From: jdcroft
Message: 13580
Date: 2002-04-30
--- In cybalist@..., "Michal Milewski" <milewski@...> wrote:
> ---- 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