What is PIE - language or culture - clarification urgently needed

[Tomenable]

Now, if you could present a mechanism by which all these unmixed clans learned the same language, please?

They were mixed, autosomally they were the same and also similar mtDNA lineages. They just had different "fathers".

As for the mechanism - I'm not a linguist, you would need to consult some linguists and ask them why do languages emerge.

Apparently they do emerge, because if they didn't, we would all be speaking the same language as "Y-Adam and mt-Eve":

And if not the language of "Y-DNA Adam and mtDNA Eve", then at least that of the Out-Of-Africa Tribe:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104569/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3656025/

The “out of Africa” hypothesis proposes that a small group of Homo sapiens left Africa 80,000 years ago, spreading the mitochondrial haplotype L3 throughout the Earth.1–10 Little effort has been made to try to reconstruct the society and culture of the tribe that left Africa to populate the rest of the world.1

 

[Rethel]

If only "modern barbarians" such as ISIS fighters and their supporters (and many others!), understood this! :grin:

They undersand, that in life, are more important things than eating, drinking, sleeping and copulating. So, they'll win.
They have cause worth to die and they have also couse worth to live, they have lot of children, they know where are
they from and they are proud of that, and they know exactly what they want. Bravenewworldmen do not know any of
that stuff. They are only living for joy, and their only pourpose is to die by euthanasy. So, this (ex) civilization is dying
and must be replaced by better people: goddess' cults were replaced by patriarchal Indoeuropeans, demoralized Greeks
by Romans, Romans by christians, and primitive Indians by Europeans - this is the law. Period. It is only a matter of time.

Very old stuff... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlKO3hnu14U

 

[Tomenable]

The guy in that video from my previous post, makes some very good points which can apply also to expansion of PIEs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSGv8CnrWs#t=200

"(...) Let's imagine there is a tribe of people, say a 1000, they all speak a language they mutually understand, and then a 100 people leave to migrate somewhere else. That 100 take with them all the sounds of the language. Yes, they are taking away only a fraction [10%] of the genetic diversity, but not of course a fraction of the sounds. (...)"

So this is why PIE clans which migrated in distinct directions, took different Y-DNA with them, but the same language.

=================================

Here he talks about Proto-Indo-European language (from 6:00 onwards):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSGv8CnrWs#t=360

 

[Rethel]

The “out of Africa” hypothesis proposes that a small group of Homo sapiens left Africa 80,000 years ago,

So, as linguists cailm, indoeuropean languages could have even 40.000,
hamito-semitic is officialy estimating as almost 20.000, AmerIndians are
considering to be a small - even 70 persons - group of people entering
America some 12.000 ya - so we have a quite conservative language

IE is not only half of beside Africa time old, but also still recognizable

This are not mine estimates, but scientific.

 

[Rethel]

"(...) Let's imagine there is a tribe of people, say a 1000, they all speak a language they mutually understand, and then a 100 people leave to migrate somewhere else. That 100 take with them all the sounds of the language. Yes, they are taking away only a fraction [10%] of the genetic diversity, but not of course a fraction of the sounds. (...)"

So this is why PIE clans which migrated in distinct directions, took different Y-DNA with them, but the same language.

Amen.
I would give you lubika for that, but I
already spend my whole limit today

 

[Rethel]

Here he talks about Proto-Indo-European language (from 6:00 onwards):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSGv8CnrWs#t=360

Here PIE = 10.000 years!

 

[LeBrok]

The guy in that video from my previous post, makes some very good points which can apply also to expansion of PIEs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSGv8CnrWs#t=200

"(...) Let's imagine there is a tribe of people, say a 1000, they all speak a language they mutually understand, and then a 100 people leave to migrate somewhere else. That 100 take with them all the sounds of the language. Yes, they are taking away only a fraction [10%] of the genetic diversity, but not of course a fraction of the sounds. (...)"

So this is why PIE clans which migrated in distinct directions, took different Y-DNA with them, but the same language.

=================================

Here he talks about Proto-Indo-European language (from 6:00 onwards):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSGv8CnrWs#t=360

Mathematically and statistically it makes sens, but only on very small tribes. How big was population of Yamnaya, 100 thousand, 1 million? If one tribe is 10,000 people you would get a very good mixture of male Y hgs. Even in 1,000 strong clan. I think, after the split they would need to go through very intense bottle-necking, with just few mails surviving, and at the end one being successful in long term.

Other option is a strong dominance of one of the ethnic groups of Yamnaya. By dominance they forced their language on other tribes, though not transferring their Y much. Sort of like Hungarians and Turks speak languages of conquerors though genetically they don't look different than others from same area.

 

[Tomenable]

How big was population of Yamnaya, 100 thousand, 1 million?

Well, certainly much closer to 100,000 than to 1 million. And in my opinion, it was well below 100,000.

Yamnaya culture emerged around 4000 BC (maybe a bit later).

It is estimated, that at that time entire European continent had just 2 million people (see the link below).

