PDA

View Full Version : New R1a map



Maciamo
03-08-11, 14:02
I have worked on a new map of haplogroup R1a for Europe only, so as to facilitate the comparison with the other maps on Eupedia. I have used a finer scale than before, with zones for 5-10% and 10-20%. All the data for every region has been re-analysed carefully. The map is therefore much more accurate than the old one.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1a.gif

haithabu
03-08-11, 20:05
I always like to try and work out the story told by these maps. The overall picture seems to follow the migration narrative, showing a tide flowing west out of the Ukrainian steppes and lapping up against the Rhine. One wonders: why stop there? Who occupied the land west of the Rhine in enough strength to bar further progress?

As always, I find the isolated areas of concentration to be the most interesting.

1) What caused the R1A island in the south of France? Visigoths maybe, but surely their presence was too light and transient to account for 5% of the male lineages in that area?

2)The Middle East concentration of R1A seems to more or less overlap Kurdistan which suggests a proto-Slavic inmigration which has been discussed in other threads.

sparkey
03-08-11, 20:55
I always like to try and work out the story told by these maps. The overall picture seems to follow the migration narrative, showing a tide flowing west out of the Ukrainian steppes and lapping up against the Rhine.

Diversity maps would be more telling than frequency maps... frequency maps have led researchers on the wrong path before regarding the history of haplogroup distribution. Like all those old articles that asserted that R1b originated in Iberia. So I'm not sure that a strict Ukrainian-refuge theory of R1a1a is the best hypothesis, although I'd like to see more diversity studies. I seem to recall how yes no saying here that R1a1a diversity spikes unusually in the Balkans and South Siberia, with the rest of R1a1a being fairly young (I'm having trouble finding his source, though, maybe he'll pop in here). I'm not sure what that tells us.


One wonders: why stop there? Who occupied the land west of the Rhine in enough strength to bar further progress?

If we assume a Corded Ware spread (which I think is reasonable) then presumably the western population would have been largely I2 people (plus a nice admixture with other haplogroups like G2, the wildcard being R1b) who co-opted metalworking and became the Beaker people. That's the apparent narrative to me... but I bet the truth is much more complicated, and we need to keep the possibility of a discontinuity between culture and haplogroups in mind.


1) What caused the R1A island in the south of France? Visigoths maybe, but surely their presence was too light and transient to account for 5% of the male lineages in that area?

More likely a stray founder somewhere. The diversity would tell us, I bet it's low.


2)The Middle East concentration of R1A seems to more or less overlap Kurdistan which suggests a proto-Slavic inmigration which has been discussed in other threads.

Another possibility is continuity between Kurds and Persians, as Persians have similar levels of R1a. That's possibly more expected, as Kurds speak an Iranian language. I know that that doesn't explain the apparent I2 in Kurds, but the presence of I2 in Kurds has also been challenged here, seeing that studies that have found I2 in them have typically done so with STR predictions (unreliable). Kurds definitely need more studying.

how yes no 2
03-08-11, 21:16
More likely a stray founder somewhere. The diversity would tell us, I bet it's low.


it is population displaced from area of influence of R1a - Burgundians...

200 AD
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/200/entity_706.jpg
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/200/entity_706.html
443-476 AD
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Map_Burgundian_Kingdom_EN.png/230px-Map_Burgundian_Kingdom_EN.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundians

sparkey
03-08-11, 21:39
it is population displaced from middle north Europe - Burgundians...

That makes some sense, especially considering that Burgundians were East Germanic (more R1a). I wonder if these frequencies could help us estimate the total genetic impact of Burgundians on Burgundy. Say... Burgundians were ~35% R1a (just a guess based on modern patterns). ~75% of Burgundy R1a is from Burgundians (another guess based on regional R1a patterns). Then, 0.05*(1/0.35)*0.75=0.11, or 11%. That seems within range.

Goga
03-08-11, 21:44
2)The Middle East concentration of R1A seems to more or less overlap Kurdistan which suggests a proto-Slavic inmigration which has been discussed in other threads.
Maybe proto-Slavic, proto-Germanic and proto-Iranic tribes were all closely related to each other and were all descendants of their archaic proto-Indo European ancestors. All these folks have I and R1a in them.

And maybe proto-Celtic tribes only were their distant cousins and are not Indo-European at all but related to folks in the ancient Caucasus…

sparkey
03-08-11, 22:01
Maybe proto-Slavic, proto-Germanic and proto-Iranic tribes were all closely related to each other and were all descendants of their archaic proto-Indo European ancestors.

I find this likely, although Germanic in particular seems to have an additional R1b component, and I1, which is quite distinct from I2. There is a 15000 year gap between the TMRCA of I1 and the TMRCA of I.


All these folks have I and R1a in them.

