Norwegian Y chromosomal profile

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

I’ve developed a mild interest in East-West phylogeography in Europe in regards to human populations. In the process I stumbled onto this paper, Geographical heterogeneity of Y-chromosomal lineages in Norway. I’ve put the full PDF in the forum, here. Standard caveat, take this with a grain of salt!!! But, I’ve put some maps below that readers might find of interest.

Fig. 6. Multidimensional scaling analysis of pairwise Y-SNP based FST between 23 European countries. Data were gathered only from the geographical coordinates indicated. Map coloration is the result of algorithmic interpolation and must be interpreted appropriate skepticism.

60 Comments

  1. The second map is a little hard to interpret – I assume the red spots simply mean that the local population is different on the Y (compared to the more common green ‘baseline’), not that the ‘red’ populations are similar except in the sense of being different/distant from other neighboring populations. 
    Would love to see more datapoints on the map, since an easy misinterpretation here is to assume some nonexistent maximum at the sampling points. 
    Interesting that the Lithuanians seem to have a distinctive Y lineage.

  2. Are we still trying to find the Neanderthals?

  3. Many skulls of Neanderthals resemble the skulls of modern day Norwegians and Swedes. 
     
    Say it ain’t so!

  4. A similar data from Sweden( not SNP but STRs): 
     
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15978763&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum 
     
    And now more and more SNPs: 
     
    http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNA_SNP_Index.html 
     
    http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_All_Papers.html 
     
    http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf 
     
    You can do a Principal Component Analysis of these data: 
     
    http://www.snpforid.org 
     
    I did it, and my conclusion on European Populations is that we the Galicians are not a mediterranean or celtic population, but a continental-germanic one. We are closer to danish or germans than irish or british, although Galicia is in the southwestern atlantic corner of Europe. 
    So, Long live to Wagner, and Rammstein!

  5. Press on:  
    ” New: the SNPforID browser”, and you will get the frequencies of 52 autosomal SNP in several world populations. Galicia= Northwestern spain.

  6. Galicians aka Gallegos are not known to be blond and blue eyed. Anyway, I love their sea food, chorizos and vino so I am in no mood to disagree.

  7. ” Gallegos are not known to be blond and blue eyed” 
     
    Yes, we are predominantly brown or black-haired like the italians or basques, although very pale-faced too. But there is a GAP between the physical appearance and the genetic proximity. 
    We are living in SOUTHwestern europe, and probably in the last millennia there was not a very intense selective pressures for blondism. 
    The superficial aspect is not a good proxy for establishing phylogenetic relations in europe, the main gradient is southeast-northwest and not simply north-south or ” nordics vs. mediterraneans”.  
    We have a very good wine, yes, but I prefer our beer( you know, my suevians alleles I guess).

  8. Very odd that the hungaian magyars are not distinguished from their surrounding populations like their Uralic speaking cousins in Finland

  9. Many skulls of Neanderthals resemble the skulls of modern day Norwegians and Swedes 
     
    Couldn’t that be due to natural selection favoring different skull types in parts of Europe?

  10. It looks like we’re seeing the two outlier areas of Europe: the Atlantic fringe and the Finno-Ugrian fringe. So maximum distance here is between Irish and Finns, right?  
     
    Looks like the green areas aren’t very different from each other (at least compared to the Irish/Basque-Finnish difference). Although Spanish seem to be yellowish enough to group with Irish/Basques, and Lithuanians and Saami the same with Finns.

  11. We are closer to danish or germans than irish or british, although Galicia is in the southwestern atlantic corner of Europe. 
    So, Long live to Wagner, and Rammstein!
     
     
    Congratulations! You are closely related to the Germans – a people who lost two world wars in the 20th century.

  12. It looks like we’re seeing the two outlier areas of Europe: the Atlantic fringe and the Finno-Ugrian fringe. So maximum distance here is between Irish and Finns, right? 
     
    Would that imply that the Irish are the oldest and the Finns are the youngest European groups?

