---- Original Message -----
From: <
x99lynx@...>
> On a micro-level, this creates an interesting hypothetical scenario. If I
am
> a native speaker (Y-chromosome-male) of a non-IE language before say
> 5500-3000BC, what circumstances can we postulate that would cause me or my
> child to suddenly change to speaking an IE language as a primary language?
The simplest answer would be a military/cultural dominance (associated with
some immigration of IE speakers), but the problem is (as I understand it)
that there is no support for this hypothesis from the archaeologists side.
On the other hand, it is very difficult for me to accept the theory of
Central European/Anatalion homeland of IE in light of the Y-chromosome
polymorphism data. Let me show how my interpretation of those data looks
(based mostly on data reported by Unterhill et al. and Semino et al.):
The "out of Africa" migration of modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens)
proceeded in three waves. Before the first group of those people leaved
Africa, there was an early split of the African population. One branch, that
during a quite long independent development acquired polymorhisms 42, 94 and
139 (according to Undehill's nomenclature; these three polimorhisms are
present in all non-African males), split again in two. The population that
acquired an additional polimorphism 168 moved to the NE corner of Africa
(Ethiopia?). This group split in three (not necceserily at the same point,
but more data are needed to establish the sequence of those events). One
group (characterizaed by an additional polimorhism 130) moved out of Africa
(this was the first wave I mentioned), probably through the Arabian
pennisula, and further along the coast of Southern Asia (although some
groups could enter Central Asia, as this haplogroup is occasionaly seen in
this region today) and then southward to New Guinea and Australia (these are
Australian aborigenes, and some New Guinea inhabitants). The second group
lived for a moment in Ethiopia (acquiring two new polymorhisms: 01 and 145 )
and then split in two, with one group (new polymorhisms 40 and 96) remaining
mostly in Africa (residing in Ethiopia and spreading to Central and Southern
Africa), and the other group (new polimorhism 174) leaving Africa (the
second wave out of Africa ) and moving eastward (they survived only in
Japan, so the connection with Ainu seems reasonable). The third group
(besides the Australian and Ethiopian-Ainu groups) emerging from the initial
Ethiopian split is characterized by the 89 polimorhism. This group could
initially occupy the area along the Nil river and then they probably entered
the Near East teritory (the third wave out of Africa - 60,000-40,000 BC).
Males with 89 polimorphism constitute the vast majority of all males today.
Once reaching the Near East, this group split in several branches, which
suggests that they met the conditions that promoted expansion. One group,
characterized by the new 170 polymorphism entered Europe (through the Balcan
pennisula?) and spread in all directions replacing the neanderthals, so this
wave could correspond to the aboriginal European people (H.sapiens sapiens),
or Aurignacian culture (so we can date it as 40,000-30,000 years ago, based
on the archaelogy). These Y chromosomes are still frequent in some European
populations, especially among Saami (42%) and Germanic peoples (38% in
Germany), but also in Croatia (45%) and Sardynia (38%). Note, that for
example the Saami and Sardinian chromosomes, despite constituting one group
with 170 polymorphism, can be more distantly related to themselves than,
let's say, the Y chromosomes of almost all Amerindians to the chromosomes
of majority of Italians, Frenchmen and Poles (and the same could be true
about their languages). Another group resulting from the Near East split
shared the 172 polymorphism, and is today represented in Caucascus, Near
East, Central Asia and Siberia (different languages of Caucascus could
correspond to this group - 33% in Georgia, but also 40% in Turkey and 29% in
Lebanon). The third group originating from the Near East split (with two
new polymorphisms: 52 and 69) is today represented in India and Central
Asia, and could give raise to people speaking Sumero-Drawidian (among
others). The fourth group may be less homogenous, as it is represented by
chromosomes that have the 89 polymorhism, but lack polymorphism 170, 172, 52
and 69, and 09 (this one will be mentioned in a moment). These "89 alone"
chromosomes are very frequent among Near East populations (30% in Syria),
but can also be found in Northern Africa (50% of Y chromosomes in Morocco),
Sudan, and Ethiopia (about 5%), suggesting that this group could include
future speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages. The "89 alone" and 172
polymorphisms are also reported in Southern Europe (they constitute 17% in
France, 32% in Calabria, 28% in Albania, 22% in Greece and 20% in
Macedonia). This can be explained in many ways, including neolithic
expansion from the Near East, but the more recent Arabic and Turkic
conquests should also be considered (as well as the very recent immigrations
northern Africa - see example of France). The fifth major group that was
formed during the "Near East split" is characterized by the 09 polymorphism.