Not Persians, they don't have significant I. At the very least, they don't have I that is as old in their population as their R1a. Aren't they typical descendants of proto-Iranic tribes? I think we can count Haplogroup I out as being part of the original Indo-Europeans. The patterns of it don't match. Look up Nordtvedt's Warped Founders Tree and migration map for confirmation of that.


And maybe proto-Celtic tribes only were their distant cousins and are not Indo-European at all but related to folks in the ancient Caucasus…

I think that this is probably correct, as well, unless the original Indo-Europeans were admixed with both and then bottlenecked two different directions. I feel that your explanation is more likely, though, as we would not expect such bottlenecks to occur so near such a drastic expansion. Two other possibilities remain which I think are even less likely: that R1b peoples were the first Indo-Europeans, and that neither R1a nor R1b were significant parts of the initial Indo-European admixture.

Goga
03-08-11, 22:15
- Maybe the modern Germanic nations are a mixture of the ancient proto-Celts (R1b) and proto-Germanic (R1a & I) tribes.
Are you sure there is a gap of 15,000 year between I2 and I1? I2 is older than I1. I1 is only a couple of thousands years old. What were I1 folks before they mutated (evolved) to I1?

- West Persians, especially around Teheran have very much I. Iran is one of the most mixed countries in the region. Maybe West Persians were like Kurds before they mixed with Turkic and East Iranic tribes. Iran is not a homogeneous at all.

- I don't know if it's true but Armenians have very much R1b. Armenians are descendants of Urartu. Urartu folks were not Indo-European. Basque people are R1b and definitely not Indo-European.

sparkey
03-08-11, 22:33
- Maybe the modern Germanic nations are a mixture of the ancient proto-Celts (R1b) and proto-Germanic (R1a & I) tribes.

I think you're right about the modern Germanic peoples, at least if we're talking about West Germanic peoples, who probably have a significant amount of ancestors who spoke Celtic of some sort. I'm not convinced that that's the case with North Germanic peoples, though, and they have R1b, as well.


Are you sure there is a gap of 15,000 year between I2 and I1? I2 is older than I1. I1 is only a couple of thousands years old. What were I1 folks before they mutated (evolved) to I1?

It's probably more like 17 or 18 thousand, actually, if we're talking the gap between the I1 and I TMRCA, now that I look at Nordtvedt's tree. I1 people were probably hunter-gatherers for a long time, remaining a small population or bottlenecking severely, and not joining an expansion until late. Contrast that with I2a1a peoples, who apparently merged with expanding G2a farmers in the Neolithic, and consequently have the oldest TMRCA of the major Haplogroup I branches.


- I don't know if it's true but Armenians have very much R1b. Armenians are descendants of Urartu. Urartu folks were not Indo-European. Basque people are R1b and definitely not Indo-European.

I agree with this. Although there are also R1a-heavy populations that are non-Indo-European, so we should be careful. The presence of a different ethnicity with the same haplogroup does not preclude the ethnicity in question from having originated from a population with predominantly that haplogroup.

Maciamo
03-08-11, 22:39
1) What caused the R1A island in the south of France? Visigoths maybe, but surely their presence was too light and transient to account for 5% of the male lineages in that area?


R1a in and around Auvergne is certainly a remnant from the early Bronze Age. Auvergne, a remote region in the Massif Central mountains, also has considerably more Middle Eastern haplogroups than the rest of France (notably record-high 9% of G2a, 4.5% of T and 3.5% of J1, but also 12.5% of E1b1b and 8% of J2). I think this is because the Bronze-Age expansion to Central/Western Europe started with the Corded-Ware culture, which corresponds to a thrust of R1a from Belarus/Russia. R1b people came a bit later from further south in Russia and Ukraine, and replaced most of the earlier inhabitants. Some of the indigenous peoples sought refuge into the mountains. I think that is also why the Pasiegos of Cantabria have this unusual mix of high R1a, G2a, J1, T and E1b1b.




2)The Middle East concentration of R1A seems to more or less overlap Kurdistan which suggests a proto-Slavic inmigration which has been discussed in other threads.

It's not Proto-Slavic. Kurdish people are an Iranian tribe, and Iranian peoples all have high R1a, as they belong to the same eastern branch (Satem) of the Indo-Europeans as the Balts, Slavs and Indians.

Maciamo
03-08-11, 22:41
That makes some sense, especially considering that Burgundians were East Germanic (more R1a). I wonder if these frequencies could help us estimate the total genetic impact of Burgundians on Burgundy. Say... Burgundians were ~35% R1a (just a guess based on modern patterns). ~75% of Burgundy R1a is from Burgundians (another guess based on regional R1a patterns). Then, 0.05*(1/0.35)*0.75=0.11, or 11%. That seems within range.

Except that the R1a hotspot is in Auvergne, not even adjacent to Burgundy...

