Y DANS LA POPULATION FINISTÉRIENNE K. Rouault, C. Férec (large pdf):
Résultats : En Europe Occidentale, l’haplogroupe majoritaire est l’haplogroupe R1, défini par le marqueur M173. L’analyse de ce polymorphisme sur la cohorte permet de constater que l’haplogroupe R1 est représenté à 87,93 % dans la population finistérienne. Les marqueurs SRY10831.2 et P25 permettent d’affiner l’arborescence de cet haplogroupe et révèlent une prépondérance de l’haplogroupe R1b dans notre cohorte (82,18 %). Au total, notre étude de génétique des populations est basée sur l’analyse de 19 marqueurs Y-SNPs. Ainsi, l’haplogroupe I, défini par le marqueur M170 et observé majoritairement dans les pays de l’Est de l’Europe, en particulier les pays scandinaves, est représenté à 6,03 % dans la population finistérienne. L’haplogroupe E3b, caractéristique des populations d’Afrique et d’Asie Mineure, est retrouvé à 1,15 % dans notre cohorte. Les haplogroupes G et J, représentatifs des populations du Moyen Orient, sont observés respectivement à des fréquences de 1,15 % et 3,16 % au sein du département du Finistère. Il est intéressant de noter que les haplogroupes caractéristiques des populations d’Asie Mineure sont exclusivement retrouvés sur le pourtour littoral du département. Cette observation suggère que les ports bretons ont contribué à l’hétérogénéité génétique du Finistère en favorisant les mouvements migratoires en Bretagne. Conclusion : Une étude des marqueurs Y-STRs (Short Tandem Repeat) sur notre cohorte a permis d’extraire un haplotype majoritaire retrouvé en Irlande et au sein de populations méditerranéennes (Espagne, Italie, Portugal). L’analyse des marqueurs Y-SNPs a permis de confirmer la prédominance de l’haplogroupe R1b, majoritaire en Europe Occidentale. La présence des haplogroupes I, J et G dans la population finistérienne est le témoin de migrations de populations du berceau indoeuropéen vers l’Europe Occidentale. Les évènements migratoires, mis en évidence par l’analyse du chromosome Y, sont en corrélation avec le contexte historique de la Bretagne.
Why the presence of Haplogroups I,J,G are explained as Indoeuropean movements descending from the cradle of Indoeuropeans?
ReplyDeleteIs it not possible Hg I to have appeared in the area during the Upper Paleolithic or the Mesolithic?
Besides J could also have appeared in the area at the Neolithic period with the coming of some "Linear Pottery" culture elements found in the artifacts of some places in France.
Does the original paper provide more data about their theses on the subject?
Could you possibly provide an English translation of the quoted passage?
ReplyDeleteWhy the presence of Haplogroups I,J,G are explained as Indoeuropean movements descending from the cradle of Indoeuropeans?
ReplyDeleteProbably the authors adscribe themselves to the Renfrew hypothesis, (mostly discredited,I think).
Nevertheless, I can be related to IE migrations in Europe anyhow. It depends: I-M253 is typical of Scandinavia and Estern Europe (though surely not very old anyhow) and often associated to "Vikings", with more or less reason. I-P37.2 instead may be partly of Neolithic spread, while I-M233 (even if related to the previous) is also frequent in Northern Europe (but with a continental distribution instead). So it may well depend on what branch of I we are talking about.
J is widely seen as Neolithic, together with E-M215 but I have some doubts about G.
Could you possibly provide an English translation of the quoted passage?
ReplyDeleteGoogle translator, for instance, can do a quite good job. Still, I can refine it a bit:
Results: In Western Europe, the majority haplogroup is the haplogroup R1, defined by the M173 marker. The analysis of this polymorphism on the cohort shows that haplogroup R1 is represented by 87.93% in the population Finistérienne. The markers SRY10831.2 and P25 can refine the tree of this haplogroup and reveal a preponderance of the haplogroup R1b in our cohort (82.18%). In total, our study of genetics of this population is based on an analysis of 19 Y-SNP markers. Thus, I haplogroup, defined by the M170 marker and observed mostly in countries of Eastern Europe, especially Scandinavian countries, is represented by 6.03% in the population Finistérienne. The haplogroup E3b characteristic of the populations of Africa and Asia Minor, was found at 1.15% in our cohort. The haplogroups G and J, representing the peoples of the Middle East, are observed respectively at frequencies of 1.15% and 3.16% in the Finistère. It is interesting to note that haplogroups characteristics of populations of Asia Minor are exclusively found on the shores of coastal department. This observation suggests that the Breton ports have contributed to the genetic heterogeneity of Finistère promoting migratory movements in Brittany. Conclusion: A study of Y-STR (Short Tandem Repeat) markers on our cohort allowed to extract a majority haplotype found in Ireland and within Mediterranean populations (Spain, Italy, Portugal). The analysis of Y-SNP markers has confirmed the predominance of haplogroup R1b majority in Western Europe. The presence of haplogroups I, J and G in the population Finistérienne witnesses the migration of people from the Indo-European cradle to Western Europe. The migratory events, highlighted by the analysis of the Y chromosome, are correlated with the historical context of Brittany.
