The Paleolithic R1b Zombie rises again... at least according to the media

Why R1* , you mean R1b* or even R1b1* ? Would it be posible that R1b1 lived in West Asia and southeast Europe ( Balkans and Italy ) during Neolithe ( and maybe even Paleolithe ) and than pushed west by newcoming E1b1b and J2 wave ?

Goga assumes that the lineage R1b is native to West Europe. If this was true than you would at least find some old R1* lineages. Or how otherwise do you explain that R1b occured in Europe if there is no R1* lineage from which it could have developed?
 
Arameans/Assyrians might have adopted lifestyle and mixed with Summerians, but this doesen´t mean that they are native to "Iraq". Semites were immigrants from southern Part of the Levant. The only natives in "Iraq" were Summerians and Elamites. Akkadians were immigrants.

Another aspect regarding the Semitic languages is that Akkadian is in many respects the greatest outlyer amongst the Semitic languages (akin to how the Anatolian languages such as Hittite are outlyers amongst Indo-European), and that Akkadian borrowed a decisive number of words from Sumerian, which are generally absent in the other branches of Semitic from what I know.
 
Arameans/Assyrians might have adopted lifestyle and mixed with Summerians, but this doesn't mean that they are native to "Iraq". Semites were immigrants from southern Part of the Levant. The only natives in "Iraq" were Summerians and Elamites. Akkadians were immigrants.
Assyrians ARE native to Iraq (not south Kurdistan).

Yes Akkadians were immigrants, but ancient Arameans/Assyrians were not only descendants of the Akkadians but also of other native folks of South Mesopotamia. They were an admixture of different folks and their ethnicity was born in southern part of Mesopotamia. So their hybrid ethnicity (Assyrian) is native to Iraq (without South Kurdistan) and it does belong to Iraq, not to Arabia!

Is there any link between the Sumerian language and Basque? Both Hurrian and Sumerian are ergative languages, like Basque. Btw, IE Kurdish language is ergative too.

Sumerians called themselves 'black headed' folks. So they were not 'blond'. But I do really consider to think that IF they were R1b folks THEN they were from Europe. Btw, I don't think Sumerians were the same as the modern-day north Europeans. But it is also possible that Sumerians belonged to different haplogroups, maybe R1a from Yamna culture? That would mean that they were not from Atlantic Europe. And that ancient Assyrians were not Sumerian at all, because Assyrians have very little R1a!

But the fact is that Assyrians have very much R1b in them and almost no R1a. Maybe that's bogus, but let say it's true. They can have this from 4 different sources: 1) from Armenians/Hurrians 2) from Hittites 3) from Sumerians 4) from neo-Babylonians (Kassites), but I think that Kassites were Iranic (R1a, R2a and I2a) folks.
 
Assyrians ARE native to Iraq (not south Kurdistan).

Yes Akkadians were immigrants, but ancient Arameans/Assyrians were not only descendants of the Akkadians but also of other native folks of South Mesopotamia.

No you dont understand. The Assyrians as Semites are not native. Their real origin is Akkadian no matter how mujch they were influenced or mixed into the real native populations. regarding to Assyrians as native is as right as regarding to Turks as a Turkic people native to Anatolia. Genetically todays Assyrians are native for sure. BUT their semitic heritage is not. To be precise the only natives of this Lands were Summerians, Elamites and their kurdified, assyrified descends.
 
No you dont understand. The Assyrians as Semites are not native. Their real origin is Akkadian no matter how mujch they were influenced or mixed into the real native populations. regarding to Assyrians as native is as right as regarding to Turks as a Turkic people native to Anatolia. Genetically todays Assyrians are native for sure. BUT their semitic heritage is not. To be precise the only natives of this Lands were Summerians, Elamites and their kurdified, assyrified descends.
Ok. I do understand you, but I don't agree with you. We have different definitions of the term 'being native'! Most Turks are native to Turkey, Central Anatolia, although their LANGUAGE is not.

Where do you think Assyrian R1b is from? From Armenians/Hurrians?

I believe that Elamites were J1 and T folks...
 