Goga
03-08-11, 22:50
I think you're right about the modern Germanic peoples, at least if we're talking about West Germanic peoples, who probably have a significant amount of ancestors who spoke Celtic of some sort. I'm not convinced that that's the case with North Germanic peoples, though, and they have R1b, as well.



It's probably more like 17 or 18 thousand, actually, if we're talking the gap between the I1 and I TMRCA, now that I look at Nordtvedt's tree. I1 people were probably hunter-gatherers for a long time, remaining a small population or bottlenecking severely, and not joining an expansion until late. Contrast that with I2a1a peoples, who apparently merged with expanding G2a farmers in the Neolithic, and consequently have the oldest TMRCA of the major Haplogroup I branches.



I agree with this. Although there are also R1a-heavy populations that are non-Indo-European, so we should be careful. The presence of a different ethnicity with the same haplogroup does not preclude the ethnicity in question from having originated from a population with predominantly that haplogroup.Proto-Germanic tribes were the most north-western group of the ancient Indo-Europeans. Maybe they separated from their other Indo-European relatives when they mixed with the native north-western Europeans. proto-Iranic tribes mixed with the Mesopotamians and Hurrian tribes and proto-Slavic tribes mixed with the native Euroasiatic, Finno-Ugric and Turkic, tribes.

Yes, but I'm not talking about only R1a. I think that the proto-Indo Europeans had a very high amount of haplogroup I and some 'Caucasian' haplogroups around the Caucasus mountains in them.

R1a alone is not Indo-European ...

Goga
03-08-11, 22:52
It's not Proto-Slavic. Kurdish people are an Iranian tribe, and Iranian peoples all have high R1a, as they belong to the same eastern branch (Satem) of the Indo-Europeans as the Balts, Slavs and Indians.Is Kurdish R1a closer to Central Asian R1a or East European R1a?

Or it's a distinguish West Asian one?

haithabu
03-08-11, 23:19
R1a in and around Auvergne is certainly a remnant from the early Bronze Age. Auvergne, a remote region in the Massif Central mountains, also has considerably more Middle Eastern haplogroups than the rest of France (notably record-high 9% of G2a, 4.5% of T and 3.5% of J1, but also 12.5% of E1b1b and 8% of J2). I think this is because the Bronze-Age expansion to Central/Western Europe started with the Corded-Ware culture, which corresponds to a thrust of R1a from Belarus/Russia. R1b people came a bit later from further south in Russia and Ukraine, and replaced most of the earlier inhabitants. Some of the indigenous peoples sought refuge into the mountains. I think that is also why the Pasiegos of Cantabria have this unusual mix of high R1a, G2a, J1, T and E1b1b.


If that is the case one would expect these relative proportions to be a snapshot of the population mixture prior to the R1B incursions. But.......only 2.5% I2??

Goga
04-08-11, 02:45
The thing with the Germans is that they are more R1b than R1a. Their main or biggest haplogorup is R1b, so maybe these modern Germans were just an ancient Celtic tribe (R1b) from South Europe that mixed with Slavs, Huns and native northern I1 Europeans in north.

Maybe being 'Germanic' is just an invention and Germans are actually the most mixed Celts that bred with other folks.

Goga
04-08-11, 02:52
The biggest enigma in Europe are Austrians. They're the only west European nation whose main (biggest) haplogroup is R1a = 26%! Without I1 (only 12%) their DNA would look more West Asian. They have as much I1 as J2, 9% E, 8% G2a and ONLY 23% R1b (even west Asian Armenians have more R1b = 28%).

Maybe Austrians are last remnants of the proto-Indo Europeans in Europe!?

zanipolo
04-08-11, 08:30
Except that the R1a hotspot is in Auvergne, not even adjacent to Burgundy...


You are talking about less than 20 km , these maps are not entirely accurate., so, HOW YES AND NO was correct in his statement ,in my opinion.

The other only explanation and its less accurate is the visigoth period, which is basically on the extreme border of Gallic lands of where they settled.

Maciamo
04-08-11, 09:37
You are talking about less than 20 km , these maps are not entirely accurate., so, HOW YES AND NO was correct in his statement ,in my opinion.

The other only explanation and its less accurate is the visigoth period, which is basically on the extreme border of Gallic lands of where they settled.

All France was conquered by Germanic tribes: Franks, Burgunds, Visigoths, Normans... These people had only a minimal genetic impact on the overall population. For example there are only traces of I1 and R1a in what used to be the Visigothic kingdom in south-west France. How could Burgundy have over 5% of R1a when even Baden-Württemberg and Alsace have less than 5% ? Then, let's not confuse the modern region of Burgundy, centered on the medieval Duchy of Burgundy, with the ancient Kingdom of Burgundy, where the actual Burgunds settled, and which encompassed all the land from modern Burgundy all the way down to Provence along the Rhone, as well as the French Alps and Switzerland. If there is any Germanic haplogroup that is present in surprisingly high density in that region, it is R1b-S21 (R1b-U106), not R1a.

