quote:

It is oft overlooked that this is just a hypothesis despite the many warnings.

I have no idea which is correct but it's important to be aware of arguments which are counter to those often presented which are, to quote Santos Alonso, 'circular'.

These days we can be more certain about genetics. The only arguments can be about interpretation. So we used to think that the people who brought farming in Europe pretty much replaced the old hunter-gatherers, but now we know the hunter gatherers make up 80% of our gene pool. And there used to be all sorts of funny ideas about the Basques, but now we know that they're nothing special, they just never spoke an Indo-European language is all.

But I think for the most part people still dig stuff up and develop theories to explain what it all means. Years ago people assumed that a change in pottery styles meant population replacement. Now there are post-modernists who seek to avoid any such idea. What we call knowledge is really no more than a bunch of theories which haven't been falsified yet, but might be tomorrow. So there used to be a lot of theories about the homeland of the proto-Indo-European speakers, but now we're fairly certain it was in southern Russia. Nobody will ever be able to prove it, but it fits the facts we have at present better than any other theory on the table.

quote:

So we used to think that the people who brought farming in Europe pretty much replaced the old hunter-gatherers, but now we know the hunter gatherers make up 80% of our gene pool. And there used to be all sorts of funny ideas about the Basques, but now we know that they're nothing special, they just never spoke an Indo-European language is all.

The former argument is largely based on the latter being true, ie paleolithic Basques. Change the latter and the former needs to be readdressed.

best

harry a

quote:

The former argument is largely based on the latter being true, ie paleolithic Basques. Change the latter and the former needs to be readdressed.

The "former argument" is the result of DNA analysis carried out in Europe & the Middle East by two separate teams of scientists. Its not something that can be argued with.

quote:

The "former argument" is the result of DNA analysis carried out in Europe & the Middle East by two separate teams of scientists. Its not something that can be argued with.

Rather more than two teams and there is much argument amongst the geneticists on the issue. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the likes of Richards and Semino argue for a cultural diffusion whilst the likes of Chikhi and Barbujani argue for demic diffusion.

Some geneticists argue that it is not even possible to infer past migratory patterns by studying modern day populations. What gave you the idea that they are all as one having discovered and agreed on the truth?

best

Harry A

quote:

Some geneticists argue that it is not even possible to infer past migratory patterns by studying modern day populations. What gave you the idea that they are all as one having discovered and agreed on the truth?

It seems to me that infering migratory patterns involves a degree of interpretation, and that always leaves room for debate. But the matter of what is actually in the gene pool seems to be much more straightforward matter: you find what you find.

As far as I know the first team to do the thing was from Oxford (Martin Richards if I remember correctly). The results were criticised by Cavalli-Sforza, who took part in a second test and then agreed that the gene pool has about 80% Paleolithic and about 20% Neolithic ancestry.

It seems to me that this is simple observation, leaving no room for argument. What the observation means, and the inferences that can be drawn from it, might be the subject of any number of arguments, but that is not what I was talking about.

quote:

But the matter of what is actually in the gene pool seems to be much more straightforward matter: you find what you find.

You find a lot of R1b1c and if you hypothesise that R1b1c spread into western europe solely from the Iberian refuge and if you hypothesise that this must have been the case because the modern Basque population is representative of that paleolithic population in Iberia, then you may well infer that all those R1b1c's in europe have a heritage which dates back to the paleolithic.

However, Cinnioglu found that a lot of R1b1c used Anatolia as a refuge and that they may have migrated from that area during the neolithic. The picture then changes.

Regarding the validity of the hypothesis that the modern day Basque population are representative of the paleolithic, Gonzalez points out:

"It is customary, in population genetics studies, to consider Basques as the direct descendants of the Paleolithic Europeans. However, until now there has been no irrefutable genetic proof to support this supposition."

Santos Alonso states something pretty much along the same lines:

"Contrary to previous suggestions, we do not observe any particular link between Basques and Celtic populations beyond that provided by the Paleolithic ancestry common to European populations, nor we find evidence supporting Basques as the focus of major population expansions."

Finding a lot of R1b1c in itself does not provide any insight. It's older than the period that we are discussing, the question is, when and where did it enter western europe?

quote:

The results were criticised by Cavalli-Sforza, who took part in a second test and then agreed that the gene pool has about 80% Paleolithic and about 20% Neolithic ancestry.

Do you have any references or dates for this? Chikhi was still arguing for demic diffusion in 2002, 'Y genetic data support the Neolithic demic diffusion model'

and Barbujani was still arguing it in 2006: 'DNAs from the European Neolithic'

There are a number of papers published which are pertinent to this matter: Dupanloup (2004), Haak (2005), Belle (2006), Currat and Excoffier (2005) and Anderson (2005) all of which are much more recent than Richards or Cavalli-Sforza and which still argue opposite sides of the spectrum. I don't see that there is any concensus on this matter.

best

harry A

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amphlett:
Rather more than two teams and there is much argument amongst the geneticists on the issue. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the likes of Richards and Semino argue for a cultural diffusion whilst the likes of Chikhi and Barbujani argue for demic diffusion. Some geneticists argue that it is not even possible to infer past migratory patterns by studying modern day populations. What gave you the idea that they are all as one having discovered and agreed on the truth?