There's also a possibility that R1b in Assyrians is from the Levant/Egypt, which in turn is from south Europe!
But some scientists believe in the opposite direction! Not Europe -> Egypt -> Mesopotamia, but Mesopotamia -> Egypt -> Europe!


According to this article:

R1b from Europe -> Egypt -> Mesopotamia OR Europe -> Mesopotamia -> Egypt

& R1b from Europe -> Caucasus -> Mesopotamia
 
There's also a possibility that R1b in Assyrians is from the Levant/Egypt, which in turn is from south Europe!But some scientists believe in the opposite direction! Not Europe -> Egypt -> Mesopotamia, but Mesopotamia -> Egypt -> Europe!

This article says:

R1b from Europe -> Egypt -> Mesopotamia OR Europe -> Mesopotamia -> Egypt

& R1b from Europe -> Caucasus -> Mesopotamia !

Goga. You're making a major logical fallacy.

You declare that R1b (for no valid reason) must be from Europe, and thereyby R1b anywhere else must have migrated there from Europe whereas it is very clear that by no means this is the case.

Also, as far as I know, most R1b in the Middle East (at least, in the Levante) is R1b-V88, and not (European) R1b-M269.

(yes, there is R1b-M269 in Anatolia and the Caucasus, but virtually none of it is of the R1b-P310/L11 subclade which dominates Western Europe).
 
Goga. You're making a major logical fallacy.

You declare that R1b (for no valid reason) must be from Europe
Ok you're right! But according to this article - posted by you – R1b is from Europe and native to Europe!
 
Ok you're right! But according to this article - posted by you – R1b is from Europe and native to Europe!

You're talking about the press articles? Well, I (and other board members) stated that you can't take them seriously. It's a fallacy of the press to say "okay, if R1b is not Neolithic it MUST BE Paleolithic), but as you can see from the paper, a strong case can be made that R1b may be younger than Neolithic (ie Chalcolithic, or maybe even as young as Bronze Age), which fits much better with what we observe than either Neolithic or Paleolithic. Unless different evidence turns up, I believe this is the best explanation.
 
Ok, but let say I'm a devil's advocate. There're many arguments against this theory, but what if it is true? It's not entirely impossible, is it?
 
Also, as far as I know, most R1b in the Middle East (at least, in the Levante) is R1b-V88, and not (European) R1b-M269.

(yes, there is R1b-M269 in Anatolia and the Caucasus, but virtually none of it is of the R1b-P310/L11 subclade which dominates Western Europe).

Assyrians are interestingly R1b-M269+ dominant... their primary subclade being R1b-L584, which is also a subclade of R1b-L23 (but not R1b-P310/L11 as you point out). So Assyrians seem to be close-ish neighbors to Europeans genetically, at least on their R1b lines. See here.
 
Assyrians are interestingly R1b-M269+ dominant... their primary subclade being R1b-L584, which is also a subclade of R1b-L23 (but not R1b-P310/L11 as you point out). So Assyrians seem to be close-ish neighbors to Europeans genetically, at least on their R1b lines. See here.

That is a very interesting information indeed. I did not know. Thanks for sharing that!

I also agree with the interpretation that this puts them close(-ish) with Europeans, at least obviously closer than the African or Central Asian subclades of R1b.
 
I wonder what this will change about the notion that STR diversity represents a clue to origin....
I know the authors still maintain diversity as an indicator but I wonder if they are ready to acknowledge the fact that diversification may very well happen after migratory events.

Still, I always warned others of STR markers' obvious unstableness... It just proves to be exactly what I thought.

...Oh and these articles are dreadful, are they trying to make sure that their readers will end up being victims of their own ignorance?
Not only that, the claims written within these articles are completely unconsistent with Capelli's declarations!

But hey... How would they gain their pay if not for so catchy and misguiding titles?
 
I wonder what this will change about the notion that STR diversity represents a clue to origin....
I know the authors still maintain diversity as an indicator but I wonder if they are ready to acknowledge the fact that diversification may very well happen after migratory events.

Still, I always warned others of STR markers' obvious unstableness... It just proves to be exactly what I thought.