The Franks had the biggest impact over Gaul, be it genetic, cultural, linguistic or political; but that is because their homeland had been adjacent to Gaul (around modern Belgium) for several centuries, and they just annexed Gaul to their existing kingdom, while all the other tribes moved in from farther away, in smaller numbers. Yet even the Franks' genetic legacy is barely visible beyond the top north of France. The Parisian region is hardly Germanic. Even Alsace, where a Germanic language is traditionally spoken, barely has 6% of I1 and 5% of R1a (about half of Macedonia, and less I1 than the Celtic strongholds of Wales and Ireland).

Then it is not because East Germany has a lot of R1a today that East Germanic tribes necessarily did too. What many people fail to understand is that when a mass migration happens from one place to another, like the Völkerwanderung of the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages, people and their genes leave a region and new people move in to fill the vacuum. I believe that a good part of the R1a in East Germany (and of course Poland) today arrived with the Slavs after Germanic tribes left. Germanic people obviously all have/had R1a, but I doubt that ancient tribes like the Goths or Burgunds had over 30% of R1a (10-15% seems more reasonable).

Maciamo
04-08-11, 09:40
The biggest enigma in Europe are Austrians. They're the only west European nation whose main (biggest) haplogroup is R1a = 26%! Without I1 (only 12%) their DNA would look more West Asian. They have as much I1 as J2, 9% E, 8% G2a and ONLY 23% R1b (even west Asian Armenians have more R1b = 28%).

Maybe Austrians are last remnants of the proto-Indo Europeans in Europe!?

The Austrians fit well within the West Slavic region, encompassing what used to be the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austrians are closer to the Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians than to anybody else. Genetically the Austrians are more West Slavic than Germanic.

Maciamo
04-08-11, 09:41
If that is the case one would expect these relative proportions to be a snapshot of the population mixture prior to the R1B incursions. But.......only 2.5% I2??

I suppose that the region was more propitious to Neolithic farmers (or stockbreeders, especially goats and sheep) than to hunter-gatherers.

zanipolo
04-08-11, 09:54
All France was conquered by Germanic tribes: Franks, Burgunds, Visigoths, Normans... These people had only a minimal genetic impact on the overall population. For example there are only traces of I1 and R1a in what used to be the Visigothic kingdom in south-west France. How could Burgundy have over 5% of R1a when even Baden-Württemberg and Alsace have less than 5% ? Then, let's not confuse the modern region of Burgundy, centered on the medieval Duchy of Burgundy, with the ancient Kingdom of Burgundy, where the actual Burgunds settled, and which encompassed all the land from modern Burgundy all the way down to Provence along the Rhone, as well as the French Alps and Switzerland. If there is any Germanic haplogroup that is present in surprisingly high density in that region, it is R1b-S21 (R1b-U106), not R1a.

The Franks had the biggest impact over Gaul, be it genetic, cultural, linguistic or political; but that is because their homeland had been adjacent to Gaul (around modern Belgium) for several centuries, and they just annexed Gaul to their existing kingdom, while all the other tribes moved in from farther away, in smaller numbers. Yet even the Franks' genetic legacy is barely visible beyond the top north of France. The Parisian region is hardly Germanic. Even Alsace, where a Germanic language is traditionally spoken, barely has 6% of I1 and 5% of R1a (about half of Macedonia, and less I1 than the Celtic strongholds of Wales and Ireland).

Then it is not because East Germany has a lot of R1a today that East Germanic tribes necessarily did too. What many people fail to understand is that when a mass migration happens from one place to another, like the Völkerwanderung of the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages, people and their genes leave a region and new people move in to fill the vacuum. I believe that a good part of the R1a in East Germany (and of course Poland) today arrived with the Slavs after Germanic tribes left. Germanic people obviously all have/had R1a, but I doubt that ancient tribes like the Goths or Burgunds had over 30% of R1a (10-15% seems more reasonable).

First of all , the burgundians where in that area for over 1000 years, their capital was dijon IIRC, next to auvergne, they moved into the netherlands/brabant area around the 15th century. So they had ample time to sow their seeds.

In regards to R1a , what you are bascially saying is that the east germanic tribes had no contact with slavs at all. ( what about sarmatians ? ) If this is what you are saying, then I could agree with you. Then the case is what haplogroup where East germanic tribes.

zanipolo
04-08-11, 09:55
The Austrians fit well within the West Slavic region, encompassing what used to be the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austrians are closer to the Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians than to anybody else. Genetically the Austrians are more West Slavic than Germanic.

Not the Tyrolese ( western austrians ) unless you know something else

Maciamo
04-08-11, 11:41
First of all , the burgundians where in that area for over 1000 years, their capital was dijon IIRC, next to auvergne, they moved into the netherlands/brabant area around the 15th century. So they had ample time to sow their seeds.


