Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Re: Sin once more

Expand Messages
  • Michal Milewski
    ... There are many possible explanations but I will present a scenario that in my opinion is the most likely. According to this scenario, the haplogroup I was
    Message 1 of 90 , Aug 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      tgpedersen wrote:
      > I suspect you have peeked in the folder of maps of Oppenheimer's gene
      > variants, and found the I (Ivan) and I1c (Ingert) maps, with their
      > distribution in Croatia, North of the Black Sea, and North
      > Germany/Netherlands/England/Scandinavia and expected me to ask
      > annoying questions why this was so, so you initiated a counter attack,
      > before I could ask the question, which I am doing now: What caused
      > this odd distribution?
      >

      There are many possible explanations but I will present a scenario that
      in my opinion is the most likely.

      According to this scenario, the haplogroup I was introduced to Europe by
      the first wave of modern humans (Cro-Magnons) - circa 40,000 years ago.
      This is the only Y chromosome haplogroup that is almost completely
      absent outside Europe (if we don't count the relatively recent
      migrations of Europeans to America and Australia) and its sister
      haplogroup J is a major haplogroup in the Middle Eeast and Caucasus.
      There was a relatively early split within the haplogroup I, which
      corresponds to the two subclades Ia and Ib that are recorded today (for
      the most recent classification of the subclades see
      http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI08.html). All males from the Ia
      subclade (the <Scandinavian> one) share 15 newly acquired known
      polymorphisms (as opposed to only 6 known I-specific polymorphisms that
      are shared by all males from this haplogroup), suggesting that this
      subclade was separated from the remaining haplogroup I subclades a long
      time ago (and its homogeneity may indicate that all Ia males descend
      from a relatively small population that was able to survive and then
      expand in more recent times). By contrast, the Ib subclade splitted very
      soon (with both branches surviving till today) into I2a an I2b. Then the
      I2a subcalde splitted again - the I2a1 subclade is very frequent in
      Sardinia and occasionally seen in the Iberian peninsula, whereas the
      I2a2 subclade survived mostly in the Balkan peninsula, being very
      frequent in Bosnia and Croatia (but relatively frequent also in other
      Balkan countries, Moldavia, and even Ukraine). The second branch of I2
      (the I2b subclade), represented mostly by I2b1 (formerly known as I1c),
      is most frequently seen in the Netherlands and Germany (about 10% of all
      Y chromosomes), but is also found in France and Slovenia.