>> Could you possibly provide an English translation of the quoted passage?
ReplyDeleteTry babelfish.altavista.com
>> Probably the authors adscribe themselves to the Renfrew hypothesis, (mostly discredited,I think).
The Renfrew-Diakonov thesis is still the best solution to the PIE homeland problem.
Dienekes said:
ReplyDelete"The Renfrew-Diakonov thesis is still the best solution to the PIE homeland problem".
According to whom?
To you?
90% of Indoeuropeanist archeologists, linguists, anthropologists, and paleomythologists favor the "Kurgan Hypothesis".
Only 10% follow other theories like the Anatolian one, the Arctic one, the Broad Homeland hypothesis, the Creolization hypothesis, the Ivanov-Gamkrelidge theory and the Out of India one.
Encyclopedias, Universities, Institutes, Fellowships, etc. through out the World support the Kurgan hypothesis as expressed lately by JP Mallory of the "Journal of Indoeuropean Studies".
>> Encyclopedias, Universities, Institutes, Fellowships, etc. through out the World support the Kurgan hypothesis as expressed lately by JP Mallory of the "Journal of Indoeuropean Studies".
ReplyDeleteMallory himself has tempered his overt support of the steppe hypothesis, lately. For example, he writes in "The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World":
"As both theories explain the Asian Indo-Europeans in the same manner, there is no dispute there although it does militate against one of the most attractive aspects of the "wave of advance". The archaeological evidence for an expansion from the steppelands across historical Iran and India varies from the extremely meagre to total absence ... In terms of the Europeans west of the Black Sea, the Neolithic model provides a larger area for the initial Indo-Europeanization, i.e. both south-east and central Europe. The steppe model is not nearly so secure for explaining central Europe. As for the peripheries of Europe, both confront analogous problems of language shift."
>> 90% of Indoeuropeanist archeologists, linguists, anthropologists, and paleomythologists favor the "Kurgan Hypothesis".
ReplyDeleteOnly 10% follow other theories like the Anatolian one, the Arctic one, the Broad Homeland hypothesis, the Creolization hypothesis, the Ivanov-Gamkrelidge theory and the Out of India one.
Arbitrary numbers are no substitute for an argument, nor evidence for truth.
No one thinks that the Neolithic hypothesis is valid or at least a viable candidate?
ReplyDeleteHere is what R. J. King1, S. S. O¨ zcan2, T. Carter3, E. Kalfog˘ lu2, S. Atasoy2, C. Triantaphyllidis4, A. Kouvatsi4,
A. A. Lin5, C-E. T. Chow5, L. A. Zhivotovsky6, M. Michalodimitrakis7 and P. A. Underhill5,∗ have to say:
"The differential
phylogenetic pattern of J2a-M410 and J2b-M12 lineages
to Crete and southern European respectively are broadly
consistent with the model of Renfrew (1998), and with the linguistic analysis of Gray & Atkinson (2003), that claim
an early split of the Anatolian languages from the rest of
Indo-European languages around 7000BC. In this model
the J2a-M410 speakers in Anatolia and Crete may have
been speaking Anatolian related languages that may be reflected
in the un-deciphered scripts of the 2nd millennium
BC: Cretan hieroglyphic and Linear A (Finkelberg 1997,
2001). Alternatively, the J2a-M410 populations may have
been speaking a non-Indo-European language with affinities
to the Hattic language of central Anatolia (Nichols
2007)."
Mallory provided this cover blurb for David Anthony's latest book:
ReplyDeleteA very significant contribution to the field. This book attempts to resolve the longstanding problem of Indo-European origins by providing an examination of the most relevant linguistic issues and a thorough review of the archaeological evidence. I know of no study of the Indo-European homeland that competes with it.