  13. Oh yeah: each of these fringe areas is associated with a non-Indo-European language.

  14. Many skulls of Neanderthals resemble the skulls of modern day Norwegians and Swedes. 
     
    We can expect to see quite a bit of Neanderthal nuclear DNA published in the not too distant future, so we can always look for admixture ;-)

  15. How would you even define the age of a group in this context? I guess you can estimate the time at which two clades diverged but in that case any group that is ‘distant’ is going to be old, so the Finns would not be youngest. Or are you speculating as to the history of migrations? I think you want evidence from other sources for that… 
    And what do you have against the Germans?

  16. We can expect to see quite a bit of Neanderthal nuclear DNA published in the not too distant future, so we can always look for admixture ;-) 
     
    time scale? i’ve heard this too, are you convinced this isn’t vaporeware?

  17. Very odd that the hungaian magyars are not distinguished from their surrounding populations like their Uralic speaking cousins in Finland 
     
    It isn’t. It is exactly the expected pattern. Finns are, at least from the point of view of *linguistic* continuity, a remnant of a very old Uralic population that used to occupy at least the northern portion of Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Urals; the Baltic-Sea-area Uralic-speakers are now cut off from the rest of the family by a wide band of Russians who expanded into the middle fairly recently, displacing or assimilating the Uralic-speakers. The Hungarians are cut off from the rest of Uralic-speakers because of a historical migration that took them far away from areas where Uralic had been previously spoken, at a time when the Uralic area in Europe had already been long receding in front of Slavic/Germanic/Baltic/Turkic expansion. The Hungarian migration is in fact a product of the Turkic enroachment, the Hungarians becoming successful “conqueror nomads” unlike any other Uralic people through Turkic influence (if there were other such Uralic peoples, they were completely turkified; there is no known parallel to the Hungarian ethnogenesis in Uralic-speakers). 
     
    And if you’re going to draw conclusions from languages, you should remember that Hungarian and Finnish separated *at least* as long ago as eg. Hindi and English. By the relatedness “level” of the language, there is no reason to expect to find any more genetic connections between Finns and Hungarians than whatever genetic connections you’d expect to find between Englishmen and Indians. Add to this the fact that present-day Hungarians are a product of an “assimilation” of a large population by a likely smaller one that imposed its culture on the locals by military conquest and genetic connections will look even less likely: the pre-migration Hungarians were already likely as distinct from Finns as Uralic peoples get and then they went off to assimilate a Central European population larger than their own.

  18. And what do you have against the Germans? 
     
    Nothing. I just find it amusing that someone from Galicia wants to be related to them.

  19. Add to this the fact that present-day Hungarians are a product of an “assimilation” of a large population by a likely smaller one that imposed its culture on the locals by military conquest and genetic connections will look even less likely: 
     
    yes, i looked it up, the size of the horde was in the tens to hundreds of thousands, but the hungarian plain is fertile…there were lots of ppl. it is hard to find a “non-european” genetic signal in the magyars, though there is some….

  20. Hungarian and Finnish separated *at least* as long ago as eg. Hindi and English. 
     
    Can you clarify this? The Huns arrived in Eastern Europe around the 4th century. The Aryans arrived in India around 1500 BCE, and perhaps as far back as 3000 BCE.

  21. Since someone brought up Neanderthals, this map looks like a good example (apparently) of a major invasion with at least partial genetic replacement. The red/yellow pockets are the places where the replacement was weakest.  
     
    These are the same types of places I’d expect to see any “Neanderthal” DNA (if there is any) in Europe: on the fringes. I also bet that these types of invasions and partial replacements have happened *multiple* times (not just IE invasion) as climates changed. 
     
    The reason Magyars might not show up here at all (aside from elite replacement) is that relative to the ancient Basque and Finnic substrata here, the Magyars are more like the Indo-European invaders. For all we know, IE invaders looked less “white” than modern Europeans – they probably looked more SW Asian.

  22. jaakkeli, 
     
    Nevermind. Hungarians were originally from the Urals and are not the Huns, whom were their Turkic conquerors, who gave them their namesake.

  23. The reason Magyars might not show up here at all (aside from elite replacement) is that relative to the ancient Basque and Finnic substrata here, the Magyars are more like the Indo-European invaders. For all we know, IE invaders looked less “white” than modern Europeans – they probably looked more SW Asian. 
     
    keep in mind admixture via a ‘wave of advance.’ no matter what the proto-indo-europeans looked like the people who spread the language into wales, ireland, spain, kurdistan, india, etc. probably had little in common genetically because of dilution from the original source.