Your approach of history is too political. You just look at the borders from a textbook perspective. The Low Countries did become Burgundian in the 15th century, but that was through marriage and it did not really involve a movement of people from Burgundy to the Low Countries (except a few administrators). Auvergne was never part of Burgundy, be it the early medieval kingdom or the late medieval duchy.


In regards to R1a , what you are bascially saying is that the east germanic tribes had no contact with slavs at all. ( what about sarmatians ? ) If this is what you are saying, then I could agree with you. Then the case is what haplogroup where East germanic tribes.

Having contacts isn't the same thing has welcoming foreigners into your tribe and give them your daughters as wives to spread their own lineages. I am not aware of any fusion between ancient Germanic tribes and Slavic or Iranian tribes, except for the Goths who settled north of the Black Sea.

Maciamo
04-08-11, 11:43
Not the Tyrolese ( western austrians ) unless you know something else

Yeah, ok, but that's a very small part of Austria, more Swiss than truly Austrian.

zanipolo
04-08-11, 12:12
what about this
http://groh.ru/gro/history/legacy.html
Paleolithic culture, the Aurignacian

Maciamo
04-08-11, 14:03
what about this
http://groh.ru/gro/history/legacy.html
Paleolithic culture, the Aurignacian

Completely wrong and outdated page. Why are you even posting this ?

Taranis
04-08-11, 17:25
If I look at the places in western/atlantic Europe where R1a exceeds 5% (in particular Auvergne, Cantabria - Scottish R1a might be of Viking origin, but what speaks against that is the fact that the distribution of R1a in Scotland is non-consistenst with other typically Germanic markers), it certainly begs the question if there isn't also a small Celtic component to R1a. I have no idea as to when this component arrived - wether it was with Proto-Celtic speakers, or wether it arrived the spread of iron-working across the Celtic-speaking world: either factors would have been from areas where a small concentration of R1a would make sense. The problem however, if assuming that these hotspots in formerly Celtic lands are indeed of Celtic origin, is explaining why they appear like exactly that: local peaks.

One general observation I would make here is - regarding R1a as a whole in Europe, and regarding the Slavic migrations: if you look at the situation, there seem to be two layers of R1a penetration: the first, which seems to explain levels in excess of 10% - seems to be originated with the Corded Ware Culture, whereas the second layer seems to correspond with the Slavic migrations.

Alan
04-08-11, 19:13
Another possibility is continuity between Kurds and Persians, as Persians have similar levels of R1a. That's possibly more expected, as Kurds speak an Iranian language.

Thats a possibility but I do not think this is the answer. The Kurdish R1a has surprisingly no flowing connection with that found in Iran. Surprisingly the Region of Northwest Iran, where the Kurds make the large majority, has less R1a. On the contrary R1b and G2a* are dominating in this Region. R1a among Kurds has its largest spread in East Anatolia and not in West Iran like someone would expect.

Also a study the R1a in East Anatolia is typical for that among Armenians and other Caucasians. This suggests a different origin of the R1a among Kurds.

Also if you look at other Maps, it gets clearly obvious how the R1a among Iranians seems to be a gene flow from Central Asia. We see clearly a barrier between the Kurdish and Iranian R1a. I assume a different, not Slavic and not Iranian in sense of Persians (other Iranic tribe is possible) origin of R1a* among Kurds.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/R1a1a_distribution.png

Knovas
04-08-11, 20:43
This map looks quite realistic.

PD: I have problems to access the website.

zanipolo
05-08-11, 09:09
I was thinking that since the Vandals had a close alliance with the alans ( sarmatians ) and these followed the vandals to the west. There markings where G2 and R1a .

usually tribes stick together instead of dispersing with their allies. Is there any G2 in that averagne area?

Maciamo
05-08-11, 10:20
I was thinking that since the Vandals had a close alliance with the alans ( sarmatians ) and these followed the vandals to the west. There markings where G2 and R1a .

usually tribes stick together instead of dispersing with their allies. Is there any G2 in that averagne area?

There is a lot of Neolithic G2a3 in Auvergne. But it's not the kind of G that I would associate with the Alans (they would have been either G1 or G2a1).

Goga
05-08-11, 18:06
Two other possibilities remain which I think are even less likely: that R1b peoples were the first Indo-Europeans, and that neither R1a nor R1b were significant parts of the initial Indo-European admixture.Yeah, that's very plausible. Nobody knows the real true. I don't want to exclude any theory, but the gathered 'sources' which are more accepted by nowadays standards speak against this theory.