Anthony argues strongly in favor the steppe model. He leaves no room for Renfrew's ridiculous theory.
As for the Brittany DNA results, this was posted to GENEALOGY-DNA:
I find the comment on finding haplogroups G and J being found only in the
port cities very interesting. I am a French Canadian "Haplogroup J", but
from south western France. I have studied parish records of some of these
port cities and during the XVIth century, they were filled with migrants
from Spain. Many adopted local surnames, called dit names and their
original Spanish names eventually were dropped.
It's not reasonable to believe a stark genetic distinction between ports and inland areas dates back thousands of years to Neolithic times.
The steppe model is not nearly so secure for explaining central Europe.
ReplyDeleteThere is an obvious intrusion of Kurgan peoples into Danubian ones in the early and middle Chalcolithic. The Eastern Balcans area may leave some some interrogants open but Central Europe is anything of a problem:
(1) nuclear Baalberge (East Germany)
(2) expanded Baalberge (East Germany and Poland)
(3)Salzmunde (E. Ger.) and Wiorek (Pol.) (as Danubians recover)
(4) Walternienburg-Beburg (E. Ger.) and Lubon (Pol.) (this one expanding)
(5) Globular Amphoras (reunified, expanding)
(6) Corded Ware (with some eastern influence maybe at the genesis, expanding greatly)
(6) Expansion stopped for 1100 years, while Bell Beaker and early-mid Bronze go on.
The process could not be more clear and if you look at these cultures in archaeological detail you see clearly their original Kurgan character, the continuity from one o the next one, the process of partial Danubization ("Europeization") under the influence of Boleraz-Baden (the last great Danubian culture, some 500 years long) and their recovery and final expansion not anymore as mere steppary IEs but as specifically European IEs.
Additionally, most linguistic studies agree that all Euro-IE languages, save Greek and Albanian, derivate from a single node that must be this one.
As for the peripheries of Europe, both confront analogous problems of language shift
What problems? Western Europe was Celtizied gradually in three spaced (mostly well documented) waves since c.1300 BCE and later Latinized. Italy was "Italized" (from Italic languages) in the same period. Scandinavia was Indo-Europeized earlier by an offshot of Corded Ware (Single Burials) and the transition is very marked and clear.
Only the Balcans is somewhat confuse but it's just a matter of better research: Cotofeni and/or Ezero were surely IE (a product of earlier Kurgan incursions) and one of these must be at the origin of Greeks, whose arrival in the late 3rd milennium is still accompanied by Kurgan burials.
The archaeological evidence for an expansion from the steppelands across historical Iran and India varies from the extremely meagre to total absence ...
Agreed that India and, specially Afghanistan, need more archaeological research and putting the piece together. But Iran is absolutely no problem at all. Besides it's well known and documented that Iranian peoples (Persians, Medians and Parthians) were very close culturally with the Scythians, the last steppary Indo-Europeans, whose language probably is at the origin of Ossetian.
There are always issues with archaeology and prehistoric reconstruction but Indo-European history is one of the best documented and almost as clear as it could be.
The differential
phylogenetic pattern of J2a-M410 and J2b-M12 lineages
to Crete and southern European respectively are broadly
consistent with the model of Renfrew...
They are very consistent with Neolithic diffusion actually. If "Neolithics" would have spoken IE, then Iberians and Etruscans would have too probably.
I know that Renfrew's model is very popular among some Greeks, the same that the South Asian homeland model is very popular among some Indians and the Nordic model was once very popular among Nordicists. But they all lack of any archaeologically consistent model: the Neolithics that came to Europe were not the same ones that went to Pakistan and India, their traditions are very different. You can't connect the Thessalian Neolithic with the Pakistani one unless you go through a huge number of unclear different West Asian intermediates, all of which are known to have spoken anything but Indo-European.
_____________
@n/a:
I have studied parish records of some of these
port cities and during the XVIth century, they were filled with migrants
from Spain.
I think that G is stronger than J in Spain, the inverse of what is found in Bretagne. But guess that a lot of people has gone through Finistére ports along history and prehistory, because it's an strategical place to stop by.