  24. For all we know, IE invaders looked less “white” than modern Europeans – they probably looked more SW Asian 
     
    But aren’t the languages of Europe and south-west Asia very different from each other? Also, is there any real evidence that the Indo-European invaders actually existed?

  25. Also, is there any real evidence that the Indo-European invaders actually existed? 
     
    good question. there is evidence in spain: they’re called romans & celts :)

  26. The Huns arrived in Eastern Europe around the 4th century. 
     
    WTF do the Huns have to with Finns or Hungarians? 
     
    The Aryans arrived in India around 1500 BCE, and perhaps as far back as 3000 BCE. 
     
    It is easy to rule out any idea where Finnish and Hungarian would’ve split only a few millenia years ago. To the other direction, there’s no reliable way to put an “oldness bound” on the split between Finnish and Hungarian. The main point is that Hungarian and Finnish are obviously near the limit of provable linguistic relatedness, that is, there are so few systematic word connections that any fewer and it’s no longer possible to conclude that the languages are related at all. So, however far in time you think historical linguistics can go, the split between Hungarian and Finnish likely goes about that far back: that there are no known significantly more distant but still related languages in *any* other family is true by construction (there are of course more distant relations, but we can’t know about them using the current toolbox of linguistics). 
     
    So, no one knows whether proto-Uralic dates back to 6000 BCE or 10000 BCE, but suggesting the “4th century” is about as reasonable as suggesting that humans diverged from tomatoes a while after the dinosaurs died. Also, it’s of course possible to date branchings in language families in *relative* terms by comparing loanwords and since Uralic-speakers have been in traceable contact with Indo-European languages for about as long as there have been IE languages, if you want to shrink the time for the splits of Uralic you’ll also have to shrink the time of Indo-European branchings. So, if you want to move the timing of the split into what became Finnish and Hungarian to the 4th century, you’ll have some pretty big problems to explain, like why your timing puts Indo-Europeans in India later than Islam…

  27. I think we should also bear in mind that some Central Asians had Western Asia or European DNA already, before they invaded Europe, from previous expansions of Indo-Aryans out of the Western Steppes thousands of years before. So a sizeable chunk of these invaders, at least from the Y-DNA perspective, might have been indistinguishable from Central or Eastern Europeans, so leaving no discernable trace…

  28. To CatBitesDog: I left the window open and didn’t reload before typing that comment, so I didn’t notice you already pointed that out. :-p

  29. Hungarians indeed show slightly higher EA admixture, especially Eastern Hungarians from what I’ve seen.

  30. I left the window open and didn’t reload before typing that comment, so I didn’t notice you already pointed that out. 
     
    Yeah, the perils of blogging. 
     
    Nevertheless, being NOT a linguist, I still found your original reply useful: How much a language changes is a function of not just time, but also how much interaction it has with other languages, via trade, cultural exchange, invasions, annexations, assimilations, and so on. 
     
    That the Hungarians still have a distinct language would certainly suggests that the native population always vastly outnumbered the conquering ones. But is this true or not true in Turkey? I mean the Turks do NOT look like Mongols to me!

  31. Argh, I screwed up. The dating of proto-Uralic is certainly not like “6000 BCE or 10000 BCE”. I meant to say “years ago” instead of BCE.  
     
    The most common proto-Uralic dating in the literature has been ~6000 years ago. The only source of plausible earliness bounds are lone common words, ie. since there are common words for clay pottery that AFAIK fit the sound changes of the branchings, Uralic couldn’t have started to branch very long before clay pottery could’ve reached eastern Europe. This kind of estimates rely on lone reconstructed words of the proto-language and guesstimates on the changes etc, so there’s obviously vast room for error. And of course, the split into Finnic and Ugric is a bit later than the Uralic split, or not (the closeness relations at the topmost split to Finnic/Ugric/Samoyedic are AFAIK not very settled, because, well, like I said, those relations are on the edge of what can be settled)… but it’s waaaaaaay earlier than 4th century.

