PDA

View Full Version : R2 - Origo.



Rethel
11-02-2015, 07:10 PM
Has R2 an indoeuropean origin?
Do R2 came into India with Indoeuropeans?

If not - were R2 originate and why came into India?
Especialy - why R2 is neighbour to the sister clade R1(a)?
It's only an accident?

What do you think?

Megalophias
11-02-2015, 09:19 PM
R2 split from R1 probably about 30 000 years ago, way back in the Middle Upper Paleolithic before the Last Glacial Maximum. So though they are related it was from a very long time ago.

TMRCA of R2a-M124 is probably more than 10 000 years ago. Very late Paleolithic or very early Neolithic. TMRCA of R1a-Z93 is more like 5000 or 6000 years ago, in the Copper Age. So their original expansions were at different times and must have been for different reasons. Within India the distribution of R2a and R1a is not particularly correlated, if you find high R1a in a population that doesn't mean you'll find high R2a - or low R2a either, they seem mostly independent of each other.

Indo-Europeans could in theory possibly have picked up a lot of already existing and diverse R2 in Central Asia and brought it into India where it previously was absent, but I don't see any reason to think that this happened.

R1 is found all across Eurasia. Most parts of Europe, South Asia, and Central Asia, and to a lesser degree West Asia, have a lot of R1. R2 is found most commonly in South and South Central Asia but does extend further at low levels. Since the range of R1 is so very wide it is not surprising to find R2 overlap it somewhere. So yes, IMO it is an accident, except insofar as R in general has a vaguely Central/West Eurasian placement.

My guess would be that R2 originated in South Central Asia or maybe Eastern Iran and spread into India with the earliest farmers. But that is just a guess, there is not enough data to really say.

parasar
11-02-2015, 09:30 PM
Has R2 an indoeuropean origin?
Do R2 came into India with Indoeuropeans?

If not - were R2 originate and why came into India?
Especialy - why R2 is neighbour to the sister clade R1(a)?
It's only an accident?

What do you think?

To me R2 looks be as Indo-european as R1a and/or R1b.
I think the spread of Indo-European languages is much older than what many academics posit since most theories don't take into account the possibility of later shared innovations.

We have to keep in mind that the separation point of R2 and R1 is not very different in time from the separation point of R1a and R1b. So it is not the time of separation that is at issue, but how long after separation was unity maintained, and after this unity was disrupted, for how long after that was proximity maintained for exchanges.

Another thing to keep in mind is the spread of M479* - this spread covers the geographic IE horizon covered by R1a and R1b.
South Asia
Ossetia
Bashkortostan
Italy
Spain
Portugal

Gravetto-Danubian
11-02-2015, 09:55 PM
To me R2 looks be as Indo-european as R1a and/or R1b.


This is a simplistic assertion. R2 split from R1 in the ice Age. There were no IE's 30000 years ago. Lets use proper terminology; and call genetics genetics, and language language.

parasar
11-02-2015, 10:11 PM
This is a simplistic assertion. R2 split from R1 in the ice Age. There were no IE's 30000 years ago. Lets use proper terminology; and call genetics genetics, and language language.

M269 and M417 also split in that same time-frame. So the issue is not the time of the split, but the component haplogroups of PIE speakers.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-02-2015, 10:13 PM
M269 and M417 also split in that same time-frame. So the issue is not the time of the split, but the component haplogroups of PIE speakers.

Well, lets wait for a proper tracking of movements from aDNA before jumping the gun with broad-brushed language hypotheses.

Megalophias
11-02-2015, 11:19 PM
M269 and M417 also split in that same time-frame. So the issue is not the time of the split, but the component haplogroups of PIE speakers.

This is quite true, just because they diverged early on doesn't tell us whether or not they were in physical proximity, only that they had a very long time to become separated. For that matter R1a and R1b in general may well have quite far apart (R1b-V88 sure was), but it was the subclades that were next door to each other that were caught up in the successful expansion due to being in the right place at the right time.

However, the TMRCAs of M269 and M417 are quite close to each other, while that of R2 is much earlier (if you look at the Y-Full tree there are 4 successive levels of R2a with TMRCAs of 10 000 years ago). So while they may have been connected somehow I don't see how they could have been part of the same historical process.

That is not to say that some particular R2 subclades were not spread by Indo-Europeans. And later processes that spread Indo-European lineages (e.g. colonization by Northwest Indians) would also spread R2 lineages.

Rethel
11-02-2015, 11:33 PM
Lets use proper terminology; and call genetics genetics, and language language.

But in my language the term: "Indoeuropeans" and "indoeuropean" refers to a people in first place.
You can call it tribe, nation, ethnic group - whatever. Language is only a verbal tool to communicate
with each other, which is associate with group of genetic related people (sometimes not).

So Indoeuropeans - that are not only speakers of some language, and indoeuropean it is not only a term from lingustics.
This is an ethnos: clan with common ancestor, kinsmen, language, culture, some genes - everything what can be associate
with this people. Especialy a prime line from the first ancestor whom we called M-173 (or maybe M-207?).

Rethel
11-02-2015, 11:57 PM
To me R2 looks be as Indo-european as R1a and/or R1b.

Yes, and this is the point. It looks like it, and R2 on itself, seems not to fit to India.


I think the spread of Indo-European languages is much older

Maybe this is not the question, how old is language, because the prelanguage (or rather last common dialect)
can be traced back 4000 or 40.000 years ago as well. The point is, did R2 came (as very small part) to India
with IE-people, and did come from the same original tribe, or not. The time of mutations origin and the time of
migration can be diffrent and the two mutations can live together in the same tribe/area - why not?

If R2 came into India (or were there) before Aryans then it is probable, that they were a totaly different people
from very deep prehistoric times - and if it is the case, then the next very interesting question is: who they are?
But if their existace in India before Aryans is not comfirm, then probability, that they are IEs, is much higher, and
if some ancient R2s examples will be find among early IE people, then we will have centainty.

R2 among early IEs could be a small subgroup (for example 1%) and after arriving to India could enlarge itself.
So if it was a very small minority, it will be very difficult to find anything among early IEs.

So I have two questions, maybe someone knows:

1. Do are known some archeological findings of R2, and how old they are?
2. How and where is the most big differentiation of R2?

parasar
11-03-2015, 01:12 AM
This is quite true, just because they diverged early on doesn't tell us whether or not they were in physical proximity, only that they had a very long time to become separated. For that matter R1a and R1b in general may well have quite far apart (R1b-V88 sure was), but it was the subclades that were next door to each other that were caught up in the successful expansion due to being in the right place at the right time.

However, the TMRCAs of M269 and M417 are quite close to each other, while that of R2 is much earlier (if you look at the Y-Full tree there are 4 successive levels of R2a with TMRCAs of 10 000 years ago). So while they may have been connected somehow I don't see how they could have been part of the same historical process.

That is not to say that some particular R2 subclades were not spread by Indo-Europeans. And later processes that spread Indo-European lineages (e.g. colonization by Northwest Indians) would also spread R2 lineages.

I'm going by the overall distribution of R2-M479, R1a, and R1b. IMO, the steppe is not the locus of M269's spread, just its likely point of origin. Similarly, R2's point of spread may be different from its place of origin. No doubt it spread massively in India, but I think its origin was in China/S. Siberia/Baikal, and it dropped down into India via the antecedent rivers. I think IE is much older in India than assumed, entering directly from China. There also appears to be a later IE element in India which perhaps is a returnee from the western steppes (cf. Metspalu's k4 component http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News&p=78346&viewfull=1#post78346 ).

parasar
11-03-2015, 01:23 AM
Yes, and this is the point. It looks like it, and R2 on itself, seems not to fit to India.
...
So I have two questions, maybe someone knows:

1. Do are known some archeological findings of R2, and how old they are?
2. How and where is the most big differentiation of R2?

Waiting for that to crop up in the earnest! Along with L657, perhaps the most populous branch of R1a, R2 has been missing from the record.

R2-M479 has a descending branch M124 mainly seen in South Asia (99%?) and scattered M479xM124 samples from Portugal to southern India.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-03-2015, 01:23 AM
But in my language the term: "Indoeuropeans" and "indoeuropean" refers to a people in first place.
You can call it tribe, nation, ethnic group - whatever. Language is only a verbal tool to communicate
with each other, which is associate with group of genetic related people (sometimes not).

So Indoeuropeans - that are not only speakers of some language, and indoeuropean it is not only a term from lingustics.
This is an ethnos: clan with common ancestor, kinsmen, language, culture, some genes - everything what can be associate
with this people. Especialy a prime line from the first ancestor whom we called M-173 (or maybe M-207?).

I tend to think it's exactly the opposite
"iE" is a linguistic term. Everything else is a heuristic concept which needs further scrutinising. The Z2013 proto-Anatolians who were earlier and different to Z93 Indo Arians were not the same clan, or kin; in fact I doubt they had any higher level affiliation.
The common ancestor they shared lived 18000 years ago; at which point there was no pIE.
The phenomenon of both of them spreading IE was due to later processes around the ponto-caspian region. iE has to first come into being; then to be adapted by several similar but distinct groups; then subsequently spread by them through asynchronous, regionally specific mechanisms

Megalophias
11-03-2015, 01:47 AM
I think IE is much older in India than assumed, entering directly from China.
You are going to have to explain your theory now, it sounds quite out of the ordinary!

parasar
11-03-2015, 03:40 AM
You are going to have to explain your theory now, it sounds quite out of the ordinary!

It's been around for some time! IE was proposed by Narain to originate near Gansu to explain the presence of the Tocharian language. Narain equated the Yuezhi, who had lived in that region "since time immemorial" per the Chinese, with Tocharian speakers. The theory was pooh poohed by Mallory & Mair: "Seldom has a tail so small wagged a dog so large." http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2930-JP-Mallory-unsure-Tocharians-arrived-from-Afansievo-amp-suspicious-of-genetics&p=46811&viewfull=1#post46811

A branch of the Yuezhi entered eastern India quite early - well before the Buddha - where they are entitled Vajji, literally pastoral nomads. https://books.google.com/books?id=MazdaWXQFuQC&pg=SL1-PA170
The Chinese characters for Yuezhi and Vajji are the same. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4421-The-Beauty-of-Loulan&p=82771&viewfull=1#post82771

Witzel brings the Vajji from the NW, but with little or no support.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Indo-Eurasian_research/conversations/messages/13470

I have collected incidental data that add up to a picture of a migration of Sakas into Bihar, much earlier than
the well known one into Sakastaan (Seistan) around 140 BCE. ... The Sakya (and Malla, Vajj/Vrji) are NEW in Bihar, and not found in
the Late Vedic texts at *that* location, but first in the Pali canon (compiled c.250 BCE) ... the Sakya (Skt. s'aakya), cannot be
separated from the designation of the northern Iranian Saka (Skt.
S'aka) hat entered India only after c. 140 BE, via Sistan.

The name, as well as that of some Late Vedic kings and noblemen,
Balhika Pratipiiya and perhaps Cakra Sthapati, recall the Iranian
countries Baaxdhii/Balh (Bactria) and Caxra.

Further, the Sakya, Malla, etc. built high grave mounds, such as the
one for the Buddha. These remind of Central Asian grave mounds (kurgan).

Then, there is the legendary custom of Sakya incest marriage
(strictly forbidden in India since the Rgveda), an Iranian
(Zoroastrian) custom...

Taken together, these points tend to indicate that there was some
Iranian influence in Bihar in Late Vedic times. However, by the time
of the Buddha, the Iranoid character of the Sakya, by and large,
seemed to have dissipated.

redifflal
11-03-2015, 04:09 AM
I could see R2 being associated with the BMAC but not PIE. Parasar weren't you telling me of R2's Philipino connections through descent from P? Did people basically make a giant counter-clockwise circle around Eurasia or something?

parasar
11-03-2015, 05:23 AM
I could see R2 being associated with the BMAC but not PIE. Parasar weren't you telling me of R2's Philipino connections through descent from P? Did people basically make a giant counter-clockwise circle around Eurasia or something?

Yes. If I recollect I had mentioned it in conjunction with your maternal line - a close line to one found in the Philippines.

DMXX
11-03-2015, 09:08 AM
I recall this discussion was had deep in a thread elsewhere on the forum. I agree with Megalophias' deductions completely, although the current circumstances do leave us in a speculative quagmire.

Interpretation of R2a-M124's development in Eurasia is severely hampered by academia's lack of testing for downstream SNPs, most of which have only emerged in the past couple of years (mostly from citizen scientist endeavours).

L295 is the best division we have to go by at present. L295+ appears more frequently in South India and in regions hugging the sub-tropical-temporal zone. Judging by STRs, L295- does not represent a distinct node in the phylogeny as L295+ does (i.e. L295- is "everything else" for now).

YFull's MRCA estimates (http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M479/) seem to confirm this inference. L295 is dated to around 8.9kya (formed 10kya), whereas M124 is a good deal older (last MRCA estimate I saw online was around 14-15kya).

In light of this, even when working with R2a-L295- samples alone, SNP's currently offer no illumination on patrilineal expansion patterns. Whether or not, for instance, Uttar Pradesh Brahmin R2a-L295- is tied to some sort of Indo-Iranian expansion or a local variant, can't be discerned for now. Which leads onto the Indo-European aspect of the discussion.

Given the complete absence of R2a-M124 in all early Eurasian steppe aDNA retrieved thus far, it is highly unlikely (though technically not impossible) that speakers of PIE or PII carried it. However, the presence of non-R1 lineages on the steppes in the Iron Age does open up the possibility it could have diffused onto the steppes after the primary IE expansions occurred before 2000 B.C.

I do broadly agree with the current mantra regarding the imprecise nature of reverse-projecting modern population characteristics onto past populations. However, some useful clues can be discerned from investigating the former*. One of the aims of the FTDNA WTY-R2-M124 Project is to break down the subclade variants found in both L295+ and L295-. For those interested in supporting us, please consider donating.

* Y-DNA R is found across modern Eurasia with both larger frequencies and subclade diversity than in Africa. Following the "modern population phylogeny is useless" mantra here, are we to argue for the theoretical possibility R arose and developed in Africa?

Rethel
11-03-2015, 01:06 PM
I tend to think it's exactly the opposite
"iE" is a linguistic term. Everything else is a heuristic concept which needs further scrutinising.

Do you have better term? Maybe Aryans - as it is still using in american literature as an equvalent of Indoeuropeans? :wave:


The Z2013 proto-Anatolians who were earlier and different to Z93 Indo Arians were not the same clan, or kin; in fact I doubt they had any higher level affiliation.

Do you see everything partialy: language, people, lineage, culutre aso...?
Strange... when you are looking on the car, do you see car or wheels, colour, glass, chairs etc?


The common ancestor they shared lived 18000 years ago;

First, as I wrote, pralanguage can be old between 4000 and 40.000 years.
(This is an opinion of specialists, not mine).
So what's a problem? 18.000 compare to 40.000 - it is nothing.
So the argument that last common ancestor lived 18.000 years ago, and
his descendant cannot be IE because this language did not exist at that
time is false. This pralanguage could exist then, so are they IEs or not?

Second - PIE which was the common ancestor of present languages didn't become to
exist recently 5000 years ago, but the people who speak that language were speaking
on pre-PIE long before - even as long as 18.000 years... why? because they could talk.

The same, as Romulus was speaking on the same language as Francesco Paolo Tronca
(present day mayor of Rome) - even if they cannot understand each other. Language
is the same, but stadium is different. The same was with people living before Kurgans.