The thing with R1a that it has been associated with the ancient Indo-European cultures in Europe. Like Corded Ware (Danubian and Nordic areas of western Germany, Denmark and southern Sweden) and Kurgan (Ukraine and South Russia) cultures in Europe and Andronovo culture in Central Asia. They found some R1a remnants in these ancient sites.

spongetaro
06-08-11, 15:46
If there is any Germanic haplogroup that is present in surprisingly high density in that region, it is R1b-S21 (R1b-U106), not R1a.

Do you have the data for Burgundy or any recent map of R1b-S21?

zanipolo
06-08-11, 21:45
Do you have the data for Burgundy or any recent map of R1b-S21?

I am that marker and what I have been told, it represents frisia in the netherlands along the coast to jutland ( denmark), down through belgium lands, through germany into the central alps to lombardy and veneto.
it was the old danish amber trail the ancients used and the cimbri people knew about

Jutland/nordic amber and baltic amber are different under the microscope , and both are found in northern Italy.

I agree I would also like a retailed idea on where this marker is

Maciamo
07-08-11, 15:07
I have added a shade for frequencies between 2.5% and 5%.

LeBrok
07-08-11, 18:33
It was a great idea to implement finer resolution below 10%. Map is much richer and more interesting now. Thanks

Knovas
07-08-11, 20:41
Much better now.

MarTyro
07-08-11, 21:09
I'm very interested what software is used to create this kind of maps. I like to use them on a regional basis for distribution maps out of geodata from GEDCOM-files.

Maciamo
07-08-11, 22:57
I'm very interested what software is used to create this kind of maps. I like to use them on a regional basis for distribution maps out of geodata from GEDCOM-files.

Just Photoshop. All scrupulously handmade. :smile:

zanipolo
15-08-11, 06:46
Is the map correct for Liguria. I recently read that since the Genoese had holdings in the sea of Azov, most of crimeria until 1473, a permanent area in para ( next to byzantine ) , the greek islands ( lemnos and cyprus and others ), yet they have 0% R1a.............seems strange



Wiki ( and other sites ) has that over 50% of croatian R1a percentage comes from the island people ( northern adriatic ) and istria ......... curious ..........lubarni maybe

iapetoc
15-08-11, 07:12
about Italy,

shouldn't Κalabria have raised R1a

also Greece should have a spot bigger than 20 in central Greece?

Maciamo
15-08-11, 08:22
about Italy,

shouldn't Κalabria have raised R1a

also Greece should have a spot bigger than 20 in central Greece?

Based on what data ? Central Greece has 11% of R1a.

Brennus
17-08-11, 01:36
Two other possibilities remain which I think are even less likely: that R1b peoples were the first Indo-Europeans, and that neither R1a nor R1b were significant parts of the initial Indo-European admixture.

Why would this be less likely?

sparkey
17-08-11, 02:12
Why would this be less likely?

I find it unlikely that the first Indo-Europeans were R1b dominant because R1b-L23, which contains almost all of the IE R1b peoples, is relatively young compared to R1a1a, and contains a lot of non-IE peoples in it like the Basques and Assyrians. To me that suggests that some R1b peoples adopted IE languages sometime after L23 came about, rather than a transmission from them back to R1a1a populations.

I find it unlikely that neither R1a nor R1b were part of the first Indo-European population because R1a+R1b correlates so well with the spread of IE. I think others have attempted to correlate PIE with Haplogroup I (pretty much impossible IMHO) and Haplogroup G (possible but less likely IMHO due to European G being so Neolithic and G-dominant populations being so frequently non-IE).

ThatConfusedR1AGuy
27-12-11, 04:23
Nice map. Good job on it!
I am not sure if this is the right area I should be posting this comment, But I was hoping somebody could help me out. I am trying to figure out the YDNA makeup of the Frankish tribes. I am curious because I believe I have been able to trace my ancestry back to the Cologne merchants that flooded into London following the Norman Invasion. Cologne, falling roughly into what was once Frankish territory, is why I am interested in the YDNA of the Franks. My R1a subtype (according to R1a . org) matches the "Central European" R1a type, while I believe that the "North Western" type is most commonly associated with the Germanic people. So my question is if the Franks carried R1a, and if they did, what modern day R1a type would they most likley be associated with.

And If my ancestor was a "Germanized Slav"as someone has suggested, when would he have entered Germany (what major Slavic Migration reached as far west as Cologne, before the year 1100AD?)