  32. good question. there is evidence in spain: they’re called romans & celts :) 
     
    Yes, but the Romans and Celts may have been descended from Europe’s indigenous populations.

  33. good question. there is evidence in spain: they’re called romans & celts :) 
     
    Yes, but the Romans and Celts may have been descended from Europe’s indigenous populations.

  34. ” I just find it amusing that someone from Galicia wants to be related to them” 
    Well I find it very amusing too but it is a simple correlation analysis from the data : 
     
    http://www.snpforid.org 
     
    Is it so amusing for you to be american-english or english? I hope it. This world is a amusing place for all! 
    I like Rammestein, however, any problem?

  35. All of this talk about Galicia makes me hungry! Mmmm, pulpo a la gallega. :p~~~~

  36.  
    Yes, but the Romans and Celts may have been descended from Europe’s indigenous populations.
     
     
    yes, ultimately speaking of the “indo europeans” in a genetic sense is probably useless.

  37. ?yes, ultimately speaking of the “indo europeans” in a genetic sense is probably useless.? 
     
    Really? At no point were they genetically one people? Were they not originally the same tribes? Why do north Indians from higher casts, some Iranians and Kurds, Spaniards, Scandinavians etc look alike? 
     
    Razib you seem like a very knowledgeable person, can?t you write a post some time and clear this up to the degree we know? Did Aryans invade India and western asia? Were they originally white? When did the greeks, Anatolians etc. become more dark skinned? How related are Swedes, Finns, Irish, Italians? 
     
    If I remember correctly the Romans describes the central asian Iranian speaking Parthian as blonde (according to Wilcox).  
     
    The simple (probably wrong?) theory I have understood is that these indo-European tribes came from somewhere like southern Ukraine, used chariots and other technology to militarily conquer Europe and parts of western Asia, in various waves, in the process mixing with the original population, and later (in asia) invading semites and turks.

  38. The indo-european issue is quite interesting. 
     
    Who were these people whose descendants(linguistically at least) span from Nepal, s. India to Ireland? How are we ever going to discover it’s geo-ethnic orgins?  
    It could have been that all, or many, of the people of the chinese turkmenia region were indo-european speakers. Although i’ve seen evidence that ancient speakers of the Brahui(dravidic?) family were occupying this region in antiquity.  
    I’ve even seen one book(don’t remember the title, but it was very old) saying that the origins of the Brahuis & Afghans lie in the ancient Hakhamenish empire. The book said that these Afwhauns, as they called themselves, are actually the modern day descendants of achaemenid-day brigands & bandits ordered exiled from Persia into the most barren & desolate of the empires eastern regions. Don’t know about the truth of that, though. Are any European Y Haplogroups actually descendants of Y Haps in the west asian region. 
     
    Would it be correct to say that Eastern, Iranians, Pathans & Kashmiris have more Y-Hap affinity with Euros than they do with the Levantines?

  39. When did the greeks, Anatolians etc. become more dark skinned? How related are Swedes, Finns, Irish, Italians? 
     
    how do you know that the greeks and anatolians became more dark skinned? i’ve never heard of the parthians as being exceptionally blonde. i have heard the romans describe the welsh as dark and the germans as blonde. sounds like you’ve been reading nordicist propoganda, which is only somewhat more credible than afrocentrism :) 
     
    Would it be correct to say that Eastern, Iranians, Pathans & Kashmiris have more Y-Hap affinity with Euros than they do with the Levantines? 
     
    there are debates as to the credibility of this clustering (you are probably speaking of M17/R1a). most other evidences points in another difference, that south asians are fundamentally different from middle easterners & europeans.

  40. The same sources say Alexander and Dorian Greeks were blond. Is this also wrong?  
    razib maybe, but given the fact that so many Kurds in certain areas of Iran I have seen are fairskinned, light haired and had sometimes have blue eyes it is not an unreasonable idea, given that they also share linguistic roots, and according to textbook history (which admittedly may be wrong) Indo-European groups invaded these regions and parts of Europe. 
     
    Do you actually have hard data here or is this your opinion? 
     
