World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: alan trowel hands. on June 22, 2012, 12:51:36 PM



Title: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 22, 2012, 12:51:36 PM
Dienekes blog notes that linguists have identified an obscure IE language in NW Pakistan as most likely a remnant of Phrygian, a language some think had common roots with Greek and Armenian. 

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/is-burushaski-indo-european.html

Is there any data for this Burushaski population?  I am especially interested in the R1b and R1a situation. 


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: NealtheRed on June 22, 2012, 01:23:21 PM
Dienekes blog notes that linguists have identified an obscure IE language in NW Pakistan as most likely a remnant of Phrygian, a language some think had common roots with Greek and Armenian.  

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/is-burushaski-indo-european.html

Is there any data for this Burushaski population?  I am especially interested in the R1b and R1a situation.  

I see at least three Pakistani R1b1a2 samples in the India/Pakistan/Nepal project at FTDNA, with loads of R1a. I am inclined to associate the R1b1a2 with movements from the Balkans/Anatolia, and the overwhelming R1a levels with Iranian languages.

I should also throw in a caveat that I am not sure what subclades that R1b1a2 will fall into. That has to be important.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Jean M on June 22, 2012, 03:23:21 PM
The Burusho were included in Underhill et al 2010 and Wells et al 2004. The former found their Burusho sample to be 25% R1a1a (M17) and 0% M34. The latter claimed the Burusho were high in R2.



Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 23, 2012, 10:42:35 AM
I wonder what makes Dr. Casule think Burushaski is both Indo-European and related to ancient Phrygian.

Quote
Tracing the historical path of a language is no easy task. Professor Casule said he became interested in the origins of Burushaski more than 20 years ago.

“People knew of its existence but its Indo-European affiliation was overlooked and it was not analysed correctly. It is considered a language isolate – not related to any other language in the world in much the same way that the Basque language is classified as a language isolate,” he said.


All the linguists who came before failed to analyze Burushaski correctly, failed to recognize it was even Indo-European, or to see the connection with Phrygian?

A remnant of the Phrygians wound up in Pakistan?

Perhaps this should be met with at least the same level of skepticism that has greeted Euphratic and other somewhat unorthodox claims.




Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 23, 2012, 11:35:45 AM
Here is something I posted on another thread but which is relevant here, since we are speaking of what was regarded as a language isolate but is now proposed as Indo-European.

Awhile back there was some discussion of the doctoral thesis of Arnaud Etchamendy, "Euskera-Erderak: basque et langues indo-européennes : essai de comparaison", from Pau University, 2007.

The paper is in French, so I haven't read it, but it was talked about on Rootsweb:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-12/1292092438 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-12/1292092438)

Quote from: Didier Vernade

Bernard,

I think a short translation is required. Shortly, the thesis is that the correlations found between Basque and IE languages can't be coincidences or traces of short contacts with IE populations. Rather, Euskara would be a true IE language from a separate branch.

Didier


If linguists missed the connection between Burushaski and Indo-European, perhaps there are connections they have heretofore missed between Indo-European and that other, more famous language isolate, Basque.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: acekon on June 23, 2012, 03:07:47 PM
Gene deleted and or non functional  p36.13-p34.3

"The D antigen is inherited as one gene (RHD) (on the short arm of the first chromosome, p36.13-p34.3) "

Interesting quirky mutation found among the following groups and regions, Bannu, Uromia and Cacasus,  Basque, Berbers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15090322
http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/20-4/Khattak.pdf
http://www.aina.org/articles/gdaicc.pdf

Uncommon mutation among African and Asian populations.
African descent    less 1%
Asian    less 1%


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Jean M on June 23, 2012, 05:05:35 PM
@ rms2

Agree that scepticism makes sense at this stage. I'm leaving the linguists to fight it out. I wouldn't dismiss it as completely impossible on geographic grounds. People get about, especially if they are in flight from invaders. The  Phrygian Empire was smashed by the Cimmerians. But linguistically I'm with you. Wait and see is my policy.

As for IE and Basque - that's just one of the many attempts to link Basque to some other language, and they have all had the thumbs down from the majority of linguists eventually. But there is a curious link with IE that has been difficult to dismiss: the -ko suffix. So some interaction seems possible or even likely.   


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 24, 2012, 07:32:24 PM
Its a shame that the linguists postulate that PIE and Basque descend from a common node do not try to estimate time depth of that node.  Without that it kind of useless in terms of human migration history.  Obviously there is a node sometime but its it 20000 years back or 8000 or what.  It makes a huge difference.  I certainly think that the way people tend to think languages in Europe and western Asia as a few blocks like today fails to take into account the recent nodes they share.  PIE being just one and apparently no older than 6000 years or so.  There must have been many close and distant cousin languages of archaic PIE that had common roots with its ancestor that split away at different times and it would be very strange if there had not been other fissions from the ancestral node before archaic PIE and it would not exactly have been mind blowing if one or two had survived that had a common ancestor with archaic PIE maybe a few thousand years earlier.  its just not obvious (which doesnt mean it didnt happen) how they ended up in the Pyrennees.  I am not a linguist but it does kind of sound to me that if it did share a common distant ancestor with archaic PIE that it was pretty distant.  I dont know if we are talking incredibly distant or not.  There was a thrust from the east just before the LGM known as the Badegoulian which is believe to be ancestral to the Magdalenian culture that I suppose in theory could moved a language with a very distant common ancestor to eastern languages into the west.  In fact it probably did do if the archaeological interpretation is right.  After that its hard to see how an eastern language could have got that far west for a long long time due to the farming thrust.  I suppose you could argue for low visibility displacement westwards of more easterly hunter-gatherers c. 6000BC but it is tricky.  One thing I would say is that in the pre-farming era, I have read that cultures all round the Black Sea from the Crimea to the western shore into NW Turkey are said to have been similar.  So the later huge divides we see between the steppes areas, the east Balkans and NW Turkey were not there in pre-farming times.  Distantly related languages might have been found all through that area and I suppose would have potentially have been displaced by farmers.  There are a group of rather obscure Mesolithic cultures at the start of the Neolithic with pointed pottery and Mesolithic lifestyles and flint technology who have been broadly compared, including ones as far west as SE France.  It was once thought they were linked but this is unfashionable now.  I dont know enough details to comment but a lot of old ideas are apparently being proved right at the moment so I just wonder.    As I posted earlier, there are some strange phenomenon that look like spreads of people linked to the Castelnovian technocomplex from Italy to the Pyrennees shorly before the Neolithic.  I understand they seemed ot have a dual (possibly seasonal) distribution in the shores/rivers and the hills (hunting).  Maybe they lost the lowland but kept the uplands.  Roucadourian in SW France might be an offshoot of the latter (sorry I cant remember how to spell it). I have head it suggested as some sort of possible origin of the Basques.  Of course you have weird groups like La Hoguette etc.  I think there is a lot of things going on with the hunter gatherers facing the farming waves first effects, possibly in a complex shunting effect but its very low visibility and can only be glimpsed now and then.   That all said, I think it still takes a lot of special pleading to connect that with R1b in any way.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 25, 2012, 08:07:47 AM
Yes, and why would hunter-gatherer I2a take up with the Near Eastern farmers, to end up in the aDNA finds at Neolithic sites, while hunter-gatherer R1b supposedly took to its heels and fled?


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 25, 2012, 08:31:00 AM
Yes, and why would hunter-gatherer I2a take up with the Near Eastern farmers, to end up in the aDNA finds at Neolithic sites, while hunter-gatherer R1b supposedly took to its heels and fled?

I don't know, I think location has a lot to do with it, moreover, why would Native Central American tribes ally with the Spaniards to defeat the Aztecs? It's not something weird for conquerors to ally themselves with some of the local people to wipe out the most powerful ones.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 25, 2012, 08:42:18 AM
Yes, and why would hunter-gatherer I2a take up with the Near Eastern farmers, to end up in the aDNA finds at Neolithic sites, while hunter-gatherer R1b supposedly took to its heels and fled?

I don't know, I think location has a lot to do with it, moreover, why would Native Central American tribes ally with the Spaniards to defeat the Aztecs? It's not something weird for conquerors to ally themselves with some of the local people to wipe out the most powerful ones.

Did the Aztecs flee to the mountains only to return later to devastate both the Spaniards and their tribal allies and become the overwhelmingly dominant group in Central America?

If we are to look to Central America for stories that are analogous to what happened in Europe with R1b, let's look to the Spanish themselves, the predominance of R1b in Latin America today and the retention of Amerindian mtDNA.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 25, 2012, 08:54:35 AM
Did the Aztecs flee to the mountains only to return later to devastate both the Spaniards and their tribal allies and become the overwhelmingly dominant group in Central America?
No, but that wasn’t the point, the point was that it was possible for some native hunter-gatherers to ally themselves with the incoming agriculturists.

If we are to look to Central America for stories that are analogous to what happened in Europe with R1b, let's look to the Spanish themselves, the predominance of R1b in Latin America today and the retention of Amerindian mtDNA.

Yeah, let’s look at the fact that the Spanish/Aztecs technological differences were overwhelmingly superior to that of Hunter-gatherers/Farmers. Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America

(http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg)

 http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg (http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg)


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 25, 2012, 09:12:12 AM
Did the Aztecs flee to the mountains only to return later to devastate both the Spaniards and their tribal allies and become the overwhelmingly dominant group in Central America?
No, but that wasn’t the point, the point was that it was possible for some native hunter-gatherers to ally themselves with the incoming agriculturists.

If we are to look to Central America for stories that are analogous to what happened in Europe with R1b, let's look to the Spanish themselves, the predominance of R1b in Latin America today and the retention of Amerindian mtDNA.

Yeah, let’s look at the fact that the Spanish/Aztecs technological differences were overwhelmingly superior to that of Hunter-gatherers/Farmers. Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America

(http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg)

 http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg (http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg)


That map is completely inaccurate. It seems to be Q1a3a as a percentage of remaining Latin American Y-DNA. In places like Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil, European Y-DNA reaches something like 80%+. I'm sure most other Latin American countries are 50%+.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 25, 2012, 09:46:41 AM
That map is completely inaccurate It seems to be Q1a3a as a percentage of remaining Latin American Y-DNA. In places like Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil, European Y-DNA reaches something like 80%+. I'm sure most other Latin American countries are 50%+.

You got any source to back that accusation?? The map might not be entirely accurate, as in the case of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile but it is definitely in the ballpark when it comes to Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and certain regions of Central America which is what the map is showing.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 25, 2012, 10:17:14 AM
That map is completely inaccurate It seems to be Q1a3a as a percentage of remaining Latin American Y-DNA. In places like Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil, European Y-DNA reaches something like 80%+. I'm sure most other Latin American countries are 50%+.

You got any source to back that accusation?? The map might not be entirely accurate, as in the case of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile but it is definitely in the ballpark when it comes to Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and certain regions of Central America which is what the map is showing.


I don't mean "mot entirely accurate", I mean completely inaccurate if it is taken to mean total Y-DNA inclusive of non-indigenous populations. The map is saying Argentina is 80% haplogroup Q when in reality their Y-DNA is 94.1% attributable to European immigration...

"Inferring Continental Ancestry of Argentineans from Autosomal, Y-Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA"

"Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%)"

If that is so extremely inaccurate, then I won't even bother looking anything else up. You can do the legwork.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 25, 2012, 10:57:43 AM
I don't mean "mot entirely accurate", I mean completely inaccurate if it is taken to mean total Y-DNA inclusive of non-indigenous populations. The map is saying Argentina is 80% haplogroup Q when in reality their Y-DNA is 94.1% attributable to European immigration...

"Inferring Continental Ancestry of Argentineans from Autosomal, Y-Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA"

"Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%)"

If that is so extremely inaccurate, then I won't even bother looking anything else up. You can do the legwork.