      So here are some details of my scenario:
      The first modern humans came to Europe through the Bosphorus and Balkans
      or, alternatively, through the Caucasus and the plains of the southern
      Ukraine. Soon after their arrival to Europe (or even during this
      migration) the major split of this population took place. One branch
      (corresponding to the I1 subclade) migrated to the North-East
      (Kostienki-Sungir culture) and the other branch (I2) was responsible for
      the expansion of the Aurignacian culture in central and western parts of
      Europe. The I2 branch (with its many subclades) was also most likely
      responsible for the later development of the Gravettian, Solutrean and
      Magdalenian cultures. Frequent population movements, forced by multiple
      climate changes, make it very hard (if not impossible) to ascribe a
      specific genetic marker to a given archeological culture (which per se
      would be a crime in the eyes of most specialists - but we do it only for
      fun, don't we?). I would, however, guess that the I2a males participated
      in the spreading of the Epigravettian cultures from the Central Europe
      to the southern parts of the continent. It seems also likely that the
      I2b males contributed to the (much later) expansion of the Magdalenian
      culture (especially northward).
      Let's focus for a moment on the I1 (Scandinavian) branch of this
      haplogroup. I ascribed them to the Upper Paleolithic Kostienki-Sungir
      culture. Many cultures that developed in the northern part of Europe are
      untracable today because of the glaciation that covered this part of the
      continent. Thus, finding the traces of cultures that could correspond to
      the continous development of a population (or populations) representing
      the I1 branch seems impossible, although we know that the
      Kostienki-Sungir culture advanced further north, reaching as far as the
      Petchora basin (Byzovaya). My scenario is additionally based on the
      assumption/hypothesis (questioned by some specialists) that there is no
      continuity (or clear "genetic" relationship) between the late upper
      paleolithic post-Magdalenian cultures in northern Europe (Ahrensburg,
      Hamburg) and the more eastern epipaleolithic/mesolitic Bromme-Lyngby
      culture. On the other hand, there seem to be important similarities
      between the Brommme-Lyngby and Kostienki-derived cultures of reindeer
      hunters. Thus, the expansion of th mesolithic population of Scandinavia
      (and generally north-eastern Europe) would in my opinion correspond to
      the expansion of the I1 subclade. Consequently, the I1 subclade would
      also have been present in the later Maglemosian, Kongemose, Ertbolle nad
      TRB cultures. To some extent, the incorporation of the
      Ahrensburg-derived populations (I1b in my scenario) could also have
      taken place, so when the Indo-Europeans (haplogroup R in my scenario,
      more specifically subclade R1b in this case) arrived (Corded-Ware,
      pre-Corded-Ware, Globular-Amphora, or Baden/post-Baden) they intermixed
      together, which lead to the formation of the Pra-Germanic population,
      where R1b, I1 and (to the lesser extent) I2a were the three dominant
      haplogroups. Another group of I1 people (males), located in the
      north-east, mixed with the incomming Finno-Ugrians (haplogroup N,
      subclade N3).
      As for the Slavs, they arrived much later, bringing the R1a subclade of
      haplogroup R. Since the R1a subclade is common in almost all
      Satem-speaking populations (including Iranians) and is also present (but
      not very frequent) in Scandinavia and Britain (sometimes even regarded
      as a marker of Viking ancestry) this could make a new interesting
      starting point to your speculations about the possible Iranian-Germanic
      relations.

      I would like to bring your attention to the fact that the haplogroup I
      survived mostly in regions that were less accessible for the invaders
      (Sardinia, Corsica and mountainous regions of former Yugoslavia - where
      Tito resisted Germans for years) or in populations that are suspected of
      having assimilited the local people, as would be the case with the
      non-IE substrate in Germanic-speaking populations. One may wonder, why
      the haplogroup I is not frequent among Basques, but this may be related
      to the matrilocal marriage tradition, which would explain the lack of
      correlation between the male (Y chromosomal) genetic markers and the
      language.

      All above is just a hypothesis (a rather amateur one), and I must warn
      you that many other theories, linking the Y chromosome markers with the
      archeology and linguistics, may much more deserve your attention.

      Regards,
      Michal
    • george knysh
      ... That s not what I said. Dio Cassius draws the general conclusion that Cesar started without sufficient grounds, and one of the things that would give him
      Message 90 of 90 , Oct 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- On Wed, 10/1/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:




        > --- On Tue, 9/30/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
        > when he claims has has been attacked by "omnes
        > > Galliae civitates", then that is from his point of view what had
        > > happened.
        > >
        > > GK: We don't know what Ariovistus said. Caesar wrote DBG.
        > What C. wrote A. said was damning to Caesar, so much that Dio
        > Cassius could use it against him.
        >
        > GK: Cassius Dio does not confirm your fantasy of a common
        > assault of Aedui and Sequani against Ariovistus before Caesar's
        > involvement.
        That's not what I said. Dio Cassius draws the general conclusion that
        Cesar started without sufficient grounds, and one of the things that
        would give him that impression is Caesar's account of the negotiation.

        > (GK)And DBG 6:12 confirms the traditional account.

        DBG 6:12 doesn't mention any conflict between the Sequani and
        Ariovistus at all.

        ****GK: Exactly. Because there wasn't any such conflict along the lines of your "theory". What DBG 6.12 confirms is that Magetobriga and its aftermaths occurred before Caesar's arrival in Gaul in early 58 BCE. Every investigator prior to you who put together 1.31 and 6.12 "got it". You don't seem to "get it". That's tough, but that's your problem,and no excuse for flogging dead horses.****
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.