And of course the steppe, where Yamnaya lived, was rather sparsely populated:

https://www.ined.fr/fichier/s_rubrique/211/publi_pdf2_pop_and_soc_english_394.en.pdf

(...) At the height of the Late Palaeolithic Age, from 10,000 to 9000 BCE, the population of Europe may have stood at 200,000 people. The sudden climatic warming which occurred around 8650 BCE halted their growth, and the beginning of the Mesolithic era saw the population decrease then increase rapidly with the cultural adaptation to the new climate and the repopulation of Northern Europe as the ice melted. Around 7000 BCE, it is likely that Europe had close to 400,000 inhabitants. With the Neolithic era in the Middle East - from 10,000 to 8000 BCE - came sedentariness, hand-hoecropping, stock-rearing, pottery-making and navigation, resulting in a tenfold increase in the population from 0.5 to 5 million inhabitants. From Anatolia, Neolithic peoples migrated to Greece, settling near what would become Thessaloniki, and from this densely-populated settlement sent out two streams that propagated Neolithic culture in Europe: one sea-borne, investing the coastal regions as far as England, the other across land, moving up the Danube to occupy the central part of the continent. By around 4000 BCE, the Neolithic culture had spread across Europe, with a population of perhaps 2 million (...)

The same estimate of around 2 million Europeans in year 4000 BC can be found here:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=nm...thic Europe had 2 million inhabitants&f=false

 

[Tomenable]

Estimates of population density for Neolithic Trypillian culture (and it was one of the most populous Neolithic cultures) say that it was probably no more than 5 people per one square kilometer, but in some regions it was still a much lower density:

"Giant Settlements and Some Demographic Problems Connected with the Tripolye Culture":

Part 1: http://s21.postimg.org/453ee13z9/Trypillian_1.png

Part 2: http://s9.postimg.org/wk6s9ozrh/Trypillian_2.png

5 people per 1 km2 was the peak density in the "Golden Age" of Trypillian culture and in its most populated area.

==========================================

About nomadic herders (such as Yamnaya), maybe this can be useful:

"Climate-Induced Changes in Population Dynamics of Siberian Scythians (700-250 BC)":

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...n_Dynamics_of_Siberian_Scythians_(700-250_BC)

Author estimates, that at the peak of their civilization and in the most densely populated region of their civilization, Altai Scythians had population density of no more than 3,8 people per 1 km2 (up to 260,000 people living in 68,000 km2 of land).

But those people lived much later than Yamnaya, and had much better technology.

 

[Tomenable]

If one tribe is 10,000 people you would get a very good mixture of male Y hgs.

Many of those Y hgs would get extinct, or would leave very few male descendants (compared to other hgs).

Y-DNA lineages tended to be successful in reproduction even 17x less frequently than mtDNA lineages:

This is because men were dying frequently also in battles (not just in other cataclisms, such as plagues of epidemic diseases, times of starvation, floods, fires, and so on), and men were competing for access to multiple women (not the other way around):

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success

"Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same.

"It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?" asks Melissa Wilson Sayres, a computational biologist at Arizona State University, and a member of a group of scientists who uncovered this moment in prehistory by analyzing modern genes.

Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."

Men (left) versus women (right), effective population size by sex over time:

A few men fathered lots of children, most men fathered a few or zero; but the number of reproducing women remained high:

The same pattern took place not just in Europe, also in other continents:

 

[LeBrok]

Estimates of population density for Neolithic Trypillian culture (and it was one of the most populous Neolithic cultures) say that it was probably no more than 5 people per one square kilometer, but in some regions it was still a much lower density:

"Giant Settlements and Some Demographic Problems Connected with the Tripolye Culture":

Part 1: http://s21.postimg.org/453ee13z9/Trypillian_1.png

Part 2: http://s9.postimg.org/wk6s9ozrh/Trypillian_2.png

5 people per 1 km2 was the peak density in the "Golden Age" of Trypillian culture and in its most populated area.

==========================================

About nomadic herders (such as Yamnaya), maybe this can be useful:

"Climate-Induced Changes in Population Dynamics of Siberian Scythians (700-250 BC)":

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...n_Dynamics_of_Siberian_Scythians_(700-250_BC)

Author estimates, that at the peak of their civilization and in the most densely populated region of their civilization, Altai Scythians had population density of no more than 3,8 people per 1 km2 (up to 260,000 people living in 68,000 km2 of land).

But those people lived much later than Yamnaya, and had much better technology.

Eyeballing the map of Yamnaya, I think it had a size of 1,000,000 square km. Even with 1 person per sq. km. that's 1 million people. Even if it had 100,000 people it was a very populous culture for that time period. That's why I can't get the distinct paternal hg by way of small tribes. They had big tribes. I would rather say, that language change happened by way of dominance.

 

[Tomenable]

Even in 1,000 strong clan. I think, after the split they would need to go through very intense bottle-necking, with just few mails surviving, and at the end one being successful in long term.