Especialy, that IE-pra-language is the last common stage for present day indoeuropean
languages - not the first stage. So it is like latin for Italo-Celtic peoples, of even only for
Italics/Italians. Last stage of romanian languages it was maybe the classical latin from first
century. It doesn't mean, that Romans, Latins from Latium, Latinians, and Italics (Umbrians
and Oskians) didn't exist before that stage, because they didn't speak romanian language
but pre-pre-pre-romanian. It would be a stupid assumption.

Second - 18.000? Wow, this common ancestor is going year by year younger and younger :)
So if you divide this big number of years by 3 or 4 you will have probably more correct one.
Theories based on fictional thousands of years withot connection with history are always falling.
Are dozens of examples which were fairy tales and had no sense from the beginnig.
Genetic without history is completly useless.

This big numbers of thousands of years can be only a clue - what was before, and what was after.


at which point there was no pIE.

They didn't exist?
So if the common ancestor lived 18.000 yerars ago, and tribe which you called IE becoming to
existance about 13.000 years later... then where this people were through 13.000 years? Did
they vanished or everyone lived in different parts of the world and after 13.000 years they all
recently had one thoght and decide to go into one place somewere in the eurasian steppe?

No, they won't. They lived as a one group of people, and sometimes some smaller gorup (part
of that people) could dissoociate from the big one - but their origin were still in this first group.


The phenomenon of both of them spreading IE was due to later processes around the ponto-caspian region. iE has to first come into being; then to be adapted by several similar but distinct groups; then subsequently spread by them through asynchronous, regionally specific mechanisms

As above.

------------------------

I have no douts from 10 years that R1 this is an IE tribe.

What about R2 - I dont know, but it isn't impossible.

For now - we dont have any clue.
Some guessing thousands of years to exclude
this possibility are not an argument at all.

If R2 would be a totally different racial, language or geografical group - then ok.
But they are not. They speak someone else langauge, they have someone else
anthropological type, and they lived among anothers people in some common for
many groups of people territory. They have none distinguish marks - at all.

So who they are? IE or not?

If they would be some totaly different genetic
line among thier neighbors, like hg T. But they
are not. They live among R1...

Rethel
11-03-2015, 01:26 PM
I could see R2 being associated with the BMAC but not PIE.

Bactria-Margiana Archeological Complex (you mean right?) it is 2300–1700 BCE.
Where they were before that time, and on which language they were spoken?

To the kurgans you have 1,5-2 tousands of years... this is a huge period of time...

And what do you do with this time until 18.000 ya which Gravetian was proposed? :)

redifflal
11-03-2015, 03:59 PM
Bactria-Margiana Archeological Complex (you mean right?) it is 2300–1700 BCE.
Where they were before that time, and on which language they were spoken?

To the kurgans you have 1,5-2 tousands of years... this is a huge period of time...

And what do you do with this time until 18.000 ya which Gravetian was proposed? :)

I dunno man. I have a bias against seeing my gotra having any mlechha origins including PIE at any point in time before the advent of Mehrgarh, IVC etc. I'd say we were adivasis of the Indo-Gangetic plains that got Aryanized culturally (language-shifted) and pulled up the caste ladder by profession...I don't like to entertain fantastical notions of origins near Lake Baikal or Caspian Sea unless I see irrefutable evidence to suggest so. And like I said, BMAC is the furthest northwest I am comfortable discussing origins of R2 in the IVC time frame, not anywhere further northwest than that.
BTW, I'm not carrying any Hindu nationalist biases. I knew the Out-of-India theories are just as much pseudo-science as the AIT or AMT. But I'm a fan of cultural/linguistic diffusion, whereby the northern plains got Aryanized without changing its genetics...hence my claim that R2 is probably pretty indigenous to the subcontinent (that is pre-10k BC), and just got acculturated.

parasar
11-03-2015, 04:36 PM
...

Given the complete absence of R2a-M124 in all early Eurasian steppe aDNA retrieved thus far, it is highly unlikely (though technically not impossible) that speakers of PIE or PII carried it. However, the presence of non-R1 lineages on the steppes in the Iron Age does open up the possibility it could have diffused onto the steppes after the primary IE expansions occurred before 2000 B.C.
...

While this is true, we also know that R2 is nested within the steppe finds. Since I think R1 and R2 spread all the way to Iberia (and India) in the Neolithic, it is just a matter of time (finding it in the I0559 (Baalberge_MN), Els Trocs, ATP3 phase, not sure where Vucedol falls).

Megalophias
11-03-2015, 04:56 PM
Certainly the ancestral language to PIE must have existed 18 000 years ago, or 30 000 years ago (the younger date is an estimated TMRCA of R1a and R1b, the older one of R1 and R2).

Was it the ancestor of PIE only? We do not know, it might equally be the ancestor of Manchu and Eskimo, for example (a real theory), who have C2b and Q1a.

Was it the language spoken by the patriarch of R, or of R1? From history and ethnography we know that people often change languages. How could we possibly know whether the people of these lineages changed their language or not?

We know for certain that Y hg R people changed their languages, or inherited a different language to begin with, in numerous cases. Many Turkic groups have very high frequency of R1a. At present the most common haplogroup of Vasconic speakers is R1b-M269, and they have among the highest frequencies of any population. The greatest frequency of R1b-V88 is among speakers of Chadic (Austro-Asiatic) languages. Burushos have the highest frequency of R2*. Dravidian speakers have high frequency of R2a.

So it is fine to speculate that the ancestor of R1 spoke the ancestor of Indo-European, it may be true, but this is much too shaky a theory to build on.


So if you divide this big number of years by 3 or 4 you will have probably more correct one. Theories based on fictional thousands of years withot connection with history are always falling.... For now - we dont have any clue.
Some guessing thousands of years to exclude this possibility are not an argument at all.
Numbers you made up to fit your views are better than numbers based on actual data for what reason?


So who they are? IE or not? If they would be some totaly different genetic line among thier neighbors, like hg T. But they are not. They live among R1...
So what? They also live among H, J, L, and other lineages that cannot be distinguished either. We can go back 50 000 years instead of 30 000 and make all of these Indo-European too, why not? Maybe the patriarch of all F spoke the ancestor of Indo-European. (Come to think of it, that's actually quite probable.)

Tomasso29
11-03-2015, 05:27 PM
I usually don't like labeling language families to haplogroups since it's a very flawed argument. I see people usually mixing haplogroups with origins of languages (R1a/R1b with IE, J1/E with AA, etc). This is hardly scientific and usually fueled by personal agenda of some sort. For example we've seen various non-R1b/R1a haplogroups on the steppes, why do we want to assume that the founding group of IE languages were exclusive to these two haplogroups?

Back to the topic, thus far R2 has not been found in any of the steppe ancient studies, which means that the likely origin point happened south of that region with possibilities of South Asia, South Central Asia, the Middle East, or perhaps somewhere in between these regions. I also think that this lineage might have mutated around these areas during or after the last ice age and the offspring never bothered going north due to climate.

Rethel
11-03-2015, 06:10 PM
hence my claim that R2 is probably pretty indigenous to the subcontinent (that is pre-10k BC), and just got acculturated.

Ok, I have not problem with that, but if it is so, then
it is important to answer, who R2s people were originaly?

Maybe some isolate language from north India can fit?
What racial type?
How long by evidence R2 is in India?
If it is long before Aryans - you are right.

But if you're trying get R2s from Iran, then I'm affraid that
this is more supporting IE theory than for separited group.

The biggest problem is that none of the options in India or
outside (but not from N and W) fit to R2 and vice versa.

If you have a good and supported by archeology,
lingustics and history theory I'm ready to get it... :)

Tomasso29
11-03-2015, 07:19 PM
Ok, I have not problem with that, but if it is so, then
it is important to answer, who R2s people were originaly?

Maybe some isolate language from north India can fit?
What racial type?
How long by evidence R2 is in India?
If it is long before Aryans - you are right.

But if you're trying get R2s from Iran, then I'm affraid that
this is more supporting IE theory than for separited group.

The biggest problem is that none of the options in India or
outside (but not from N and W) fit to R2 and vice versa.

If you have a good and supported by archeology,
lingustics and history theory I'm ready to get it... :)

You cannot prove original racial types or languages based on haplogroups, these are different topics and should be treated differently.


hence my claim that R2 is probably pretty indigenous to the subcontinent (that is pre-10k BC), and just got acculturated.

Depends what you mean by indigenous, so far the SNP diversity for R2a-M124 in South Asia has not been significant, most are in favor of L295+ (About 70% of Indians carry this SNP and the numbers get higher as you advance into Central/South India), most of the L295- types in India happen to be in the North which may very well be part of an origin point, but the same can be said for other regions nearby such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, etc.

Here's the current R2-WTY project, you'll notice that most South Asians are L295+:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R2-M124-WTY?iframe=yresults

Here's the current tree of SNPs created by the admin of that project (Abdulaziz):
http://r2dna.org/Tree/R2-Tree-v7.jpg

Rethel
11-03-2015, 07:28 PM
Was it the ancestor of PIE only? We do not know, it might equally be the ancestor of Manchu and Eskimo, for example (a real theory),

Yea, I herd about them, but... they are more fantasy, than reality.
Why?
Because as you write, they are associated with totaly diffrent group of people.
(of course, od course, people can change language, but there must be a circumstances to that,
and - as we see from the most recorded history - there were basicly group of people allreadt, so
eventually change of language in deep prehistory if is not an option, then have a small importance).


who have C2b and Q1a.

Yea, and here I see sense to reaserch who was who.
Q1a (probably Yeniseyan peoples)- can be related to
Eskimos and Indians by language - this can have sense.


Was it the language spoken by the patriarch of R, or of R1? From history and ethnography we know that people often change languages. How could we possibly know whether the people of these lineages changed their language or not?

When the history began, there was already a people and a language.
We have no need for serching another - even if the change of tonge
have place (I deeply dout it) then we will never know this, and it do
not change the matter, that throu 5000 years R1 (the people) were
spreading across the world amorng with IE language and culture.


We know for certain that Y hg R people changed their languages, or inherited a different language to begin with, in numerous cases.

Yes. But still, we can trace them to original R1 and mostly IE-by-language stock.
For me, more important are people, than language. Language was only a track to
find them in XVIII and XIX century. The same role could make others factors.


Many Turkic groups have very high frequency of R1a.

Average it is even 1/3.
And this is a very important factor to debate to answer the question: who they are or were.
Do Turks as a people can be count as Indoeuropeans or not? And what are their language?
Maybe this is a creol, a hibryd of some IE, Altaic and ugric languages?

The very beginnigs of Turks, are very scythian and iranian, so... I dont know, who they should be call.
Maybe even the name "Turk" comes from some IE people.


At present the most common haplogroup of Vasconic speakers is R1b-M269, and they have among the highest frequencies of any population.

Yea! And they are certanly Indoeuropeans! They not only have the same lineage, but they came as Indoeuropeans to Iberia.
This, that they change their language means nothing. Men are still who they are and were... Only their self indentification can
be wrong, but it is a problem of particular persons.


The greatest frequency of R1b-V88 is among speakers of Chadic (Austro-Asiatic) languages.

But it doesn't mean, that they were chamitic from the beginning.
They probably werent even dark when they came to Sahel...


Burushos have the highest frequency of R2*. Dravidian speakers have high frequency of R2a.

Frequency means nothing.
Basques and Bashkirs (sic!) have high frequency of R1, but it is known, that this is foreign influence.

Problem with burushos is their language is probably IE, as newest theory claim.
But if not, thet is better candidate - L. Couple years ago I was thinking about
burusho and R2, but I didnt find any convince evidence.


So it is fine to speculate that the ancestor of R1 spoke the ancestor of Indo-European, it may be true, but this is much too shaky a theory to build on.

If someone belive in hollow thousends of years of nothing between every significant mutation, and
cannot explain, where this people were thru this thousends of years, then this is really a big problem.
BUT. Even if they change their language during this 13.000 missing hollow years, than it is not a big
problem, because 6000 years ago they were still one tribe with one language, and if they change the
language earlier, then the logically conclusion is, that they were one ethnos one tribe during this time.

Irishmen change their language, but they still are Irish - aren't they?


Numbers you made up to fit your views are better than numbers based on actual data for what reason?

For that reason, that when the history begins we have always one language one lineage.
This is the first reason.
Secnod - no one can proof, that this thousends of years have place, and
noone have any idea what happend during so gigantic long periods of time.
Third - during last 15 years were so many errors in dateing and very stupid
theoris build on that foolish assuptions, that I do not belive in that because
it has no sense at all, and any connection with the reality.


So what? They also live among H, J, L, and other lineages that cannot be distinguished either.

I had in mind something else.
If you look on T - you have this everywhere, and the most
near cousin L is in one particular location, not combinr with T.
That tells us, that this are probably two diffret group of people.

You have N and O coming from one ancestor, but, N is uralic, and O is sinic
This is obvoius...

But you have M and S - and you can suppose, that they are the same - Papuan.
But couple of years ago they were separated even geneticly... so maybe they arent?

Comaring R2 to R1, you have situation similar to actual MS, not LT.
L and T are in totaly different locations, associate with totaly diffrent people.
In the case of R2 - you do not have such clear situation, and you do not have
any archeological data to exclude possibility, that R2 & 1 are the same ethnos.

Maybe they are not, but noone give any evidence for that.
Only what we have, is genetic connection and the same place of existance.
And no evidence, that R2 not came to India as Aryans together with R1.

If they were there long before - very well.
And the point is to know, how it was.


We can go back 50 000 years instead of 30 000 and make all of these Indo-European too, why not?
Maybe the patriarch of all F spoke the ancestor of Indo-European. (Come to think of it, that's actually quite probable.)

Good joke.

Rethel
11-03-2015, 07:40 PM
I usually don't like labeling language families to haplogroups since it's a very flawed argument.

Without any connection with archeonationalities this whole staff has any sens for normal people.
As it is with gen of the smaller toe in left leg.
Or mt. The same story.


I see people usually mixing haplogroups with origins of languages (R1a/R1b with IE, J1/E with AA, etc).

Because this fit, have real meaning, and historical and ethnic sens.
Not only scientific curiosity.


This is hardly scientific and usually fueled by personal agenda of some sort. For example we've seen various non-R1b/R1a haplogroups on the steppes, why do we want to assume that the founding group of IE languages were exclusive to these two haplogroups?

Not two but one. R1.
Becouse this is a pattern on every human culture: one tribe or nation have one male ancestor. Period.
Even if ancestor was mithical and create in middle ages, this was the same pattern. Real pattern from
ancient times. If someone do not understand this simple thing - he cannot understand deepest history,
or even not so ancient history.

Btw, everywhere you have evidences for that human organisation pattern. Only blind man can to not acknowledge this.


Back to the topic, thus far R2 has not been found in any of the steppe ancient studies, which means that the likely origin point happened south of that region with possibilities of South Asia, South Central Asia, the Middle East, or perhaps somewhere in between these regions.

Was not YET found.
R2 was yet not found anywhere.
So this is not evidence for any theory.


I also think that this lineage might have mutated around these areas during or after the last ice age and the offspring never bothered going north due to climate.

If you can find R2 so long ago in Iran, without any R1 - that will mean, that R2 are different people.

Rethel
11-03-2015, 07:51 PM
You cannot prove original racial types or languages based on haplogroups, these are different topics and should be treated differently.