Yes, you can knock down all you want the Argentinean, Uruguayan or Brazilian strawman. So if Argentina is extremely inaccurate that is all you need to declare the map as completely wrong? Also you seem to forget that indigenous populations are still a very big percentage of the population in countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Guatemala, which is why I said that the percentage of haplogroup Q1a3a was probably on the ballpark for those regions.

Even in Mexico City the native lineages make up 40% of the paternal lineages:

Admixture in Mexico City: implications for admixture mapping of type 2 diabetes genetic risk factors. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17066296)

Quote from: Martinez-Marignac.et.al.2007

Admixture mapping is a recently developed method for identifying genetic risk factors involved in complex traits or diseases showing prevalence differences between major continental groups. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is at least twice as prevalent in Native American populations as in populations of European ancestry, so admixture mapping is well suited to study the genetic basis of this complex disease. We have characterized the admixture proportions in a sample of 286 unrelated T2D patients and 275 controls from Mexico City and we discuss the implications of the results for admixture mapping studies. Admixture proportions were estimated using 69 autosomal ancestry-informative markers (AIMs). Maternal and paternal contributions were estimated from geographically informative mtDNA and Y-specific polymorphisms. The average proportions of Native American, European and, West African admixture were estimated as 65, 30, and 5%, respectively. The contributions of Native American ancestors to maternal and paternal lineages were estimated as 90 and 40%, respectively.In a logistic model with higher educational status as dependent variable, the odds ratio for higher educational status associated with an increase from 0 to 1 in European admixture proportions was 9.4 (95%, credible interval 3.8-22.6). This association of socioeconomic status with individual admixture proportion shows that genetic stratification in this population is paralleled, and possibly maintained, by socioeconomic stratification. The effective number of generations back to unadmixed ancestors was 6.7 (95% CI 5.7-8.0), from which we can estimate that genome-wide admixture mapping will require typing about 1,400 evenly distributed AIMs to localize genes underlying disease risk between populations of European and Native American ancestry. Sample sizes of about 2,000 cases will be required to detect any locus that contributes an ancestry risk ratio of at least 1.5.




Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 25, 2012, 11:58:16 AM
Yeah, let’s look at the fact that the Spanish/Aztecs technological differences were overwhelmingly superior to that of Hunter-gatherers/Farmers. Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America

(http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg)

 http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg (http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg)  


I don't mean "mot entirely accurate", I mean completely inaccurate if it is taken to mean total Y-DNA inclusive of non-indigenous populations. The map is saying Argentina is 80% haplogroup Q when in reality their Y-DNA is 94.1% attributable to European immigration...

"Inferring Continental Ancestry of Argentineans from Autosomal, Y-Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA"

"Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%)"

If that is so extremely inaccurate, then I won't even bother looking anything else up. You can do the legwork.

Yes, you can knock down all you want the Argentinean, Uruguayan or Brazilian strawman. So if Argentina is extremely inaccurate that is all you need to declare the map as completely wrong? Also you seem to forget that indigenous populations are still a very big percentage of the population in countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Guatemala, which is why I said that the percentage of haplogroup Q1a3a was probably on the ballpark for those regions.
...

JeanL, you need to research your arguments a little better.  Cline maps can be misleading in the first place, but it is important to know what data is being used.  There is no doubt that there are areas where Hg Q is the dominant Y Hg. They may be just villages, though.  I'm not sure what the data really is behind the map, but you like academic studies and Argentina is a major country.  You can say Brazil and Argentina are strawman, but last I checked Brazil is about half the population for all of South America.
"The Phylogeography of Brazilian Y-Chromosome Lineages" shows a predominately European set of Y haplogroups for Brazil.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1234928/


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 25, 2012, 12:51:37 PM
^This is what I said originally:

You got any source to back that accusation?? The map might not be entirely accurate, as in the case of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile but it is definitely in the ballpark when it comes to Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and certain regions of Central America which is what the map is showing.



Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 25, 2012, 06:22:22 PM
^This is what I said originally:

You got any source to back that accusation?? The map might not be entirely accurate, as in the case of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile but it is definitely in the ballpark when it comes to Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and certain regions of Central America which is what the map is showing.



I like debating as much as the next guy, but I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Based on that map, you said: "Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America."

If you don't think this is a map that represents Q as a percentage of indigenous Y-DNA, then good luck trying to explain the North America frequency, where it appears to be over 50%!!!


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 25, 2012, 07:21:07 PM
I like debating as much as the next guy, but I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Based on that map, you said: "Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America."

If you don't think this is a map that represents Q as a percentage of indigenous Y-DNA, then good luck trying to explain the North America frequency, where it appears to be over 50%!!!

Ok, let me rephrase it then:

"Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in certain regions of Central and South America."

Also, notice that Mexico City which is pretty big and populated showed 40% of Indigenous haplogroups. I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of those folks in Mexico City with Indigenous haplogroups speak Spanish.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 25, 2012, 07:43:44 PM
I like debating as much as the next guy, but I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Based on that map, you said: "Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America."

If you don't think this is a map that represents Q as a percentage of indigenous Y-DNA, then good luck trying to explain the North America frequency, where it appears to be over 50%!!!

Ok, let me rephrase it then:

"Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in certain regions of Central and South America."

Also, notice that Mexico City which is pretty big and populated showed 40% of Indigenous haplogroups. I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of those folks in Mexico City with Indigenous haplogroups speak Spanish.


The only phrase that is accurate for that map is:

"...Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in some indigenous populations of Central and South America."

Anything else is just speculation.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 25, 2012, 08:02:10 PM
The only phrase that is accurate for that map is:

"...Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in some indigenous populations of Central and South America."

Anything else is just speculation.


Ehmm, Q1a3a reaches frequencies of 100% in some indigenous populations see here:

 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5SF14OUqcqM/T7FRf7_PZ6I/AAAAAAAAE2E/5f_SaqkyDwM/s1600/mexico.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5SF14OUqcqM/T7FRf7_PZ6I/AAAAAAAAE2E/5f_SaqkyDwM/s1600/mexico.png)

 Genetic analysis of ancestry, admixture and selection in Bolivian and Totonac populations of the New World (http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2156-13-39.pdf)

Quote from: Watkins.et.al.2012
Ancestry for Mesoamerican and South American samples was assessed initially using mtDNA, and Y-STRs. We sought to identify samples with maximal New World and minimal European ancestry for additional high-throughput genotyping in a larger study of worldwide genetic variation [9]. The analysis of mtDNA HVS I and II showed that all Bolivian and Totonac samples belong to haplogroups A2, B2, C1 and D1, consistent with pre-Columbian New World maternal ancestry. Mitochondrial haplogroup A2 was the predominant lineage in the Totonacs (63%), while haplogroup B2 was prevalent in the Bolivians (71%). All Totonacs and 17 Bolivians (61%) had pre-Columbian Y-chromosomes (Q1a3a1). Consistent with historical accounts of male European admixture, 11 Bolivians (39%) carried Ychromosome lineages that are common in Europe (R1b, J2, G) (Figure 1).

[…]

Mesoamerican Totonacs (24) were sampled from an isolated rural location near Filomeno Mata, Veracruz, in southern Mexico. South American Bolivians (28) were obtained from several locations in Bolivia. All subjects were collected as unrelated samples, and all subjects’ grandparents originated from the same geographic region. All samples were collected with informed consent by the Sorenson Molecular Genealogical Foundation (SMGF) as part of a worldwide sample collection project. The study was approved by the Western Institutional Review Board.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 25, 2012, 08:12:50 PM
The only phrase that is accurate for that map is:

"...Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in some indigenous populations of Central and South America."

Anything else is just speculation.


Ehmm, Q1a3a reaches frequencies of 100% in some indigenous populations see here:

 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5SF14OUqcqM/T7FRf7_PZ6I/AAAAAAAAE2E/5f_SaqkyDwM/s1600/mexico.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5SF14OUqcqM/T7FRf7_PZ6I/AAAAAAAAE2E/5f_SaqkyDwM/s1600/mexico.png)

 Genetic analysis of ancestry, admixture and selection in Bolivian and Totonac populations of the New World (http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2156-13-39.pdf)

Quote from: Watkins.et.al.2012
Ancestry for Mesoamerican and South American samples was assessed initially using mtDNA, and Y-STRs. We sought to identify samples with maximal New World and minimal European ancestry for additional high-throughput genotyping in a larger study of worldwide genetic variation [9]. The analysis of mtDNA HVS I and II showed that all Bolivian and Totonac samples belong to haplogroups A2, B2, C1 and D1, consistent with pre-Columbian New World maternal ancestry. Mitochondrial haplogroup A2 was the predominant lineage in the Totonacs (63%), while haplogroup B2 was prevalent in the Bolivians (71%). All Totonacs and 17 Bolivians (61%) had pre-Columbian Y-chromosomes (Q1a3a1). Consistent with historical accounts of male European admixture, 11 Bolivians (39%) carried Ychromosome lineages that are common in Europe (R1b, J2, G) (Figure 1).

[…]

Mesoamerican Totonacs (24) were sampled from an isolated rural location near Filomeno Mata, Veracruz, in southern Mexico. South American Bolivians (28) were obtained from several locations in Bolivia. All subjects were collected as unrelated samples, and all subjects’ grandparents originated from the same geographic region. All samples were collected with informed consent by the Sorenson Molecular Genealogical Foundation (SMGF) as part of a worldwide sample collection project. The study was approved by the Western Institutional Review Board.


Good, unlike the map, this is the kind of reference we can all sink our teeth into.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 26, 2012, 06:57:07 AM
Did the Aztecs flee to the mountains only to return later to devastate both the Spaniards and their tribal allies and become the overwhelmingly dominant group in Central America?
No, but that wasn’t the point, the point was that it was possible for some native hunter-gatherers to ally themselves with the incoming agriculturists.

That was your point, which had to do with what was possible in Europe for I2a and Near Eastern farmers. Since you made the Spanish/Native-alliance-versus-the- Aztecs analogy, it seemed only right to carry it through to its logical conclusion. The Spanish/Native alliance finished the Aztecs off as a power. The Aztecs never recovered. R1b, on the other hand, came to be the dominant y haplogroup of western Europe. In that way, R1b is much more like the Spanish in your analogy than like the Aztecs.

That is why your analogy breaks down. You put G2a in the role of the Spanish, I2a in the role of the native, non-Aztec tribes, and R1b in the role of the Aztecs. I would argue that in reality the role of R1b was analogous to the role of the Spanish, not to the role of the Aztecs.

Could there have been such an alliance against R1b? Anything is possible. Did it work? Evidently not; but if such an alliance against R1b did exist and was strong enough to drive R1b into hiding, it should have worked. The ultimate result - R1b dominant in western Europe - is a pretty good indication that no such alliance existed, and that R1b was never driven into hiding by agriculturists.



If we are to look to Central America for stories that are analogous to what happened in Europe with R1b, let's look to the Spanish themselves, the predominance of R1b in Latin America today and the retention of Amerindian mtDNA.

Yeah, let’s look at the fact that the Spanish/Aztecs technological differences were overwhelmingly superior to that of Hunter-gatherers/Farmers.

It was your analogy, not mine.

Besides that, the farmers would have had technological advantages over the hunter-gatherers. Isn't that part of your argument? That the farmers drove the poor, benighted R1b hunter-gatherers into hiding?

Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America

(http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg)

 http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg (http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg)


That map, as has been pointed out, is pretty obviously intended to represent the Q1a3a frequency among Native Americans, probably in an attempt to represent the situation prior to the European conquest of the Americas.

Just look at the Q1a3a frequencies for North America.

In Latin America today, European y haplogroups, especially R1b, are dominant, while Amerindian mtDNA haplogroups prevail on the distaff side. No doubt you are familiar with the term mestizo.




Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 26, 2012, 07:27:38 AM
Genetic admixture, relatedness, and structure patterns among Mexican populations revealed by the Y-chromosome (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18161845)

Quote from: Abstract
Y-linked markers are suitable loci to analyze genetic diversity of human populations, offering knowledge of medical, forensic, and anthropological interest. In a population sample of 206 Mestizo males from western Mexico, we analyzed two binary loci (M3 and YAP) and six Y-STRs, adding to the analysis data of Mexican Mestizos and Amerindians, and relevant worldwide populations. The paternal ancestry estimated in western Mexican-Mestizos was mainly European (60-64%), followed by Amerindian (25-21%), and African ( approximately 15%). Significant genetic heterogeneity was established between Mestizos from western (Jalisco State) and northern Mexico (Chihuahua State) compared with Mexicans from the center of the Mexican Republic (Mexico City), this attributable to higher European ancestry in western and northern than in central and southeast populations, where higher Amerindian ancestry was inferred. This genetic structure has important implications for medical and forensic purposes. Two different Pre-Hispanic evolutionary processes were evident. In Mesoamerican region, populations presented higher migration rate (N(m) = 24.76), promoting genetic homogeneity. Conversely, isolated groups from the mountains and canyons of the Western and Northern Sierra Madre (Huichols and Tarahumaras, respectively) presented a lower migration rate (N(m) = 10.27) and stronger genetic differentiation processes (founder effect and/or genetic drift), constituting a Pre-Hispanic population substructure. Additionally, Tarahumaras presented a higher frequency of Y-chromosomes without Q3 that was explained by paternal European admixture (15%) and, more interestingly, by a distinctive Native-American ancestry. In Purepechas, a special admixture process involving preferential integration of non-Purepecha women in their communities could explain contrary genetic evidences (autosomal vs. Y-chromosome) for this tribe.

Population structure and paternal admixture landscape on present-day Mexican-Mestizos revealed by Y-STR haplotypes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19967759)

Quote from: Abstract

Mestizos currently represent most of the Mexican population (>90%); they are defined as individuals born in the country having a Spanish-derived last name, with family antecedents of Mexican ancestors back at least to the third generation. Mestizos are result of 500 years of admixture mainly among Spaniards, Amerindians, and African slaves. Consequently, a complex genetic pattern has been generated throughout the country that has been scarcely studied from the paternal point of view. This fact is important, taking into account that gene flow toward the New World comprised largely males. We analyzed the population structure and paternal admixture of present-day Mexican-Mestizo populations based on Y-STRs. We genotyped at least 12 Y-STRs in DNA samples of 986 males from five states: Aguascalientes (n = 293); Jalisco (n = 185); Guanajuato (n = 168); Chiapas (n = 170); and Yucatán (n = 170). AmpFlSTR Y-filer and Powerplex-Y(R) kits were used. Inclusion of North and Central Y-STR databases in the analyses allowed obtaining a Y-STR variability landscape from Mexico. Results confirmed the population differentiation gradient previously noted in Mestizos with SNPs and autosomal STRs throughout the Mexican territory: European ancestry increments to the Northwest and, correspondingly, Amerindian ancestry increments to the Center and Southeast. In addition, SAMOVA test and Autocorrelation Index for DNA Analysis autocorrelogram plot suggested preferential gene flow of males with neighboring populations in agreement with the isolation-by-distance model. Results are important for disease-risk studies (principally male-related) and for human identification purposes, because Y-STR databases are not available on the majority of Mexican-Mestizo populations.

I have not read either of the studies above, since they are pay-to-read.

Robert Tarin has collected some stats on some of the Latin American countries here (http://www.iberianroots.com/statistics.html).



Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 26, 2012, 10:58:06 AM
That was your point, which had to do with what was possible in Europe for I2a and Near Eastern farmers. Since you made the Spanish/Native-alliance-versus-the- Aztecs analogy, it seemed only right to carry it through to its logical conclusion. The Spanish/Native alliance finished the Aztecs off as a power. The Aztecs never recovered. R1b, on the other hand, came to be the dominant y haplogroup of western Europe. In that way, R1b is much more like the Spanish in your analogy than like the Aztecs.

No, my point was that it is nothing strange for some tribes to ally themselves with incoming conquerors against other tribes, and I provided the Aztecs analogy. Now, as for a recovery of Q1a3a, it has only been 500 years since the conquest of the Americas, Q1a3a survives in great numbers in the Andean regions, where due to lack of oxygen because of altitude, Spaniards couldn’t really do much in those regions. There you have it, that is the concept of a haplogroup taking refuge in an area that is appropriate. The putative expansion of R1b takes place circa 3000 BC-2500 BC, that is from 2500-3000 years after the farmers arrived in Europe, so I think it is far too soon to make any conclusions as if Q1a3a never recovered or not, maybe it won’t in the Aztecs, but it is still very well alive in the Quechuas.

Could there have been such an alliance against R1b? Anything is possible. Did it work? Evidently not; but if such an alliance against R1b did exist and was strong enough to drive R1b into hiding, it should have worked. The ultimate result - R1b dominant in western Europe - is a pretty good indication that no such alliance existed, and that R1b was never driven into hiding by agriculturists.

Again, you are jumping into conclusions far too soon, we are talking about a period of 2000-3000 years of R1b existence in the mountains of Western Europe, the conquest of the Americas has shown that it is possible for native haplogroups to survive in far greater numbers in regions that are hostile to incoming conquerors.

Besides that, the farmers would have had technological advantages over the hunter-gatherers. Isn't that part of your argument? That the farmers drove the poor, benighted R1b hunter-gatherers into hiding?

I don’t know if they were poor, or benighted, or what does that have to do with anything?
In Latin America today, European y haplogroups, especially R1b, are dominant, while Amerindian mtDNA haplogroups prevail on the distaff side. No doubt you are familiar with the term mestizo.

No, European y haplogroups are dominant in certain Mestizo populations, in others it isn’t, even in the papers you posted you can see evidence of those clines in Mexico:

Genetic admixture, relatedness, and structure patterns among Mexican populations revealed by the Y-chromosome (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18161845)

Quote from: Abstract
Y-linked markers are suitable loci to analyze genetic diversity of human populations, offering knowledge of medical, forensic, and anthropological interest. In a population sample of 206 Mestizo males from western Mexico, we analyzed two binary loci (M3 and YAP) and six Y-STRs, adding to the analysis data of Mexican Mestizos and Amerindians, and relevant worldwide populations. The paternal ancestry estimated in western Mexican-Mestizos was mainly European (60-64%), followed by Amerindian (25-21%), and African ( approximately 15%). Significant genetic heterogeneity was established between Mestizos from western (Jalisco State) and northern Mexico (Chihuahua State) compared with Mexicans from the center of the Mexican Republic (Mexico City), this attributable to higher European ancestry in western and northern than in central and southeast populations, where higher Amerindian ancestry was inferred. This genetic structure has important implications for medical and forensic purposes. Two different Pre-Hispanic evolutionary processes were evident. In Mesoamerican region, populations presented higher migration rate (N(m) = 24.76), promoting genetic homogeneity. Conversely, isolated groups from the mountains and canyons of the Western and Northern Sierra Madre (Huichols and Tarahumaras, respectively) presented a lower migration rate (N(m) = 10.27) and stronger genetic differentiation processes (founder effect and/or genetic drift), constituting a Pre-Hispanic population substructure. Additionally, Tarahumaras presented a higher frequency of Y-chromosomes without Q3 that was explained by paternal European admixture (15%) and, more interestingly, by a distinctive Native-American ancestry. In Purepechas, a special admixture process involving preferential integration of non-Purepecha women in their communities could explain contrary genetic evidences (autosomal vs. Y-chromosome) for this tribe.

Population structure and paternal admixture landscape on present-day Mexican-Mestizos revealed by Y-STR haplotypes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19967759)

Quote from: Abstract

Mestizos currently represent most of the Mexican population (>90%); they are defined as individuals born in the country having a Spanish-derived last name, with family antecedents of Mexican ancestors back at least to the third generation. Mestizos are result of 500 years of admixture mainly among Spaniards, Amerindians, and African slaves. Consequently, a complex genetic pattern has been generated throughout the country that has been scarcely studied from the paternal point of view. This fact is important, taking into account that gene flow toward the New World comprised largely males. We analyzed the population structure and paternal admixture of present-day Mexican-Mestizo populations based on Y-STRs. We genotyped at least 12 Y-STRs in DNA samples of 986 males from five states: Aguascalientes (n = 293); Jalisco (n = 185); Guanajuato (n = 168); Chiapas (n = 170); and Yucatán (n = 170). AmpFlSTR Y-filer and Powerplex-Y(R) kits were used. Inclusion of North and Central Y-STR databases in the analyses allowed obtaining a Y-STR variability landscape from Mexico. Results confirmed the population differentiation gradient previously noted in Mestizos with SNPs and autosomal STRs throughout the Mexican territory: European ancestry increments to the Northwest and, correspondingly, Amerindian ancestry increments to the Center and Southeast. In addition, SAMOVA test and Autocorrelation Index for DNA Analysis autocorrelogram plot suggested preferential gene flow of males with neighboring populations in agreement with the isolation-by-distance model. Results are important for disease-risk studies (principally male-related) and for human identification purposes, because Y-STR databases are not available on the majority of Mexican-Mestizo populations.



Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 26, 2012, 07:04:37 PM
Those reports don't actually say the Amerindian y-dna element is the most frequent anywhere among Mexican Mestizos. They say the Amerindian component is a larger part of the picture in the center and southeast than it is in the north and west, but not that it surpasses the European component. It may do that, but the abstracts don't actually say that is the case.

From what I have seen of dna projects in which Latin Americans are involved, European y haplogroups consistently surpass Amerindian y haplogroups. You could argue that Latin Americans with Amerindian y-dna don't tend to order commercial y-dna tests, but I don't know how you would prove that.

You are asking us to believe that R1b hid out in the mountains of western Europe for 2000-3000 years before somehow managing to overcome the agriculturists who had driven them there in the first place and going on to become the dominant y haplogroup in western Europe.

No need for me to muster much of an argument against that! I'll let it stand on its own.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 26, 2012, 09:18:27 PM
Those reports don't actually say the Amerindian y-dna element is the most frequent anywhere among Mexican Mestizos. They say the Amerindian component is a larger part of the picture in the center and southeast than it is in the north and west, but not that it surpasses the European component. It may do that, but the abstracts don't actually say that is the case.

Well here you go then:

Figure-1 from one of the studies you posted the one by Salazar-Flores.et.al.2010

(http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Figure-1-1.jpg)

 http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Figure-1-1.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Figure-1-1.jpg)

Table-1 with the location codes

(http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Table-1.jpg)

 http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Table-1.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Table-1.jpg)

Finally, Figure-4

(http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Figure-4.jpg)

 http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Figure-4.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Figure-4.jpg)

I think it is very clear that Amerindian Y-DNA is the majority in Chiapas (n=170), Yucatan (n=170) and Mexico City (n=357), it is still significant(i.e. 47%) in Guanajato(n=168). So now you know that it does surpass the European component in some regions of Mexico.

From what I have seen of dna projects in which Latin Americans are involved, European y haplogroups consistently surpass Amerindian y haplogroups. You could argue that Latin Americans with Amerindian y-dna don't tend to order commercial y-dna tests, but I don't know how you would prove that.

Latin America is a very (I can’t stretch that enough) very diverse region, and while European Y haplogroups predominate in countries like Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, and the Caribbean, it doesn’t in certain regions of Central and South America, which is what I have been saying all along. So I highly doubt you would get any reasonable picture of the haplogroups distribution in Latin America, when you have variation going from one province to the other within countries.

You are asking us to believe that R1b hid out in the mountains of western Europe for 2000-3000 years before somehow managing to overcome the agriculturists who had driven them there in the first place and going on to become the dominant y haplogroup in western Europe.

No need for me to muster much of an argument against that! I'll let it stand on its own.