If the "Spanish" sailors were Basques (as it's probably the case: Basques and Bretons sailed a lot together, including to Canada) you should not find either haplogroup probably (both are very rare among Basques). If they were Southern Spanish (Andalusians), haplogrop E3b should be visible too. So maybe Galicia and northern Portugal are a better reference for this input (best hunch I can think of). Of course, J in Atlantic Europe can always be a Phoenician remnant.
Dienekes said:
ReplyDelete>> 90% of Indoeuropeanist archeologists, linguists, anthropologists, and paleomythologists favor the "Kurgan Hypothesis".
Only 10% follow other theories like the Anatolian one, the Arctic one, the Broad Homeland hypothesis, the Creolization hypothesis, the Ivanov-Gamkrelidge theory and the Out of India one.
Arbitrary numbers are no substitute for an argument, nor evidence for truth.<<
And your site is???
You said:
"As both theories explain the Asian Indo-Europeans in the same manner, there is no dispute there although it does militate against one of the most attractive aspects of the "wave of advance". The archaeological evidence for an expansion from the steppelands across historical Iran and India varies from the extremely meagre to total absence ... In terms of the Europeans west of the Black Sea, the Neolithic model provides a larger area for the initial Indo-Europeanization, i.e. both south-east and central Europe. The steppe model is not nearly so secure for explaining central Europe. As for the peripheries of Europe, both confront analogous problems of language shift."
BUT OF COURSE!!!
That's because Mallory clearly believes that population movements ARE VERY RARELY SHOWN IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS!!!
In his various works he has given many examples of that issue.
E.g. Turkomans moved in Minor Asia at the 11th to 13th century AD. They conquered eastern and central Minor Asia and created the foundations for the mighty Turkic Beyliks.
If there were no written sources at that time will we be able to trace this people from the archaeological record??
HELL NO.
Everybody accepts that the Gaelic of Scotland descends from the Gaelic of Ireland due to the migration of Irish Celts to Northern Brittania with the formation of the Ulster state.
If we did n't have written sources to verify that will we be still able to document it from Archeology?
NO!!!
Migration patterns and artifacts favor both a Scotland to Ireland migration and the opposite too!
Several historically documented migrations, such as those of the Helvetii to Switzerland, the Huns into Europe, etc. are not attested in the archaeological record.
Cavalli Sforza states that "archeology can verify the occurrence of migration only in exceptional cases".You can find the reference of Mallory in his work "Searching for the Indoeuropeans" and Sforza's reference in his work "Genes, Peoples and Languages".
Thus in the book you mention Mallory only tries to say that ONLY by Archeology it is impossible to trace for sure demic movements!!!
HE DOES NOT VALIDATE RENFREW'S THEORY AS THE SAME WITH HIS OWN!
He just makes his usual analysis of all theses before coming to a conclusion.
Yet you have n't told us why do you believe that the Anatolian theory of Renfrew and Diakonoff is more parsimonious.
Dienekes,
ReplyDeleteHalf of the people you are proposing are Greeks or southerners!!!
It is expected by them to support the Anatolian hypothesis.
Unfortunately though you forgot other Greeks who accept the Kurgan hypothesis, e.g. Tsountas, Mylonas, Sakelariou, Xirotiris, Merdenisianos, Pitsios, etc.
I can EASILY write 100 names of scholars and scientists who support the Kurgan case world wide.
My goal though is not to show off.
Encyclopedias, Universities, Institutes, Fellowships, etc. through out the World support the Kurgan case. Period.
Now i will answer to some things you said.
You wrote that Minoans originated from Minor Asia and were not Indoeuropeans and proto-Indoeuropeans descend from Minor Asia as well but from another place!!!
First of all Minoan language has features seen to Japanese, Chinese and other East Asian tongues where in each syllable there is a vowel and a consonant usually and sound like ka-ta-ka-na, ky-o-to, etc.
Nothing like the usual Semitic, Hamitic or Caucasian tongues of Near East and Minor Asia.
Its grammar and syntax structure is not relative to the Anatolian attested languages.
Hence since we know Eastern Anatolia was Hurrian and generally north caucasian, central and western Anatolia was Hattian which is related to Kartvelian (South Caucasian) and artifacts and archeology of southern Minor Asia point to be the birthplace of proto-Minoans WHERE THE HELL CAN YOU FIT PROTO-I.E.???
There is no room for the autonomous creation of a new language such as I.E. in such a crowded area, with such a little space and with ALL ANATOLIAN LANDS TO BARE NON INDOEUROPEAN NAMES OF A VERY ARCHAIC FORM!!!