    Clearly people in the Middle East think (hope?) that their ancestors were Aryans. I have no problem with the idea that the Iranians, Turks and Kurds have a light-dark hierarchy, and perhaps only believe this stuff because of German influence during the 30s and admiration of west/dislike of Arabs. But I have never seen good data that would disprove it, and give good alternative explanations for the patters the theory describes (same language, dark genes dominant, groups that have not mixed much with others are more fairskinned). If you can give us that would be great.

  41. teller, follow the lit links. this is data, not supposition, there is no neutral marker difference between kurds & arabs. of course the ancestors of the indo-iranians were aryans, they were the people that used the word to describe themselves. no other indo-european group did. again, you seem to confuse genetics with linguistics, the two are not necessarily concordant on the small scale level you assume. 
     
    so what are your sources? no more gestalt impressions, i offered you a lit source, now your turn. 
     
    p.s. i see no reason to think light skin and eyes was introduced into the middle east by recent invasion just as i see no reason to think that dark hair and dark eyes were introduced in parts of northern europe. they’re probably part of the normal variation over the last 10,000 years. 
     
    p.p.s. alexander was king of a nation that was considered semi-barbarous and marginally greek (there was a dispute whether macedonians could participate in the olympian games). i fail to see what relevance that has as to whether ancient greeks were dark or fair since alexander was half-illyrian and half-semi-greek. 
     
    p.p.p.s. and why are including the turks in this? they don’t believe their ancestors were aryan. you are either muddled or you are trolling.

  42. “groups that have not mixed much with others are more fairskinned” 
     
    Where does that come from, that less mixed groups are more fairskinned?  
    It would seem to me that fairskinned groups mixing with other light skinned groups could be just mixed as anyone else. Some of the most mixed peoples in the world are very fair, e.g., Central Asians. Are you saying that fairness = “genetic purity”? Explain. As far as i’ve heard, that’s nordicist nonsense.

  43. ok, a note, i want to move away from this “stamp collecting” nonsense about figuring out “who the aryans” were. let’s talk about something tractable.

  44. Spencer Wells documented a Eurasian Heartland for Y chromosomes. This region was the source of multiple migrations to West, South, and West Eurasia (i.e, “Europe,” “India,” “China,” etc). I wouldn’t be surprised if India was also a major heartland where many expansions *originated*. The “Indo-European” expansions might be only a very recent example of these expansions. 
     
    Europeans tend to intertext linguistic evidence of the Proto-Indo-Europeans with rather absurd political propaganda. More likely than not, most PIE speakers would be considered “exotic” by modern Europeans – just as medieval Europeans regarded the Turks and Magyars (coming from the same direction). I wouldn’t be surprised if the PIE originated somewhere closer to modern India than modern Europe. Vedic Sanskrit is one of the oldest known derivatives of the putative Proto-Indo-European languages.  
     
    Eurocentric thinking in the 19th century erroneously overturned the old maxim “Ex orientis, lux” (I.e., Enlightenment/Civilization comes to Europe from the East). The old slogan should be remembered, and perhaps amended to say “Ex orientis lux *et gens*.”  
     
    Ignoring the Basques, the Irish and Finns include some of the most morphologically distinct “white European” people on the continent. Other Europeans are less distinct, and blend in far more with Near Eastern peoples. Why might this be? That those other Europeans (the big green places on Razib’s map) have had more genetic contact (whether by a gradual and indirect wave of diffusion or by abrupt invasions) with West Asians.

  45.  
    Spencer Wells documented a Eurasian Heartland for Y chromosomes. This region was the source of multiple migrations to West, South, and West Eurasia (i.e, “Europe,” “India,” “China,” etc). I wouldn’t be surprised if India was also a major heartland where many expansions *originated*. The “Indo-European” expansions might be only a very recent example of these expansions. 
     
     
    please note, i am skeptical of some of wells et. al.s conclusions relating particular Y haplotypes (M17/R1a) common in both india and eastern europe. i don’t dismiss it, but the preponderance of the evidence on other loci seem to show little evidence of this, so the likelihood that this is an error in the classification of haplotypes (that there are two M17 clades, one india, one non-indian) seems high to me.

  46. please also recall my note about the “wave of advance,” i strong suspect that indo-european language spread was elite mediated, and so indo-european invaders into region X would probably most resemble the indigenes who were most recently invaded prior to X. i doubt we’ll ever fix on an “indo-european” gene just like 1,000 years from it would be idiotic to fix on a “english” gene (since so many different types of people will speak english).