I’m not asking anything, you believe whatever fits your boat. I simply postulated a hypothesis; I have yet to see anything that shows an expanding pattern from the East, it isn’t there. Frankly I am tired of repeating myself over and over again If you don’t buy into it, good for you, let’s wait and see what aDNA has to say. Very soon we will have results published from the Yamnaya culture, and from Anatolia, one would expect for R1b to make a big appearance in the region if one were to follow your hypotheses.


http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9435/centralasiasitesweb.jpg (http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9435/centralasiasitesweb.jpg)


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 27, 2012, 07:34:41 AM
Man, you'll continue arguing no matter what. Does the fact that Amerindian y-dna predominates in certain regions of Latin America change the fact that European y-dna predominates overall, which is what I asserted in the first place? Even among Mestizos in Mexico, as the table you posted shows, European y-dna is over 50% of the total.

The fact remains that in a very short time period European y haplogroups have largely replaced Amerindian y haplogroups throughout Latin America. Looking at the Americas as a whole, the replacement of Amerindian y-dna by European y-dna is absolutely startling, especially given the rapidity with which that change has occurred.

Back to Eurasia now. The overall diversity of M269 indicates movement from east to west (or SE to NW), and the SNP trail indicates the same thing, with M269 clades diverging from earlier, upstream nodes progressively as one moves from east to west (based on an eastern origin for R-M343 and, subsequently, R-M269). The eddyings and meanderings of various clades of R-M269 once they reached Europe do not alter those basic facts, despite your attempts to use them to cloud the picture and argue that R1b-whatever in Europe ran from the Near Eastern agro-pastoralists, hid in the mountains for 2000-3000 years, and only then emerged to overwhelm the farmers and become the dominant y haplogroup in western Europe. You exaggerate the importance of the Basques and of Iberia, to the neglect of the vast majority of European peoples and of the European peninsula as a whole.

If it turns out you are right, which I strongly doubt, then fine. We'll all be the wiser, and we'll congratulate you on your foresight and perspicacity.

 


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 27, 2012, 12:15:32 PM
Man, you'll continue arguing no matter what. Does the fact that Amerindian y-dna predominates in certain regions of Latin America change the fact that European y-dna predominates overall, which is what I asserted in the first place? Even among Mestizos in Mexico, as the table you posted shows, European y-dna is over 50% of the total.

The fact remains that in a very short time period European y haplogroups have largely replaced Amerindian y haplogroups throughout Latin America. Looking at the Americas as a whole, the replacement of Amerindian y-dna by European y-dna is absolutely startling, especially given the rapidity with which that change has occurred.

Well I’m simply defending my initial statement which was:

” Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America”

Which I then modified a bit to:

"Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in certain regions of Central and South America."

Even among Mestizos in Mexico, as the table you posted shows, European y-dna is over 50% of the total.

In Figure-4 of the study, that is this one:

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Figure-4.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Figure-4.jpg)

One can see that going by the population codes shown on Table-1:

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Table-1.jpg (http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Otherstuff/Salazar-Floresetal2010-Table-1.jpg)

Chihuahua (n=326) has 16% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 52 haplotypes, it has 85% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 277 haplotypes.

Aguascaliente (n=293) has 27% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 79 haplotypes, it has 69% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 202 haplotypes.

Jalisco (n=185) has 28% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 52 haplotypes, it has 67% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 124 haplotypes.

Guanajato (n=168) has 48% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 81 haplotypes, it has 50% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 84 haplotypes.

Mexico City (n=357) has 50% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 179 haplotypes, it has 46% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 164 haplotypes.

Chiapas (n=170) has 63% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 107 haplotypes, it has 36% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 61 haplotypes.

Yucatan (n=170) has 55% Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups or 59 haplotypes, it has 39% European Y-DNA haplogroups or 66 haplotypes.

So total sample size 1669, total Amerindian haplotypes 609, that gives a total of 36.49% Amerindian Y-DNA Haplogroups amongst the total sample size. In contrast total European haplotypes 978, that gives a total of 58.60% European Y-DNA Haplogroups amongst the total sample size. Now just a couple of things, first off, these are overall percentage of European lineages, not just R1b, and second of all, the regions where the Amerindian Y-DNA haplogroups prevail in Mexico, that is Mexico City, Chiapas, Yucatan, are the most densely populated regions of Mexico, so all in all, the Amerindian haplogroups would likely prevail in the Mexican population.

http://geo-mexico.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/mexico-population-density-map.jpg (http://geo-mexico.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/mexico-population-density-map.jpg)


Back to Eurasia now. The overall diversity of M269 indicates movement from east to west (or SE to NW), and the SNP trail indicates the same thing, with M269 clades diverging from earlier, upstream nodes progressively as one moves from east to west (based on an eastern origin for R-M343 and, subsequently, R-M269).

Well then it shouldn’t be hard for you to show me a diversity map were it shows the overall diversity of M269 decreases from East to West or from SE to NW. If you can’t provide the data, then your assumption is just based on wishful thinking. Also, there is nothing upstream about the West Asian clades, they are simply derived from R1b-L23 just as the European ones are, the only differences is that they haven’t tested for any particular SNPs, which I am sure exists in there, there is nothing ancestral about the West Asian clades. Moreover, if you want to get technical in that respect there is a relative abundance of R1b-M269(xL23) in the Balkans compared to West Asia, not to mention that R1b-M269(xL23) is almost completely lacking in the Caucasus.

The eddyings and meanderings of various clades of R-M269 once they reached Europe do not alter those basic facts, despite your attempts to use them to cloud the picture and argue that R1b-whatever in Europe ran from the Near Eastern agro-pastoralists, hid in the mountains for 2000-3000 years, and only then emerged to overwhelm the farmers and become the dominant y haplogroup in western Europe.

Yes, you can criticize my hypothesis, and call it all sorts of adjectives that please your mind, the fact is, I have brought in data that support my hypothesis, I have yet to see the same from you.

You exaggerate the importance of the Basques and of Iberia, to the neglect of the vast majority of European peoples and of the European peninsula as a whole.

No, is just too bad for you that I don’t let you ignore the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically the Basques as you so happily want to, to paint every single Western European with the Indo-European broach. Whether you like it or not, they posit a problem to the R1b-L11+=PIE hypothesis, and ignoring something isn’t the right way to go about it, and before you jump in and claim that I am ignoring the IE of all other Europeans, I’m not, I clearly stated that I believe that if R1b-L21, and R1b-U152 were born in Indo-European speaking areas and expanded from there, it solves the problem of nonIE speaking vs.IE speaking.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 27, 2012, 01:14:00 PM

No, is just too bad for you that I don’t let you ignore the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically the Basques as you so happily want to, to paint every single Western European with the Indo-European broach. Whether you like it or not, they posit a problem to the R1b-L11+=PIE hypothesis, and ignoring something isn’t the right way to go about it, and before you jump in and claim that I am ignoring the IE of all other Europeans, I’m not, I clearly stated that I believe that if R1b-L21, and R1b-U152 were born in Indo-European speaking areas and expanded from there, it solves the problem of nonIE speaking vs.IE speaking.


...or the problem could be solved if it was just DF27 that was born in a non-Indo-European speaking area. Although still unlikely to me.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: MHammers on June 27, 2012, 05:19:20 PM
Back to Eurasia now. The overall diversity of M269 indicates movement from east to west (or SE to NW), and the SNP trail indicates the same thing, with M269 clades diverging from earlier, upstream nodes progressively as one moves from east to west (based on an eastern origin for R-M343 and, subsequently, R-M269).

Well then it shouldn’t be hard for you to show me a diversity map were it shows the overall diversity of M269 decreases from East to West or from SE to NW. If you can’t provide the data, then your assumption is just based on wishful thinking. Also, there is nothing upstream about the West Asian clades, they are simply derived from R1b-L23 just as the European ones are, the only differences is that they haven’t tested for any particular SNPs, which I am sure exists in there, there is nothing ancestral about the West Asian clades. Moreover, if you want to get technical in that respect there is a relative abundance of R1b-M269(xL23) in the Balkans compared to West Asia, not to mention that R1b-M269(xL23) is almost completely lacking in the Caucasus.

Looking at the pre-m269 level in Eurasia, most basal forms are outside of Europe.  V88 and L389 (mostly M269+) are parallel and both are found in and out of Europe.  L389 is ancestral to M335 and P297 (most European R1b).  However, when it comes to L389xM335xP297, only 1 sample is found in a European descended person(Humphreys-US).  The other 5 are from India, Bahrain, Uzbekistan, Iraq, and Armenia.  I get a .568 variance on 50 markers for them.

More testing needs to be done, but I would give the edge to Asia for now.  Humphreys could be an outlier to the general trend.  I could not find any R1b P25 ** in Europe.  It is all L389 (P297 or M335) or V88.  The V88 has much lower variance than the above Asian M335-,P297-  though.  Now when you combine the Balkan M269, there is a SE to NW pattern by SNP.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 27, 2012, 06:49:37 PM
I dont think Jean L is saying all R1b is not Asian though.  I think Jean's jean accepts that M269 and L23 happened somewhere in the east.  Jean is not apparently in the Ice Age refuge gang as far as I can see.  Its more of a Balkans M269 or L23* getting shunted in multiple directions.  IF the idea is that beaker and perhaps R1b was indo-europeanised in the Balkans or thereabouts then the model that some, perhaps a vanguard being shunted west had excaped being indo-europeanised by heading west ahead of the others (DF27) is not a crazy one IMO.

However, that is not to say that I think it is easy to agree with.  I see a number of problems with this:

1. DF27, U152 and L21 do share an extremely close ancestor in P312 that makes it hard to imagine they had different languages.  There is an incredible consistancy of variance dating which makes it hard to believe DF27 has lost loads of variance but somehow just by chance come out with the same variance of U152 and L21. 

2. On the other hand DF27 has been observed to be peculiar in its widespread scattering.

3.I have problems correlate a model of DF27 as non-IE when western Iberia (which also has very early beaker dates) seems to have had at least 2 IE languages and no evidence of non-IE.  How was western Iberia IE-ised? What other clades or haplogroups provide an explanation other than DF27 for the IE-isation of western Iberia? 

4.   Frequency should not be the basis of an arguement on origin and direction of spread IMO.  I personally tend to think L11 simply is lower where pre-existing population was higher and also possibly L11 is higher on wetter more pastoral lands, again areas where pre-copper age settlement may have been lower. In additons if R1b was associated with Celtic lineages then the fall of the Celts from freedom and power would tend to drive them into the mountains and Atlantic fringes. 

5. I have huge problems seeing DF27 in Iberia as some pre-beaker group shunted west into the Pyrennees in later Neolithic times ahead of beakers.  I just see no evidence of this at all.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: acekon on June 28, 2012, 01:49:31 AM
Gene deleted and or non functional  p36.13-p34.3

"The D antigen is inherited as one gene (RHD) (on the short arm of the first chromosome, p36.13-p34.3) "

Interesting quirky mutation found among the following groups and regions, Bannu, Uromia and Cacasus,  Basque, Berbers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15090322
http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/20-4/Khattak.pdf
http://www.aina.org/articles/gdaicc.pdf

Uncommon mutation among African and Asian populations.
African descent    less 1%
Asian    less 1%

Dodecad 12b Gedrosia component

French Basque-9.8
Balochi-64.5
Orcadian-12


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 28, 2012, 08:10:28 AM
Well then it shouldn’t be hard for you to show me a diversity map were it shows the overall diversity of M269 decreases from East to West or from SE to NW. If you can’t provide the data, then your assumption is just based on wishful thinking.