I am probably missing out on some major concepts behind the migrations of R1a in Europe, but that is why I am asking the community for help :)
Thanks for your time reading this!
TCR1AG

Yetos
27-12-11, 08:19
Does anyone know where in Europe we have R1a1-M17 big Concentrations? also an analogy of M17/other R1a

zanipolo
27-12-11, 10:59
Does anyone know where in Europe we have R1a1-M17 big Concentrations? also an analogy of M17/other R1a

If you search for it in rootsweb, people say it comes from siberia into norway , then to central europe or british isles

Mzungu mchagga
27-12-11, 20:17
Nice map. Good job on it!
I am not sure if this is the right area I should be posting this comment, But I was hoping somebody could help me out. I am trying to figure out the YDNA makeup of the Frankish tribes. I am curious because I believe I have been able to trace my ancestry back to the Cologne merchants that flooded into London following the Norman Invasion. Cologne, falling roughly into what was once Frankish territory, is why I am interested in the YDNA of the Franks. My R1a subtype (according to R1a . org) matches the "Central European" R1a type, while I believe that the "North Western" type is most commonly associated with the Germanic people. So my question is if the Franks carried R1a, and if they did, what modern day R1a type would they most likley be associated with.

And If my ancestor was a "Germanized Slav"as someone has suggested, when would he have entered Germany (what major Slavic Migration reached as far west as Cologne, before the year 1100AD?)

I am probably missing out on some major concepts behind the migrations of R1a in Europe, but that is why I am asking the community for help :)
Thanks for your time reading this!
TCR1AG

Slavs have never come as far west as Cologne. The westernmost place Slavs have ever got is about 10 to 11° longitude. But around 1000AD, shortly before the Norman conquest, everything east of that line was "savage frontierland" so to say. Christianization and germanization of Slavs have just got started. It seems a bit unlikely to me -but not impossible- that a guy from today's East Germany, Poland or Czech Republic moved to Cologne as a merchant at that time and then he or his descendands to England.

Generally I'm always very sceptical about deep linage research as far as 1000 years. First of all, until like three hundred years ago it wasn't uncommon if someone took the family name of a family he was employed at, but not related with. And secondly, there have always been naughty women... ;-)

LeBrok
27-12-11, 21:27
According to polish historians this was the situation of west Slavs by 800-950AD, and the farthest extend to the west.

http://www.piastowie.kei.pl/piast/mapy/1.htm

5427

zanipolo
27-12-11, 21:52
According to polish historians this was the situation of west Slavs by 800-950AD, and the farthest extend to the west.

http://www.piastowie.kei.pl/piast/mapy/1.htm

5427

thanks, i was alays looking for this.

proves that the Henry the lion wars in mecklenburg was correct as he germanized back the mecklenberg , pommerain territories as per the time of the barbaric east german migrations of the roman empire.

also note that the venedi, aestii and prussians lands where always noted as non-slavic lands populated by baltic peoples, be them letts, sami, goths or "vandalic" types

sorry for typing and formatting errors as my main hand is in a cast........you need to defend yourself in barbaric australia. thank goodness ( she) i am looked after for other issues. :laughing:

zanipolo
27-12-11, 21:54
Slavs have never come as far west as Cologne. The westernmost place Slavs have ever got is about 10 to 11° longitude. But around 1000AD, shortly before the Norman conquest, everything east of that line was "savage frontierland" so to say. Christianization and germanization of Slavs have just got started. It seems a bit unlikely to me -but not impossible- that a guy from today's East Germany, Poland or Czech Republic moved to Cologne as a merchant at that time and then he or his descendands to England.

Generally I'm always very sceptical about deep linage research as far as 1000 years. First of all, until like three hundred years ago it wasn't uncommon if someone took the family name of a family he was employed at, but not related with. And secondly, there have always been naughty women... ;-)

naughty women , but nice

could be frankish or slavic associated with the hansetic league. mecklenburg ( lubeck) was slavic and they traded with "frankish" flanders

Taranis
27-12-11, 23:43
My opinion is that R1a's subclades are still too poorly resolved to make reliable claims here about which subclades are associated with whom yet.

Mzungu mchagga
27-12-11, 23:49
naughty women , but nice

could be frankish or slavic associated with the hansetic league. mecklenburg ( lubeck) was slavic and they traded with "frankish" flanders

The Hanseatic League wasn't established before the 12th century, and even then it grew slowly at first. Moreover 'ThatconfusedR1aguy' stated that his R1a was more of a central European subclade. Individual migrations from Slavic central Europe to the Rhine must have been very rare at that time (Early Middle Ages). That means I don't want to say it's impossible, but very unlikely.

zanipolo
28-12-11, 00:33
The Hanseatic League wasn't established before the 12th century, and even then it grew slowly at first. Moreover 'ThatconfusedR1aguy' stated that his R1a was more of a central European subclade. Individual migrations from Slavic central Europe to the Rhine must have been very rare at that time (Early Middle Ages). That means I don't want to say it's impossible, but very unlikely.

from the R1a.org site he mentions

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ptab=2&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=114781513110833464918.00046050d00a9f9c39738&ll=55.165698,25.30514&spn=28.783711,61.860279&source=embed

there is a small pocket in south west germany


if its really old
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ptab=2&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=114781513110833464918.00047171538f9084dc044&ll=50.209986,5.141773&spn=17.298477,31.15757&source=embed

rms2
28-12-11, 15:47
I may have missed it in this thread, but what is the source for the ~5% R1a in Auvergne? I am curious what study or studies came up with that figure, what the sample sizes were, etc.