Why not?!
Cannot you proof, that Amerindian are basicly Q, have different anthropological type, and language different from any other?

Tomasso29
11-03-2015, 08:32 PM
Why not?!
Cannot you proof, that Amerindian are basicly Q, have different anthropological type, and language different from any other?

It's easier said when the most probable migration route is from Siberia through Alaska which may indicate that the original Amerindians were likely Siberian like, but remember that there's more than just haplogroup Q in the Americas.



Not two but one. R1.
Becouse this is a pattern on every human culture: one tribe or nation have one male ancestor. Period.
Even if ancestor was mithical and create in middle ages, this was the same pattern. Real pattern from
ancient times. If someone do not understand this simple thing - he cannot understand deepest history,
or even not so ancient history.

There has been no evidence linking R1* to the original IE languages, heck I would say there's no actual evidence linking deeper mutations within R1 like R1a or R1b to the IE languages, the so called lineages found in Yamna if we're going to assume that it was the start of the Indo-Europeans were R1b1a2 for most part but also carried other lineages like I2a2 for example, and if we're going to take the general steppes into consideration then that extends to other lineages like R1a1a, C, Q1a, J2, J1, so on. In other words you can assume that R1 was the original population all you want, but assumptions is all you're going to get.


Btw, everywhere you have evidences for that human organisation pattern. Only blind man can to not acknowledge this.

Was not YET found.
R2 was yet not found anywhere.
So this is not evidence for any theory.

If you can find R2 so long ago in Iran, without any R1 - that will mean, that R2 are different people.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in all of this but I'm going to assume that English is not your first language. Anyways, today we have R1a1a men in Russia and India, does that make them the same people? Maybe at one point they shared an ancestor, but that does not mean they're the same people. You need to consider all periods into the equation, mixing haplogroups with historical time periods, languages, and ethnicity is like mixing lettuce, cake mix, and gun powder into one bowel.

Generalissimo
11-03-2015, 09:04 PM
For example we've seen various non-R1b/R1a haplogroups on the steppes, why do we want to assume that the founding group of IE languages were exclusive to these two haplogroups?

Because the Early to Middle Bronze Age steppe groups, as well as their close cousin Corded Ware, all associated with the early Indo-Europeans, belonged exclusively to R1a and R1b.

The various non-R1b/R1a haplogroups are either a minor input at best, or found in later and thus irrelevant steppe groups.

You must have missed this, or you're ignoring it for whatever reason. But no one who's taken the time to look at the results will be impressed with your take on the issue, so why bother?

Rethel
11-03-2015, 09:14 PM
It's easier said when the most probable migration route is from Siberia through Alaska which may indicate that the original Amerindians were likely Siberian like,

:)

You simply do not want acknoledge the fact :)


but remember that there's more than just haplogroup Q in the Americas.

Yes, and this is interesting to find who is who.
Indians are Q.
C were before therm of after them? R the same.
If so, do their language exist today or not?
Were they came from?
And this is showing us, that there are THREE different group of people, not one.
But only one is THE GROUP.

This were only rhethorical exemplary questions.
This is the reason why such an investigations are interesting.
Not a mishmash like it is with another genes and lineages.


There has been no evidence linking R1* to the original IE languages, heck I would say there's no actual evidence linking deeper mutations within R1 like R1a or R1b to the IE languages,

OMG.
R1* - for this you will probably never have an evidence.
But you have one IE society 5000 ya and IE nations at present day, and they are all R1. This is enough proof.
You have bushmens who are A, and Bantu who are E... You have chenese who are O, and Ainu who are D... and so on, and so on...
This is really very obvious.


the so called lineages found in Yamna if we're going to assume that it was the start of the Indo-Europeans were R1b1a2 for most part but also carried other lineages like I2a2 for example, and if we're going to take the general steppes into consideration then that extends to other lineages like R1a1a, C, Q1a, J2, J1, so on. In other words you can assume that R1 was the original population all you want, but assumptions is all you're going to get.

Zimbabweans are speaking english. Are they englishmen or indoeuropeans? No? Why?

Regarding to I2... you know... even in deep bronze age, there were slaves, traders, and probably gastarbeiters...
It doesnt mean, that I2 was IE - especially when we heve exactly this people a little farest on the southwest and
west and they rather were speaking another language... having another culture, religion, customs and appearance...


I'm not sure what you're trying to say in all of this

That you have no proof for no IE origin of R2.


but I'm going to assume that English is not your first language.

No. Not even second... he may be couted as third or maybe even fourth... :)


Anyways, today we have R1a1a men in Russia and India,

Yes, and the reason is... becuase they are coming from the same tribe. Do you agree?


does that make them the same people?

In some sense yes.. At minimum they are both counted as Indoeuropean nations (not only languages).


Maybe at one point they shared an ancestor,

And this is the whole point! :)


but that does not mean they're the same people.

Because they have one common ancestor they are the same people.
Especially, if they share the same language and historical origin.


You need to consider all periods into the equation,

I mustn't. Because this is obvious, but it do not change the thing.


mixing haplogroups with historical time periods, languages, and ethnicity is like mixing lettuce, cake mix, and gun powder into one bowel.

Then you should have pretence to prehistorical people,
that they lived separated and spoken different languages.

If you doesn't care who you are - this is your bussines, but most people like to know who they are.
Everyone comes from somewhere and most people trying to associate with their primal ancestors...
Cowboys with Europeans, Negros with black Africans, Indians with ancient Americans, Japanese with
Japan... why? Do they lost their minds or time/place feeling? No... this is natural and obvious...

Mixing doesn't mean loosing identity.

Tomasso29
11-03-2015, 09:37 PM
Because the Early to Middle Bronze Age steppe groups, as well as their close cousin Corded Ware, all associated with the early Indo-Europeans, belonged exclusively to R1a and R1b.

The various non-R1b/R1a haplogroups are either a minor input at best, or found in later and thus irrelevant steppe groups.

So small input means not significant? What if the IE family started off with a group of mixed haplogroups? Can you prove that this is not the case?


You must have missed this, or you're ignoring it for whatever reason. But no one who's taken the time to look at the results will be impressed with your take on the issue, so why bother?

Impressing people is not a criteria to write an opinion. Why I bother? Because I feel like it.

parasar
11-03-2015, 09:38 PM
Why not?!
Cannot you proof, that Amerindian are basicly Q, have different anthropological type, and language different from any other?

We can, at best, have correlations, nothing definitive.
For example R1a1-Z94 and L657 which per Klyosov are "Aryans in the traditional sense" (dx.doi.org/10.4236/aa.2013.32014), but if you look at the phylogeny you could just as easily derive Aryans from Turks.

The phylogeny going from Z93 downwards.

Z93-B142 Iranian

Z93-B110 Altai, Kirgiz

Z94-Y40 found in Turkics, South Asia

Z94-Z665 in Tajiks

Z94-Z2124 found in Turkics, Tajiks, South Asia, Arabia

For L657:
Z94-M780(xM634)-B163 in Cossak
M634xL657 in Tajik
L657-Y4 South Asia
L657-Y9 South Asia
Y9-Y7 South Asia, Kazak, Arabia


For R2a there are many-many SNPs at the M124 level. Under M124 we have B288 in Iran and P267 mainly in South Asia.
So in a way M124 is more Indo-Iranian than Z93!

Tomasso29
11-03-2015, 09:41 PM
:)

You simply do not want acknoledge the fact :)



Yes, and this is interesting to find who is who.
Indians are Q.
C were before therm of after them? R the same.
If so, do their language exist today or not?
Were they came from?
And this is showing us, that there are THREE different group of people, not one.
But only one is THE GROUP.

This were only rhethorical exemplary questions.
This is the reason why such an investigations are interesting.
Not a mishmash like it is with another genes and lineages.



OMG.
R1* - for this you will probably never have an evidence.
But you have one IE society 5000 ya and IE nations at present day, and they are all R1. This is enough proof.
You have bushmens who are A, and Bantu who are E... You have chenese who are O, and Ainu who are D... and so on, and so on...
This is really very obvious.



Zimbabweans are speaking english. Are they englishmen or indoeuropeans? No? Why?

Regarding to I2... you know... even in deep bronze age, there were slaves, traders, and probably gastarbeiters...
It doesnt mean, that I2 was IE - especially when we heve exactly this people a little farest on the southwest and
west and they rather were speaking another language... having another culture, religion, customs and appearance...



That you have no proof for no IE origin of R2.



No. Not even second... he may be couted as third or maybe even fourth... :)



Yes, and the reason is... becuase they are coming from the same tribe. Do you agree?



In some sense yes.. At minimum they are both counted as Indoeuropean nations (not only languages).



And this is the whole point! :)



Because they have one common ancestor they are the same people.
Especially, if they share the same language and historical origin.



I mustn't. Because this is obvious, but it do not change the thing.



Then you should have pretence to prehistorical people,
that they lived separated and spoken different languages.

If you doesn't care who you are - this is your bussines, but most people like to know who they are.
Everyone comes from somewhere and most people trying to associate with their primal ancestors...
Cowboys with Europeans, Negros with black Africans, Indians with ancient Americans, Japanese with
Japan... why? Do they lost their minds or time/place feeling? No... this is natural and obvious...

Mixing doesn't mean loosing identity.

Again, this is a little difficult to understand but I will just say that ethnic identities are not defined by haplogroups and these identities change throughout history. For example there are Arabs that carry lineages that could have come from Indo-Europeans, do they identify as Indo-Europeans? No they don't.

Rethel
11-03-2015, 09:59 PM
So small input means not significant? What if the IE family started off with a group of mixed haplogroups? Can you prove that this is not the case?

In the beginning, before Babel everybody were everybodies... :)
But after that, began differentiation - different families in different parts of the world...
As I said, even if R1 borrow the language from anothers people in deep prehistory, it doesn't change the thing.
From historical evidences we have one group of people, with one ancestor, with one culture, with one language.
And they are differet from other people... do you really still don't get it?

Generalissimo
11-03-2015, 10:02 PM
So small input means not significant?

That's correct, one I2a in a late Yamnaya/early Catacomb Kurgan is not significant. In fact, it's irrelevant.


What if the IE family started off with a group of mixed haplogroups? Can you prove that this is not the case?

I just explained to you that clearly this is not what it looks like.


Impressing people is not a criteria to write an opinion. Why I bother? Because I feel like it.

Try and make some sense from now on. Can you do that?

Rethel
11-03-2015, 10:10 PM
We can, at best, have correlations, nothing definitive.
For example R1a1-Z94 and L657 which per Klyosov are "Aryans in the traditional sense" (dx.doi.org/10.4236/aa.2013.32014), but if you look at the phylogeny you could just as easily derive Aryans from Turks.

The phylogeny going from Z93 downwards.

And this is why we need history and lingustics, because:


Z93-B142 Iranian

And other kinhaplotypes in Europe prove, that Iranians are not Turks.
History show us, that Persians existed long before Turks...


Z93-B110 Altai, Kirgiz

About which we know, that this regions were fully scythian so indoeuropean in antiquity.
And Altayans... this is very small group of people... ten of thousands... the same were Kirgiz in the past.


Z94-Y40 found in Turkics, South Asia

Who came from ex indoeuropean steppe...


Z94-Z665 in Tajiks

Who are Persians and speaking indoeuropean language, and
are connected with another indoeuropean people in Europe.


Z94-Z2124 found in Turkics, Tajiks, South Asia, Arabia

So... in the areas, where Indoeuropeans lived or ruled.


For L657:
Z94-M780(xM634)-B163 in Cossak
M634xL657 in Tajik
L657-Y4 South Asia
L657-Y9 South Asia
Y9-Y7 South Asia, Kazak, Arabia

As above...


For R2a there are many-many SNPs at the M124 level. Under M124 we have B288 in Iran and P267 mainly in South Asia.
So in a way M124 is more Indo-Iranian than Z93!

Can you explain yourself clearer?
Becouse of metodology according to Z93 I am confused... :)

Rethel
11-03-2015, 10:18 PM
Again, this is a little difficult to understand but I will just say that ethnic identities are not defined by haplogroups and these identities change throughout history. For example there are Arabs that carry lineages that could have come from Indo-Europeans, do they identify as Indo-Europeans? No they don't.

Did they knew about this? No.

But if their ancestor was IE... and if they know this... they should.
This is the patrilineal rule. Period.
Certainly, they are not from the Ishmael...
So... can they claim to be, because they speak arabic?

I have a feeling, that you lost your point long ago, and you do not know what do you want to tell...

Another example...

In Europe we had Oldeuropeans and New or Indoeuropeans... some 5000 years ago.

Today... If I want to know who I am... what should I do?
Can you tell me?
What can I do, to know: am I Old- or New- European?

Rethel
11-03-2015, 10:25 PM
So small input means not significant? What if the IE family started off with a group of mixed haplogroups? Can you prove that this is not the case?

When Englishmen came to America, the Negros came as well. And couple of Jews. Some Indians lived nearby.
They all even probably knew english. From the archeological genetic material we know that in "James-colony"
lived people with hg E (like English) N (like Negros) I (like Indians) and J (like Jews). So, by your logic, people
with hg N, J and I were... Englishmen. Did they?

Megalophias
11-03-2015, 11:19 PM
Look, Rethel, if you want to categorize different groups into "the same people" or "the same nation" by your own standards, that is your privilege. Some people will feel they share an identity for those reasons, some will not. Anatolian Turks are genetically mostly descended from Indo-Europeans - who were themselves originally something else, of course - but I don't suggest telling a Turk to his face that he is really a confused Greek.

Often historically patrilineages were very important, but the patriarch may be fictional, a tribe or ethnos is often an alliance of different clans, a clan may adopt unrelated men. Or clans split and their members join different cultures. In some cultures the clans are matrilineal. So Y chromosomes do not stay attached to one ethnic group, they shift around all the time. This is obvious, you can see it everywhere. If you want to define it so that Basques are "really" Indo-Europeans, then go ahead, but don't expect the Basques to agree with you. It has makes no difference to reality, which is that Y lineages do not track languages very well. It doesn't matter if R1b-V88 people were light-skinned when they came to the Sahel; they changed their language, their culture, and even most of their genes.


When the history began, there was already a people and a language. We have no need for serching another - even if the change of tonge have place (I deeply dout it) then we will never know this, and it do not change the matter, that throu 5000 years R1 (the people) were spreading across the world amorng with IE language and culture.
At that time R1b1c-V88 was far away in the Mediterranean. We don't know where R1b-L389* was, we don't know where R1b-PH1165 was, we don't know where basal branches of R1a were, and we don't know where the many branches of R2 that existed at that time were. You are arguing in circles.


Do Turks as a people can be count as Indoeuropeans or not? And what are their language? Maybe this is a creol, a hibryd of some IE, Altaic and ugric languages?
No. They have some influence from different IE languages, especially Persian, or more recently Russian. But Turkic is not any kind of hybrid with IE. Turks have certainly assimilated lots of people who once spoke Indo-European, that is probably where their R1a and a lot of the rest of their genetics comes from. But there are many different Turkic groups, Anatolian Turks are basically West Asians, Yakuts are basically East Asian, etc.


If someone belive in hollow thousends of years of nothing between every significant mutation, and cannot explain, where this people were thru this thousends of years, then this is really a big problem.
They were somewhere in Central Eurasia, we don't know exactly where of course. How often do you think there should be "significant mutations"? I guess by that you mean branch points. Well, consider that every branch point is at least a doubling of the number of people who have descendants alive today. Ten doublings is multiplying a thousand times. How many branch points can there be before the world is overflowing with people? Not very many, especially back in the Ice Age.