You bring up a very interesting issue here. It raises the question, what, if not highest concentration or diversity are indicators of a point of origin. Granted, if you look at R1b subclades, for instance, it's very clear that the apparent "Basque-Irish" peak disappears very quickly. But we are not that much closer to the question of it's geographic origin.

...Oh and these articles are dreadful, are they trying to make sure that their readers will end up being victims of their own ignorance?
Not only that, the claims written within these articles are completely unconsistent with Capelli's declarations!

But hey... How would they gain their pay if not for so catchy and misguiding titles?

Well, what can I say. Both articles are in the British press? :LOL:
 
Goga assumes that the lineage R1b is native to West Europe. If this was true than you would at least find some old R1* lineages. Or how otherwise do you explain that R1b occured in Europe if there is no R1* lineage from which it could have developed?
Sorry I understood that he is claiming R1b was in west Europe during Paleolithe , not that it occured there , I dont se any possibility for such scenario . Thanks for answering
 
You bring up a very interesting issue here. It raises the question, what, if not highest concentration or diversity are indicators of a point of origin. Granted, if you look at R1b subclades, for instance, it's very clear that the apparent "Basque-Irish" peak disappears very quickly. But we are not that much closer to the question of it's geographic origin.

I think diversity is still an important indicator, especially SNP diversity. STR diversity should be secondary, and is usually considered as such in most analyses I've seen. It is possible, though, as we've been getting at, to get similar diversity patterns as the result of different migration patterns... like, a convergence of a collection of people who are somewhat closely related could produce an admixture that looks like a point of origin, but isn't. All said, it's often best to qualify such analyses with "but we really don't know and it needs further investigation."

Well, what can I say. Both articles are in the British press? :LOL:

I've wondered about the British press. They were all over early reports that Celtic Britons were more closely related to Basques than "real" Celts (as was the American press!), but produced little in response to later developments that showed that that wasn't the whole picture and that the migrations were more recent, more complicated, and likely included that whole "Halstatt/La Tene expansion" thing that the press loves to dismiss. Now there seems to be genuine interest in this study, but with misinterpretations rampant. I guess there's a real attachment to the theories of Paleolithic continuity and diffusion of culture alone. I can't imagine why. Maybe it's English people who wish they were just as ancient as the Celtic cultures in Britain? Or people who want a unified, ancient British ethnicity after all the devolution and reinforcing of the differences between English/Scottish/Welsh/Cornish people?
 
You're talking about the press articles? Well, I (and other board members) stated that you can't take them seriously. It's a fallacy of the press to say "okay, if R1b is not Neolithic it MUST BE Paleolithic), but as you can see from the paper, a strong case can be made that R1b may be younger than Neolithic (ie Chalcolithic, or maybe even as young as Bronze Age), which fits much better with what we observe than either Neolithic or Paleolithic. Unless different evidence turns up, I believe this is the best explanation.
Yes but they did pointed in that article that R1b age in Europe is underestimated - biger then 6000 years BP
 
Yes but they did pointed in that article that R1b age in Europe is underestimated - biger then 6000 years BP

Dienekes pointed out that we get 8,300 years BP for R1b-M269 (which almost certainly originated outside of Europe per SNPs, recall, so European R1b-M269 must be even younger than that) after using the paper's recommendations:

Dienekes said:
I think that there are many possible migration routes and possible archaeological correlates of the R-M269 spread, but at the moment, a Neolithic-to-Bronze age dispersal is the more likely hypothesis. Indeed, the Paleolithic hypothesis cannot be saved even with the recognition of the phenomena described in this paper, since, as we have seen even the most "linear" markers produce an 8.3ky BP age. Only a descent to the murky territory of the evolutionary rate can save that hypothesis.
 
Dienekes pointed out that we get 8,300 years BP for R1b-M269 (which almost certainly originated outside of Europe per SNPs, recall, so European R1b-M269 must be even younger than that) after using the paper's recommendations:
I was speacking about that article that opened the tread , they claimed that R1b -M269 and R1b - S116 proposed age of origin was underestimated .
 
I was speacking about that article that opened the tread , they claimed that R1b -M269 and R1b - S116 proposed age of origin was underestimated .

The media article and Dienekes are talking about the same scholarly article.
 

This thread has been viewed 37655 times.

Back
Top