World Families Forums - Another Possible Iberian R-L21 Haplotype Cluster?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 24, 2014, 02:57:12 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)
| | |-+  Another Possible Iberian R-L21 Haplotype Cluster?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Another Possible Iberian R-L21 Haplotype Cluster?  (Read 7806 times)
aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #25 on: June 23, 2010, 02:21:01 PM »

Anatole, you are a mathematician. If every 11 thousands of masculin births there
is a mutation in DYS426 (rate 0.00009), how many mutations there are in a marker
which has a rate of 0.002? And how are the possibilities that the only survivor of
that mutated marker has the other marker not changed? And we are speaking at least
of 25, 37, 67 markers.
 

Dear Gioiello,

One character in the Russian literature said: "I am not a magician, I am just learning".

I am also learning. Even in my professional field, which is, in a way, mutation rate constants. In fact, DNA genealogy is a blend of DNA partial sequencing and chemical kinetics. 

Now, asking "how many mutations there are in a marker which has a rate of 0.002?",
you talk on a different subject. When you were talking on DYS426, you were talking on a whole population. That is why I explained that in a whole population there are many DYS426 mutations, as an absolute number. Now, your question is seemingly related not to a population, but to one lineage. Maybe not, I do not understand what you are aiming at with that question. At any rate, 0.002/0.00009 = 22 (approximately). So what? 0.002 is close to the average mutation rate, 0.00009 is DYS426 mutation rate. So what?

May I ask you to say what you actually want to say?  Again, I prefer not questions but answers, let them be incorrect. Jointly, we can correct them.
   
>And how are the possibilities that the only survivor of that mutated marker has the other marker not changed? And we are speaking at least of 25, 37, 67 markers.
 
The same thing. Sorry, I do not understand your question. It is tooooooo general.

 
Logged

R1a1

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #26 on: June 23, 2010, 02:42:42 PM »

I don't see any reason to think that Basque was one of the first languages in Europe. Perhaps it was, but we don't know that. It used to be assumed (without good reason, IMO) that the Basques were some sort of "Paleolithic remnant" population, which is how the idea that their language was one of the first in Europe originated.

And it does matter how many Basques there are.

Why should we think that simply because a small minority group speaks a non-IE language and are mostly R1b1b2 that therefore all of R1b1b2 once spoke a non-IE language?

Does it make sense to believe that all of the R1b1b2 in Europe was once as the Basques are but somehow changed?

It seems to me more likely that the Basques have, over time, simply become more like the surrounding R1b1b2 population in their y-dna via admixture while retaining their maternal language. The old Basque marriage custom was matrilocal (i.e., the groom went to live with the bride's family), which is tailor-made for the introduction of outsider y-dna while the mother's language gets passed on to the children.

You could be right in what you say about the Basques and about non-IE languages and R1b1b2. But I don't see any real reason to believe it . . . not yet, anyway.
Logged

IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #27 on: June 23, 2010, 03:49:01 PM »




It seems to me more likely that the Basques have, over time, simply become more like the surrounding R1b1b2 population in their y-dna via admixture while retaining their maternal language. The old Basque marriage custom was matrilocal (i.e., the groom went to live with the bride's family), which is tailor-made for the introduction of outsider y-dna while the mother's language gets passed on to the children.


I have seen that written in other forums as well, but it has no base, the Basque marriage custom, since the moment we know about it in the early Middle Ages, is patrilocal. There are some references in Ancient writers to matrilocality among people of Northern Iberia, and specifically the Gallaic tribes, but not reference to the Basques at all.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #28 on: June 23, 2010, 04:51:24 PM »

I don't see any reason to think that Basque was one of the first languages in Europe.

The Basque language appears to be Copper Age. See my page on the Basques.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2010, 04:51:46 PM by Jean M » Logged
aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #29 on: June 23, 2010, 06:22:51 PM »

I don't see any reason to think that Basque was one of the first languages in Europe. Perhaps it was, but we don't know that.

Well, we do not know origin of life, however, we think about it and also try to connect the dots. We do not know many things in science, but we work on them. We do not know how to cure cancer, but we do work on it. At least, I do. :-))

What I meant "one of the first languages in Europe", I, of course, meant among R1b1b2. It seems that carriers of haplogroup I were much more ancient, and they certainly talked.

Basque language is one of those pre-IE languages, survived over 4-5 thousands of years. 

We know that, and it is quite enough to make it of a great interest.
 
It used to be assumed (without good reason, IMO) that the Basques were some sort of "Paleolithic remnant" population, which is how the idea that their language was one of the first in Europe originated.


Well, as you perfectly know by now, I do not share that point of view. My dating of the Basques as 3900 ybp as a coalescent point for mutations of nowadays Basques, and
~ 4800 ybp if to move below their bottleneck does not support anything "Paleolitic" in them in Europe. In my "book" haplogroup I was Paleolitic in Europe, not R1b.     


And it does matter how many Basques there are.

Why should we think that simply because a small minority group speaks a non-IE language and are mostly R1b1b2 that therefore all of R1b1b2 once spoke a non-IE language?

Does it make sense to believe that all of the R1b1b2 in Europe was once as the Basques are but somehow changed?

It seems to me more likely that the Basques have, over time, simply become more like the surrounding R1b1b2 population in their y-dna via admixture while retaining their maternal language. The old Basque marriage custom was matrilocal (i.e., the groom went to live with the bride's family), which is tailor-made for the introduction of outsider y-dna while the mother's language gets passed on to the children.