Quite possible that it was like that. For example, let's remember how harsh was human history:

- some men died before they sired children (either due to diseases, starvation, or due to wars)
- some men were effete and could not sire children at all
- some men only had daughters and never had any sons* (= their Y-DNA got extinct even though their genes didn't)
- some men never married and never sired children, they remained childless
- some men had children, but those did not live long enough to become adults (child mortality was HUGE back then)

Finally, some men had extraordinarily high numbers of children, with many women (not just one!).

So in the end, it is no so impossible.

*Maciamo even wrote in some thread, that certain types of Y-DNA are statistically more likely to sire sons.

 

[Tomenable]

Even with 1 person per sq. km. that's 1 million people

Europe has 10,18 million sq. km., and it had 2 million inhabitants in 4000 BC - that's 0,2 per 1 km2, so not even 1.

And I would say that crop farmers had higher density than herders - while Yamnaya were herders.

Of course the lowest density was among hunter-gatherers, but most of Europe was already Neolithic by 4000 BC.

 

[LeBrok]

Many of those Y hgs would get extinct, or would leave very few male descendants (compared to other hgs).

Y-DNA lineages tended to be successful in reproduction even 17x less frequently than mtDNA lineages:

This is because men were dying frequently also in battles (not just in other cataclisms, such as plagues of epidemic diseases, times of starvation, floods, fires, and so on), and men were competing for access to multiple women (not the other way around):

Let's say we are starting with well mixed tribe of 5,000 men of 50% R1b and same for R1a. It would need to be quite a coincidence that only R1a would die off, right?

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success

"Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same.

"It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?" asks Melissa Wilson Sayres, a computational biologist at Arizona State University, and a member of a group of scientists who uncovered this moment in prehistory by analyzing modern genes.

Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."

Men (left) versus women (right), effective population size by sex over time:

A few men fathered lots of children, most men fathered a few or zero; but the number of reproducing women remained high:

The same pattern took place not just in Europe, also in other continents:

I agree that many Y hg disappeared for some reason. However, in case of IE, none of their dominant hgs disappeared. Therefore there is nothing wrong with them, they are fit. So why there is so much R1b in Western Europe without R1a, if they both come form well mixed IE of Yamnaya?

My hypothesis is that they were not very well mixed in vast Yamanya horizon but they learned language by way of dominance of just one group. I have no idea which one though.

 

[Tomenable]

Eyeballing the map of Yamnaya, I think it had a size of 1,000,000 square km.

I just googled some maps of Yamnaya, and each of them shows a different area...

This one shows a rather small area, but some show much bigger areas:

 

[Tomenable]

Google Maps has a tool which allows to measure area.

Indeed you were perfectly right LeBrok, Yamnaya was at least 1 million square km:

BTW - now let's count how many samples of Yamnaya DNA we have, from how many sites.

It seems that we have still at least 990,000 square kilometers of Yamnaya area to check...

 

[LeBrok]

Europe has 10,18 million sq. km., and it had 2 million inhabitants in 4000 BC - that's 0,2 per 1 km2, so not even 1.

I was taking a comparable figures from your Cucuteni population close by, even the lower range of 1 person per sq km. It was irrelevant nevertheless considering my further comment and conclusion.

Even if it had 100,000 people it was a very populous culture for that time period. That's why I can't get the distinct paternal hg by way of small tribes. They had big tribes. I would rather say, that language change happened by way of dominance.

 

[LeBrok]

Google Maps has a tool which allows to measure area.

Indeed you werre right, Yamnaya was at least 1 million sq. km:

BTW - now let's count how many samples of Yamnaya DNA we have, from how many sites.

It seems that we have still at least 990,000 square kilometers to check...

Cool, I knew about measuring a distance on Google maps, but not the area. Interestingly they mixed Yamnaya with Cucuteni territory. Supposedly it happened at the end. West Yamnaya + Cucuteni leftovers became CW?

 

[Tomenable]

So why there is so much R1b in Western Europe without R1a

There is some R1a in Western Europe (also depends what do you mean by "Western").

And why is there so much of R1b-P312 without any U106 and Z2103 in Ireland, for example?

And all U106 which in Ireland, came very late with Vikings and English/British settlers - not with Celts.

As I wrote - some lineages became only successful in some branches of IE.

Shouldn't there be a 30/30/30 mix of U106/P312/Z2103 among all Indo-European groups ???

If you do not expect an even mix of all types of R1b, why do you expect a 50/50 mix of R1a/R1b ???

And within R1a there is also this pattern - for example among Indo-Aryans there is mostly R1a L657.

And BTW - there is no R1b in India, apart from some brought by British people in the 19th century.

 

[Tomenable]

An autosomal map for Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) - or "Teal" - admixture:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-!!/page42

And here a map for IBD sharing with Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers / Teal people:

Seems to correlate well with Indo-European speakers (look e.g. at Germano-Slavic levels vs. Finno-Ugric levels).

Not only Finnic-speakers have low levels of CHG / Teal admixture & IBD sharing, but also for example Sardinians.

In India North Indians (who are IE-speakers) have high levels, while South Indians (Dravidian-speakers) not.