For that reason, that when the history begins we have always one language one lineage. This is the first reason.
Do you have any actual evidence for this?


Third - during last 15 years were so many errors in dateing and very stupid theoris build on that foolish assuptions, that I do not belive in that because it has no sense at all, and any connection with the reality.
This is fair enough, the dates could still be wrong. Now, though, we have ancient DNA to test our dates and they seem to work about right. And sometimes we have definite dates from ancient DNA. So we know for sure that R1a and R1b were split long before 7500 years ago, and even R1b1a and R1b1c were split long before that. Which means the split of R2 must be older still. We have MA-1 and Anzick-1 and Ust'-Ishim to calibrate as well. We don't have any ancient DNA of R2 to be sure, but basically it would have to be mutating twice as fast as R1 (but before that it was mutating much slower) to actually be the same age as R1a-M417 and R1b-L23.


You have N and O coming from one ancestor, but, N is uralic, and O is sinic This is obvoius...
N2 is most common in the Balkans, who knows where it came from. N1a is mostly Chinese. N1c2a is in Chinese, Mongols, Tibetans, Koreans, Altaians. N1c2b is often Uralic but has Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic members. N1c1 has many branches, many are Uralic, one is found in Koryaks and Chukchis, one in Buryats and Yakuts. One is the most common and distinctive Y haplogroup of Lithuanians - who are Indo-European - yet it's clearly of recent Finnic origin. N1c* I have only seen in Chinese. O clades are Tibeto-Burman, Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic, Hmong-Mienic, Japanese, Korean, criss-crossing and overlapping.


But you have M and S - and you can suppose, that they are the same - Papuan.
There are hundreds of Papuan ethnic groups, many of them bitter enemies who used to massacre each other regularly. There are dozens of Papuan language families and hundreds of languages. To you "they are the same - Papuan". But that is because you are far away and it doesn't matter to you. To them no doubt Uralic and Semitic and Indo-European are all the same. M and S are also in Australians (many more languages and ethnic groups) and Austronesian people of Indonesia and Oceania. Many, many different peoples.


Comparing R2 to R1, you have situation similar to actual MS, not LT. L and T are in totaly different locations, associate with totally different people.
What do you mean? All over the place, in the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, India, Europe, North Africa, we very often find L and T together.


Only what we have, is genetic connection and the same place of existence. And no evidence, that R2 not came to India as Aryans together with R1.
I have already given you the evidence, and you have rejected it because you don't think the dates are reliable. That's fine, the simple answer is right now we don't know. I am rejecting your evidence that R2 came with the Aryans because I think it is hopelessly unrealistic. Maybe in the future we will find out the truth.

Tomasso29
11-04-2015, 12:51 AM
That's correct, one I2a in a late Yamnaya/early Catacomb Kurgan is not significant. In fact, it's irrelevant.

For humor's sake let's play this game and say that this may cover the story for R1b1a2, how many R1a1a's did they find in Yamnaya again? If input size is of any significance then I guess that makes it less significant than the lone I2a? And if you're intending on using other nearby samples to justify R1a1a's connection to this phantom IE population then there's no reason to ignore other lineages (Like I2a).


Try and make some sense from now on. Can you do that?

Making sense of such topics is rather selective.

parasar
11-04-2015, 01:20 AM
And this is why we need history and lingustics, because:




History show us, that Persians existed long before Turks...



About which we know, that this regions were fully scythian so indoeuropean in antiquity.
And Altayans... this is very small group of people... ten of thousands... the same were Kirgiz in the past.



Who came from ex indoeuropean steppe...


...



So... in the areas, where Indoeuropeans lived or ruled.



As above...



Can you explain yourself clearer?
Becouse of metodology according to Z93 I am confused... :)

You have made my point quite clear - we have to plead from history to make the Z93=Indo-Iranian case.

Rethel
11-04-2015, 01:59 AM
Look, Rethel, if you want to categorize different groups into "the same people" or "the same nation" by your own standards, that is your privilege. Some people will feel they share an identity for those reasons, some will not.

I assume, that most people are lokking for their genetic, because they are curious, where they came from.
Of course, it does not mean, that they must change a passport :) How they will treat a fact, that they are
not from this people who they espected to be - this is their own bussines, some will acknloledge this fact
some probably not, trying even change the history - as it is on this forum somewhere, where someone is
trying to proof, that IE were form Azerbaijan, becuse the location is so important, that without right place
of origin he cannot feel himself an IE, and some else is trying to proof that R1b is basque from the beginnig,
because he use from his chlidhood, that he is an Euskalunadakman, and an Oldeuropean, who waa bitten
5000 years ago by evil Indoeuropeans, who destroyd "his" precious cultre... but it is only a things, to which
someone used - but if the same person was be told in his childhood, that he is from IE stock, then he would
have any problems with that, and would not trying to create false history. Even if he is a Saudi with IE ancestry.

So the case is in a major fact about ancient origin and truth.


Anatolian Turks are genetically mostly descended from Indo-Europeans - who were themselves originally something else, of course - but I don't suggest telling a Turk to his face that he is really a confused Greek.

I would :)
Fifteen years ago I would generalized that all Turks are mostly IEs :) Now, I can say, that
1/4 are IE from born, but others were IEs (culturary, lingusticly and by identification) through
most part of their history. I cannot even imagine, how avarage Turk can assiciate himself with
some ancint people in Mongolia... knowing that his ancestors never even known, that this part
of the world and this people, exist. So, it is some kind of false identity... I guess...


Often historically patrilineages were very important,

But in IE case, this is the most iportant aspect, because the whoule culture was based on that.


but the patriarch may be fictional, a tribe or ethnos is often an alliance of different clans, a clan may adopt unrelated men.

Yes, of course, but the rule still were the same.
Patriarch was fictional, because no one remember the actual one.
But because of that fact, noone was trying to denonce him, because
they were doing their best according to rule.


Or clans split and their members join different cultures.

Yes, but it was life or acccident, not negation of the rule.


In some cultures the clans are matrilineal.

This is very hard to proof, but even if, the studies on Y show us, that this is a second model not first.
For example, Mary Gimbutess (-as it is male ending :P) claimed, that in Old Europe was matrirarchy or
something like that. But Y studies shows, that in the begining it wasn't the true, maybe it was in some
later stages of their history, but every wave of people into Europe was founded on their paternal ancestor.
The same was in China. At the beginning of the history chenese society was martylineal, but the whole
group of people had a common male ancestor O-something. But the Shangs arrive, they change custom.

And this is the reason, why we are disscusing about this matters. Wse do not disscusing about mt-tribes,
because such things do not exists, and average, mts are a one big mishmash. So they have any meaning.
At the beginnig of time, were prototribes (languists call it protolanguages) which had one male ancestor.
This is a mayjor pattern for majority of people. Of course after that, ther were mixings, but the background
which was layed at the beginnig was the core - if not, we woudnt have this fine maps with hgs distribution.
Everything would be confused, races and languages woud not fit to anything... and the theme would be dead,
as the theme about gen of the smaller toe in left leg. Why it is not disscused and no one is interesting in such
wonderfull topic, as haplogroups of the gens of the smallest toe in the left leg? Hmmm? :)


If you want to define it so that Basques are "really" Indo-Europeans, then go ahead, but don't expect the Basques to agree with you.

More correctly would be say, that Basques are Basques, but some
people among them are rather not... among them 71% of males are IE :P
It's better? :)


It has makes no difference to reality,

Of course not, it is hard to expect a massive "renationalisation" or something like that :)


which is that Y lineages do not track languages very well.

Who says that?
I am only talking, that R1 = IE in ancient times.
After that IEs conquerd many lands, and mixed with many
people, sometimes getting their language as their own.
But it still do not change the matter. The fact, that
Englishmen in US have so many Africans among them
doesn't change the fact, that both groups of people
are from different groups of people. WASPs are not
Africans, and Negros are not Anglosaxons.

If I say about this fact, does it change anything? No.
USa are still USA, they are not departing in two states. :)


It doesn't matter if R1b-V88 people were light-skinned when they came to the Sahel; they changed their language, their culture, and even most of their genes.

But they orogin were not in Africa, the same as origin of Africaners.
If they would preserve they language or race, would you do then
acknoladge them, that they are from the same tribe as anothers R1b? :)


No. They have some influence from different IE languages, especially Persian, or more recently Russian. But Turkic is not any kind of hybrid with IE.

It was just a thout.


Turks have certainly assimilated lots of people who once spoke Indo-European, that is probably where their R1a and a lot of the rest of their genetics comes from. But there are many different Turkic groups, Anatolian Turks are basically West Asians, Yakuts are basically East Asian, etc.

But at the beginnig when the first chanate became to existanse, thay had very big influence of Iranians.
They are confused with the Scythians, their kagans have iranic names, and the many customs are Scythians.
So, the very interesting fact is, that maybe this is an accident, that "turkic language" dominate Turkuts.
Who were the creators of Turkuts: Iranians or Altaics? Hmm...? :) Even Osman dynasty was R1! :P


They were somewhere in Central Eurasia, we don't know exactly where of course. How often do you think there should be "significant mutations"? I guess by that you mean branch points. Well, consider that every branch point is at least a doubling of the number of people who have descendants alive today. Ten doublings is multiplying a thousand times. How many branch points can there be before the world is overflowing with people? Not very many, especially back in the Ice Age.

But tens of thousands of years of primogenity in so massive scale doesn't seems to be accurate :)


Do you have any actual evidence for this?

Do you really not see this?


This is fair enough, the dates could still be wrong.

I am affraid, that as farther into past, than more of them are create from air.
Like in middle ages chronicles and in antiquity. No one can check it, so these
numbers can be whatever some one want them to be. The bigger the better.

For example I1. It supposed to so ancient, that no one remember, from very
first Ice Age, and the people in Scandinavia shoud be the ancient inhabitants
of that land... but now... it has only a couple of thousand of years...

Second example. Blonde gen. 30 years ago the blong gen was existed from the
first Cro-magninians who came from Africa, and the people with that gen were
very ancint and they were killing neandertals... Later the number was different,
and they came to 10.000 yers... and from the Scandia the origin was split to
Black Sea... and after that, the age og gen was decrising again to about 5000
years or even less... So, who was right, and from where they were getting this
numbers? 100.000 yers... 10.000... 50.000... it doesnt matter, because no one
really know, and all of that assumptions are making from nothing... Some one
has that filing, that this number is pretty, so... authoritatively he claim to be right.

The same was with R1b Cromagnions and Sapin refugee thousands og yers ago.
But it was hoax. If some one have nithing, than he preffer to belive in myths...
but on one myths, are creating another... and another... and another...


N2 is most common in the Balkans, who knows where it came from. N1a is mostly Chinese. N1c2a is in Chinese, Mongols, Tibetans, Koreans, Altaians. N1c2b is often Uralic but has Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic members. N1c1 has many branches, many are Uralic, one is found in Koryaks and Chukchis, one in Buryats and Yakuts. One is the most common and distinctive Y haplogroup of Lithuanians - who are Indo-European - yet it's clearly of recent Finnic origin. N1c* I have only seen in Chinese. O clades are Tibeto-Burman, Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic, Hmong-Mienic, Japanese, Korean, criss-crossing and overlapping.

It was only a general ilustration,
not exactly argument in detail.
I thought every one can get it... :\


There are hundreds of Papuan ethnic groups, many of them bitter enemies who used to massacre each other regularly. There are dozens of Papuan language families and hundreds of languages. To you "they are the same - Papuan". But that is because you are far away and it doesn't matter to you. To them no doubt Uralic and Semitic and Indo-European are all the same. M and S are also in Australians (many more languages and ethnic groups) and Austronesian people of Indonesia and Oceania. Many, many different peoples.

The same as above.

Btw, now they are hundrets of groups, but it seems very clearly,
that long ago, they were one tribe, becoming from one ancestor.
And they must had one common language. As others people had.
Of course, that not means, that during history others people do
not settle there. But if some one do not want see this simple fact
he will be trying to blur this, but for what purpose?


What do you mean? All over the place, in the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, India, Europe, North Africa, we very often find L and T together.

OMG... really I must explain this? :\

Look here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Distribution_Haplogroup_T_Y-DNA_II.svg/800px-Distribution_Haplogroup_T_Y-DNA_II.svg.png
And look here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Distribution_Haplogroup_L_Y-DNA.svg/800px-Distribution_Haplogroup_L_Y-DNA.svg.png

And try to make sens of that.


I have already given you the evidence, and you have rejected it because you don't think the dates are reliable.

Of course they are not!
Especially if they have more than 10.000 years! :)
In english is very good word for that kind of knowledge: science fiction. :P


That's fine, the simple answer is right now we don't know. I am rejecting your evidence that R2 came with the Aryans because I think it is hopelessly unrealistic. Maybe in the future we will find out the truth.

I'm not claiming, that this is a fact.
I'm only speculating.

Megalophias
11-04-2015, 04:48 AM
I assume, that most people are lokking for their genetic, because they are curious, where they came from.
But your Y haplogroup, which is only a small part of your DNA, and represents only one of your many ancestors, does not define who you are, any more than your mtDNA, much less all of your autosomal DNA, or your language, or culture, or nationality. Not unless you want it to, for your own preference.


I cannot even imagine, how avarage Turk can assiciate himself with some ancint people in Mongolia... knowing that his ancestors never even known, that this part of the world and this people, exist. So, it is some kind of false identity... I guess...
Some of his ancestors, even if only a few of them, came from Central Asia, and they were the ones who gave him his language and religion and some parts of his culture, even of they did not give him his Y chromosome. So why should he not identify with those ancestors more? They are much more important, for all practical purposes.


This is very hard to proof
No, in some places matrilineal clans still exist. Native people on the Northwest Coast of Canada and southern Alaska still have them.


And this is the reason, why we are disscusing about this matters. Wse do not disscusing about mt-tribes, because such things do not exists, and average, mts are a one big mishmash.
Y DNA tribes don't really exist either; not that you've actually shown, you are only assuming they exist. Patrilineal clans exist, but so do matrilineal clans.


At the beginnig of time, were prototribes (languists call it protolanguages) which had one male ancestor. This is a mayjor pattern for majority of people. Of course after that, ther were mixings, but the background which was layed at the beginnig was the core - if not, we woudnt have this fine maps with hgs distribution. Everything would be confused, races and languages woud not fit to anything...
The haplogroups didn't exist at the beginning of time, they come into existence at different times, when people had already migrated to different places. When groups were small some lineages would be lost to drift. When groups expanded private lineages grew and became haplogroups. At other times people migrated and mixed with each other. The map is complicated, almost everywhere there are many haplogroups.


But they orogin were not in Africa, the same as origin of Africaners. If they would preserve they language or race, would you do then acknoladge them, that they are from the same tribe as anothers R1b? :)
Of course, at some point R1b1c-V88 and R1b1a'b-L389 were two sons of the same man, so they would have been in the same tribe. Maybe for a long time. But then one or both of them (I mean a clan or group of their descendants) went and joined a different tribe. And since this is a thing people do, quite often, why should not R2 also have gone and joined another tribe and learned another language? Or R2 kept speaking the original language and R1 left. Or neither joined another tribe, but the tribe grew and groups split off and went to different places, and their languages evolved into different forms, and eventually the language of the group that had R1b-M269, or R1a-M417, or both, was Proto-Indo-European, while that of R2 was some distant relative of Indo-European that no longer exists. Or maybe it is Dravidian or Burushaski or something. Or many other possibilities.