Harry, many of us who are following the genetics avidly are basing much of what we think on the work of Brian Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer. I am familiar with much of the groundbreaking British work, especially Mark Thomas and David Goldtein but less so with the other sources you discuss. I would be grateful if you could pass the references this way so we can all have a read of them.

I don't know how familiar you are with Sykes and Oppenheimer, both of whom lead independent teams of researchers, although both are based at Oxford University. You may also be interested in the work of Peter Forster at Cambridge.

Sykes and Oppenheimer are certainly at the cutting edge of a coherent view of our prehistory that is starting to emerge. Walter Bodmer's research for Face of Britain seems less secure at this stage, though he isn't due to publish in full until 2009.

Duncan.

Harry, looks like we posted simultaneously. I'll have a search for these on the web.

Duncan.

Hi David,

I've found in the past that lengthy discussion on genetics bores everyone to tears so I have limited my comments to simply pointing out that there are different conclusions.

Your post about references crossed with mine immediately above but perhaps I could suggest the following:

For a view (Barbujani) arguing for demic diffusion, but with several references to the papers mentioned above, try this article published in Heredity (2006):

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n2/full/6800852a.html

That provides links to the actual studies if you want to delve into that sort of detail.

Studies which question the hypothesis that the Basques are the sole representatives of the paleolithic population are many so it's probably best if I give you an article which references them. This is not a peer reviewed publication and very much an individual's point of view. However, it outlines the arguments well and provides the references.

http://www.jogg.info/22/Coffman.pdf

For a response to the Forster study by the late Larry Trask, a leading authority on the Basque language when he was alive, see:

http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-1876.html

I've read Forster study and cannot see how it can be used to support any suggestion that english, as a germanic language, may have been spoken in the British Isles in prehistory, simply because it doesn't cover the germanic languages. It's mainly about the celtic language group. Yet Forster's study is frequently cited by those who claim english was spoken in prehistory.

Regarding the Face of Britain, both the book and TV series are premature. The People of the British Isles project is only one small part of the Wellcome Trust's 3m euro study which is primarily a medical study. My guess is that the media interest adds to the coffers so to speak.

However, the use of autosomal DNA and the EuroAIMS is becoming more widespread in population genetics. You may find the Bauchet's study, 'Measuring European Population Stratification using Microarray Genotype Data' interesting:

http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/journal/preprints/AJHG44466.preprint.pdf

This is a pre print which is still online. The actual study is subscription.

best

harry A

I see the problem. Publications by the people you refer to are either not availble, or not available in English translations, to the general reader via Amazon or the like. Neither do they get a lot of space in "New Scientist", which is about as far as I go with journals.

The studies that I refer to might be better described as 80% Paleolithic & 20% Middle Eastern. Cavalli-Sforza was one author of a paper published in 2000, confirming such a split.

I'm not aware of R1b1c. Steven Oppenheimer refers to a range R1b1-9 through R1b1-16 migrating from Spain into Western Europe. But I can't see any reason to think R1b1 only existed in Spain. No doubt people sheltered where they could. So R1b also sheltered in Anatolia and re-entered Europe in the Neolithic. I can see its the sort of detail that academics love to argue about, but does it really change the "big picture"?

Regarding the Basques, well, yes, nobody could confirm what they were until we had the technology to do so. Even then I cannot see why anybody would want to suggest a link between Celts & Basques, beyond that provided by common ancestry going back to the Paleolithic.

quote:

The results were criticised by Cavalli-Sforza, who took part in a second test and then agreed that the gene pool has about 80% Paleolithic and about 20% Neolithic ancestry.

It seems to me that this is simple observation, leaving no room for argument.

To come back to this point, other than the question of the Basques, there exists a real possibility that much of the paleolithic genepool has disappeared and has been replaced by other ancient DNA but which entered western europe at a much later date.

Isabelle Dupanloup makes the point:

... a high Paleolithic or Neolithic component in a gene pool does not mean that a region was colonised in Paleolithic or Neolithic times, respectively. Under the assumptions of our model, a 52% Neolithic component in Scandinavia means that roughly half of the Scandinavians’ alleles are probably descended from ancestors who entered Europe (not Scandinavia) during the Neolithic dispersal, and reached Scandinavia at an unspecified, later time.

Alzualde found, for example, that the mtDNA hapologroup K exists in remains dating to 4000 to 5000 YBP in the Basque region at frequencies between 16% and 23%. It is however nearly absent from the modern day Basque population. Similarly, Gonzalez found that U8a, also an ancient marker only exists in 1% of the modern day Basque population.

Another result that raises questions about the hypothesised isolation of the Basques, but one which gives converse results is that of haplogroup V. This exists at around 10% in the modern female Basque population but is absent from the prehistoric graves. It is a good example of ancient dna entering into a population in much more recent times.