Vince Vizachero's R-M269 diversity map:

http://tinyurl.com/793rdu5 (http://tinyurl.com/793rdu5)

Also, there is nothing upstream about the West Asian clades, they are simply derived from R1b-L23 just as the European ones are, the only differences is that they haven’t tested for any particular SNPs, which I am sure exists in there, there is nothing ancestral about the West Asian clades. Moreover, if you want to get technical in that respect there is a relative abundance of R1b-M269(xL23) in the Balkans compared to West Asia, not to mention that R1b-M269(xL23) is almost completely lacking in the Caucasus.

They are upstream in the sense that the consensus of opinion is that R-M269 was probably born in SW Asia and moved north and west into and through Europe. That is why the SNP trail diverges at nodes that are upstream of the more westerly clades of R-M269 as one moves from east to west or southeast to northwest. As one moves west and north into and across Europe, there is a progress of turns at earlier SNP intersections in the east and later intersections as one moves west.

That does not mean those men whose y-dna diverged at nodes that are upstream of the more westerly clades of R-M269 don't have still later turns at intersections of their own. It just means that, relative to the western subclades of M269, the men farther east have pathways of their own, but pathways that diverged father east, and earlier (earlier relative to the more western clades).

As for the relative abundance of R-M269 (xL23) in the Balkans versus West Asia, I am not sure that is a problem, given the overall R-M269 str diversity. I wonder, too, at the number of samples available from both regions that have been SNP tested to at least that extent.

As for defending your claim relative to Latin America, which you were forced to revise after you embarrassed  yourself with that Q1a-whatever frequency map, what are you defending, really? That there are some places where Amerindian y-dna still prevails? Who would argue with that? The main points were that European y-dna prevails in Latin America now, that that represents a significant population replacement accomplished with amazing rapidity, and that, therefore, the story of R1b in Europe is much much more analogous to that of the Spaniards in Latin America than it is to that of the Aztecs.

No, is just too bad for you that I don’t let you ignore the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically the Basques as you so happily want to, to paint every single Western European with the Indo-European broach.

I don't ignore Iberia. I just to refuse to obsess over the place.

The Basques are a small ethnic minority. From what I have read, their forms of R1b (almost all P312+) are not all that diverse and so not especially ancient. They learned to speak a language that puzzles most of us, whether that language is non-IE or some archaic branch of IE, as Etchamendy claims.

We don't really know where the Basques came from or when, and we don't know how or when they acquired Euskara or from whom.

Given all of the unknowns relative to the Basques, the relative youth of their haplotypes, and perhaps of their tenure in and about the Pyrenees, why should they be made the measure and stumbling block of all R-M269 research?

It was understandable when the Basques were thought to be some sort of Paleolithic relic population, but it just doesn't make sense now.

Even the high frequency of LP among the Basques points to an origin much father east, where LP is believed to have originated.

Whether you like it or not, they posit a problem to the R1b-L11+=PIE hypothesis, and ignoring something isn’t the right way to go about it, and before you jump in and claim that I am ignoring the IE of all other Europeans, I’m not, I clearly stated that I believe that if R1b-L21, and R1b-U152 were born in Indo-European speaking areas and expanded from there, it solves the problem of nonIE speaking vs.IE speaking.

I am not sure R-L11=Indo-European. It's a possibility, that's all.

It's possible that Basque is the modern descendant of a language that was part of an archaic branch of Indo-Hittite (the immediate ancestor of PIE and Anatolian, as well). That wouldn't surprise me at all if it were true.

But whether that is true or not, we don't know how the Basques acquired that language, when, or from whom. Because they speak it now does not mean that it originated with them or with P312 men in general. Most P312 men don't speak Euskara or anything even like Euskara. What gives Euskara precedence over the languages spoken by the overwhelming majority of P312 men? What? Its antiquity? What makes it more ancient at its root than the other languages of Europe? What proves that P312 men were speaking something like it before something else?




Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 28, 2012, 11:39:14 AM

No, is just too bad for you that I don’t let you ignore the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically the Basques as you so happily want to, to paint every single Western European with the Indo-European broach.

I don't ignore Iberia. I just to refuse to obsess over the place.

This is just an opinion so I'm not going to develop a set of evidence to back it up.  My speculation is that ultimately we will see that DF27 is to Iberia as what L21 is to the Isles. Iberia was a rich target for DF27. It may originated very near Iberia, just as L21 may have originated very near the Isles.

Anyway, that's just a thought.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 28, 2012, 12:22:50 PM
Vince Vizachero's R-M269 diversity map:

http://tinyurl.com/793rdu5 (http://tinyurl.com/793rdu5)

I can’t see anything, it is asking me to log into Google, and when I do, it is asking me to create a Gmail account, so could you please provide another link that doesn’t require the creation of a Gmail account.

They are upstream in the sense that the consensus of opinion is that R-M269 was probably born in SW Asia and moved north and west into and through Europe. That is why the SNP trail diverges at nodes that are upstream of the more westerly clades of R-M269 as one moves from east to west or southeast to northwest. As one moves west and north into and across Europe, there is a progress of turns at earlier SNP intersections in the east and later intersections as one moves west.

Not really, L51, L150 are mostly found in the West, whereas there is some significant L23xL51 presence in certain areas in the West too, last I checked Switzerland according to Myres was way up there in the presence of L23xL51. So just like variance, there is no progress, no smooth cline, or even a cline.

That does not mean those men whose y-dna diverged at nodes that are upstream of the more westerly clades of R-M269 don't have still later turns at intersections of their own. It just means that, relative to the western subclades of M269, the men farther east have pathways of their own, but pathways that diverged father east, and earlier (earlier relative to the more western clades).

No it doesn’t mean anything, a very likely scenario would have men living in Western Europe with the L51 SNP already, whereas L23xL51 men were still living in West Asia.

As for the relative abundance of R-M269 (xL23) in the Balkans versus West Asia, I am not sure that is a problem, given the overall R-M269 str diversity. I wonder, too, at the number of samples available from both regions that have been SNP tested to at least that extent.

Well let put it this way, R1b-M269(xL23) is almost nonexistent in the Caucasus, it has somewhat of a modest frequency in Anatolia, but it is far more frequent in the Western Balkans. Everything comes from Table-S4 of Myres.et.al.2010, so that you don’t have to wonder. Also, given the overall R-M269 str diversity....what??

As for defending your claim relative to Latin America, which you were forced to revise after you embarrassed  yourself with that Q1a-whatever frequency map, what are you defending, really? That there are some places where Amerindian y-dna still prevails? Who would argue with that? The main points were that European y-dna prevails in Latin America now, that that represents a significant population replacement accomplished with amazing rapidity, and that, therefore, the story of R1b in Europe is much much more analogous to that of the Spaniards in Latin America than it is to that of the Aztecs.

Yes, the thing is that the regions where European y-DNA prevails, have a significant amount of European mt-DNA too. Now, last I checked R1b isn’t the majority Haplogroup in all of Europe, but only in areas that are farther away from West Asia. Coincidently such is the case in Latin America, where for the moment areas that were farther away from heavy colonization retain native y-DNA haplogroups. Also, I did not embarrass myself, I made a point and I defended it until the end, given how you constantly tried to distort the point, it was indeed frustrating. Also, you don’t know whether the situation is more analogous or not to the story of R1b, let’s stop it with the wishful thinking, I already told you that the time frame isn’t even the same.

I don't ignore Iberia. I just to refuse to obsess over the place.

The Basques are a small ethnic minority. From what I have read, their forms of R1b (almost all P312+) are not all that diverse and so not especially ancient. They learned to speak a language that puzzles most of us, whether that language is non-IE or some archaic branch of IE, as Etchamendy claims.

Well you do obsess quite big over the UK and L21, so let’s stop it with the pity attacks, last I check this was an R1b forum, not R1b-L21, and last I checked, simply stating that Iberia posits a problem to your IE hypothesis, is not obsessing over it.

We don't really know where the Basques came from or when, and we don't know how or when they acquired Euskara or from whom.

Yes, but reading up a bit about Basque prehistory, lithic industry, and anthropological changes helps a bit, of course if you aren’t interested, that’s another story, now don’t simply try to paint them with the same broach as everybody else, if you don’t know their history.

Given all of the unknowns relative to the Basques, the relative youth of their haplotypes, and perhaps of their tenure in and about the Pyrenees, why should they be made the measure and stumbling block of all R-M269 research?

Yeah, the relative youth issue, you should review the diversity estimates of Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012, you might be surprised to learn that their relative TMRCA for R1b-P312+ makes them older than about every other European shown in Table-S2 from Myres.et.al.2010 S116 all portion, except for Vaclause(n=20) which gets a TMRCA of 11270 ybp, and Turkey (n=5) with a TMRCA of 13043 ybp. Just goes to show that science isn’t static and that new research brings about new discoveries.

It was understandable when the Basques were thought to be some sort of Paleolithic relic population, but it just doesn't make sense now.

Why?? Because you deem that they ought to be ignored, I’m for studying all Europeans comprehensively.

Even the high frequency of LP among the Basques points to an origin much father east, where LP is believed to have originated.

Sorry pal, but LP frequency amongst Basque dates back to at least 5000 ybp, in fact it is the only place in Europe where it has been found. Sorry if I take hard evidence over the “ place where LP is believed to have originated”. As you the place where LP is thought to have originated has yield zero, nil, nada for LP in aDNA thus far tested.

I am not sure R-L11=Indo-European. It's a possibility, that's all.

It's possible that Basque is the modern descendant of a language that was part of an archaic branch of Indo-Hittite (the immediate ancestor of PIE and Anatolian, as well). That wouldn't surprise me at all if it were true.

But whether that is true or not, we don't know how the Basques acquired that language, when, or from whom. Because they speak it now does not mean that it originated with them or with P312 men in general. Most P312 men don't speak Euskara or anything even like Euskara. What gives Euskara precedence over the languages spoken by the overwhelming majority of P312 men? What? Its antiquity? What makes it more ancient at its root than the other languages of Europe? What proves that P312 men were speaking something like it before something else?

Most L21 men today speak English, does it mean they spoke English 2000 years ago? Or even some sort of Germanic dialect? Why should be give Celtic any preference to L21, when only a minority of L21 people speak Irish, what gives Celtic precendence over English/Germanic Languages which is spoken by the overwhelming majority of L21 men? See, I too can play the game.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 28, 2012, 12:25:00 PM

No, is just too bad for you that I don’t let you ignore the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically the Basques as you so happily want to, to paint every single Western European with the Indo-European broach.

I don't ignore Iberia. I just to refuse to obsess over the place.

This is just an opinion so I'm not going to develop a set of evidence to back it up.  My speculation is that ultimately we will see that DF27 is to Iberia as what L21 is to the Isles. Iberia was a rich target for DF27. It may originated very near Iberia, just as L21 may have originated very near the Isles.

Anyway, that's just a thought.

With 44% DF27+ in Iberian 1000 Genomes samples, there is no reason to think it is speculation.

See breakdown here: http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10485.msg128164#msg128164 (http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10485.msg128164#msg128164)

If most of P312* in Iberia is indeed DF27 (and there is no reason to think it isn't), then the 44% might reach 70% near around the Pyrenees.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 28, 2012, 12:39:29 PM
Most L21 men today speak English, does it mean they spoke English 2000 years ago? Or even some sort of Germanic dialect? Why should be give Celtic any preference to L21, when only a minority of L21 people speak Irish, what gives Irish precendence over English which is spoken by the overwhelming majority of L21 men? See, I too can play the game.

Do you mean to say that a minority language group (Germanic), carried primarily by one SNP (U106), over a long period of time changed the language (Celtic) of an earlier (L21) group and the earlier dominant group (L21) retained its high frequency even during a language replacement?

Now doesn't that sound a lot like the I2a2 (Basque) and P312 (IE) scenario I posted about a month ago?


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 28, 2012, 05:11:24 PM
 
Do you mean to say that a minority language group (Germanic), carried primarily by one SNP (U106), over a long period of time changed the language (Celtic) of an earlier (L21) group and the earlier dominant group (L21) retained its high frequency even during a language replacement?