You could be right in what you say about the Basques and about non-IE languages and R1b1b2. But I don't see any real reason to believe it . . . not yet, anyway.


1. And it does matter how many Basques there are.

2. Why should we think that simply because a small minority group speaks a non-IE language and are mostly R1b1b2 that therefore all of R1b1b2 once spoke a non-IE language?

3. Does it make sense to believe that all of the R1b1b2 in Europe was once as the Basques are but somehow changed?


1. For you, but not for me in this context.

2. Again, it is not a constructive way to discuss. You can think whatever you want. If you have DATA based on which you can specify what language R1b1b2 have had 4000-4500 years ago, I would appreciate seeing them.

3. Again, you distort what I have said. I have never said that ALL were the Basques. On the contrary, I said that R1b1b2 have entered Europe by several main routes - the future Basques via Gibraltar, others from Asia Minor to Sardinia-Italy, other to the Balkans, yet other westward to Cebtral Eutrope, and yet some others via the Northern way, to Scandinavia. It is supported by existance of several "parallel" R1b1b2 subclades in Europe, and by their base haplotype structures. It is supported by routes of Kurgan culture folks to Europe. Whom do you think they were? R1a1 were moving eastward those times, not westward.   


You could be right in what you say about the Basques and about non-IE languages and R1b1b2. But I don't see any real reason to believe it . . . not yet, anyway.

Again, you are entitled not to believe. There are plenty of data on a rich turkic (or, agglutinative language, more generally speaking) "substrate" in Europe. Look it up.

Logged

R1a1

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #30 on: June 23, 2010, 06:53:21 PM »


The Basque language appears to be Copper Age. See my page on the Basques.

An excellent paper!

Good, balanced, does not push just one opinion. Shows a complexity of the issue.

Here is an interesting quotation:

>There have even been hints of Neolithic migrations from North Africa. Fulvio Cruciani and colleagues argue the latter case. They found the Y-DNA subhaplogroup E1b1b1a1 (E-V12*) among the French Basques (at a frequency of 6.25%), but not the Spanish Basques. This subclade is found at its highest concentrations today in Southern Egyptians, but they suggest that it originated in or near northern Egypt, and was involved in migrations across the Mediterranean from Africa.

There is a tentative explanation why haplogroup V12* moved North, among the French Basques, but not in the Spanish Basques. I gave it in one of the preceding messages today. Carriers of E1b1 were so harsh on the R1b1b2 in Iberia, that the latter fled up North, along with some E1b1 (you can invent a mechanism how it had happened - slaves, POWs, lovers and husbands, etc.). Hence, E1b1 among the French Basques. The Spanish Basques barely survived, and a common ancestor of the current Spanish Basques lived ~3900 years bp. There are no E1b1 among them.

Furthermore, look at page 981 in

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_68/8895000/8895749/1/print/8895749.pdf

The article is in Russian, but look at the Figure, it is in English. It was obtained from Robert Tarin, with his name cited under the picture. E1b1b1b and  R1b1b2 are mirror each other in Iberia. They are like plus and minus, they can annihilate at a contact. Such fear and repulsion remain after 4 thousand years...   
 
Anatole Klyosov
Logged

R1a1

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #31 on: June 23, 2010, 10:38:03 PM »

Anatole,

You demand evidence to counter claims for which you yourself offer no evidence, merely assertions.

I am not a linguist, but I have read a fair amount on the history of European languages, and I have never seen any evidence of a Turkic or agglutinative substrate throughout Western Europe.

There was a German linguist, I forget his name without looking it up in Mallory's book on the Indo-Europeans, who claimed the Basque language was once widespread throughout Western Europe, but he was not supported in that opinion by other linguists.

I am also wondering where you get the idea that carriers of E1b1 "were so harsh on the R1b1b2 in Iberia, that the latter fled up North".

Where is the evidence of that?

You are making the assertions. I am only asking you to support them. The burden of proof is on you. You cannot make an assertion and then claim it must be correct simply because I have not offered any evidence that it isn't.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2010, 11:14:29 PM »

I don't see any reason to think that Basque was one of the first languages in Europe.

The Basque language appears to be Copper Age. See my page on the Basques.

This, I think, is a very important point:

Quote
They [the Basques] have been surrounded by Indo-European speakers for millennia. Even a small gene flow, one percent per generation, into the Basque population from their neighbors for five thousand years, would replace the ancient Basque genes.

Elsewhere in your The Peopling of Europe, you mention the Ossetians, who speak an Indo-Iranian language, claim descent from the Alans and Sarmatians, yet are mostly G2a (as I recall). I once got into a fierce argument on that very subject at FTDNA's forum several years ago. I argued that the prevalence of G2a among the Ossetians was the result of them becoming more like their Caucasian neighbors (i.e., via admixture) and not evidence that the ancient Alans were mostly G2a. At that time I said the old Alans were probably mostly R1a of some kind.

I think the same sort of thing probably happened with the Basques. Over time, they have become more and more like their non-Basque neighbors, yet they retain traces of that ancient clade of y haplogroup I that I believe is prevalent in Sardinia (I forget the exact subclade; I believe it is I2 of some kind). I also believe there is some G2 among the Basques at low levels, and it could represent a survival of some of the original Basque y-dna, as well.