Do you really not see this?
Only you can see the things in your own imagination. ;) We don't disagree that patrilineages were usually important, and one paternal lineage could dominate a group. A small group that remains isolated will end up with only one haplogroup after a while, by drift. Where we disagree is with your notion that this is always the case, that every tribe or ethnicity has one lineage originally. That could happen sometimes, but usually tribes have a number of different clans, and ethnic groups are often confederated from a number of tribes.


For example I1. It supposed to so ancient, that no one remember, from very first Ice Age, and the people in Scandinavia shoud be the ancient inhabitants of that land... but now... it has only a couple of thousand of years...
Originally it was just speculation, people saw that I1 was particular to Northern Europe so they assumed it must be very old there and date back to the Ice Age. Then people used dating based on a small number of STRs, because it is easy to sequence STRs and it used to be very very expensive to sequence DNA. But STRs change back and forth, different ones at different rates, they don't make a tree, and it is hard to figure them out. Someone created an equation based on the variance of STRs in populations that had a known founding age, Maori from New Zealand and (I think) Roma from Bulgaria. Someone else created an equation based on looking at the STRs that mutated between fathers and sons and grandsons. But they were completely different, so no one knew which one to use. Mostly people used the older one, some used the younger one, some used both. It turns out that neither was very good, and usually the older one was much too old. Now some people have complicated ones based on the different rates that STRs mutate at that work okay but mostly we just use SNPs.

Now it is cheap to sequence DNA, so people have actually counted the SNP mutations on lots of different I1 chromosomes. They have looked at ancient Y chromosomes from different times, one is 45 000 years old, and counted how many mutations those have compared to the ones we have now. They have looked at many pairs of fathers and sons and seen how many new mutations the sons have. They have looked at people that are all related and have good genealogies over hundreds of years and seen how their Y chromosomes are different. From all this we have a good estimate of about how fast mutations accumulate on the Y chromosome, and from that we can get a good estimate of how long ago the origins of different haplogroups was. It is not science fiction, it is science. Not proven science yet, still with much uncertainty, could still turn out to be wrong, but a lot better than guessing or assuming.

Most importantly now we have ancient DNA so we can actually check whether people thousands of years ago had the genes for blond hair or whatever.


It was only a general ilustration, not exactly argument in detail. I thought every one can get it... :\
Yeah, I was using it as a detailed illustration of why you are wrong.


Btw, now they are hundrets of groups, but it seems very clearly, that long ago, they were one tribe, becoming from one ancestor. And they must had one common language. As others people had. Of course, that not means, that during history others people do not settle there. But if some one do not want see this simple fact he will be trying to blur this, but for what purpose?
Maybe people aren't trying to blur it, but just think you are wrong? The first people who went there were didn't all have to be one tribe with one language and one ancestor. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. We don't know, it was probably 50 000 years ago for crying out loud.


Look here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Distribution_Haplogroup_T_Y-DNA_II.svg/800px-Distribution_Haplogroup_T_Y-DNA_II.svg.png
And look here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Distribution_Haplogroup_L_Y-DNA.svg/800px-Distribution_Haplogroup_L_Y-DNA.svg.png

And try to make sens of that.
The L map is missing a lot. Going from the studies I have in my notes, where there are blanks in the map, there should be 3% in Qatar and the UAE, 1% in Oman, 2% in Saudi Arabia, 2% in Egypt, 11% in Syria, 12% in northeastern Turkey (and some in other parts of Turkey too), 2% in Armenia. For places not on the map, there is 5% in Uygurs from Xinjiang and even 2% in Bali and 1% in Dolgans from northern Siberia. There is a little bit (usually less than 1%) also in Europe and North Africa.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-04-2015, 05:46 AM
But your Y haplogroup, which is only a small part of your DNA, and represents only one of your many ancestors, does not define who you are, any more than your mtDNA, much less all of your autosomal DNA, or your language, or culture, or nationality. Not unless you want it to, for your own preference.


Some of his ancestors, even if only a few of them, came from Central Asia, and they were the ones who gave him his language and religion and some parts of his culture, even of they did not give him his Y chromosome. So why should he not identify with those ancestors more? They are much more important, for all practical purposes.


No, in some places matrilineal clans still exist. Native people on the Northwest Coast of Canada and southern Alaska still have them.


Y DNA tribes don't really exist either; not that you've actually shown, you are only assuming they exist. Patrilineal clans exist, but so do matrilineal clans.


The haplogroups didn't exist at the beginning of time, they come into existence at different times, when people had already migrated to different places. When groups were small some lineages would be lost to drift. When groups expanded private lineages grew and became haplogroups. At other times people migrated and mixed with each other. The map is complicated, almost everywhere there are many haplogroups.


Of course, at some point R1b1c-V88 and R1b1a'b-L389 were two sons of the same man, so they would have been in the same tribe. Maybe for a long time. But then one or both of them (I mean a clan or group of their descendants) went and joined a different tribe. And since this is a thing people do, quite often, why should not R2 also have gone and joined another tribe and learned another language? Or R2 kept speaking the original language and R1 left. Or neither joined another tribe, but the tribe grew and groups split off and went to different places, and their languages evolved into different forms, and eventually the language of the group that had R1b-M269, or R1a-M417, or both, was Proto-Indo-European, while that of R2 was some distant relative of Indo-European that no longer exists. Or maybe it is Dravidian or Burushaski or something. Or many other possibilities.


Only you can see the things in your own imagination. ;) We don't disagree that patrilineages were usually important, and one paternal lineage could dominate a group. A small group that remains isolated will end up with only one haplogroup after a while, by drift. Where we disagree is with your notion that this is always the case, that every tribe or ethnicity has one lineage originally. That could happen sometimes, but usually tribes have a number of different clans, and ethnic groups are often confederated from a number of tribes.


Originally it was just speculation, people saw that I1 was particular to Northern Europe so they assumed it must be very old there and date back to the Ice Age. Then people used dating based on a small number of STRs, because it is easy to sequence STRs and it used to be very very expensive to sequence DNA. But STRs change back and forth, different ones at different rates, they don't make a tree, and it is hard to figure them out. Someone created an equation based on the variance of STRs in populations that had a known founding age, Maori from New Zealand and (I think) Roma from Bulgaria. Someone else created an equation based on looking at the STRs that mutated between fathers and sons and grandsons. But they were completely different, so no one knew which one to use. Mostly people used the older one, some used the younger one, some used both. It turns out that neither was very good, and usually the older one was much too old. Now some people have complicated ones based on the different rates that STRs mutate at that work okay but mostly we just use SNPs.

Now it is cheap to sequence DNA, so people have actually counted the SNP mutations on lots of different I1 chromosomes. They have looked at ancient Y chromosomes from different times, one is 45 000 years old, and counted how many mutations those have compared to the ones we have now. They have looked at many pairs of fathers and sons and seen how many new mutations the sons have. They have looked at people that are all related and have good genealogies over hundreds of years and seen how their Y chromosomes are different. From all this we have a good estimate of about how fast mutations accumulate on the Y chromosome, and from that we can get a good estimate of how long ago the origins of different haplogroups was. It is not science fiction, it is science. Not proven science yet, still with much uncertainty, could still turn out to be wrong, but a lot better than guessing or assuming.

Most importantly now we have ancient DNA so we can actually check whether people thousands of years ago had the genes for blond hair or whatever.


Yeah, I was using it as a detailed illustration of why you are wrong.


Maybe people aren't trying to blur it, but just think you are wrong? The first people who went there were didn't all have to be one tribe with one language and one ancestor. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. We don't know, it was probably 50 000 years ago for crying out loud.


The L map is missing a lot. Going from the studies I have in my notes, where there are blanks in the map, there should be 3% in Qatar and the UAE, 1% in Oman, 2% in Saudi Arabia, 2% in Egypt, 11% in Syria, 12% in northeastern Turkey (and some in other parts of Turkey too), 2% in Armenia. For places not on the map, there is 5% in Uygurs from Xinjiang and even 2% in Bali and 1% in Dolgans from northern Siberia. There is a little bit (usually less than 1%) also in Europe and North Africa.

We should have an introduction page for people new to genetics and anthropology outlining basic facts about what things like Y-DNA haplogroups actually mean and represent, how they relate to other platforms - like language- so we don’t need to spell it out again tomorrow for someone else.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-04-2015, 06:09 AM
I want to repeat Megalophias' statement "

So it is fine to speculate that the ancestor of R1 spoke the ancestor of Indo-European, it may be true, but this is much too shaky a theory to build on."

Its not only shaky, its in fact absurd. When the random SNP mutation which created what we call R1 occurred, there was obviously no PIE, nor even a pre-PIE. Unless we call it pre-pre-pre-.....-pre PIE, hence the absurdness. Whatever language - languages I should say- were spoken by the earliest R1 groups : they were divergent from the outset, drifted to extinction, replaced and shifted, merged and diverged beyond recognition due to the labile nature of language in prehistoric forager societies.

When we start talking about specific and later lineages like Z280, Z93, L21, Z2013, (but also other, non-R1) then we are on more steady ground- and even then there is no reason to assume that all of the abovementioned subclades
solely and exclusively spoke IE- some might have spoken Caucasian or Uralic -type languages.

Linguistically, and archaeologically, the steppe is without a doubt tied to early PIE, but this is a very different story to making equations of R1*=pre- PIE.

DMXX
11-04-2015, 08:20 AM
Referring to the previous page, let's keep things civil here, gents. We are dealing with degrees of likelihood for the time being (and this is a discussion forum after all).

Also, Rethel, please write your sentences in full rather than truncating them.

Have to agree with G-D and Megalophias regarding the association of massively upstream uniparental nodes with language families. The M173 mutation (for R1) is thousands upon thousands of years old. That is well beyond the remit of reconstructive linguistics (comparative method etc.).

There are simply no defined milestones along the linguistic timeline to construct any scenarios, anyway. In the event that Y-DNA R1 18kya was speaking a basal ancestral form of PIE, the developmental steps will be purely speculative.

Erecting scenarios from a priori suppositions just isn't how science or formal investigations work (though I suppose it could be considered "bad science").

Rethel
11-04-2015, 10:51 AM
We should have an introduction page for people new to genetics and anthropology outlining basic facts about what things like Y-DNA haplogroups actually mean and represent, how they relate to other platforms - like language- so we don’t need to spell it out again tomorrow for someone else.

Or maybe try not to create in your mind something, what someone else didn't claimed?
Maybe this is hard, but possible, to go beyond your own point of view, and imagination
about what some one wanted to tell... Because, what you want to explain? That some
theories were piece of nonsense, but until someone didn't create better theory every
one was rightfull and obligated to worship this one, because some one said so?

Do you want me to explain, that common origin doesn't mean, common origin?

Do you want to explain, that proof, that some group of people go somewhere 20.000
years ago ist enough, becouse some one said so, without any "normal" evidences?
I showed some of this claimings which were not true... but were claiming to be true.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-04-2015, 11:18 AM
Or maybe try not to create in your mind something, what someone else didn't claimed?
Maybe this is hard, but possible, to go beyond your own point of view, and imagination
about what some one wanted to tell... Because, what you want to explain? That some
theories were piece of nonsense, but until someone didn't create better theory every
one was rightfull and obligated to worship this one, because some one said so?

Do you want me to explain, that common origin doesn't mean, common origin?

Do you want to explain, that proof, that some group of people go somewhere 20.000
years ago ist enough, becouse some one said so, without any "normal" evidences?
I showed some of this claimings which were not true... but were claiming to be true.

Forgive me, but I'm not following what you're attempting to say.

Rethel
11-04-2015, 11:32 AM
But your Y haplogroup, which is only a small part of your DNA, and represents only one of your many ancestors, does not define who you are, any more than your mtDNA, much less all of your autosomal DNA, or your language, or culture, or nationality. Not unless you want it to, for your own preference.

Most people, by most of the history, have not
problem with that. Hole civilisations were build
on that. Especially indoeuropean cultures and
nations. DNA do not define who I am, bacause
normal person has no idea what his DNA is.
But Y is only a proof, from what lineage some
person comes. He can come from his own tribe
and nation to which he used, or not.

This is only an evidence.

Mt and aDNA? I think it was a joke... :)

Our religion is based on one particular male lineage.
Every monarchy was build on patrilinary lineages.
Muslisms even called a true male lineage sacred
and unchangeable until the end of the world.
Not so long ago, in Western Civilisation ruled the
rule, that wife becoming citizen of the country of
her husband, and the patriarchal gorups of people
are the reason why do YOU are disscussing about
Y-haplogroups... If there will be no significant order
you wouldn't be interessted. And surname in our
civilization is inherited by patriarchal lineage.

You propose to every man an inside discussion who he is,
depending how many % he has, about which he never herd...
Of course this is fine to know, but... if you do not know, it has
no influence on your identity, but something else... If it would
be so, it would be a terrible and very destructive thing, as it is
in some cases in bi or more racial children... Probably a people
with this syndrome were not teaching a rules, so, they have a
problem, wich ruined their lives... they don't know who they are...

You have probably a surname of your patrilineal ancestor,
whos DNA you have none - exept this small part called
chromosome Y... From others ancestors you have a mish
mash of genes, and about your mt you were not even
avare until you check this, because no one cares about
this, so you coudn't build your identity on your grand....
grandmother living in paleolith, because 99,999% people
do not know even matrylineal greatmother... so dont tell
that mt and aDNA create an identity.

It could be in some pathological families, were bastards
are born generation after generation, but it is not only
very rare, but even this children - especially if they are
males - do not build their identity, becuse grandmother
(who was a slut) was such a such a person, but trying
to fit to their own culture and if they are normal, create
a new family, based on cultural model which is a totaly
new paternal line, in which they are the first generation.

So if you have (as most people do) a surname from your
patrilineal ancestor then by birth you was given the one
identyty which depended of your male ancestry from the
middle ages... this is the rule... And because of this line,
your identity can be even much larger - this is not only
a family name and tradition, but also a social status, the
historical state - you can be a commoner, genleman, lord,
citizen or pesaet... Ony slaves could inherited their identity
and status from theirs mothers... But probably they woudn't
proud of that... they would be rather bind with their free father.

And if someone are not interested in genealogy of others
families or in autosomal and mt genetics - he will never
even thought about this, how many others strange people
were creating his identity, because he allready has one.

I am even amazed that I must explain you such particular things...
This is really terrible... from what culture are you?


It will be continued... :P

Rethel
11-04-2015, 11:47 AM
Forgive me, but I'm not following what you're attempting to say.

I was trying to guess what do you want to explain. Thats all...

Gravetto-Danubian
11-04-2015, 12:10 PM
I was trying to guess what do you want to explain. Thats all...

Simply I was saying that the question of IE origins cannot be reduced to finding out where and when the first 'R1 man' lived.... I was agreeing with Mega that language and genes - especially isolated haploid markers - aren't a priori correlated although they certainly can be as we all know .

I thought a little post about this in a thread would be useful to people perhaps new to the field

Rethel
11-04-2015, 12:19 PM
Simply I was saying that the question of IE origins cannot be reduced to finding out where and when the first 'R1 man' lived.... I was agreeing with Mega that language and genes - especially isolated haploid markers - aren't a priori correlated although they certainly can be as we all know .