If I.E. was created in Anatolia it should have an affinity with the languages there!!!
But I.E. is totally different from Minoan, Hurrian and Hattian.
Apart from that you are forgetting something!
The only liguistic family which has strong affinities with proto-I.E. and not just few occasional loans is the Uralic family.
Proto-Uralic words for animal husbandry, tools, weapons, etc. are loans from proto-I.E.
The verbs formation, some grammar details and some numbers are seen as common in both tongues!!!
The Uralic tongue emerged in the Urals. How do you explain then the common genetic features of the two families if proto-Indoeuropean emerged in Anatolia?
You are ill-informed if you think that Xirotiris accepts the Kurgan hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's not surprising that some older Greek scholars thought within the Kurgan framework; obviously they couldn't think in terms of the Renfrew framework before it was invented.
Maju, thanks for the translation. My French is laboriously slow.
ReplyDeleteAntigonos. Just to split hairs, the Japanese word "Kyoto" is actually just two syllables: Kyo-to. Americans tend to pronounce it with three syllables and it sounds to Japanese like "Kee-ar-do". "Never heard of that place" I heard one Japanese say.
To the rest of you. Thanks for all the discussion on Indo-Europeans. Most interesting.
The Sino-Japanese word "kyooto" (i.e. the name of the old capital, Kyoto, located in present-day Kyoto Prefecture (kyooto-fu), former Country of Yamashiro (yamasiro-no-kuni) in central Honshuu) is derived from the Chinese words for "capital" (cf. modern Mandarin 京 jīng) and "city" (cf. modern Mandarin 都 dū). It actually is pronounced with three morae in Japanese, because the "kyoo" part has a long ō vowel.
ReplyDeleteDienekes WAKE UP!!!
ReplyDeleteI don't mean the Anthropologist but the Historian and Archaeologist Giorgos Xirotiris!!!
AGAIN YOU SUPPOSE THINGS AND NOT TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT I AM SAYING!!!
I am glad that you don't have anything to say about my arguments above.
AFTER ALL THE MORE YOU SPEAK THE MORE YOU REVEAL YOUR IGNORANCE!!!
Merdenisianos, Pitsios, Sakelariou are...old Greek scholars???
LOL
Antigonos: yelling will not give you any reason.
ReplyDeleteAs mainstream "Kurganist" myself (see my post above), I'm pretty much ashamed by your attitude. It's Dienekes' "home" after all, and a little respect never made any harm.
You'd better use rational arguments and stop yelling and repeating yourself once and again.
Maju in my experience it is THE HOST THAT SHOULD BE KIND TO HIS GUESTS FIRST AND THEN THE GUESTS TO THE HOST!!!
ReplyDeleteI respect people who respect me as well.
You have missed a lot of episodes from the last two months so you jump in conclusions!
Being one's site doesn't give him the right to mock, twist and undermine other commentators posts just because he owns the site!!!!!!!!!!
Ok. I may be missing something but your insistent yelling without providing info doesn't seem to help, rather the opposite.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Dienekes understands better you stand but the occasional reader will probably find it annoying and meaningless - just as I did.
And I do agree that the Renfrew hypothesis is nothing but a romantic pseudo-scientific construct, a mere wishful-thinking whitewashing of the violent culture of the founders of Indo-European nations, changing them quite forcedly by presumably more peaceful Neolithic ones.
But truth is better defended with arguments, not with incoherent yells.
Maju
ReplyDeleteI am perhaps the ONLY person who posts in this site that has been accused for exactly the opposite of what you say.
I have been accused for being too prolix in my posts and not the opposite!!!
Some have even accused me for trying to write a....diatribe than a single comment!!!!
As i said, you are new and you are missing things!
Learn how things are here and then pass judgment!
If you start to read Dienekes' posts backwards, as i did when i found out about this site, you will see in my comments if i provide info for my theses or not!!!
In concluding, my comments are written in order to expose my beliefs and not to please their readers.
Anyone who does not like what i write or how i express myself, please by all means don't read my comments!!!
It's as simple as that!
Off-subject-sort of...Can't paternal ancestry be inferred from autosomal DNA comparisons? If you match someone,doesn't that say that their Father and your paternal ancestry are probably similar? I haven't a brother nor currently a son,but I suspect that if you matched my autosomals with other similar people that would hint at paternal ancestry-which I suspect is Y-I,but it could be anything really.
ReplyDelete