R1b1b2 is overwhelmingly associated with speakers of the centum branch of Indo-European. R1a, where it predominates and is not accompanied by a fairly large R1b1b2 population, is overwhelmingly associated with speakers of satem Indo-European and is relatively scarce where centum IE is spoken.

How is this the case if the languages spoken by the first R1b1b2 men in Europe were non-Indo-European?
« Last Edit: June 23, 2010, 11:18:43 PM by rms2 » Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #33 on: June 24, 2010, 04:46:23 AM »

Klyosov writes in "Миграционный путь гаплогруппы R1b1b2 в Европу (2)" (p. 906):

"в Анатолии
12-24-14-10-Х-Х-Х-12-12-13-13-29

с «возрастом» общего предка 6000±820 лет, причем упомянутая пара (DYS
393-461) равна 12-9".

My haplotype is

12-24-15-10-11-14-12-12-12-13-12-29

and being a Tuscan I have always taken in consideration to come from an Etrusk
who came from Aegean Sea and linked with the Anatolian haplotype.
My mutation in DYS392 is recent, not having it my relative Giancarlo Tognoni
(our families separated during the 15th century).
Then I have two mutations from the Anatolian modal, witchever are Klyosov's x.
My line from father to son during 6000 years have had 240 offsprings at a 25 years
for generation and it is for chance that only two markers changed.
But if whoever in the world has DYS393=12 and DYS461=11 descends from the same ancestor
the offsprings survived and who had some descendant of course are many more.

I, my relative Giancarlo and an anonymous Brazilian on SMGF descend from a person who
had the mutation in DYS19 from 14 to 15 and only my line in these last centuries has
had the mutation in DYS392.

But how can we hypothesize that our Anatolian/Etruscan ancestor from 6000 YBP to
3000 when Etrusks migrated to Italy hasn't had any mutation from the modal? And they
were many if the great part of Anatolian R1b1b2a descend from him. And probably the
supposed Etruskan R1b1b2a were many even though I and my relatives can be the few
descendants. But R1b1b2a in Italy is diffused everywhere, also where Etruskans never
were and it is everywhere in Europe, above all the region close to Italy.

And the subclades of R1b1b2a certainly arose from an R1b1b2a and not for spontaneous
generation.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 04:58:12 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #34 on: June 24, 2010, 05:23:29 AM »

I don't see any reason to think that Basque was one of the first languages in Europe.

The Basque language appears to be Copper Age. See my page on the Basques.

This, I think, is a very important point:

Quote
They [the Basques] have been surrounded by Indo-European speakers for millennia. Even a small gene flow, one percent per generation, into the Basque population from their neighbors for five thousand years, would replace the ancient Basque genes.

Elsewhere in your The Peopling of Europe, you mention the Ossetians, who speak an Indo-Iranian language, claim descent from the Alans and Sarmatians, yet are mostly G2a (as I recall). I once got into a fierce argument on that very subject at FTDNA's forum several years ago. I argued that the prevalence of G2a among the Ossetians was the result of them becoming more like their Caucasian neighbors (i.e., via admixture) and not evidence that the ancient Alans were mostly G2a. At that time I said the old Alans were probably mostly R1a of some kind.

I think the same sort of thing probably happened with the Basques. Over time, they have become more and more like their non-Basque neighbors, yet they retain traces of that ancient clade of y haplogroup I that I believe is prevalent in Sardinia (I forget the exact subclade; I believe it is I2 of some kind). I also believe there is some G2 among the Basques at low levels, and it could represent a survival of some of the original Basque y-dna, as well.

R1b1b2 is overwhelmingly associated with speakers of the centum branch of Indo-European. R1a, where it predominates and is not accompanied by a fairly large R1b1b2 population, is overwhelmingly associated with speakers of satem Indo-European and is relatively scarce where centum IE is spoken.

How is this the case if the languages spoken by the first R1b1b2 men in Europe were non-Indo-European?
1) It is very difficult to see how that could happen. If the surrounding populations were all 100% R1b, well, it could be, but the surrounding populations have lower percentage of R1b and they have other haplogroups absent in Basque populations (BTW no scholar study of Basque population showed any trace of G2, I already addressed that in another post in this same forum)

2) Basque is a modern language, as all languages spoken nowdays. It is derived from an older language, Aquitanian in all probability, that belongs to a family of languages extended way beyond the prevalence of modern Basque. It comprised Aquitania to the Garonne, with some extensions to the Loire, the Mediterranean coast of Iberia (Iberic languages) and at one point probably Central Iberia as well. We can deduce that from the fact that while Aquitanian and Iberic languages belong to the same family, in Ancient times they were already separated by Celtic speaking populations, logically those populations would have arrived at a later period, presumibly Hallstatt C, maybe Tumuli culture /according to some Spnaish archaeologists)

3) To sum up, it is not just Basques, it is a large population of Ancient Hispania and Gallia that spoke Non Indoeuropean languages, so saying that Basques have been surrounded by IE speakers for millennia is certainly a wild exageration.

Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #35 on: June 24, 2010, 08:40:38 AM »

It's no wild exaggeration. Even if one expanded the Basque or otherwise non-IE-speaking territory to include Aquitania and nearby regions of Iberia, we are not talking about a large area, and it was still surrounded by largely R1b1b2, IE-speaking populations.

How did the Indo-Iranian-speaking Ossetians come to be so overwhelmingly G2a? Was it due to admixture from their Caucasian-speaking neighbors? Or were the original Indo-Iranian-speaking tribes mostly G2a? Has the far greater, non-Ossetian proportion of the Indo-Iranian-speaking population had its y-dna composition altered over time, so that only the Ossetian minority preserves the original?