I thought a little post about this in a thread would be useful to people perhaps new to the field

Ok, then I'm sorry... :amen:

Rethel
11-04-2015, 12:49 PM
Some of his ancestors, even if only a few of them, came from Central Asia, and they were the ones who gave him his language and religion and some parts of his culture, even of they did not give him his Y chromosome. So why should he not identify with those ancestors more? They are much more important, for all practical purposes.

Because this is an accidance...
You can compare Turks and Hungarians (were lived almost none real Hungarians) with Bulgaria and Rus.
The same situation - but in first case some people implemented their language, and in second - gave only a name.

And if national identity is very important, and normal person woudn't be glad to be changed (his identity)
by force (for example Kurds do not want to be turkizied, and Turk wouldnt be glad to be unturkizied) then
why the same person (who has this filling and belive in such value) shoud be glad that has diffrent identity
than his ancestor, becouse of the process which he don't aprove... this is only a thought - logical, but of
course probably not practical.

With the subject of Mongolia is more practical reason: everybody knows, that 99% of the population in
Anatolia is not from Mongolian descent. For this, there is even no need to check DNA in majority cases.

But in particular sense, when some one check his ancestry and is seeing that fit to another people than
Mongolians, then this is (with this historical context) logical to not be feeling himself as coming from that
region and people. The situation is exactly the same, if he, living in Turkey, would be told by his parents
that he is not Turk of Seljuk Khan from Mongolia, but for example from soldiers of Alexander the Great or
descendat of Murshilish II. The difference is only in that, that his parents didn't tell him the truth.

Btw, turcic nation in cultural and political use it is very new constraction. During Ottoman Empire everyone
who was a Muslim and spek osmani, was a "turk" but it was rather matter of religion and loyalty to the sultan,
than matter of nationality (having roots in Miogolia). Millions of children from christian families and non turkic
nationalities (especialy european) were forced to accepting Islam and was learn turkic language...

So, how they can be couted as a Turks... if a personal brother of such person and his descendants are not a
Turks until this day... and paralelism is exactly the same. By born they're (both) in the same situation - only
when such a people are children, they are told somethiong else. The ideal situation is, when children has the
same identity as their parents a.s.o., so in ideal picture the person with hg R1 would be still consider itself as
a member of some IE nation, and person with hg I - as a... Basque I guess... a.s.o.

This is the logic of this subject - maybe not practical, maybe not easy, but still...

For example I'm hg R1-M458*, and 'I' lived through last 600 (or maybe even 800 yerars) in indoeuropean societies
so I have no problem with my identity. I am only still not sure who my ancestors in XIV century were by nationality,
but it is only a problem of the level of dialect and thats all... When I was testing myself 10 years ago when very few
persons did this before me, (so then was not to big pule of resultats to compare), I was (as I was even 10-15 years
before genetic posibility thinking about, but knowing that it doesnt exist in 1990's) curiuos from were I am coming in
ancient times or even early middleages. And I was really open to every possibility. I was prepere to be even glad that
I am for example Oldeuropean or Ugrofinn, because it would be some exiting journey in time and belonging to something
new... But I was totaly normal... the same as majority in my country... so with my boring resultat I can only talking about
others people, who wanted to be somone who they are not... :P

It will be continued... :)

redifflal
11-04-2015, 01:25 PM
Depends what you mean by indigenous, so far the SNP diversity for R2a-M124 in South Asia has not been significant, most are in favor of L295+ (About 70% of Indians carry this SNP and the numbers get higher as you advance into Central/South India), most of the L295- types in India happen to be in the North which may very well be part of an origin point, but the same can be said for other regions nearby such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, etc.

Here's the current R2-WTY project, you'll notice that most South Asians are L295+:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R2-M124-WTY?iframe=yresults

Here's the current tree of SNPs created by the admin of that project (Abdulaziz):
http://r2dna.org/Tree/R2-Tree-v7.jpg

Like I said, by indigenous I mean historical India (Indian subcontinent including parts of Afghanistan). And peripheries of that would be BMAC and Tibet. L295+ may have just enjoyed great success in the southern half of the subcontinent. There is also a good chunk of L295- like me from eastern Uttar Pradesh.

redifflal
11-04-2015, 01:42 PM
Ok, I have not problem with that, but if it is so, then
it is important to answer, who R2s people were originaly?

Maybe some isolate language from north India can fit?
What racial type?
How long by evidence R2 is in India?
If it is long before Aryans - you are right.

But if you're trying get R2s from Iran, then I'm affraid that
this is more supporting IE theory than for separited group.

The biggest problem is that none of the options in India or
outside (but not from N and W) fit to R2 and vice versa.

If you have a good and supported by archeology,
lingustics and history theory I'm ready to get it... :)

R2/R1 split is before any PIE or Proto-Dravidian or Proto-Austro-Asiatic or Proto-Sino-Tibetan or porto-extinct-language. I am sure neither the first guy whose mutation was R1 or R2 was speaking any of the language families of today or maybe even their common ancestors. R2 had already travelled and spread south into Indian subcontinent well before PIE. So culturally, they may have been defined by speaking some language that is extinct today. Or they may have been absorbed into tribal communities speaking Austro-Asiatic in the Indo-Gangetic plains prior to being absorbed by Indo-Europeanization. Like all these folks on this thread have mentioned, you will find it hard to define cultures or languages or phenotypes with haplogroups.

We won't be able to say much without aDNA. Even with aDNA, God help us if we recover just one male body from the Indus Valley or BMAC and it turns out to be say O or R1a or H or L or R2 or J2 or G1. The following will be the arguments put forth:
1) O - Entire Indus Valley civilization was made up of Austro-Asiatic tribals who were conquered and conquistador'd by Aryans with various haplogroups, which will all now be clubbed as West Eurasian and having entered the subcontinent via warfare/genocide.
2) R1a - See see, we were here all along. All the Europeans are our hybrid children with eskimo-like people of the northwest.
3) L/G1/J2 - Indus Valley was germinated from the Fertile Crescent by incoming Neolithic farmers.
4) R2 - R2 haplogroup is in India pre-IVC and everyone else is newcomers. R2 outside Indian subcontinent are children of gypsies.

All these speculations will happen from one hypothetical male body whose DNA will be sequenced from IVC. The speculations from aDNA in sparsely populated regions like Siberia may still hold some water because of how sparsely populated they must have been back then. The lush river valleys of Indian subcontinent were always heavily populated compared to peripheral places. So even one aDNA sample won't do justice. We'd need over a thousand. One aDNA sample won't even be considered a "start" in my opinion.

Rethel
11-04-2015, 02:48 PM
No, in some places matrilineal clans still exist. Native people on the Northwest Coast of Canada and southern Alaska still have them.

Yes I now, this, and if they have such a rules, then they should disscuss about their mt - but only inside their group.

But:
1) Those Indians came to America as a part of patrilineal groups.
2) There is no evidence for matriarchy at all in the world.
3) Exist some small tribes in America, Africa or Asia who has only semi-matrylinear system.
4) This system regard only a "clan" (which in most cases is not the same as our clan-family system) but ruled still men.
5) In some cases women are passiv owners of the land, but family goes still by patryliner system. This system is caused
sometimes by wars, when most men were killed, by drunkardness (somewher in indonesia it was the case), or few land for plowing.
6) Major Y haplogroups prooved, that at the beginnig was a patriarchy, even, if later some people create some kind of matrylineage).
7) Even if Gimbutess would be right and matrylinear system were everywhere, that the history (and if someone belive in evolution,
then evolution) prooved this system to be wrong - it wanished from the face of the earth, and 99,99% history is patrylinear...
8) Especialy Indoeuropeans were patriarchal from the beginnig - so at least 6000 years - and if someone is from this stock, he belong to this rule.
9) This societies, where still is some kind of matriarchy - they are not a very well developed people, so I do not ynderstand why they should be consider as an example.
10) 99,999999% of people in the world belong to patriarchal societies, not matriarchal, so this aspect do not consider us.


Y DNA tribes don't really exist either; not that you've actually shown, you are only assuming they exist. Patrilineal clans exist, but so do matrilineal clans.

I'm not sure, what did you want to say here... and what it has to do with main theme?


The haplogroups didn't exist at the beginning of time, they come into existence at different times, when people had already migrated to different places.

You are now creating a virtual problem.
You has already a people with concret haplotypes - and this is the reason, why are you here.
If this is not the case, why are you not disscusing about haplogroups of gen of the smallest toe of the left leg?
WHY?

It will be continued...

Rethel
11-04-2015, 02:56 PM
Aha... I almost forgot... :)

It was probably not very often in history, that some big group of women
(mostly coming from the same pra-mother) came to another tribe to kill
every women, to capture virgin male, and to rape and to inseminate by
alien Mt-DNA unvirgin men of the tribe. Hmm... very interesting... why? :P

Megalophias
11-04-2015, 05:04 PM
I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion, really. Patrilineal kinship organization is common but far from universal. It is not somehow more real or more valid than other forms of organization; it is more useful in some circumstances, less useful in others. You have provided no evidence that it is the original and fundamental form of organization throughout prehistory, and I doubt it is even possible to test that hypothesis.

Re: the matrilineal people of the Northwest Coast, they were not matriarchal - men still had most of the power, as is the case pretty much everywhere. They were not at all peaceful, like some feminist fantasy, but often fighting and slaving. They were not undeveloped either, but quite complex and advanced compared to neighbouring people.


You has already a people with concret haplotypes - and this is the reason, why are you here. If this is not the case, why are you not disscusing about haplogroups of gen of the smallest toe of the left leg?
Obviously there is no such gene, but we do discuss autosomal DNA, sometimes even specific markers. Autosomal genes are subject to recombination, uniparental markers form a nice tree of descent because they do not recombine, so it is easier to trace the connections between haplogroups. Y-DNA is easier to work with than mtDNA because mtDNA collects mutations slowly but also has many recurrent and back-mutations, so you cannot make a tree of such fine detail as you can with Y DNA. Because male reproductive success and failure is more extreme on average than female reproductive success, Y chromosome drifts to high frequency or is lost more easily than mtDNA, so it makes a cleaner map - because the minor lineages are lost (and sometimes by chance major ones too). And because men move and conquer more than women - sometimes as patrilineal clans, sometimes not - Y DNA shows better the more recent layers of migration and replacement (but older layers are quickly obscured, so you need to look at mtDNA and autosomal DNA for that).


I am even amazed that I must explain you such particular things... This is really terrible... from what culture are you?
I am from Canada, my culture is mainly descended from British culture but we are made up of people from all over the world united in stealing land from the Indians. Plus said Indians. So biological ancestry is not that important for most people.

Kinship here, as in the United States and most parts of Europe, is reckoned bilaterally, so you are equally related to people on both your mother's and your father's side. Surnames are (mostly) passed on patrilineally. Traditionally (in Europe) patrilineal inheritance was also important but nowadays this is not common. People include all of their different ancestors when considering their ancestry.

Surnames don't mean much, unless you are very interested in genealogy. Someone who is named Smith or Brown does not have a legendary common ancestor with other people named Smith or Brown! Most people named McDonald (very common) don't care that someone else is also a McDonald, even though this goes back to a real clan a long time ago. Autosomal DNA, because it defines what you look like, is more important than Y-DNA here for sure.

What culture are *you* from, btw?

Tomasso29
11-04-2015, 05:51 PM
Like I said, by indigenous I mean historical India (Indian subcontinent including parts of Afghanistan). And peripheries of that would be BMAC and Tibet. L295+ may have just enjoyed great success in the southern half of the subcontinent. There is also a good chunk of L295- like me from eastern Uttar Pradesh.

I'm not sure if you can include the likes of BMAC or Tibet as parts of the subcontinent, but I agree that R2 likely originated somewhere near or in North India.

Tomasso29
11-04-2015, 06:54 PM
4) R2 - R2 haplogroup is in India pre-IVC and everyone else is newcomers. R2 outside Indian subcontinent are children of gypsies.


While not impossible, it's highly unlikely that every R2 outside of India is a descendant of the Roma. There are two main reasons for that:

- R2 among the Roma is rare, based on this latest paper only 5 out or 1934 samples were found to be R2, that's less than 1% (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg2015201s1.html?url=/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ejhg2015201a.html)
- The diversity of R2 outside of India is way too high, which means multiple waves of R2 migrations likely happened and possibly throughout many periods in history.

DMXX
11-04-2015, 07:04 PM
Further to Tomasso's point, the frequent linking of R2a-M124 with the Roma in genealogy boards stems solely from Wells et al.'s reporting (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC56946/table/T1/) of 53% of Uzbek Romany paternal lines belonging to it.

As Y-DNA R2a-M124 is very rare among all other Romany cohorts sampled to date, we can safely exclude it as a prominent founding lineage among them, and should consider the Uzbek result as another example of genetic drift.

Megalophias
11-04-2015, 07:45 PM
Of course, if you are unable to admitte any cultural, social and historical facts then this is really pointless. In the world without rules, everything is nothing - even if was long ago something.
By "admit any facts" you mean "agree with my assertions made with no supporting evidence". I have discussed a lot of facts, you have spouted rhetoric based on your personal feelings. Provide some real evidence or shut up. And I don't care for you insulting my country either.

North Americans generally do like to know about their origins. But their origin is more than the origin of their Y chromosome (or I suppose their father's Y chromosome, if they are women?). There is no objective reason that everyone should make the origin of their patrilineal ancestors specifically the one true aspect of their origin. People in North America tend to be of mixed origin, it is very common that you will be part Scottish, part Ukrainian, and part Norwegian, or something of that sort. So people who are interested in it are not going to ignore all of it but one place that their Y chromosome comes from.

I study Y haplogroups because am interested in history and prehistory. I probably know more about haplogroups in Siberia and Indonesia than I do about the ones in Europe. I don't even know what my Y chromosome is, some day when I have money to waste I will get it checked, but first I will check my mtDNA because I have many relatives who share my mtDNA but very few with my Y DNA.

The Queen of Canada is essentially a figurehead, she does not actually govern the country by virtue of her birthright, nor is hereditary aristocracy permitted here.

Rethel
11-04-2015, 11:27 PM
By "admit any facts" you mean "agree with my assertions made with no supporting evidence". I have discussed a lot of facts, you have spouted rhetoric based on your personal feelings. Provide some real evidence or shut up.

And what kind of evidence will be for you good enough?

How can I shut up, if you are negating evrything.
Or maybe you dont know nothing about history and customs, so say so, becouse I assume, that you are aware of basic facts...
I elaborate couple of things quite well, but you are ingnoring this which not fit to your unspeakible concept (becouse you still did
not explain what do you want) and you did not answer on any question I ask. Why - probably because it not support your claims
of negation every thing. I give you some examples, and you were looking for exeptions or ignore them as well. So what do you expect?

If you do not see patrylinear society in european culture, which Canada is part too, then I do not know what can I show you more.
Probably evey peerage in Canada is inherited by patrylinear system. Every monarch in your country was made a king because of his
patrilinear ancestry (with some exeptions) until this knew horrible Succession of the Crown Act from 2013. Almost every surname in
your country is traditionally inherited by patrylinear system. So or you are a huge ignorant do not see evidences in your own society,
or you are doing this negation of everything on purpose... I do not know what is worse...

Maybe something about Indoeuropeans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

"a patrilineal kinship-system based on relationships between men.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans had a patrilineal society"

So, every one, who is born from Indoeuropean father is Indoeuropean.
Either he likes it or not. Period. And no one can tell such a person, that
he is not an Indoeuropean because he don't speak indoeuropean language.