It is therefore correct to state that, with so much R1b1c and H amongst the western european male and female populations respectively, that much ancient dna persists. However, until we know where and when it entered the western european population, we cannot say that, just because it is ancient, it must have been here since ancient times.

best

Harry A

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amphlett:
I've read Forster study and cannot see how it can be used to support any suggestion that english, as a germanic language, may have been spoken in the British Isles in prehistory, simply because it doesn't cover the germanic languages. It's mainly about the celtic language group. Yet Forster's study is frequently cited by those who claim english was spoken in prehistory.

Harry, the Forster paper is not the one on ancient Gaulish but is P Forster, T Polzin & A Röhl Evolution of English basic vocabulary within the network of Germanic languages, in P Forster & C Renfrew Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages (McDonald Institute 2006).

This is all about English as a fourth branch of the Germanic family.

Duncan.

quote:

Evolution of English basic vocabulary within the network of Germanic languages

quote:

Harry, the Forster paper is not the one on ancient Gaulish but is P Forster, T Polzin & A Röhl

Duncan,

Thanks, I've found it now. Is this the one Oppenheimer references?

best

harry A

I can't get a decent free copy of the text or even partial text, just various criticisms, so I can't really comment on it.

I do note however that Forster dates the split much earlier than Gray and Atkinson who, also used computational methods derived from evolutionary biology. They seem to date the split to around 250 AD, much more acceptable to linguists I suspect.

There is a study which compares methods:

A Comparison of Phylogenetic Reconstruction Methods on an IE Dataset


containing one point I had already concluded:

"Our study finds that the different methods agree in part, but that there are also
several striking differences."

The quality of the word list seems to be a key, something Forster was criticised for in the Forster and Toth study. But, I don't know if the 2006 study addressed this. One would imagine he did, but I don't know.

I like the front cover design. It's the Skarthi Stone at Haithabu near Schleswig.

: suin : kunukr : sati :
stin : uftir : skartha
:sin : himthinga : ias : uas :
: farin : uestr : ian : nu :
: uarth : tauthr at : hitha : bu :

King Swein set this stone for skarthi, his retainer, who had fared westwards but who met his death at Hedeby.

By westwards, it means England and the time is right enough for this Skarthi to possibly be the Skarthi who supposedly founded Scarborough.

Any book with a Yorkshireman on its front cover is bound to be reet.

best

Harry A

quote:

It is therefore correct to state that, with so much R1b1c and H amongst the western european male and female populations respectively, that much ancient dna persists. However, until we know where and when it entered the western european population, we cannot say that, just because it is ancient, it must have been here since ancient times.

But if you look at the Archaeology, exactly how many options do you have?

quote:

But if you look at the Archaeology, exactly how many options do you have?

What type of archaeological evidence do you mean? Tools, crops, animal husbandry, etc?

For example, it was shown a couple of years ago that european domesticated cattle are descended from the asiatic aurochs and not the european aurochs. Recently, it has been further suggested that their introduction into europe started during or shortly after the neolithic and from the near east. This obviously lends support to an expansion of, at least, cattle farming from east to west as a neolithic phenomena. It doesn't however show whether this expansion was cultural or demic as far as humans were concerned.

Is this the sort of thing you mean?

best

Harry A

quote:

What type of archaeological evidence do you mean? Tools, crops, animal husbandry, etc?

What I'm trying to get at is this. In 1996 Stephen Oppenheimer could publish a book that considered what was known at the time and put forward some "best-fit" theories about the genetics of the place. As with everything else in science they are only theories, and subject to revision when more is known etc. But we have to start somewhere.

But your view seems to be that this isn't possible. There are so many complications and competing ideas that nobody could possibly make any sense out of it. As a layman I have to decide if Stephen Oppenheimer has made some vast oversimplifications, such that he is misleading the public, or, if you have simply fallen backwards into the detail and lost sight of the broader view.

Sorry to go on.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amphlett:
Is this the one Oppenheimer references?

This is indeed the one. The paper is only available in a book by Forster and Renfrew. I've been searching the web in vain and have only found the criticisms from Briggs.

Thanks for the other links.

Duncan.

quote:

As a layman I have to decide if Stephen Oppenheimer has made some vast oversimplifications, such that he is misleading the public, or, if you have simply fallen backwards into the detail and lost sight of the broader view.

Oppenheimer may well be correct on many points. I simply point out that this science is highly contentious on many of them.

It is not peer reviewed science however. It's just a commercial book, a populariser, ie half way between a popular book such as Sykes writes and an academic book.

It's quite possible, in a book, to present a view supported by evidence but omit alternative views and evidence which supports those alternative views. You can't get away with that in peer reviewed science.

Have a look at the abstract to the Haak study mentioned earlier. You'll see a response from Ammerman, the same as in Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, and then a comment by Peter Forster on Ammerman's response.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;310/5750/1016


best

Harry A

quote:

This is indeed the one. The paper is only available in a book by Forster and Renfrew. I've been searching the web in vain and have only found the criticisms from Briggs.

Hi Duncan,

This was one of the others I found:

The forum blocks certain words so I can't post the url but use google and type in the following:

mr-verb english-as-fourth-branch-of-germanic

I don't really want to comment on what people say about what others have said unless it's peer reviewed stuff or at least the subject has a right of reply. You end up in a real tangle otherwise.

best

harry A