Now doesn't that sound a lot like the I2a2 (Basque) and P312 (IE) scenario I posted about a month ago?

Well, last I checked the areas where heavily colonization of Anglo-Saxons occurred do show significant frequencies of U106, whereas the areas that acquired the language recently show very little U106, because it was a cultural diffusion. In any case, if I2a2 came later to the Pyrenees, and they spoke Basques, where did they come from then?


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 28, 2012, 08:02:56 PM
@JeanL

We disagree over many things. Best to leave it at that. Your posts are too long and erroneous. Answering them in detail is just too laborious, and you have a bad habit of defending the indefensible. So, arguing with you is a waste of time.

It's pretty clear I am not your "pal".

The link I supplied gets me right to Vince's R-M269 diversity map. I don't know of any other. But here is the image:

(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2099/r1b1b2diversitygrey.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/207/r1b1b2diversitygrey.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 28, 2012, 08:11:11 PM
@JeanL

We disagree over many things. Best to leave it at that. Your posts are too long and erroneous. Answering them in detail is just too laborious, and you have a bad habit of defending the indefensible. So, arguing with you is a waste of time.

It's pretty clear I am not your "pal".


Ok, so my posts are long and erroneous according to you.  In my opinion yours on the other hand are short and full of adjectives describing my posts, but little evidence contradicting them.



The link I supplied gets me right to Vince's R-M269 diversity map. I don't know of any other. But here is the image:

(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2099/r1b1b2diversitygrey.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/207/r1b1b2diversitygrey.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)


It doesn't in my case, but I'm glad that you posted the map.


Busby.et.al.2011 Figure-2a

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044/F2.large.jpg (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044/F2.large.jpg)

Highest variance for R1b-M269+ overall is in Central Europe, not in Turkey, so what's it going to be, Balaresque.et.al.2010 using 9 STRs, or Busby.et.al.2011 using 10 STRs and a whole lot more population samples.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Richard Rocca on June 28, 2012, 08:13:46 PM

Well, last I checked the areas where heavily colonization of Anglo-Saxons occurred do show significant frequencies of U106, whereas the areas that acquired the language recently show very little U106, because it was a cultural diffusion. In any case, if I2a2 came later to the Pyrenees, and they spoke Basques, where did they come from then?


The areas that are 90%+ L21 will also be speaking English within a few generations, so the analogy still holds.

I don't know which direction I2a1 went Iberia>Sardinia or Sardinia>Iberia, but between M26, mitochondrial haplogroup V, and linguistic similarities proposed between Paleo-Sardinian and Basque, I have to believe they are all connected.

The book "Paleosardo, le radici linguistiche de la Sardegna neolítica" linking Paleo-Sardinian and Basque is too expensive, but based on what the author, Catalan linguist Eduardo Blasco Ferrer, said in this interview, he knows about the genetic similarities as well:

"Diziplina-artekotasuna ezinbesteko abiapuntua da gaur eguneko ikerketa paleolinguistikoei ekiterakoan: hizkuntza-substratu bat aztertu nahi duen glotologoak bere gaiaren albo-alorretan sartzen jakin behar du, Historian, Arkeologian eta, gero eta gehiago, Genetika molekularrean."


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 28, 2012, 08:28:55 PM

Ok, so my posts are long and erroneous according to you. 


True.

In my opinion yours on the other hand are short and full of adjectives describing my posts, but little evidence contradicting them.

Not true of all my posts. True of the last one and of this one because, as I said, I have come to the realization that it is largely a waste of time to argue with you.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 28, 2012, 08:41:42 PM
^ So what do you make of figure-2a of Busby.et.al.2011?


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044/F2.large.jpg (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044/F2.large.jpg)

Did you miss the variance peak in between 4 and 5 normalized longitude, the second highest peak is in between 5 and 6, then the next two peaks happen right above 2.

Like I said before, no east-west cline!!!


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 28, 2012, 09:02:35 PM
^ So what do you make of figure-2a of Busby.et.al.2011?


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044/F2.large.jpg (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044/F2.large.jpg)

Did you miss the variance peak in between 4 and 5 normalized longitude, the second highest peak is in between 5 and 6, then the next two peaks happen right above 2.

Like I said before, no east-west cline!!!

Dueling maps. You like Busby's. I don't. I suspect Vince's map will ultimately prove the more accurate.

I seriously doubt that Busby et al is the last word on R-M269 in Eurasia.

But, man, I don't want to continue arguing with you. You don't listen.

Busby's your pet study right now. The R1b Cave Man crowd also had their favorites a few years ago.

Things change.



Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 28, 2012, 09:16:44 PM
^ So what do you make of figure-2a of Busby.et.al.2011?


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044/F2.large.jpg (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044/F2.large.jpg)

Did you miss the variance peak in between 4 and 5 normalized longitude, the second highest peak is in between 5 and 6, then the next two peaks happen right above 2.

Like I said before, no east-west cline!!!

Dueling maps. You like Busby's. I don't. I suspect Vince's map will ultimately prove the more accurate.

I seriously doubt that Busby et al is the last word on R-M269 in Eurasia.

But, man, I don't want to continue arguing with you. You don't listen.

Busby's your pet study right now. The R1b Cave Man crowd also had their favorites a few years ago.

Things change.



I remember reading some serious criticism of Busby et al by some very competent people not long after it was published. I am not competent to evaluate Busby's methods myself, but it is worth noting that not everyone agreed with them.

It is also worth noting how odd Busby's M269 diversity findings were relative to those of other studies, like Balaresque, and relative to the diversity estimates of Vizachero, Nordtvedt, Janzen, and others.

A few years ago, everyone just "knew" that R1b spent the LGM in Iberia.



Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 28, 2012, 09:32:51 PM
Dueling maps. You like Busby's. I don't. I suspect Vince's map will ultimately prove the more accurate.

First of all, it is not Vince’s map, it is a map made by him based on the variance reported by Balaresque.et.al.2010. Second of all, Balaresque.et.al.2010 completely ignored the Balkans, and their German sample is a bootstrapped sample, just as their Irish sample, in fact this is what they say:

Quote from: Balaresque.et.al.2010
Haplotype data were obtained for up to 20 Y-specific microsatellites [32,33]. Data from the Ysearch database (http://www.ysearch.org) for Germany (GE) and Ireland (IR) were added, together with published data for Turkey, subdivided into East, West, and Central subpopulations based on published sampling information [14]. To avoid a bias from very large samples of hgR1b1b2 (GE and IR), these were randomly subsampled to give sample sizes of 75.

Now surprise, surprise, there is no peak in Central Europe in Balaresque.et.al.

Third of all, Busby.et.al.2011 did an analysis of the Balaresque.et.al.2010 data, and this is what they said:

Quote from: Busby.et.al.2011
Re-analysis of the Balaresque dataset

Balaresque et al (2) used nine STRs, eight of which overlap with ours: they used DYS388, whilst we used DYS437 and DYS439, with the remaining eight STRs identical, and these eight were used for comparisons between the two datasets.

The influence of the Turkish populations

First, we removed the Anatolian Turkish samples. Only 10% of the Anatolian Turkish RM269 samples used in this study were R-S127 derived. Similarly, out of 91 R-M269 Y chromosomes from two populations in Turkey, Myres et al found only 8 R-S127 derived chromosomes (9%) (1). The majority of these samples then, potentially belong to a different major clade within R-M269, the R-M269(xS127) sub-haplogroup (Figure 1), whilst the remaining populations are likely to be mostly R-S127 derived. Using these data alone, there was no longer a correlation (R2=0.09, p=0.23), suggesting that the Turkish samples were crucial in causing this association (Figure S2).

Testing the variance calculations from the Irish population
Balaresque et al used haplotypes downloaded from the online Ysearch database (http://www.ysearch.org) which is a repository for genetic genealogists to upload and compare haplotypes (P. Balaresque pers. comm.). We note, however, that 17-STR haplotypes, including the 9 STRs used in Balaresque et al’s analysis, are available for 681 Irish R-M269 derived individuals in Moore et al (3), which is, in fact, the study which Balaresque et al use to estimate R-M269 frequency in Ireland. A subset of the Moore et al samples were re-analysed in the current study for SNPs downstream of R-M269, and the original haplotype data are used here to calculate variance. To test if the Ysearch haplotypes were representative of the Irish R-M269 in Moore et al, we independently re-sampled the Moore et al dataset 10,000 times, selecting sub-samples of 75 haplotypes from which we estimated the variance using the same 9 STRs used in the Balaresque et al paper. The median variance of these 10,000 repetitions was 0.354 with a 95% CI of (0.285-0.432). The lowest variance value out of the 10,000 samples was 0.242, which is still higher than the figure observed in the Balaresque et al Ysearch sample (0.208). We therefore believe our estimate of Irish R-M269 variance to be a more robust representation of the true variance than that estimated by Balaresque et al. However, we note that the positive correlation between longitude and variance is still present after removing only the Irish and retaining the Balaresque et al Turkish populations. If we replace the variance calculated by Balaresque et.al with that calculated from our repetitions, then the correlation is no longer significant, independent of whether or not we remove the Turkish samples (Figure S2).


I seriously doubt that Busby et al is the last word on R-M269 in Eurasia.
Me too, I hope their paper isn’t the last one about R-M269.

But, man, I don't want to continue arguing with you. You don't listen.

I’m sorry, I didn’t know I was supposed to buy into your hypothesis for us to continue arguing.  But you are right, I should listed more, or rather read more, than one a person offers nothing but Ad Hominems and opinionated attacks instead of refuting an argument with evidence, then it is time to stop arguing because it is a waste of time.

Busby's your pet study right now. The R1b Cave Man crowd also had their favorites a few years ago.

Nope, I don’t have a pet study, or a favorite, or anything, I'm proScience, and whatever Science brings I’ll examine it comprehensively and make my own conclusions. So unlike you, I don’t assign myself to the R1b Cave Man crowd, or the -Blue eyed Indo European crowd, but to the “wanting to know what really happened based on evidence” crowd. 

Things change.

Yet you still pushing for the same thing you were back in 2008, so not all things change.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 29, 2012, 06:48:19 AM
Don't make false accusations, JeanL, or don't continue to make them. I have no "blue-eyed Indo-European" agenda, which construction you used to imply that I am some sort of racist or fascist. Stop that sort of idiotic nonsense or find some of my posts in which I advocate such ideas and post them to prove that I have that kind of agenda.

I want to go back and read Busby et al again. I like that report for the SNP data it provides, especially on the otherwise neglected L21 ("S145") SNP, but I have my doubts about Busby's conclusion relative to the lack of an east-west cline for M269. Busby was harshly criticized by people much more competent to judge than you or I when it was published. From my perspective, it seems strange that it arrived at conclusions so very different from those of Balaresque, other studies, and from the work of many well qualified hobbyists.

Klyosov, for example, called Busby et al a "complete disaster" (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2011-12/1324746754 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2011-12/1324746754)). I don't agree with everything Anatole writes, but he is pretty well qualified to judge in such matters.

By the way, everyone thinks he is in the “wanting to know what really happened based on evidence” crowd. Just how capable each of us is of being truly objective is another matter. You haven't demonstrated any heightened ability in that regard, not that I have seen.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 29, 2012, 08:07:29 AM
Don't make false accusations, JeanL, or don't continue to make them. I have no "blue-eyed Indo-European" agenda, which construction you used to imply that I am some sort of racist or fascist. Stop that sort of idiotic nonsense or find some of my posts in which I advocate such ideas and post them to prove that I have that kind of agenda.

I’m sorry, so when you throw my hypothesis in what you deem the “Paleolithic Zombie”, or the Paleolithic Cave man camp, it’s ok, yet when I make a comparison, where I set two extremes, one being the Paleolithic Cave man, the other being the “Aryan” IndoEuropean invader, and set myself in neither one, you take it offensive because you think that I’m implying some sort of agenda. Well it wasn’t my intention, but if the shoe fits….