  47. Other Europeans are less distinct, and blend in far more with Near Eastern peoples. Why might this be? That those other Europeans (the big green places on Razib’s map) have had more genetic contact (whether by a gradual and indirect wave of diffusion or by abrupt invasions) with West Asians. 
     
    don’t make too much of the map!!! :) the finns and various western european littoral peoples do seem to “stand out” in most maps which assay european genetic diversity. this might be due to historical isolation (though the western 1/5 of europe isn’t that ‘marginal’ in world history at this point, so ‘isolation’ is relative).

  48. PIE is probably from where people tend to think it’s from (Kurgan region). If the homeland were closer to India, then the modern descendents of PIE would share a lot of words for things common to that region — rather than “bear,” “willow,” etc.  
     
    List of cognates & lack of cognates: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~l150web/weblec4.2.html

  49. My basic point is that there is tendency to think of the PIE as “super-European” (i.e., “Aryan” in the “Nordic-like” sense of the word). When in fact a better analogy is to think of the Indo-Europeans as the equivalents of invading Turks or Magyars.  
     
    The ultra-European types might be *more* representative of pre-IE people. Of course, I use all these descriptions in the *relative* sense.

  50. My basic point is that there is tendency to think of the PIE as “super-European” (i.e., “Aryan” in the “Nordic-like” sense of the word). When in fact a better analogy is to think of the Indo-Europeans as the equivalents of invading Turks or Magyars. 
     
    well yes, and this is thanks to the concomitant rise in nordic racialism and philology in germany. if you look at the older literature you see the presumptuous terminology indo-germanic instead of indo-european for the language group. jaakkeli’s annoyance is not all that ill-founded. but the overall point is that “indo-european” is as much of a race as “arab” is, it isn’t. arabs aren’t united by a racial affinity, as the arab language spread mostly via cultural diffusion, not the migrations of tribes out of the arabian peninsula. the latter did occur, but they do not explain the preponderance of the arab language in egypt, the maghreb or the levant. there is little genetic difference between christian egyptians and muslims that can not be explained by geography (copts are concentrated to a greater extent in upper egypt). same with the christians and muslims in the levant (though there might be some more exogenous ancestry in the muslims [desert arab, caucasian, turk and black], it is not dominant in any way).  
     
    it seems plausible to me that indo-european spread in a similar fashion. i suspect the kurgans have something to do with it, but trying to fix indo-european’s rise in the same way that we tie english to the king james bible, the french language to the dialect of paris or latin to the form promoted by cicero and promoted by the church is not possible because PIE was organically emergent from its environment and likely spread via only the vicissitudes of history. turkic might be a better model, but here we are into murky ground too, even though the turks emerged in the semi-light of history around 500 AD. 
     
    to be precise, i suspect that indo-european language was spread along the atlantic fringe of europe by blonde blue eyed people, but that is because the east-central europe was likely indo-european first! similarly, indo-european was spread into india by lighter-skinned people from the northwest (inheritors of the andronovo culture?). both these groups were indo-europeanized first because of proximity to the rise of the origin of the indo-european cultural complex, not because they were fundamental reflections of the “ur-indo-european.”* 
     
    we need to move back early 20th century typologism. 
     
    * please note there are many debates around this issue and the kurgan-only hypothesis is not necessarily ascendent. a more complex model which assumes an initial expansion from anatolia and a secondary “spin off” from the ukraine is also around.

  51. to be more precise and clear up the confusions here…if you look at these maps it seems that blonde hair and blue eyes center around the east baltic. i am skeptical that the proto-indo-europeans are from this region…probably closer to the ukraine. the probability that a a given proto-indo-european had blonde hair and blue eyes was not trivial, perhaps it might have been 5-30%, i don’t know (judging by the map and the frequencies in the ukraine). but, the key is most people with a “nordic” phenotype were probably not indo-european 5,000-10,000 years ago (that time period being the range for the various models re: PIE), and, most people who had/have blonde hair and blue eyes even in the middle east probably do so because a low frequency of these alleles have always been floating around in that region. this isn’t rocket science, just basic conditional probabilities taking into account the various alternative hypotheses.