Seems that this group moved toward Central Asia, where it quickly expanded
and split into at least 9 separate branches. One of them (the most frequent
group today), characterized by the 175 polymorhism, was probably associated
with future speakers of Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, and Austroasiatic (and
Austronesian?) languages. Besides this large "175" group there are several
smaller ones (all descendants of the "9" Central Asian ancestors) that are
represented in New Guinea, Central Asia, India, and occasionally in Near
East. There is also a group that may correspond to the Uralic family of
languages. These chromosomes bear a distinctive 46 (TAT) polymorhism (on
the 09 background, of course) and are particulary frequent among Uralic
speakers (not including Hungarian, however). They are frequent among Finns
(61%) Saami (42%), Mari (65% and 33% - two different studies), Estonians
(37%), but also among some speakers of non-related (or less related)
languages like Lithuanian and Latvian (from Baltic family - 47 and 32%,
respectively) and Chuvash (from Altaic family - 18%). The second large group
(besides the "Sino-Tibeto-Austric") that arised on the 09 background
(probably in Central Asia) is characterized by two new polymorhisms 45 and
74. After a quite long period (as can be judged on the basis of two new
shared polymorhisms) this group split into at least five branches. Some of
those branches did not lead to large groupings, and now these chromosomes
are only occasionally seen among people living in Central Asia, China and
India (some of them in very interesting populations, e.g. Hunza). Two
groups, however, were able to expand and occupy large teritories. One of
them, characterized by the 03 polymorhism,expanded eastward, entered
America, and now these "03" chromosomes constitute nearly 100% of
chromosomes of native Americans (in both South and North America). The other
group, characterized by the 173 polymorhism expanded mosly westward and
southward (starting from western part of Central Asia?). These chromosomes
are the most common Y chromosomes among modern European males (52% in
France, 56% in Germany, 74% in Holland, 65-90% in different regions of
Spain, 66% in northern Italy, 83% in Poland, 62% in Czech Republic and
Slovakia, 56% in Ukraine, 40% in Greece), and it seems possible that they
were associated with the introduction of IE languages to Europe. There is a
subgroup of those chromosomes (additional polymorphism 17) that is
particulary frequent in Eastern Europe (56% in Poland, 54% in Ukraine, 35%
in Macedonia, 29% in Croatia, 27% in former Czechoslovakia, but also 60% in
Hungary!) and relatively rare in Western Europe (close to 0% in Spain and
France, 4% in Holland and northern Italy, and 6% in Germany), and hence it
may correspond to Satem languages. This "17" (Satem) subgroup is also
relatively frequent in Pakistan and India, where it contibutes to about 33%
of all Y chromosomes.
The most intriguing finding is the relatively close genetic (phylogenic)
association between the Y chromosomes of native Americans and modern
Europeans. The simplest explanation is the common ancestor in Cenral Asia.
Of course there are some data, that are not fully consistent with this
theory (the Basque and Hungarian problem, the very low level of "IE"
markers in Ossetic and Armenian populations), but this may be explained by
some local peculiarities.
> It should be added that there does seem to be more of a
> population-migrational rationale to satem IE, simply because it apparently
is
> moving westward when historical evidence of languages become available.
But
> that only reinforces the fact that the IE map may have been redrawn by IE
> displacing IE, which would make the genetic correlation even less valid.
Some people may say that this movement wetward of Satem speakers is not that
obvious at all. For example, we can place the first Satem speakers in
Ukraine, or even at the Danube. In this case, the movement EASTWARD would be
required to explain their presence in India or Iran. Even in the case of
Slavic languages/peoples, many archaelogists/historians are in strong
opposition to the eastward expansion hypothesis (see an archive of the
European Archaeology forum at Yahoo).
> If we assume the Ukraine as the IE homeland, then we are faced with the
fact
> that as a matter of historical evidence, satem has essentially been the
> spoken language of the Ukraine. So, the origin point (*PIE) in that
> hypothesis can't provide us with an epicenter, unless of course *PIE was
> satem, which is linguistically not very acceptible.
There are other explanations possible. For example, the initial spread of IE
languages from the "Ukrainian epicenter" (Anatolian southward, Greek and
Italo-Celto-Germanic westward, and Tocharian eastward) would precede the
transformation into Satem that took place later in that very epicenter (and
was limited to this epicenter), and then the Satem languages could continue
spreading eastward and westward. (This does not mean that I am a strong
supporter of an "Ukrainian homeland" theory.)
> A true epicenter effect
> (like in an earthquake) would show some other variable correlating with
the
> amount of raw distance from the center, whether genetically or
> linguistically. If you look for example at Ringe's UPenn IE phylogenic
tree,
> you won't see a correlation between the first and last split-offs from the
IE
> tree correlating with the degree of distance or location. Now, the satem
> languages seem to have more of that, but not in a way that makes the
original
> IE spread transparent.
I hope nobody assumes that the spreading directions formed a geometrically
symetrical, perfect pattern. I'm sure that there were many variables
(social, economical, geographical, etc) that could contribute to the
asymetrical expansions of IE languages at different stages of their
developments.
> Finally, I noticed in the Semino study that the geneticists seem to be
giving
> up on relying on averaged rate of mutation to gauge the space between gene
> populations and are now trying to correlate archaeological (and
linguistic)
> events instead. This is a dangerous proposition when they claim that
there
> data supports a non-genetic event because it ends up being circular.
I agree.
Michal