I want to go back and read Busby et al again. I like that report for the SNP data it provides, especially on the otherwise neglected L21 ("S145") SNP, but I have my doubts about Busby's conclusion relative to the lack of an east-west cline for M269. Busby was harshly criticized by people much more competent to judge than you or I when it was published. From my perspective, it seems strange that it arrived at conclusions so very different from those of Balaresque, other studies, and from the work of many well qualified hobbyists.

No sir, if you want to make the conclusion that you deem Anatole Klyosov who is a Biochemist, or Ken Nordtvedt who is a Physicist as more competent than me, it is up to you, but don’t assume I think the same. Your appeal to authority isn’t going to work with me.

Klyosov, for example, called Busby et al a "complete disaster" (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2011-12/1324746754 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2011-12/1324746754)). I don't agree with everything Anatole writes, but he is pretty well qualified to judge in such matters.

Again, what’s it with the appeal to authority, Klyosov, actually misquoted me throughout that whole “Journal” entry he had about Busby.et.al (I’m pretty darn sure is his own thing), in order to try to show that he can disprove my points, because he couldn’t on a live debate over at Dienekes. Nonetheless, Klyosov complaints are mainly because he doesn’t like the mutation rates used, because he considers mutation rates obtained using father-son pairs as useless. Second of all, he thinks that the modal obtained using the collection of all R1b-M269 which is likely going to be the modal of the majority of haplotypes, in this case likely, P312, would show a distorted view of the diversity, but in fact,  contrary to what he beliefs, the modal of all R1b-M269+ in that study is far more informative in telling the distribution of variance, than say R1b-M269(xL23), or R1b-L23(xL51), which is essentially what he wanted them to do. So please, spare me the lame attempt at an appeal to authority, and let’s get on with our lives. Ken Nordtvedt’s complaint was that they used too little markers(Which was another complaint by Klyosov BTW), and that he thinks the effect they are seeing is because of the amount of markers used. However, perhaps he should have read the portion of the study where Busby.et.al. says the following:

Quote from: Busby.et.al.2011
Using BATWING on an HGDP population for which 65 Y-STRs are available, we have shown that the median estimate of TMRCA can differ by over five times when STRs are selected on the basis of the expected duration of linearity (electronic supplementary material, figure S4). While researchers take into account STR mutation rates when estimating divergence time with ASD, commonly used STRs do not have the specific attributes that allow linearity to be assumed further into the past. The majority of haplogroup dates based on such sets of STRs may therefore have been systematically underestimated.



By the way, everyone thinks he is in the “wanting to know what really happened based on evidence” crowd. Just how capable each of us is of being truly objective is another matter. You haven't demonstrated any heightened ability in that regard, not that I have seen.

Who named you universal Science Judge?? I thought you said above you weren’t competent enough in the matter, and even threw me in the same bucket.  I’m sick of you just throwing “Adjectives” my way Richard, I really couldn’t care less what you think, I’m here to learn, and learning to me, doesn’t mean digesting the stuff I like, and rebuking the stuff I don’t, it means being exposed to different hypotheses, and trying to find the one that best describes a situation.

PS: There is a whole lot of stuff (i.e. Mutation rate as a function of repeat number, mutation rate as a function of age, loss linearity with time of mutation rates, calibration errors due to expressing mutations as a function of conditional generations, etc) that Anatole Klyosov completely ignores in his calculations, and I’m not the only one to bring it up. Marko H has also found the relationship between the number of repeats and the mutation rate, John Chandler has argued with Klyosov heavily about it over at Rootsweb.

PS: I don't know about Nordtvedt, but Klyosov has said more than once that he disagrees with the conclusions of Balaresque.et.al.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 29, 2012, 08:30:52 AM
Enough.

Can we just avoid each other? As I have said before, I don't have time for your style of debate, which I find tiresome as well as less than honest (which is a polite way of putting it).



Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 29, 2012, 11:18:53 PM
... No sir, if you want to make the conclusion that you deem Anatole Klyosov who is a Biochemist, or Ken Nordtvedt who is a Physicist as more competent than me, it is up to you, but don’t assume I think the same. Your appeal to authority isn’t going to work with me.

.. and it shouldn't. However, I encourage you to directly engage with Nordtvedt, Klyosov and Chandler in discussions. They are available on various forums to do so. I have engaged with them and come to my own conclusions.

However, from what I see, you have not. Rather than disagree with them in absentia, please directly engage. It will give you more credibility if you do. Otherwise, you are a cymbal clanging in the wind.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 30, 2012, 12:07:06 AM
.. and it shouldn't. However, I encourage you to directly engage with Nordtvedt, Klyosov and Chandler in discussions. They are available on various forums to do so. I have engaged with them and come to my own conclusions.

Uhmm, I have engaged Klyosov before, perhaps you missed this:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/08/y-str-variance-of-busby-et-al-2011.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/08/y-str-variance-of-busby-et-al-2011.html)

See the comments. You want to know what the results where, Klyosov took half of my comments out of context, and “disprove” them in one of his Journals.

 http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/Vestnik_4_09.pdf (http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/Vestnik_4_09.pdf)

Skip to page 152, and see the “rebuttal” by Anatole Klyosov. I will grant him something, back in August 2011 I wasn’t as well versed on computational biology as I am today, still, even back then I was already pointing to him the effects of mutation rate and TMRCA. Of course, as always, all he did was throw a cesspool of fallacies my way, and take a whole lot of my comments out of context. Why didn’t he continue engaging me over at Dienekes?

However, from what I see, you have not. Rather than disagree with them in absentia, please directly engage. It will give you more credibility if you do. Otherwise, you are a cymbal clanging in the wind.

Then you ought to read more, because I just showed to you that I have engaged Klyosov before. Also, if I’m not mistaken he is a member here, so he could sign in and defend his postulates. If what you want, is for me to sign up to rootsweb, well, I don’t plan to do that for now, because one forum is enough for me.

PS: I find myself agreeing a lot with what John Chandler is saying, so I see no reason to engage him.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 30, 2012, 12:55:10 AM
Uhmm, I have engaged Klyosov before, perhaps you missed this:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/08/y-str-variance-of-busby-et-al-2011.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/08/y-str-variance-of-busby-et-al-2011.html)
Cool, I applaud you.  I find Dienekes' blog not very good for in depth conversations. This is not a commentary on Dienekes or the posters, just the formatting. Anyway, I don't follow all of his blog's follow-up postings.

PS: I find myself agreeing a lot with what John Chandler is saying, so I see no reason to engage him.

I agree with you. John Chandler seems to have a reasoned and conservative approach so I find little to disagree with him on....    well, that, and plus he obviously knows his math.

That is good, we find agreement on Chandler's credibility. Do you agree or disagree with Ken Nordtvedt?

I'll be very straight forward. I've read many of Chandler's and Nordtvedt's postings and looked through and tried to understand Nordtvedt's as best as I can.  I find Chandler and Nordtvedt very credible (as it relates to statistics in genetics), well beyond most of the posters here, including myself and yourself. I actually think Nordtvedt's use of statistics well beyond those of most genetic academic authors. In reality, this should not be a surprise.

This is not about titles, but Chandler and Nordtvedt have the backgrounds that we'd expect of people who make a lot of sense (at least in my opinion) in the field of science.

Klyosov is another story. I respect his intelligence and enjoy his willingness to be prognosticate, but beyond that I have no comment. I am definitely open to his hypotheses, though, as I am to yours. I am anxiously trying to understand Bell Beaker patterns in Iberia and SW France as well as elsewhere.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: rms2 on June 30, 2012, 06:57:33 AM
It sounds high-minded and oh so scientific to pretend to reject appeals to authority, but let's face it, in this field, most of us must rely on the authority of acknowledged experts, at least to some extent. It is laughable to say otherwise.

Whether it is citing Busby et al as if it were St. Augustine's City of God, Krahn's latest tentative additions to the R Tree, or ISOGG's updates, unless you are actually doing the work yourself, right down to the sampling, you must rely on the authority and trustworthiness of others.

The difference between the use of authority in genetic genealogy and its use in theology is that in the former authority is subject to criticism, review, and revision.

To say that Busby et al has been seriously criticized by experts who have found fault with it is not the same thing as asserting that their criticism is infallible, as if it were some form of theological authority. It is simply pointing out that Busby et al itself is not infallible.

Most of us here are not geneticists or archaeologists or anthropologists or linguists. So let's be honest: we all have to rely on those who are.

Many of these posts come down to the juxtaposition of this authority versus that. Don't pretend they don't.



Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 30, 2012, 12:31:01 PM
Do you agree or disagree with Ken Nordtvedt?

Well that is a question that is hard to answer, in somethings I’m going to agree with him, in other maybe not. Likewise, I don’t disagree with everything Klyosov says, it is now an agree or disagree situation.

I'll be very straight forward. I've read many of Chandler's and Nordtvedt's postings and looked through and tried to understand Nordtvedt's as best as I can.  I find Chandler and Nordtvedt very credible (as it relates to statistics in genetics), well beyond most of the posters here, including myself and yourself. I actually think Nordtvedt's use of statistics well beyond those of most genetic academic authors. In reality, this should not be a surprise.

I admire Dr.Nordtvedt, but not because he is into the Genetics hobby now, but because of his great contributions to Physics, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect)

However it doesn’t surprise me that he has such knowledge about statistics, I studied Mechanical Engineering, and when I started doing research in the Computational Biology field, I found myself having more knowledge about statistics and math in general than my peers with Biology or Biochemistry degrees.  My friends who are physicists are a complete different story, I mean I took a Modern Physics class, and I say without a doubt that the Bose-Einstein Statistics, the Fermi-Dirac Statistics, the Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics are by far probably more complex than any statistics one could come across in Genetics, add to it the Schrodinger’s equation with its time dependence, three dimensions and in polar coordinates, and you got yourself something crazy. 

As for John Chandler, he seems to have gone to M.I.T, but I have no idea what his field is, or if he has a PhD, or a Masters or a Bachelors degree. To be sincere, to me if he only had a MSc, or a BSc I would equally respect the guy, there are a lot of people out there with PhD who are less qualified than people with lesser degrees. So if anyone knows anything about his background, I would appreciate it if they told, just as a curiosity thing.

This is not about titles, but Chandler and Nordtvedt have the backgrounds that we'd expect of people who make a lot of sense (at least in my opinion) in the field of science.
 


I come from a science background too, and like I said before often times concepts which are completely outside of the biological field apply. For example I relied a lot on Control theory when coming to the conclusions of the mutation rate effect on TMRCA.

PS: This doesn’t apply to you(Mikewww), but to those people who insist that since we are not geneticists, linguistics, anthropologists, etc, we must rely on the authority of those, perhaps they ought to know that neither Klyosov nor Nordtvedt are either one of those professions previously mentioned. Likewise, the Busby.et.al. study was published in a peer-reviewed Journal, meaning it had to be reviewed by fellow Scientists, in fact had their criticism of Balaresque.et.al been wrong, or anything in their methodology had been wrong, we would have already seen a reply by the Balaresque.et.al team defending or arguing for the points where they disagree, this is nothing new, and it happens every day in Science, however, the Balaresque.et.al team has said nothing about the Busby.et.al study.