Has the far far greater, non-Basque proportion of R1b1b2 had its language altered over time, so that only the tiny Basque minority preserves the original? Or, as seems more likely to me, has admixture been steadily transforming the y-dna composition of the Basque minority over the millennia? Remember, there are many Western European cities with more people in them (in a single city) than there are Basques.

Even if one were to concede that the Basques always were mostly R1b1b2 (maybe they were), how would the logical next step be to conclude that at one time all of R1b1b2 was Basque or at least non-Indo-European?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 08:41:52 AM by rms2 » Logged

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #36 on: June 24, 2010, 08:44:40 AM »

Anatole,

You demand evidence to counter claims for which you yourself offer no evidence, merely assertions.

I am not a linguist, but I have read a fair amount on the history of European languages, and I have never seen any evidence of a Turkic or agglutinative substrate throughout Western Europe.

There was a German linguist, I forget his name without looking it up in Mallory's book on the Indo-Europeans, who claimed the Basque language was once widespread throughout Western Europe, but he was not supported in that opinion by other linguists.

I am also wondering where you get the idea that carriers of E1b1 "were so harsh on the R1b1b2 in Iberia, that the latter fled up North".

Where is the evidence of that?

You are making the assertions. I am only asking you to support them. The burden of proof is on you. You cannot make an assertion and then claim it must be correct simply because I have not offered any evidence that it isn't.

O.K., let's agree (or disagree) on some basic principles of the discussion.

First, NONE of my suggestions or hypotheses is taken out of the blue. Each one is based on some data, direct and/or indirect ones, and/or observations, interpretations, etc. I am not going to convince you or anyone else, my goal is to present my views based on those considerations. There are folks who believe in everything, there are folks who believe in nothing. It depends on "structure of their brain". I cannot satisfy everyone, I aim at people who think.

It is such a complex field - origin of man - that nobody in the world can explain all facts and observations, connect all dots. I, among others, try to optimize multitude of data and observations, many of which contradict each other. Of course, I cannot reconstruct the whole picture in all details, however, I present as balanced picture as I can.

It is easy to sit on the fence and keep saying that this is doubtful and that is unlikely. You do not know all that I do know, and vise versa. Hence, it is more productive to join our efforts in reconstructing the picture that trying to dismiss what I am trying to create.  

I like when folks present new (for me) DATA and explanations, and I view it a constructive contribution. I do not appreciate empty criticism and demands that "the burden on me". I promise nothing to anyone. I do courtesy to explain here my views and present some data.  This is not a scientific journal which contains "material and methods" section, "results", "discussion", "references" sections, and "supplementary materials". Here are just fragments, and I do not have time and space, nor do I have desire to teach the audience with ALL I know.

I think that is fair.

I  share here with my tentative conclusions, mainly to see either supportive data, or data which contract my tentative conclusions. I am not interested in critical opinions, based on "brain structure". I am equally not interested in positive opinions, such as "Oh, it is great", "it is interesting". I am interested in developing "Origin of man" field, based on tangible things. Not on opinions.

I hope we are on the same page.

If we are, I continue. If we are not, I quit, unless someone here shares my "philosophy of discussions". I prefer a two-way street, not one-way, when I wasting my time trying to explain my views and my data, and meeting this:

Anatole,

You demand evidence to counter claims for which you yourself offer no evidence, merely assertions.

As I have repeatedly explained, I based my OPTIMISED hypothesis on a number of facts and observations. They are based on dates of the Basques (and other R1b1b2) common ancestor in Iberia, on dates of Bell Beakers movement from Iberia to the North, on predominantly P312 in Iberia and predominantly its downstream in France and other parts of Europe, ob the whole dynamics of R1b1b2 movement from the Caucasus to Iberia, on positions of E1b1b1 and R1b1b2 in Iberia (to which I gave a reference and the map), on Hamitic traces in North Europe (data by the linguists, specializing in proto-IE in Europe), on Turkic substrate in Europe, which you have no idea, as it is obvious. However, volumes are written in that regard - by linguists, experts in Turkic languages.

I cannot exclude that some of those fragments might fall out under further detailed considerations, however, it is what always happens in science. But the concept will stay, very likely.  

As you see, your "only assertions" things is wrong. Further more, it is counterproductive. Give me YOUR optimisation of facts and observations regarding R1b1b2 in Iberia and Europe, and I will gladly consider it. Maybe I will gladly accept it, and say that your optimization is better than mine.

Fair enough?


I am not a linguist, but I have read a fair amount on the history of European languages, and I have never seen any evidence of a Turkic or agglutinative substrate throughout Western Europe.


Lack of knowledge is a poor justification. I wrote an extensive paper on Turkic languages in Asia and Europe. Its title - "The main puzzle in relationships between IndoEuropean and Turkic language families and an attempt to solve it via DNA-genealogy: considerations by a non-linguist" (Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, v. 3, No. 1, pp. 2-57, 2010), with a follow-up discussion by linguists (pp. 58-65). There are 60 references there, including many on Turkic linguists. Who do you think is more qualified to discuss it? Do not take it personally, however, well... you know.  "I have never seen" is not a valid argument, when books are written on the subject.  


There was a German linguist, I forget his name without looking it up in Mallory's book on the Indo-Europeans, who claimed the Basque language was once widespread throughout Western Europe, but he was not supported in that opinion by other linguists.