  52. Razib: 
     
    I was very polite to you, so I do not appreciate your tone (?troll?, ?nordist?, which I guess means racist). Especially since the data you give me is irrelevant: 
     
    Anyone that knows anything about Iraq and their Kurds would know that many of the ?Kurdish? tribes are previously Arab tribes and that there has been a lot of mixing with many other tribes with arabs, which is NOT true about Iranian Kurds, that I was referring to (see for example a modern history of the Kurds, McDowall) The heterogeneity of looks and facial features is pretty clear among Kurds, somewhat along the lines I suggested. It is a pattern you will observe that the more mixed with surrounding Arabs and Iranians the darker skin and hair collar, with the less mixed groups as more distinguish Kurdish. The horror, the fact that I (and most of the kurds themselves) have observed this must imply that I want to invade Poland and start building concentrations camps. 
     
    Now given everything else on this blog I am a little annoyed by your accusations and attitude. Clearly skin-collar AS SUCH has nothing to do with my speculations (I am a dark haired brown eyed relatively brown skinned person, not that it should matter). It is simply the obvious fact that I can observe how people look and become curious of their ancestry, while taking genetic samples from them and analyzing in laboratories is somewhat little difficult.  
     
    I don?t need ?sources? for the simple observations I made, and I did give you the source for the Parthian comment. The people that live in present day turkey are very mixed, with Greek, Armenian, Kurd, central Asian and other ancestors. But it is also a fact that Indo-Europeans tribes such as Hittites used to occupy Anatolia.  
     
    “a low frequency of these alleles have always been floating around in that region.” 
     
    OK, from which historical group? Clearly not arabs, that have almost 0%. Just randomly in everyone else? 
     
    Looks and language are a first best approximation of ancestry, unless I have better data, which I specifically asked you for, which you haven?t given me. The fact that one does not necessarily prove the other does not mean the expected value of the correlation is zero, as you seem to believe.  
     
    Your map doesn’t help much, given that it doesn’t tell us where they came from, and given what the racial makeup was when they did. Lastly (and this is an important one) how much genetical influence did they have compared to just cultural/political/linguistic?  
     
    It is no point discussing this with you, given your emotional behavior.  
    I will look for alternative theories of middle eastern ancestry and the causes of vairation elsewhere. 
     
    [wow, you're ignorant. why should i engage you when all you offer are you impressions as far as visual inspection go?]

    Edited By Siteowner

  53. I’m still not convinced that R1a isn’t rooted in the S Asian highlands.  
     
    History repeats itself: look at the demic processes and conflicts happening right now: North Africans are pouring into Spain and France. Turks settled in Germany. A smattering of W Africans are settling here and there all over Europe. C European businesses are expanding east a bit, but many E Europeans are moving West in search of work.  
     
    Is it any big surprise to me to see that even “pure white” Europeans have North African, Levantine, and W Asian Y chromosomes showing up?  
     
    Europeans are trying to settle in the Levant, with limited success and lots of conflict. A W Asian religious faction wars with various people, defending the region from a mountain stronghold. India and China have border skirmishes here and there.  
     
    History repeats itself.  
     
    I’ve even got an eyebrow raised to the possibility that 1492 was not the first time W Europeans came to N America and had a demic influence there. W Europeans took over most of N America, but now there is a push back from Mesoamerica.  
     
    If the IE expansion was a gradual cultural diffusion accompanied by a “wave of advance” demic diffusion, it was probably quite similar to at least some of the demographic processes we observe in super-slow motion (i.e., in historical time rather than evolutionary time) right now.  
     
    Gimbutas said that IE brought more patriarchy and militarism to Europe – and a paternalistic form of religion/culture. Aren’t we seeing the same thing happening with “Islamification” of liberal Western Europe?  
     
    The mistake is imagining there is something new under the sun. There probably isn’t. The “IE” is just a name for a wave of invaders, vaguely associated with language groups.  
     
    Comes to mind: has anyone observed whether IE languages as “systems” (grammatical, lexicons, etc) are most orderly and homogeneous near the putative homeland (Ukraine, Anatolia, etc, take your pick), and then more “disordered” towards the periphery (with aberrant vocabulary, grammar, etc)? That’s what I’d expect from a linguistic/cultural diffusion model.