Also the Busby.et.al study was done by a team of Scientists:


George B. J. Busby1, Francesca Brisighelli1,3,4, Paula Sanchez-Diz3, Eva Ramos-Luis3, Conrado Martinez-Cadenas1, Mark G. Thomas6, Daniel G. Bradley7, Leonor Gusmao8, Bruce Winney2, Walter Bodmer2, Marielle Vennemann9,10, Valentina Coia4,11, Francesca Scarnicci12, Sergio Tofanelli13, Giuseppe Vona14, Rafal Ploski15, Carla Vecchiotti5, Tatijana Zemunik16, Igor Rudan16,17, Sena Karachanak18, Draga Toncheva18, Paolo Anagnostou4,19, Gianmarco Ferri20, Cesare Rapone21, Tor Hervig22, Torolf Moen23, James F. Wilson17,24 and Cristian Capelli1,*


It is by far way more likely one would get an impartial study when more than one authors is involved in the research, than when solely one author or at best two do it. Mainly because in such a pool of people, I doubt everyone is going to have the exact same opinion, and this would likely lead to discussions and refinements of the hypotheses, and as it is known it is always good to have multiple hypotheses when analyzing the data, because then the hypothesis that fits best the results is the one chosen, instead of manipulating the data in an Ad Hoc approach to fit the sole hypothesis presented.



Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 30, 2012, 05:07:06 PM
.... Likewise, the Busby.et.al. study was published in a peer-reviewed Journal, meaning it had to be reviewed by fellow Scientists, in fact had their criticism of Balaresque.et.al been wrong, or anything in their methodology had been wrong, we would have already seen a reply by the Balaresque.et.al team defending or arguing for the points where they disagree, this is nothing new, and it happens every day in Science, however, the Balaresque.et.al team has said nothing about the Busby.et.al study.

I don't we can assume that because we haven't seen a response out of one point of view yet means the other point of view was correct. My guess is these guys all have other things to do and it takes time to work up a worthwhile position paper. Let's hope they make only thoughtful responses, anyway. Busby's paper was just the latest round, not the last round.

I also don't think that just because something is peer reviewed that means it is correct in its conclusions either. Not in genetics, but in other disciplines, I've seen the academic process at work. It's nice, but hardly impressive to the point that I accept anything that comes out of it as great stuff. The process some times actually encourages "group think," which can be problematic.

Also the Busby.et.al study was done by a team of Scientists...
I think most of these studies, such as Myres, Balaresques, etc. were done by teams. I don't think there is particular advantage shown by one of these studies because of their teams. Do you think one team is better than the other? I


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: JeanL on June 30, 2012, 08:19:49 PM
I don't we can assume that because we haven't seen a response out of one point of view yet means the other point of view was correct. My guess is these guys all have other things to do and it takes time to work up a worthwhile position paper. Let's hope they make only thoughtful responses, anyway. Busby's paper was just the latest round, not the last round.

My point was that if the Balaresque.et.al team thought that Busby.et.al analysis of their work was erroneous, they would have defended it, likewise, if they found a hole in Busby.et.al logic they would have exposed it. Every day we see comments or responses published in the advance publication section of Journals, a response doesn’t take a lot of time, because one is not publishing something discovered, but commenting on already published data. I sure hope Busby.et.al isn’t the last round of R1b studies in Europe.

I also don't think that just because something is peer reviewed that means it is correct in its conclusions either. Not in genetics, but in other disciplines, I've seen the academic process at work. It's nice, but hardly impressive to the point that I accept anything that comes out of it as great stuff. The process some times actually encourages "group think," which can be problematic.

Well, it also depends where it gets published, the higher the impact factor of a Journal the harder it is to get published there. Nonetheless, yes, peer-review doesn’t equate correctness, but it is far more likely to get a impartial study through a peer-reviewing process than those published through the hobbyist community, likewise the peer review process encourages the usage of scientific standards for collecting data.


I think most of these studies, such as Myres, Balaresques, etc. were done by teams. I don't think there is particular advantage shown by one of these studies because of their teams. Do you think one team is better than the other? I

That comment was comparing Busby.et.al with the publications of Klyosov, who often times only publishes by himself, or him and another guy, so I was giving some general thoughts as to the relationship of doing research in group vs. doing research alone and the impartiality of a study.


Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: acekon on July 03, 2012, 09:50:38 AM
Gene deleted and or non functional  p36.13-p34.3

"The D antigen is inherited as one gene (RHD) (on the short arm of the first chromosome, p36.13-p34.3) "

Interesting quirky mutation found among the following groups and regions, Bannu, Uromia and Cacasus,  Basque, Berbers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15090322
http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/20-4/Khattak.pdf
http://www.aina.org/articles/gdaicc.pdf

Uncommon mutation among African and Asian populations.
African descent    less 1%
Asian    less 1%


http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/07/ancient-european-dna-using.html





Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 04, 2012, 11:22:16 AM
The book "Paleosardo, le radici linguistiche de la Sardegna neolítica" [by Blasco Ferrer] linking Paleo-Sardinian and Basque is too expensive

Perhaps it is enough to read this  writing of Massimo Pittau. Of course I don’t agree neither with him: tzarantzula  doesn’t presuppose an article agglutinated with the name, deriving from Italian “tarantola” (Pisan “terrantola”) for gecko. Other origin have, I think, the names with “thili-“.

L'articolo determinativo della lingua Sardiana o Protosarda Nell'ultimo numero della bella rivista olianese "Sardegna Mediterranea" (num. 9 dell'aprile 2001, pagg. 58-61), Eduardo Blasco Ferrer ha pubblicato un articolo intitolato "Zoonimi parentali e totemismo nella cultura paleosarda", nel quale egli presenta la sintesi essenziale di un ampio studio di circa 70 pagine che comparirà in una rivista internazionale di linguistica. In questa sua sintesi il Blasco Ferrer sostiene la tesi secondo cui ben 11 zoonimi sardi implicherebbero una notazione parentale espressa in funzione totemica, nel senso che sarebbero preceduti dall'appellativo thiu, tiu, tziu-a "zio-a" o a titolo di denominazione tabuistica o con accattivante prospettiva di cattura nella caccia.
I zoonimi parentali in questione sarebbero i seguenti: thilingròne "lombrico", tzarántzula "geco", tzurrundéddu "pipistrello", thilipírche "cavalletta", tzalacúca "gongilo", tzintzimurréddu "pipistrello", sitzigórru "lumaca", thulúrthis "biscia d'acqua", thurulía "poiana", thilibríu "gheppio", tzorrómpis "lucertola".
Ovviamente io attendo di leggere lo studio preannunziato dal Blasco, ma mi sento già in grado di intervenire sull'argomento dicendo di respingere con decisione quella tesi in quanto viene contraddetta da quattro grosse difficoltà di carattere linguistico.
1ª) Se la tesi del Blasco fosse esatta, riuscirebbe del tutto incomprensibile la circostanza che tra le numerosissime varianti di quegli zoonimi che esistono in Sardegna non compare mai una variante che porti intatto il primo componente thiu, tiu, tziu-a "zio-a". E tanto più risulterebbe inverosimile questa circostanza, in quanto il detto appellativo è di pieno ed amplissimo uso in tutta la Sardegna. Perché dunque non compaiono mai le varianti *thiu lingròne, *thiu lipirche, *tzia rántzula, ecc.?
2ª) L'usatissimo appellativo thiu, tiu, tziu-a "zio-a" è bisillabico e non diventa mai monosillabico, cioè non avviene che mai che perda la sua seconda sillaba. Pertanto in Sardegna non si dice mai *thi Predu "zio Pietro", né *tza Frantzisca, ecc., ma si dice solamente thiu Predu, tzia Frantzisca, ecc.
In un solo caso la vocale finale del nostro vocabolo può scomparire: quando viene eliminata per elisione di fronte ad una vocale seguente: thi' Antoni, tzi' Elías, ti' Onaníu "zio Antonio, zio Elia, zio Anania"; d'altra parte si dice solamente thia Elena, tzia Innássia, tia Usanna "zia Elena, zia Ignazia, zia Susanna", ecc.
3ª) Rispetto alla maggior parte degli zoonimi studiati dal Blasco non è affatto vero che i Sardi abbiano avuto ed abbiano un atteggiamento di timore né una aspirazione di caccia, e precisamente rispetto a thilingròne "lombrico", tzurrundéddu e tzintzimurréddu "pipistrello", sitzigórru "lumaca", thulúrthis "biscia d'acqua", thurulía "poiana", thilibríu "gheppio", tzorrómpis "lucertola".
4ª) E meno che mai si può ipotizzare un atteggiamento di timore oppure una aspirazione di cattura rispetto a questi altri appellativi che sono, anch'essi, caratterizzati dal prefisso ta-, te-, ti-, tu-; tha-, the-, thi-, thu-; tza-, tze-, tzi-, tzu-: nichele, taniqele "(il) coso"; tanda (< *t'anda) "papavero"; trocco (< *t'ocro) "argilla speciale"; t(h)únniu, tuntúnnu "fungo"; t(h)urru, tuttúrrihe "rivolo d'acqua".
Come ho già scritto nel mio libro Ulisse e Nausica in Sardegna (Nùoro, 1994, num. IV) e nel mio Dizionario della Lingua Sarda - fraseologico ed etimologico (Cagliari, 2000, Editore E. Gasperini, sigla DILS, passim) e come dirò meglio e più ampiamente nel mio libro di imminente pubblicazione La Lingua Sardiana o dei Protosardi (Cagliari, 2001, Editore E. Gasperini), il prefisso ta-, te-, ti-, tu-; tha-, the-, thi-, thu-; tza-, tze-, tzi-, tzu- non è altra cosa che un originario articolo determinativo protosardo agglutinato ad un certo numero di appellativi sardi, quasi tutti di matrice prelatina e protosarda o, come a me ormai piace precisare, di matrice "sardiana".
E finisco anche dicendo che alcune spiegazioni etimologiche che il Blasco Ferrer ha prospettato per il secondo componente dei su citati zoonimi lasciano parecchio da desiderare. Ad esempio, tidóri "colombaccio", deriva, come la variante tidone,-i, dal lat. *titone(m) (REW, DES e DILS) e non dal greco bizant. Theódorhos, il quale invece in sardo ha dato Diadóru. Ma anche su questo specifico argomento intendo ritornare quando leggerò l'ampio studio che il Blasco ha preannunziato.
Massimo Pittau



Title: Re: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 04, 2012, 02:21:05 PM
Perhaps I’ll read the book and hope that his theories are more reliable than that criticized by Massimo Pittau. About the migration from Iberia, probably could have happened also the other way around.

La ricerca sul primitivo sostrato della Sardegna ha coinvolto senza successo una legione di studiosi. Le tesi formulate finora si scontravano col carattere del tutto ermetico della toponomastica centrale dell'Isola, che restituiva strutture senza addentellati nelle lingue europee o extraeuropee confrontate. Il deficit principale degli approcci tradizionali consisteva nella mera ricerca casuale di omonimie tra forme, onomastiche e lessicali, sarde e di altre lingue a volte molto lontane.
L'autore, dopo anni di ricerca intensa nelle aree più arcaiche dell'Isola, ha sottoposto quasi un migliaio di microtoponimi, in larga parte conservati nella tradizione orale delle comunità montane, a una rigorosa analisi, derivandone poi una tipologia morfologica e fonologica del Paleosardo. I risultati così ottenuti hanno gettato luce sulla vera natura del sostrato paleosardo, ossia di una lingua di tipo “agglutinante”, che mostra palesi corrispondenze strutturali con le lingue paleoispaniche, in particolare col Paleobasco ricostruito e con l'Iberico.
 
Una rassegna di corrispondenze strutturali, semantiche e onomastiche condotta fra Paleosardo, Paleobasco e Iberico conduce inesorabilmente alla deduzione che il Paleosardo rappresenta l'esito di varie migrazioni paleoispaniche avvenute in età pre-neolitica e neolitica, con uno sviluppo autonomo e privo di ulteriori apporti fino all'età nuragica. Nell'indagine si mettono in evidenza per la prima volta le componenti stratificate del sostrato paleosardo pre-semitico, vale a dire una componente primaria paleobasca e iberica, più due componenti minori, una periindeuropea e una paleoindeuropea.