I would say - not "Basque language", but non-IE R1b1b2 languages, and Basque was a part of them.  Not R1b1 brought IE language to India 3500 ybp, but R1a1 did. There are (almost) not R1b1 in India, but plenty of "IE" R1a1. THEY were "IndoEuropeans", not "R1b1b2". R1b2b2 brought nonIE language to Europe.

"Not supported by other linguists" is not a valid argument either. It is science. Frontiers in science are NEVER supported by majority of scientists, otherwise they are not frontiers. Read Gray and Atkinson papers (in NATURE, for instance), they said that linguists now stuck in a dead-end with origin of IE language, and help is needed from other disciplines. Someone provide that help, and no wonder, "it is not supported by other linguists". They all are in disarray. That is why you made not a valid "argument".  


I am also wondering where you get the idea that carriers of E1b1 "were so harsh on the R1b1b2 in Iberia, that the latter fled up North".

Where is the evidence of that?

I gave an evidence, and gave here a link with a picture of E and R opposite distributions in Iberia. Look up in archaeology. Do you want me to provide their names (E1b1b1) and their Social Security numbers? I gave here a tentative explanation, an outline, to offer a possible solution of the puzzle. Then - think yourself.

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov

Logged

R1a1

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #37 on: June 24, 2010, 09:03:57 AM »


Elsewhere in your The Peopling of Europe, you mention the Ossetians, who speak an Indo-Iranian language, claim descent from the Alans and Sarmatians, yet are mostly G2a (as I recall). ... I argued that the prevalence of G2a among the Ossetians was the result of them becoming more like their Caucasian neighbors (i.e., via admixture) and not evidence that the ancient Alans were mostly G2a. At that time I said the old Alans were probably mostly R1a of some kind.

R1b1b2 is overwhelmingly associated with speakers of the centum branch of Indo-European. R1a, where it predominates and is not accompanied by a fairly large R1b1b2 population, is overwhelmingly associated with speakers of satem Indo-European and is relatively scarce where centum IE is spoken.

How is this the case if the languages spoken by the first R1b1b2 men in Europe were non-Indo-European?

The above is a mix of reasonable and not quite reasonable statements. The main problem is that you (as population geneticists typically do) look at the today's state of things, not 4000 years ago. Your considerations (at least above) lack the time-coordinate.

 >Ossetians ... are mostly G2a (as I recall).

You recall it all right, however, you again look at today's data. You do not know that lion's share of the Ossetians haplotypes came from a common ancestor who lived only 600 years ago. It is likely the Ossettian hero and a historical figure whom every Ossetian knows as Os-Bagatar. He lived in the 1300-s. I have published the Ossetian haplotype tree, and there is an ongoing discussion by the Caucasian folks, the discussion is being published in the Proceedings, in several issues.

>R1b1b2 is overwhelmingly associated with speakers of the centum branch of Indo-European.


Again, NOW, not 4000 years ago.


>R1a, where it predominates and is not accompanied by a fairly large R1b1b2 population, is overwhelmingly associated with speakers of satem Indo-European and is relatively scarce where centum IE is spoken.

The same thing. Centum R1a1 were in the Central Asia, and they are - Tocharians - predominantly R1a1, as it was established recently. As I have said, the subject is very complex, and not a black-and-white type.

>How is this the case if the languages spoken by the first R1b1b2 men in Europe were non-Indo-European? 

:-))))))))))))))

How about R1b1b2 in Lebanon? Their language was also Indo-European?

Logged

R1a1

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #38 on: June 24, 2010, 09:05:04 AM »

Anatole,

I will let others judge, but for myself, I see very little evidence that you present, at least here, in this forum. Instead, you talk about your "optimization" and what you claim to know.

Trying to get you to actually present the evidence seems to me to be a losing proposition, so perhaps we could go back to the original topic of this thread, instead of continuing what seems to be another kind of R1a partisan defense of its claim to be the sole vector of Indo-European.

I find your ideas intriguing, so I ask questions and probe concerning aspects of them that trouble or confuse me. That causes you to become defensive (perhaps understandably so) and to demand that I put up some sort of alternative and buttress it with supporting data. Yet it seems to me you haven't bothered to support your own claims, not much, anyway.

So, now that we've sprung the Rube Goldberg "North African Trek" contraption, let's get back to the Iberian haplotype cluster that was the original topic of this thread.
Logged

IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #39 on: June 24, 2010, 09:35:43 AM »

It's no wild exaggeration. Even if one expanded the Basque or otherwise non-IE-speaking territory to include Aquitania and nearby regions of Iberia, we are not talking about a large area, and it was still surrounded by largely R1b1b2, IE-speaking populations.

How did the Indo-Iranian-speaking Ossetians come to be so overwhelmingly G2a? Was it due to admixture from their Caucasian-speaking neighbors? Or were the original Indo-Iranian-speaking tribes mostly G2a? Has the far greater, non-Ossetian proportion of the Indo-Iranian-speaking population had its y-dna composition altered over time, so that only the Ossetian minority preserves the original?

Has the far far greater, non-Basque proportion of R1b1b2 had its language altered over time, so that only the tiny Basque minority preserves the original? Or, as seems more likely to me, has admixture been steadily transforming the y-dna composition of the Basque minority over the millennia? Remember, there are many Western European cities with more people in them (in a single city) than there are Basques.