In France, in Germany, Italy, until XVI century in England, in Poland, in Lithuania,
in Russia etc the kings was only from male lineage with very very rare exeptions.

In Poland, in Russia, in Germany, in England aso every nobleman can inherited
his nobleness only having a noble father - mother mostly was not important.

The groups of people in Europe had very clearly digfferent hg.
Indoeuropeans brought to Europe R1.
Farmers brought mostly G2.
Pelasgians brought E-V13.
Aurgnanians were C1.
So called Cromagnianias (grawettians) were I.
Semites are mostly and clearly J1.
Bantu are clearly E-something.
Uralic peoples in Europe brought to Europe hg N1.
Aso, aso,

In Rome the bigest power in family had pater potestas.
At the beginnig and long after that, only agnates were consider as family.
Onlu agnates were able to inherite inheritance.

In Jews and Arabic cultures only manly lineages were recorded and honour.
Messiah could be only from davidic male line.
In the Bible you have in every cases only patrylinear genealogies.
Only the seed of Abraham can be a chosen nation, kings and priests - not the strangers.

In muslim religion, the real male lineage is consider as only true and sacred.
This is the reason why they banned legal adoptions by Mohammed once and for all - to not false lineages.

According to japanese and chenese customs, only male lines are consider as kinship.
Every samurai family, and every chenese lineage is consider as ancestral tradition inheritance.
This is the reason, why in China are 300.000.000 more males than females.

As descendants of Confucius are consider only peoples descending from him by patrylinear lines.

Confucius himself was consider as descendant of Shang dynasty becose of his patrylinear line.

In european countries not so long ago, wife was a citizen of the country of her husband.

In every european country surnames are inherited by male line. The same in Japan and China.
Surname means, that you are part of that family, and that your indentity is coming from your fathers family.

And every normal male new this instictivly, and is no need to explain this to him.

In Island, Slavic countres, Holland, Scandinvia, Arabia, among Jews, and Anglosaxons, were existing patronimics.

Do you need more evidences?

THE BEST EVIDENCE EVER IS THAT FEMINISTS STILL ARE FIGHTING AGAINST PATRIARCHY.

If patriarchy never existed - what they are still fighting against?


And I don't care for you insulting my country either.

WHAT? Where?!


North Americans generally do like to know about their origins. But their origin is more than the origin of their Y chromosome (or I suppose their father's Y chromosome, if they are women?). There is no objective reason that everyone should make the origin of their patrilineal ancestors specifically the one true aspect of their origin.

So explain, from what lineage are you 20 generantions ago? From every 1.000.000?!?

And if some one wants to know, are he is Oldeuropean or New, what should he do?
Can you tell? Or you still will ignore the problem because you do not know how to
answer, or the answer does not fit to your unreveld perpouse?


People in North America tend to be of mixed origin, it is very common that you will be part Scottish, part Ukrainian, and part Norwegian, or something of that sort.

And what? When Vikings captured the women, they did't do this for changing or mixing indentity of
their children. If they would hear you now, they would be thinking that you are talking a nonsense.

The same, was, when Turks were spending a women to sultans harems - they
didn't do this because they wanted to change the nationality of the children of sultan.
And if sultan have children from many concubines from different countries, then what?
Children from every concubine were of different nationality? Then who was ruling in Turkey?
Every sultan was of different nationality and family?

And you still didn't show me a tribe of women coming from one premother, who go to their neighbours to kill
every women of that tribe, and rape or captured the males. Why nowhere in the world was none captue of
"sabinian" males? And did Romans became Sabinians, becouse Romulus and his guys captured sabininas women?

You wanted prooves? This is two anothers... add them to the list.


So people who are interested in it are not going to ignore all of it but one place that their Y chromosome comes from.

Ask king Salman, who he is and why? Or maybe Akihito can tell you, if you do not know.
They cetainly are not indentify themselves with 1000000 ancestors in 20th generetion.


I study Y haplogroups because am interested in history and prehistory. I probably know more about haplogroups in Siberia and Indonesia than I do about the ones in Europe.

And you can do this, only, because this societies were partylinear. Period. Especially at the beginnigs. Can you understand this?
You cannot do the same thing with mt haplogroups, and with haplogroups of the gen of the smallest toe in the left leg - because
they are so mixed that it is unable make any conclusions about nationalities. You only can treat this as some help to some degree.
Y haplogroups are a subject of your interest only because they showing you ancient patriarchal structure and which tribe is who
and from where - because of the patrylinear societies, which create this groups of haplotypes. Whithout patrylineary, there will
be no interesting haplotypes, no interesting groups of people carring haplotypes, and no interest about this theme at all.


I don't even know what my Y chromosome is, some day when I have money to waste I will get it checked, but first I will check my mtDNA because I have many relatives who share my mtDNA but very few with my Y DNA.

But your relatives whith common mt do not make any social structure,
so this results can be only a proof for... I do not even know for what.
Only for curiosity which letter of the alphabeth you have with your
very limitted farest cousins from non existing socialy line of women,
who do not were even awere of their importance for genetic study. :)


The Queen of Canada is essentially a figurehead, she does not actually govern the country by virtue of her birthright, nor is hereditary aristocracy permitted here.

But she is the queen, because her father was, her paternal uncle was, and
her paternal grandfather was, and paternal greatgranfather. She isn't a queen
because of her 20 generations of women line... do you understand this?

You wanted prooves of patrylinearity, so you have.

Moderator
11-05-2015, 12:52 AM
All members are reminded to stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks. This thread is being monitored.

Megalophias
11-05-2015, 02:26 AM
You wanted prooves of patrylinearity, so you have.
Did I not just say the patrilinear kinship was common? Were we not just talking about patrilinear clans? Did I not say that surnames were patrilinear? Did I not say that even in the matrilinear cultures the men had most of the power? So why do you think I want proof that patrilinearity exists? Of course it exists and it is very widespread.


And what kind of evidence will be for you good enough?
We were talking about the origin of R2, remember? So evidence that people in the Middle-Late Upper Paleolithic had an incredibly long-lasting and close-knit system of patrilineal kinship such that people with the same patrilinear ancestor 20 000 years before would still be speaking the same language and forming part of the same tribe. Because that is what you were claiming, and that is what I was disagreeing with, before we got into this off-topic stuff.

The off topic stuff is all just opinion, there is no proof. Which is about whether your patrilinear ancestry is somehow most important in defining your identity. Well, of course that is just whatever you believe and not something that can be proven.

Your relatives are just as related to you whether they have the same Y chromosome or not. You care about your sister or your mother or your niece more than you care about your fifth cousin who has the same Y haplogroup as you, of course, because he is hardly related to you at all. A society can organize itself around patrilinear kinship, that has certain advantages, but that is not magically the one true way to organize a society.

If I found out that, say, my patrilinear ancestor was an Ottoman Turk, should I convert to Islam and move to the Mediterranean, because that is "who I am"?


And if some one wants to know, are he is Oldeuropean or New, what should he do? Can you tell? Or you still will ignore the problem because you do not know how to answer, or the answer does not fit to your unreveld porpouse?
I don't know what an Oldeuropean is, that is not a term I am familiar with in English. Is it something from thousands of years ago? Then I will tell him he is a person from the 21st century, and he should go see a pyschiatrist if he thinks he is someone living thousands of years ago.


And what? When vikings captured the women, they did't do this for changing or mixing indentity of their children. If they would hear you now, they would be thinking that you are talking a nonsense.
And when Mohawks adopted captured boys and young men into their tribe, they didn't do it to mix the identity of their children either, they did it to grow their tribe. Adopting into the tribe is a good strategy.

If you go up to the Northwest Coast, at Kitwanga there is a steep-sided hill with an archaeological site on the top, it is called Battle Hill. There was a Gitxsan noblewoman living near there who was captured by a Haida and brought back to his island to be a concubine. She had a child by him, but then when she got the opportunity she killed him and escaped back to her own people. Her boy grew up to be a great warlord, who built his fortress on that hill and fought against the Nisgaa, and the Tsimshian, and the Haida. Now would you tell him that he is really a Haida and not a Gitxsan?


Why nowhere was none captue of sabinians males? And did Romans became Sabinians, becouse Romulus and his guys captured sabininas women?
And what happened after the Rape of the Sabine Women? The Sabines attacked Rome and captured the Capitoline Hill. The Sabine King became co-ruler for a while. The Sabines joined with the Romans (well, some of them anyway), learned Latin, and became Roman gens, including noble ones. So their haplogroups became Roman haplogroups, and they changed their language. And pretty much the same thing happened with Etruscans, and everyone else in Italy.


Y haplogroups are a subject of your interest only because they showing you ancient patriarchal structure and which tribe is who and from where - because of the patrylinear societies, which create this groups of haplotypes. Whithout patrylineary, there will be no interesting haplotypes, no interesting groups of people carring haplotypes, and no interest about this theme at all.
Did you notice that people also study mtDNA, even though according to you it is useless and doesn't matter? That's because they can still trace populations. I already said reasons that Y chromosomes are useful for tracing history, and one of those reasons is because of migration and conquest by groups of men who are often patrilineal. Which is great, but it doesn't tell you languages and cultures very well. If you see a Lithuanian with the N1c-L550, which is originally Finnish even though it is the most common Baltic haplogroup, does it mean he is really Finnish? Or then if you have a Finn who has the Baltic kind of N1c-L550 does he now have to be Baltic, or can he still be Finnish?


But your relatives whith common mt do not make any social structure, so this results can be only a proof for... I do not even know for what. Only for curiosity which letter of the alphabeth you have with your very limitted farest cousins from non existing socialy line of women, who do not were even awere of their importance for genetic study. :)
It is because they might be curious about this useless piece of information, which does not matter any more than the Y chromosome matters.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-05-2015, 02:32 AM
Did I not just say the patrilinear kinship was common? Were we not just talking about patrilinear clans? Did I not say that surnames were patrilinear? Did I not say that even in the matrilinear cultures the men had most of the power? So why do you think I want proof that patrilinearity exists? Of course it exists and it is very widespread.


We were talking about the origin of R2, remember? So evidence that people in the Middle-Late Upper Paleolithic had an incredibly long-lasting and close-knit system of patrilineal kinship such that people with the same patrilinear ancestor 20 000 years before would still be speaking the same language and forming part of the same tribe. Because that is what you were claiming, and that is what I was disagreeing with, before we got into this off-topic stuff.

The off topic stuff is all just opinion, there is no proof. Which is about whether your patrilinear ancestry is somehow most important in defining your identity. Well, of course that is just whatever you believe and not something that can be proven.

Your relatives are just as related to you whether they have the same Y chromosome or not. You care about your sister or your mother or your niece more than you care about your fifth cousin who has the same Y haplogroup as you, of course, because he is hardly related to you at all. A society can organize itself around patrilinear kinship, that has certain advantages, but that is not magically the one true way to organize a society.

If I found out that, say, my patrilinear ancestor was an Ottoman Turk, should I convert to Islam and move to the Mediterranean, because that is "who I am"?


I don't know what an Oldeuropean is, that is not a term I am familiar with in English. Is it something from thousands of years ago? Then I will tell him he is a person from the 21st century, and he should go see a pyschiatrist if he thinks he is someone living thousands of years ago.


And when Mohawks adopted captured boys and young men into their tribe, they didn't do it to mix the identity of their children either, they did it to grow their tribe. Adopting into the tribe is a good strategy.

If you go up to the Northwest Coast, at Kitwanga there is a steep-sided hill with an archaeological site on the top, it is called Battle Hill. There was a Gitxsan noblewoman living near there who was captured by a Haida and brought back to his island to be a concubine. She had a child by him, but then when she got the opportunity she killed him and escaped back to her own people. Her boy grew up to be a great warlord, who built his fortress on that hill and fought against the Nisgaa, and the Tsimshian, and the Haida. Now would you tell him that he is really a Haida and not a Gitxsan?


And what happened after the Rape of the Sabine Women? The Sabines attacked Rome and captured the Capitoline Hill. The Sabine King became co-ruler for a while. The Sabines joined with the Romans (well, some of them anyway), learned Latin, and became Roman gens, including noble ones. So their haplogroups became Roman haplogroups, and they changed their language. And pretty much the same thing happened with Etruscans, and everyone else in Italy.


Did you notice that people also study mtDNA, even though according to you it is useless and doesn't matter? That's because they can still trace populations. I already said reasons that Y chromosomes are useful for tracing history, and one of those reasons is because of migration and conquest by groups of men who are often patrilineal. Which is great, but it doesn't tell you languages and cultures very well. If you see a Lithuanian with the N1c-L550, which is originally Finnish even though it is the most common Baltic haplogroup, does it mean he is really Finnish? Or then if you have a Finn who has the Baltic kind of N1c-L550 does he now have to be Baltic, or can he still be Finnish?


It is because they might be curious about this useless piece of information, which does not matter any more than the Y chromosome matters.

Lol megaphilias I admire your persistence and bother

Patriliniality is but one (oversubscribed) organisational principle. In fact most prehistoric societies were not patrilineal. Many different dimensions of organization and identity operated at multiple levels. These included nuclear family, extended households, clans and temporary tribal alliances in what were often segmentary societies in the pre-Iron age period. In addition to this people could associate on the basis of gender, class, religion, craft, etc etc etc

Importantly people also identified in terms of matrimonial alliances. Marrying a prominent bride not only brought status but important distant alliances in one-upping and defeating your cousins down the road

Rethel
11-05-2015, 08:26 PM
Did I not just say the patrilinear kinship was common? Were we not just talking about patrilinear clans? Did I not say that surnames were patrilinear? Did I not say that even in the matrilinear cultures the men had most of the power? So why do you think I want proof that patrilinearity exists? Of course it exists and it is very widespread.

As I said befoe: you get lost among your own claims
and now you're changing your mind twisting what you
were claiming earlier during most of this subdisscussion.

Amazing. :P

If you were not negating patrylineary, then why
you have a problem whith that, when I am talking
something according to patrylinear rule?

Or the rule is ok, and my claim too, or my
claim is not ok, and the same whith the rule?
You must decide, what you want...

You like it or not, you live in traditional patrylinear civilization
so the rules of that system should be obvious for you.

I hope that you won't again tell me: no because no...


We were talking about the origin of R2, remember?

Wow, now you remember about first theme?
You amazed me again... :)


So evidence that people in the Middle-Late Upper Paleolithic had an incredibly long-lasting and close-knit system of patrilineal kinship such that people with the same patrilinear ancestor 20 000 years before would still be speaking the same language and forming part of the same tribe. Because that is what you were claiming, and that is what I was disagreeing with, before we got into this off-topic stuff.

First, I wasn't claiming that it was really 20.000 years, but I said only, that
if it even was so long ago then it is no problem from lingustic point of view,
becasue lingusts are caliming, that Proto-IE language could exist 4000 y.a.
as well as 40.000. So what do you see here what could be impossible?

About kin-system, I gave you as a proof the whole Y-haplogroups subject.
Every people in the long past (even if it really was 20.000 ya or whatever)
had in majoryty cases one Y-haplotype. This is the reason, why most people
on this forum are disscusing about Y-haplotyopes, because their existance
is based on patrylinear structure of early HG tribes during Ice Age, when
surrvive could only this tribe, which was patriarchal. And this is patrarchal
reason, why different groups of people today, living in different parts of the
world had different Y haplotypes. Do you understand this reasnon, or not?
If not, say it clearly, because you're always claiming something, but never
about the particular subject, and it is hard to know what do you want exactly
to achieve.