  54. Right, PIE homeland was definitely not Nordic — more like Ukraine / Caspian Sea area. That’s according to linguistic data. Given that languages & neutral DNA don’t perfectly overlap, genetic data can (and do) show a previous wave from Anatolia that isn’t very believable based on linguistic evidence. Either the Anatolian’s lang was IE & isn’t detectable as such just due to difficulty of reconstruction past a certain date, or it wasn’t IE and they adopted an IE lang once in the Ukraine area. 
     
    Re: how orderly / disorderly the modern IE languages are — all languages everywhere have a complex syntax, morphology, phonology, & lexicon. I think you mean: are there languages that have changed the least since PIE? Lithuanian’s probably the most conservative, but that doesn’t mean Lithuania was the homeland — just means that they had the least contact w/ others in ways that would induce sweeping changes, whether migrating elsewhere or being overwhelmed by outsiders.

  55. From what I’ve heard from Russian speakers the Slavic languages are all more mutually intelligible (especially given the huge area in which they’re spoken) than other language groups within IE.  
     
    I don’t trust language to be equivalent to neutral genetic markers. Language is a cultural gimmick. Pre-IE Europe might have been a much more complex linguistic scene (contrast Basque and Finnic, if they give any indication), with more local diversity: like New Guinea or pre-British Australia. IE unified it. 
     
    But there’s an ascertainment bias here: WE are IE speakers. We observe data about past cultures according to *our own* cultural biases. So we look at “language” (i.e., the limited aspects of verbal/written communication that our culture deems important) and see only what we are looking for.  
     
    So I don’t trust us to observe whether there are “traces of Anatolian language.” Consider this analogy: Ebonics. To the culturati, there is a “correct [U.S.] English” (prestige variety), and any deviation from this entails a *loss* of information. From this standpoint, Ebonics is degraded “proper English.” However, from an “Ebonics” standpoint, proper English lacks information that *is* encoded in Ebonics street talk. That includes syntax, grammar, and also elements invisible to white man’s thinking relating to intonation, gesture, etc. that convey the “soul” of the speech. So from that standpoint, “proper English” entails signal loss.  
     
    But a linguist studying traces of Ebonics (listening to tape recordings, written poetry, or etc) might never see this extra information. Ascertainment bias.  
     
    Traces of pre-IE languages might exist within modern “IE” languages, in language elements that IE speakers don’t think are significant.

  56. We can expect to see quite a bit of Neanderthal nuclear DNA published in the not too distant future, so we can always look for admixture ;-) 
     
    time scale? i’ve heard this too, are you convinced this isn’t vaporeware?
     
     
    Well, I haven’t had a chance to poke at it myself, but the folks who generated the sequence think it’s real. I don’t know when we can expect to see a publication, but surely within a year.

  57. Nu, 
     
    In term of IE languages containing traces of older languages, it’s interesting that Old Irish – remember the Celto-Italic branch was the first language group to break with IE, or at least first Centum language group to do so – contains some features that are only found in Basque and Coptic I believe. 
     
    Razib, Agnostic, 
     
    Yes, I agree that there is a huge disparity between IE the language family, and any notion of an IE race or nation – far from it. It is probably more like the spread of Turkish, where a very small Turkish speaking group expanded rapidly to take over all the Steppe lands previously speaking Iranian dialects, in a matter of 500 years, so that today’s Turkish speakers have little in common with their forbears. But I suspect this is how it is for most successful language families or groups. The Slavic languages spread at the expense of the Finno-Ugric, Thracian and Illyrian, in a relatively short space of time also.

  58. “wow, you’re dumb. why should i engage you when all you offer are you impressions as far as visual inspection go?” 
     
    I am curious here – which parts of the post are teller and which are razib? And isn’t it better to respond in a post compared to editing in replies into original posts? (If the bracet thing was a reply)

  59. And isn’t it better to respond in a post compared to editing in replies into original posts?  
     
    didn’t want to waste time. why don’t you take time out? :)

  60. “why don’t you take time out? :)” 
     
    ?

a