Even if one were to concede that the Basques always were mostly R1b1b2 (maybe they were), how would the logical next step be to conclude that at one time all of R1b1b2 was Basque or at least non-Indo-European?

1) It wasn´t for millennia, especially if you consider the Hallstatt C explanation for the IE expansion.
2) I don´t think the link R1b1b2/IE is valid. You have in Spain that R1b is more prevalent (around 70%) in the East, the former Iberic area. This people presently speaks an IE language because of the Roman invasion. OTOH you have the Western part of Iberia, the former Celtic area, where R1b is at lower percentages, lower than 50% in Portugal.
The equivalence Genetics=Language doesn´t work, and remember, M-269 is earlier than IE languages, so at one time they should have spolen a non IE language.
BTW I don´t claim that the family of languages from which Basque derives was extended along all Western Europe, but I do think that the fact that Basques are mainly R1b and that they spoke a non IE language are not contradictory at all, but perfectly possible, no need to think of any extreme proposition of "all or nothing"
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #40 on: June 24, 2010, 10:07:11 AM »


1) It wasn´t for millennia, especially if you consider the Hallstatt C explanation for the IE expansion.
2) I don´t think the link R1b1b2/IE is valid. You have in Spain that R1b is more prevalent (around 70%) in the East, the former Iberic area. This people presently speaks an IE language because of the Roman invasion. OTOH you have the Western part of Iberia, the former Celtic area, where R1b is at lower percentages, lower than 50% in Portugal.
The equivalence Genetics=Language doesn´t work, and remember, M-269 is earlier than IE languages, so at one time they should have spolen a non IE language.
BTW I don´t claim that the family of languages from which Basque derives was extended along all Western Europe, but I do think that the fact that Basques are mainly R1b and that they spoke a non IE language are not contradictory at all, but perfectly possible, no need to think of any extreme proposition of "all or nothing"

Well, you could be right. I don't want to make it sound like I have a dogmatic position one way or the other, and to me language is kind of a transient thing. I speak modern English as my mother tongue right now, but I think it is pretty obvious my own ancestors were probably Britons who acquired their (old) English from the Anglo-Saxons. And before Brythonic, what did they speak?

I don't buy a Hallstatt C origin for the Celtic languages, however. Too late. I think Koch's current idea of a western origin is more compelling, but I'm no expert.

I have always thought the Basques (no offense intended to them) loom much too large in everyone's imagination and that that stems from the silly idea that they are some sort of aboriginal European, "Paleolithic remnant". I know you don't believe that, but I think its effects still linger whenever the subject of R1b1b2 and language come up.

Truly ancient, uncontaminated y-dna will help unravel all this, but I doubt it will ever solve the mysteries totally, simply because we'll never get a big enough sample. Suppose someone finds a single R1a in a Beaker grave (God forbid!)? What then? All the internet nerds sitting in their underwear in their mothers' basements will churn out blogs and posts proclaiming, "The mystery is solved!". But will one such find seal the deal? Hardly.

Of course, if they find an R-L21 in a Beaker grave, I'm stripping down to my boxers and heading right down to the basement to proclaim, "The mystery is solved!". ;-)

(Actually, I don't have a basement. My computer is upstairs in my daughter's bedroom.)
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 10:13:08 AM by rms2 » Logged

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #41 on: June 24, 2010, 10:18:29 AM »

Dear Gioiello,

Let's dissect your informative message into few no less informative sections.

Klyosov writes in "Миграционный путь гаплогруппы R1b1b2 в Европу (2)" (p. 906):

"в Анатолии
12-24-14-10-Х-Х-Х-12-12-13-13-29

с «возрастом» общего предка 6000±820 лет, причем упомянутая пара (DYS
393-461) равна 12-9".

My haplotype is

12-24-15-10-11-14-12-12-12-13-12-29

and being a Tuscan I have always taken in consideration to come from an Etrusk
who came from Aegean Sea and linked with the Anatolian haplotype.


Since I take a risk to assume that not everyone here (besides two of us) can read Russian, I translate. You quote a paper entitled "The migration route of R1b1b2 to Europe, Part 2". It shows (in one of its parts) the Anatolian base haplotype

12-24-14-10-Х-Х-Х-12-12-13-13-29
 
in which X are unidentified alleles (only 9-marker haplotypes were used in the quoted study). The "base" here and in all my works means that it is an APPARENT ancestral haplotype, minimized by mutations in the dataset. In other words, it is a "base" haplotype to which all other haplotypes in the dataset are coalesce. Very often a dataset contains a number of lineages, each one with its common ancestor, and it takes a certain skill to separate the lineages and their common ancestors. Sometimes the same dataset contains lineages of, say, 5000 year old, and 400 years old. If not to separate them (which researchers normally do not do), a phantom common ancestor will come up, in this case maybe around 2000 years "old", however, it depends on "weight" of those lineages in the dataset, and can vary between 400 and 5000 year old. In short, it is nonsense. That is what so-called "Zhivotovsky" method typically shows, = nonsense. 

Since we cannot guarantee that "base" = ancestral haplotype (sometimes precision is not there), I prefer a more careful term "base" rather a too "direct" term "ancestral".       

O.K., we are through with that.