The off topic stuff is all just opinion, there is no proof.

Are you ok?
At the beginning you wrote yourself that you do not nagate patrylinearity,
and now you write, that this is only my opinion, and there is no proof... :frusty:

Do you feel yourself good?
I am begin to worry...


Which is about whether your patrilinear ancestry is somehow most important in defining your identity. Well, of course that is just whatever you believe and not something that can be proven.

The same as above...


Your relatives are just as related to you whether they have the same Y chromosome or not.

Yes they are. did I tell that they are not?
Maybe you simply do not understand what the partrylinear system is?
So say it...


You care about your sister or your mother or your niece more than you care about your fifth cousin who has the same Y haplogroup as you, of course, because he is hardly related to you at all.

The same as above.


A society can organize itself around patrilinear kinship, that has certain advantages, but that is not magically the one true way to organize a society.

But you live in civilisation which is organized in this pattern minimum 6000 years.

Btw, you are contradicting yoursef again, and you're doing this in one sentence! :)


If I found out that, say, my patrilinear ancestor was an Ottoman Turk, should I convert to Islam and move to the Mediterranean, because that is "who I am"?

No, I wasn't say that. This is overinterpretation whith which you are probably disscusing from the beginnig.


I don't know what an Oldeuropean is, that is not a term I am familiar with in English. Is it something from thousands of years ago? Then I will tell him he is a person from the 21st century, and he should go see a pyschiatrist if he thinks he is someone living thousands of years ago.

Finally I see... you get here two reasons, or even three, why speaking with you, have no sense at all...


And when Mohawks adopted captured boys and young men into their tribe, they didn't do it to mix the identity of their children either, they did it to grow their tribe. Adopting into the tribe is a good strategy.

This is a different subject, different civilisation, but even in this circumstances is fully agree with that what I am talking about.
But you do not want see the point, then I will not elaborate this nuance.


If you go up to the Northwest Coast, at Kitwanga there is a steep-sided hill with an archaeological site on the top, it is called Battle Hill. There was a Gitxsan noblewoman living near there who was captured by a Haida and brought back to his island to be a concubine. She had a child by him, but then when she got the opportunity she killed him and escaped back to her own people. Her boy grew up to be a great warlord, who built his fortress on that hill and fought against the Nisgaa, and the Tsimshian, and the Haida.

As above...


Now would you tell him that he is really a Haida and not a Gitxsan?

Of course that I would... I have no douts.
It does not mean, that he cannot be the Chief of Gitxsan.


And what happened after the Rape of the Sabine Women? The Sabines attacked Rome and captured the Capitoline Hill. The Sabine King became co-ruler for a while. The Sabines joined with the Romans (well, some of them anyway), learned Latin, and became Roman gens, including noble ones. So their haplogroups became Roman haplogroups, and they changed their language. And pretty much the same thing happened with Etruscans, and everyone else in Italy.

You really do not get the point... on purpose... nevermind...


Did you notice that people also study mtDNA, even though according to you it is useless and doesn't matter?

Yes they do, did I forbidden do this?

That, that you live in patrylinear society, doesn't mean
that you cannot do mt reaserch, or that your maternal
grandma isn't close to you. This is not what I'm saying.

And this, that mt genetic study has very limited
usefullness it is obvious, and the interest in that
subject is from obvious reasnons lower. Even in
this forum, number of mt posts and threats isn't
so big, as posts and threats about Y. Why?

Because Y reaserching is very usefull.

Why is usefull?

Because societies were patrylinear.

And why people are more interested in their Y haplotype?
Because this is natural, and because they live in patrylinear society.


That's because they can still trace populations.

No, not populations; but usefullnes of mt studies can help understand
why some group of people has different aDNA than their neighbour, or
than has earlier/later. Mts are a tool - but dont have the same role as Y.
Btw, noone can give you ceirtenty, that mt is exactly as it was in your
unnamed gradma, becouse of the possibilyty that mt comes from male.

And even, if you have your mt 100% true - it means nothing, because
is not exactly corelated with any family, tribe or nationality, because
women didn't create tribes and nations. But Y haplotypes correlated
very often and very well, even if in the past were some mixes.

Everyone who saw maps of haplotypes or was reading about them will
see this huge difference between mts and Ys - and this 1 thing, proofs
that structure so many thousand years ago was patrylinear - because
musted be - this tribes who were matriarchal - if they were - they were
dead this tens of thousands years ago. Mostly, they die, becasue of the
enviroment, and secondly, even if they by mirracle survive, they were
conquerd and assimilated by patriarchal tribes...


I already said reasons that Y chromosomes are useful for tracing history, and one of those reasons is because of migration and conquest by groups of men who are often patrilineal.

You are progressing :)
Not only often, but in 99,99%.


Which is great, but it doesn't tell you languages and cultures very well.

The point is, that they are.
Mt - do not.
Y - yes.
If you would know, who Oldeuropeans were and
some similar stuff, you wouldn't be talking like that.

And, as I'm aware good enough, in present time, there is no such nationality
as Indoeurpean (becouse it is the most important group in this disscussion) or
Oldeuropean, so if you lived in USA, China or Turkey, why cannot you admitt
that you are Indoeuropean? This certainly does not hurt :)


If you see a Lithuanian with the N1c-L550, which is originally Finnish even though it is the most common Baltic haplogroup, does it mean he is really Finnish?

If I would be a Lithuanian with N1c - I would feel myself Ugrofinian,
not particularly Finish, but if this is exact clade... then maybe?


Or then if you have a Finn who has the Baltic kind of N1c-L550 does he now have to be Baltic, or can he still be Finnish?

The same as above plus this person can be finish
quite well, becasue Finishmen are Ugrofinians.

You are a Canadian with english (?) ancestry, and your neighbour is Japanese, and second from Indian tribe.
Did your Canadian citizenship anulate yours neighbours' japaneseness and indiannesness or whatever?
I dont think so...
Are not living in your country people, who have their old identity, but they are good Canadians as well?
Did you hier about Polonia in Canada, or Japanese society, or some Indian tribes...
Even Eskimos are living in Canada a couple hundret of years, but they are still Eskimos,
as they were before John Cabot, Jacob cartier and Hudson Bay company... Why they are
still carring so useless information as their ancestry and culture... they should be only
Canadians, and they should be mix with whites and yellows, and blaks, and whatever...


It is because they might be curious about this useless piece of information, which does not matter any more than the Y chromosome matters.

I do not exactly understand, what you mean?

Megalophias
11-06-2015, 02:19 AM
As I said befoe: you get lost among your own claims and now you're changing your mind twisting what you were claiming earlier during most of this subdisscussion
I think maybe you are not understanding my English. Or I am not understand your English, or both. I am saying the same as I said before, just repeating myself.

Let me try to understand you clearly. You say that if a Lithuanian has that Finnic haplogroup, he should feel Finnic. But can he also be Indo-European, or can he only be one or the other? If I am descended from an Ottoman Turk in the patriline, then I am really an Ottoman Turk, or not? Or am I mostly English but partly Turk? Why I am I what *you* say I am and not what *I* say I am? If it is because that is the tradition of my culture, why is the Gitxsan chief whose father is Haida really Haida, when the tradition of Gitxsan and Haida is matrilineal? I don't understand.


If you were not negating patrylineary, then why you have a problem whith that, when I am talking something according to patrylinear rule?
Because you are not just saying that there are patrilineal cultures, and talking about importance of patrilinear organization in history, which is fine and normal, you are talking about a very strong rule of patrilinearity, so that 99.99% of the time cultures are patrilinear and have one ancestor and one language and one haplogroup. It is not all or one, what you are talking about is real but you are making much too strong claims about it.


First, I wasn't claiming that it was really 20.000 years, but I said only, that if it even was so long ago then it is no problem from lingustic point of view, becasue lingusts are caliming, that Proto-IE language could exist 4000 y.a. as well as 40.000. So what do you see here what could be impossible?
There is really only the one guy and few associates who claim 40 000 years old, everyone else thinks it's ridiculous. Seriously, even the idea that Proto-Indo-European is related to Manchu and Eskimo is a much more respectable theory, with many more linguists and much more evidence supporting it.


About kin-system, I gave you as a proof the whole Y-haplogroups subject. Every people in the long past (even if it really was 20.000 ya or whatever) had in majoryty cases one Y-haplotype. This is the reason, why most people on this forum are disscusing about Y-haplotyopes, because their existance is based on patrylinear structure of early HG tribes during Ice Age, when surrvive could only this tribe, which was patriarchal. And this is patrarchal reason, why different groups of people today, living in different parts of the world had different Y haplotypes. Do you understand this reasnon, or not?
That is *one* reason, but there are also other reasons. Do you notice that people in China have (say) mtDNA haplogroup B, and people in Europe do not? That isn't because of matrilineal tribes, it is just because they are very far away, you can't marry someone on the other side of the continent. If you look at the ancient DNA of Paleo-Eskimos, there were many samples from Greenland and from Canada, at different times, and all had the same mtDNA, D2a. Is it because they were matrilineal originally? Probably not, it is just they are a small population, so one haplogroup drifts to fixation by chance. This is why you can study populations with mtDNA even though few societies are matrilineal, because geography and drift also play a role. The same applies to Y haplogroups. Patrilineal and patrilocal societies are common so tracking clans and tribes with Y chromosomes is easier, but it is not the only reason.


At the beginning you wrote yourself that you do not nagate patrylinearity, and now you write, that this is only my opinion, and there is no proof
Whether some society is patrilineal or not is (depending on definition of course) objective fact, it can be proved. What someone's *identity* should be is opinion. Maybe you do not know what that word is in English? It means who you think you are. Someone's identity comes from their own beliefs and traditions, not yours - it is their own feeling! Nekt will not feel he is Haida because *you* think he is Haida, he will feel he is Gitxsan because that is how his society works. If *you* think he is really Haida, that is your feeling, your opinion, how can you prove it? God does not lean down and stamp on someone's forehead "Haida" or "Polish" or "Finnish".


But you live in civilisation which is organized in this pattern minimum 6000 years.
So what? I don't have to do what my civilization used to do. My civilization liked to hunt witches, well, that was stupid. We liked to have wars with each other all the time, now we can't do that anymore because our armies are too big and our weapons are too powerful. Up till 200 years ago we had slaves and serfs, now we ban that. We had hereditary nobility, in Canada and the US it is not allowed (there are a few leftovers from the British Empire days but no one knows or cares about them). Why should I care about patrilineage? For a long time now we have hardly had it anyway. (Maybe it is different where you live, I am talking about my own culture, though I think we are pretty close.)

Think of a real patrilineal culture, we don't do the things they do. Do you marry your first cousin, your father's brother's daughter, like Arabs do? Or is there some family, you always marry a girl from that family, and then your daughter marries a boy from there, and so on? Can you marry your first cousin on your mother's side, but you couldn't marry someone who was your patrilineal tenth cousin (which you known because it is memorized), like an Evenki? When you are married, do you go live with or near the husband's parents and not the wife's, or when they get old do the parents always live with the son and not the daughter? Do you always pass on inheritance to the son, and men always own the property? If a businessman has a son who is stupid, and a daughter who is clever and good at business, does he pass the business on to his son anyway? Do you go to war when your paternal grandfather calls you up, with your brothers and paternal cousins? Back in the days of slaves, if someone had a white father and black slave mother, did that mean he was more white than someone whose mother was white and father was black?

Even with patrilineal surnames, I can go right now and change my surname to Windsor (like the Queen) or Hirohito or McDonald or Quraysh and no one would stop me. When people come from some non-British culture often they used to change their name to something English and easy to pronounce. This would not be allowed if a surname really told a clan you belong to.

So we are not a real patrilineal society, we have some patrilineal institutions, not even very many anymore. And if you want to argue, think about the Y haplogroups - does our society make it so one haplogroup is common? Or one haplogroup is concentrated in one place? No, everyone moves around and marries whoever they want. It is a state, we organize people on much bigger lines than patrilineage; you can't have a huge army based on true relatives, only fictional ideas like "fatherland".


Finally I see... you get here two reasons, or even three, why speaking with you, have no sense at all...
Oldeuropean is not English. If you don't know the English word, you have to explain what you mean better. You don't mean Old Europe in the Donald Rumsfeld sense, I am sure. Do you mean like Gimbutas, the Neolithic people before the Indo-Europeans? Or Alteuropaeisch, the Indo-European speakers before the spread of Celtic, Germanic, and so on? Maybe you mean the hunter-gatherers before the farmers came?


This is a different subject, different civilisation, but even in this circumstances is fully agree with that what I am talking about. But you do not want see the point, then I will not elaborate this nuance.
The point is that they adopted new Y haplogroups into their tribe, so now the Alqonquian (for instance) lineage is speaking Iroquioan, and the Mohawks have an Algonquian Y haplogroup. Remember the actual topic of the thread. :D


You really do not get the point... on purpose... nevermind...
Well, what is the point? That Romans did not take their identity from captured women? Well, so what, I am not an ancient Roman and my mother was not kidnapped, why do I care? That they brought in new mitochondrial haplogroups? Yes, we know that. My point is that they brought new, Sabine Y haplogroups into their tribe. Or from the point of view of the Sabine Y haplogroups, now that lineage is speaking Latin.


And this, that mt genetic study has very limited usefullness it is obvious, and the interest in that subject is from obvious reasnons lower. Even in this forum, number of mt posts and threats isn't so big, as posts and threats about Y.
Why don't you look at scientific papers instead of a forum for laymen, you will see many many studies about mtDNA.


Btw, noone can give you ceirtenty, that mt is exactly as it was in your unnamed gradma, becouse of the possibilyty that mt comes from male.
That is an incredibly slim possibility, it is far more likely that your mtDNA is not your grandmother's because you were switched at birth in the hospital, and of course much more likely than that is that your Y DNA is not your grandfather's because someone had an affair.


And even, if you have your mt 100% true - it means nothing, because is not exactly corelated with any family, tribe or nationality, because women didn't create tribes and nations. But Y haplotypes correlated very often and very well, even if in the past were some mixes.
Okay, can maybe we come to an agreement? mtDNA does not mean *nothing*, but it is rarely as good for tracing a tribe or nationality. Y haplogroups are *better* for this, but they are not *exactly* correlated, they are frequently mixed but often one is common or typical.


this tribes who were matriarchal - if they were - they were dead this tens of thousands years ago. Mostly, they die, becasue of the enviroment, and secondly, even if they by mirracle survive, they were conquerd and assimilated by patriarchal tribes...
Nobody is talking about *matriarchy*, if such a thing even exists. There are *matrilineal* people like Mohawks and Tlingit, who are not matriarchal. If you know anything about the people of America you know *they* were not the ones getting conquered and assimilated, they were the most powerful. Societies do not have to be *patrilineal* to survive, that is just one way of social organization.


Not only often, but in 99,99%.
You say 99.99%, what is the evidence? Do you know ten thousand cultures and their kinship systems, or did you just make it up? What textbook of anthropology can I read in, about how 99.99% of societies are patrilineal?


I do not exactly understand, what you mean?
I mean genetic tests are expensive, and because I have many sisters, cousins, and nieces with my mtDNA, but only my brother with my Y DNA, many people would learn something if I got my mtDNA tested, but only a couple if I tested my Y DNA.