these modern European Y chromosomes

The concept that R1b was among the Cro-Magnon folks of Old Stone Age Europe just isn't proven out - once again. Even the early Neolithic may be too early.

That would make it circa 8.5 thousand years ago which supports the Neolithic expansion model out of Anatolia. It will be interesting to see the other two papers from the Tyler Smith team which uses the much larger Dataset from the 1000 Genome project. I understand they came to the same conclusion.

"The third internal node was that of R1b, a well-documented expansion in Europe, but with a much-debated time depth. Here, we estimate a time of 4.3-13 KYA, the most uncertain of the dates. Despite the range of estimates, all these dates favor a Neolithic (Balaresque et al. 2010) more than a Paleolithic (Semino et al. 2000) or Mesolithic expansion of this lineage."

« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 07:27:45 PM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2012, 09:13:48 PM »

@ Bren

Paleolithic Continuity Theory is the work of one former academic, Mario Alinei, who has no supporters among linguists specialising in Indo-European languages as far as I know. PCT is so staggeringly far from the mainstream that I ended up not bothering to mention it in my coverage of debates on PIE.

The reason I asked is because I've been having a very heated debate with someone whom seems to think tha this theory has support from quite a few academics!
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 09:23:18 PM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 05, 2012, 09:18:41 PM »

Quote from: Wei
... the node representing the major European Y lineage, R1b, to 4-13 thousand years ago, supporting a Neolithic origin for these modern European Y chromosomes

That would make it circa 8.5 thousand years ago which supports the Neolithic expansion model out of Anatolia. It will be interesting to see the other two papers from the Tyler Smith team which uses the much larger Dataset from the 1000 Genome project. I understand they came to the same conclusion.

"The third internal node was that of R1b, a well-documented expansion in Europe, but with a much-debated time depth. Here, we estimate a time of 4.3-13 KYA, the most uncertain of the dates. Despite the range of estimates, all these dates favor a Neolithic (Balaresque et al. 2010) more than a Paleolithic (Semino et al. 2000) or Mesolithic expansion of this lineage."

Not quite. The new Wei study did not estimated 8.5k ybp. Wei showed a table which you should look at in more detail. This what it said for R1b in terms of thousands of years before presentK. There were five  methods used by Wei.
9K + or -1.8
13K + or - 2.3
11.2K + or - 4
4.3K + or - .5
4.5K + or - .3

The last two methods were "Rho-1" and "Rho-2", but look at the numbers ....   only 2500 BC or so.

Providing the midpoint of the maximum versus the mininum age don't necessarily give you the best answer. The real question is which method is best?  I don't know.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 09:22:07 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
wing_genealogist
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2012, 02:04:38 AM »

How do you access the tables and figures? I know some are not yet available, but it is clear others are.
Logged

Y-DNA - R1b M157.2 (a private/family subclade of Z6/Z352) 111 markers tested

mt-DNA - J1c2g with the following private mutations: 315.1C 522.1A 522.2C C9974T C16256T (FMS tested and submitted to GenBank)

Autosomal - shows as a typical English ancestry. Tested with 23andMe, FTDNA
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2012, 02:50:58 AM »

I don't think we should completely dismiss Bryan Sykes, he is/was after all a Professor of Genetics.

Mark Jobling is a Professor of Genetics. He thinks R1b arrived in Europe with Neolithic farmers.

Mark Thomas is a Professor of Genetics. He thinks R1b arrived in Europe after the Neolithic farmers.

It is best to judge who is right on the basis of the evidence.

Ok, so even if Sykes was wrong about R1b does that mean we should rule out everything he wrote in his book "Blood of the Isles?"

I was mainly struck by his view of the different maternal and paternal histories of the Isles and his suggestion that there was Neolithic continuity on the mtDNA. As regards ancient DNA I would say that hundreds of samples is a tiny amount when we are looking at 12,000 years of human history and the millions of people that lived in Europe during this time.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 03:00:33 AM by avalon » Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2012, 02:56:40 AM »

Jean M,

Quote
Not really. Dating by mutation rate is a problem overall. It is no more difficult in mtDNA than Y-DNA.

Why is there so much focus on Y-DNA then? 95% of the posts on this website must be in R1b and subclades. Why so little discussion of mtDNA, given that it's half the people.
Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2012, 03:45:56 AM »

@ avalon

The distributions of ydna produce much more interesting maps. The mtdna looks far more diffuse... whereas for ydna its easier to see migration trails.

That is not to say that women weren't traveling with the men many times. Closer looks at mtdna reveal a lot of discontinuity of female lines in Europe around the neolithic and metal ages. But what makes ydna so interesting is that it has a greater selective pressure on it (separate from polygamy), meaning more lines disappear leaving others, even new ones, to rapidly grow within the population. As a result, groups of travelers can easily be carrying the same hg, and very different from their neighbors.
Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2012, 04:32:09 AM »

WE are the descendants of Paleolithic people or else we are all ghosts writing on this forum. The problem that some people have is the place of origin.





How many scholars if any,support the thoery of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory?
The reasdon I'm asking is because this person I'm having a discussion with his quoting people like Sykes and others to support the theory!
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2012, 05:02:27 AM »

Is there a suggestion here in the Wei Wei paper that R1b had a male sexual reproduction advantage. I am not familiar with USP9Y. Can someone comment?

I am not familiar with it either, but the authors are saying that the mutation is expected to be damaging, yet they found it in a family passed down from father to son, so it clearly did not stop reproduction in that case.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2012, 05:09:12 AM »

WE are the descendants of Paleolithic people or else we are all ghosts writing on this forum. The problem that some people have is the place of origin.

Very neatly put. Yes that is the case. 

Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2012, 05:17:59 AM »

The reason I asked is because I've been having a very heated debate with someone whom seems to think that this theory has support from quite a few academics!

Who are these academics? I'm mystified.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.104 seconds with 18 queries.