Now, you have quoted that the Anatolian base/"ancestral" haplotype is 6000+/- 820 year "old", and that its DYS393=12

Your own haplotype is

12-24-15-10-11-14-12-12-12-13-12-29

which is  close to the ancient Anatolian (and the Russian Plain, and the Middle Eastern) R1b1b2 haplotypes. Congratulations, you are from the ancient stock. It is probably L23, though not becessarily. Hence, your thought that your roots are in Anatolia is reasonably justified.

I do not know Etrusk or not, and you do not know it either. Etrusks could have been I2, R1a1, J2, R1b1b2, etc. Nobody knows it as yet.       


My mutation in DYS392 is recent, not having it my relative Giancarlo Tognoni
(our families separated during the 15th century).
Then I have two mutations from the Anatolian modal, witchever are Klyosov's x.
My line from father to son during 6000 years have had 240 offsprings at a 25 years
for generation and it is for chance that only two markers changed.
But if whoever in the world has DYS393=12 and DYS461=11 descends from the same ancestor
the offsprings survived and who had some descendant of course are many more.

That is fine, I would not worry about recent or not-so-recent mutations. They all form a kind of a cloud, and coalesce to the same base haplotype of ~ 6,000 years bp. Some haplotypes in that cloud have two mutations, some six, some ten, and some zero mutations. It is all a bell-shape distribution curve. Only an average number of mutations per marker in the whole dataset is important, it defines a timespan to the common ancestor.

The same thing - when you measure air pressure in a tire of your car, you should not worry that some molecules knock on the tire (from inside) like it is no tomorrow. You care only on the average pressure.   

But how can we hypothesize that our Anatolian/Etruscan ancestor from 6000 YBP to
3000 when Etrusks migrated to Italy hasn't had any mutation from the modal?

Who told you that? The Etruskans themselves?

6000 ybp came not from some "Etrusks", but from a pattern and amount of mutations in the dataset, that is in the cloud of mutations. If the cloud is narrow, the common ancestor lived recently. If the cloud is wide and fluffy, the common ancestor lived a long time ago. It is all calculated quantitatively. Science of chemical kinetics exists for more than 100 years, it is all known how to calculate. Just listen to professionals in the field.

Please, forget about the Etruscans in this context. We do not know about their haplotypes and haplogroups. Do not derail yourself.

The rest in your message is not really relevant. You have gotten your haplotype roots in the first approximation. To move further, you need to compare your deep clade with deep R1b1b2 clades in Anatolia and the Middle East. I am afraid, we are not there yet.

 
Logged

R1a1

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #42 on: June 24, 2010, 10:42:07 AM »

The inheritance of Centum IE lies with R1b1b2, not R1a. I am sorry about this, Anatole.

No "sorry" here, since I have never claimed that R1a invented Centum branch of IE. What I said that there is no black and white in IE languages, since the Tocharian are identified with R1a1 lately, and not with R1b. And Tocharians are considered to be Centum.

I repeat again and again that the field is very complex, and attempts to see it as black and white are wrong in the first place.     

It seems the R1a nomads on the great, Russian plain learned Indo-European from their R1b1b2 teachers.

I would appreciate to see a single evidence of that.

All we know (and/or interpret) that the original R1a1 and R1b1 spoke languages of the Altaic family, in fact, turkic languages. That is what R1a1 and R1b1 continue to speak in Central Asia, and R1a1 from South Siberia to Central Asia.

Then all we know that R1a1 came to India and brough there IndoEuropean language. R1b1b2 are absent in this equation. How come that "R1a1 learnt IE from R1b1" and what is a basis for this claim is unknown to me.

Then we know that  R1b1b2 in Europe 4500-4000 ybp spoke non-IE. This is logical. They spoke it earlier, they spoke in in Europe. At the same time, R1a1 brought IE language from the Russian Plain to the Caucasus and from there to Anatolia (Hetts, Mitanni, etc), 3600 ybp. In other words, the same time R1a1 brough IE to India, the same time R1a1 brought IE to Anatolia. Where R1b1b2 with "IE" in this equation?

R1b1b2 were in Lebanon 5500-5000 ybp. Where is there their "IE"??
R1b1b2 were in Iberia 4800-4000 ybp, left the Basques there. Where is there their "IE"?

Well, I can continue... It all boils down that there is no a shred of evidences of R1b1b2 as carriers of IE some 6000-4000-3000 years bp.         

To this day, Centum speakers are predominantly R1b.

No problem with that. I know some Chinese who actually speak English. Should we claim that ancient Chinese spoke IE based on that fact?


the older Indo-European language is the defining characteristic of R1b1b2.

"the older" needs a definition and a justification here. I would say, 2500 ybp and later.

Logged

R1a1

aklyosov
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #43 on: June 24, 2010, 10:53:37 AM »


I have always thought the Basques ... stems from the silly idea that they are some sort of aboriginal European, "Paleolithic remnant". I know you don't believe that, but I think its effects still linger whenever the subject of R1b1b2 and language come up.

I do not think we should worry toooooo much that some people believe in small green people either. It is a waste of time trying to convince them that it does not have ... well, you know. Many people believe that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, so what? Some people believe that the Basques (or R1b1b2 on that matter) lived in Europe 30,000 years ago, so what? 


Truly ancient, uncontaminated y-dna will help unravel all this, but I doubt it will ever solve the mysteries totally, simply because we'll never get a big enough sample. Suppose someone finds a single R1a in a Beaker grave (God forbid!)? What then? All the internet nerds sitting in their underwear in their mothers' basements will churn out blogs and posts proclaiming, "The mystery is solved!". But will one such find seal the deal? Hardly.

Of course, if they find an R-L21 in a Beaker grave... "The mystery is solved!"


On the first, I could not agree with you more.

On the second, it would be not a big deal. The Beaker culture ran from about 4800/4500 to about 3300. L21 common ancestor lived ~ 4000 ybp. So what mystery that finding is going to solve?? 
Logged

R1a1

IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #44 on: June 24, 2010, 11:24:52 AM »



Then we know that  R1b1b2 in Europe 4500-4000 ybp spoke non-IE. This is logical. They spoke it earlier, they spoke in in Europe. At the same time, R1a1 brought IE language from the Russian Plain to the Caucasus and from there to Anatolia (Hetts, Mitanni, etc), 3600 ybp. In other words, the same time R1a1 brough IE to India, the same time R1a1 brought IE to Anatolia. Where R1b1b2 with "IE" in this equation?



I am picking here on a detail, but how do you know Hittites or Mitanni were R1a1? Besides, their languages, although both IE, are not directly related.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #45 on: June 24, 2010, 11:59:48 AM »

The inheritance of Centum IE lies with R1b1b2, not R1a. I am sorry about this, Anatole.

No "sorry" here, since I have never claimed that R1a invented Centum branch of IE. What I said that there is no black and white in IE languages, since the Tocharian are identified with R1a1 lately, and not with R1b. And Tocharians are considered to be Centum.

I repeat again and again that the field is very complex, and attempts to see it as black and white are wrong in the first place.    

It seems the R1a nomads on the great, Russian plain learned Indo-European from their R1b1b2 teachers.

I would appreciate to see a single evidence of that.

All we know (and/or interpret) that the original R1a1 and R1b1 spoke languages of the Altaic family, in fact, turkic languages. That is what R1a1 and R1b1 continue to speak in Central Asia, and R1a1 from South Siberia to Central Asia.

Then all we know that R1a1 came to India and brough there IndoEuropean language. R1b1b2 are absent in this equation. How come that "R1a1 learnt IE from R1b1" and what is a basis for this claim is unknown to me.

Then we know that  R1b1b2 in Europe 4500-4000 ybp spoke non-IE. This is logical. They spoke it earlier, they spoke in in Europe. At the same time, R1a1 brought IE language from the Russian Plain to the Caucasus and from there to Anatolia (Hetts, Mitanni, etc), 3600 ybp. In other words, the same time R1a1 brough IE to India, the same time R1a1 brought IE to Anatolia. Where R1b1b2 with "IE" in this equation?

R1b1b2 were in Lebanon 5500-5000 ybp. Where is there their "IE"??
R1b1b2 were in Iberia 4800-4000 ybp, left the Basques there. Where is there their "IE"?

Well, I can continue... It all boils down that there is no a shred of evidences of R1b1b2 as carriers of IE some 6000-4000-3000 years bp.          

To this day, Centum speakers are predominantly R1b.

No problem with that. I know some Chinese who actually speak English. Should we claim that ancient Chinese spoke IE based on that fact?


the older Indo-European language is the defining characteristic of R1b1b2.

"the older" needs a definition and a justification here. I would say, 2500 ybp and later.


1. R1a1 beought SATEM to India, not CENTUM! Nice try, pal. That has nothing to do with the older form of Indo-European brought to Western Europe!

2. Last time I checked the Hittites spoke Indo-European (IE)... That is mighty close to Lebanon country! Uh-oh!

3. I believe the Chinese are mostly Haplogroup O, and they speak Tungusic languages. English has nothing to do with their ANCESTRAL tongue. Hmm, this is a lot like Western Europe were R1a1 was a bit... unlucky?

4. Who is to say the R1a1 in the Tarim Basin had anything to do with Tocharians? Even if the R1a1 there spoke a Centum language, they learned it from R1b1b2 folks before heading east! ;)
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 12:01:54 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #46 on: June 24, 2010, 12:34:20 PM »

. . .

On the second, it would be not a big deal. The Beaker culture ran from about 4800/4500 to about 3300. L21 common ancestor lived ~ 4000 ybp. So what mystery that finding is going to solve?? 


Geez, Anatole. Look at the context. I was being facetious, humorous . . . or trying to be.

Besides, are the current age estimates (both of Beaker culture and L21) sooo accurate that we can be absolutely certain that one is older or younger than the other?
Logged

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #47 on: June 24, 2010, 02:09:10 PM »

If L21 was born entering France from Iberia and moved north..then can we safely assume the L21 in Scandinavia is mostly from the British Isles?

« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 02:18:21 PM by OConnor » Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #48 on: June 24, 2010, 03:24:16 PM »

To Anatole:

Of course I am L23+ (L49/L150).
I have also a mutation (S136+) with my relative Giancarlo Tognoni: a 9bp deletion in the region of L50, tested by EthnoAncestry. For this I should be: R1b1b2b (there is a topic on this here on Worldfamilies).
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 24, 2010, 04:26:18 PM »

If L21 was born entering France from Iberia and moved north..then can we safely assume the L21 in Scandinavia is mostly from the British Isles?
1) Do we think L21 was born in Iberia?  I don't know, but it's variance is much higher in France and it is more populous there apparently.

2) Why assume L21 entered Scandinavia via the British Isles rather than directly from Northern Europe?  It is a shorter trip.  We also know that Bell Beaker peoples reached Scandinavia.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 06:12:11 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 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 0.149 seconds with 19 queries.