Thanks!

zanipolo
28-12-11, 22:38
I may have missed it in this thread, but what is the source for the ~5% R1a in Auvergne? I am curious what study or studies came up with that figure, what the sample sizes were, etc.

Thanks!

read from post #4 of this thread, it caould be from the east germanic burgundians

spongetaro
28-12-11, 22:48
read from post #4 of this thread, it caould be from the east germanic burgundians

R1a might be there since earlier times as the Burgundians never went to Auvergne

zanipolo
28-12-11, 22:49
R1a might be there since earlier times as the Burgundians never went to Auvergne

it been discussed before, a distance of less than 20K is insignificant in the scheme of immigration

spongetaro
28-12-11, 22:55
it been discussed before, a distance of less than 20K is insignificant in the scheme of immigration

The problem is that R1a is higher in Auvergne than in Rhône-Alpes and Provence, two regions where the Burgundians settled

zanipolo
28-12-11, 23:13
The problem is that R1a is higher in Auvergne than in Rhône-Alpes and Provence, two regions where the Burgundians settled

Depends on what you believe..I believe that R1a was in eastern germans, scandinavian tribes prior to any 'slavic" movements and that these east german migrations "picked up" other haplotype on the migration journey.
If as people think these East german tribes had no R1a and where entirely I , then the haplotypes in italy and southern france would indicate that no germanic people settled there as I is minimal.

East germanic tribes, would be in dominace R1a and I1 , mix in the gothic and vandal types into the migratory mix and what do we have.

zanipolo
28-12-11, 23:14
The problem is that R1a is higher in Auvergne than in Rhône-Alpes and Provence, two regions where the Burgundians settled

The burgundians settled in western switzerland and west of that into france, i think its dijon country

They never reached provence

Taranis
28-12-11, 23:27
Depends on what you believe..I believe that R1a was in eastern germans, scandinavian tribes prior to any 'slavic" movements and that these east german migrations "picked up" other haplotype on the migration journey.
If as people think these East german tribes had no R1a and where entirely I , then the haplotypes in italy and southern france would indicate that no germanic people settled there as I is minimal.

East germanic tribes, would be in dominace R1a and I1 , mix in the gothic and vandal types into the migratory mix and what do we have.

If R1a was indeed spread by Corded Ware, which seems all too likely since it has been found in Corded Ware sites (Eulau), then it stands to reason that it was present as far west as the Rhine as early as the Copper Age. My opinion is that there may be a minor Celtic component to R1a, which would explain the levels in Auvergne and also Cantabria. But, until we have a closer resolution of the local R1a subclades in these regions, we will not know for certain.

spongetaro
28-12-11, 23:30
Depends on what you believe..I believe that R1a was in eastern germans, scandinavian tribes prior to any 'slavic" movements and that these east german migrations "picked up" other haplotype on the migration journey.
If as people think these East german tribes had no R1a and where entirely I , then the haplotypes in italy and southern france would indicate that no germanic people settled there as I is minimal.

East germanic tribes, would be in dominace R1a and I1 , mix in the gothic and vandal types into the migratory mix and what do we have.

I don't believe that R1a is either "slavic" or East Germanic. There are a lots of unexplained R1a in western Europe like that found in the Pasiegos or the Parisian R1a (9,5%). Auvergne fits in this category

spongetaro
28-12-11, 23:32
The burgundians settled in western switzerland and west of that into france, i think its dijon country

They never reached provence

They reached the northern part of Provence (Avignon)

zanipolo
28-12-11, 23:35
I don't believe that R1a is either "slavic" or East Germanic. There are a lots of unexplained R1a in western Europe like that found in the Pasiegos or the Parisian R1a (9,5%). Auvergne fits in this category

was not the parisi tribe in paris area also in england and that it came from norway?

spongetaro
28-12-11, 23:39
was not the parisi tribe in paris area also in england and that it came from norway?

The Parisii of Yorkshire had their roots in Gaul not the other way round. I don't see any links with Norway.

Taranis
29-12-11, 00:09
I don't believe that R1a is either "slavic" or East Germanic. There are a lots of unexplained R1a in western Europe like that found in the Pasiegos or the Parisian R1a (9,5%). Auvergne fits in this category

I'd like to ask it the other way around: why should there be no Celtic R1a? After all, the Celts were obviously an Indo-European people, and even if we only assume that Proto-Celtic spread by the way of a small warrior elite somehow took over the copper age or bronze age trade netwroks in the Atlantic region, then there should be some R1a in Western Europe.

spongetaro
29-12-11, 00:54
I'd like to ask it the other way around: why should there be no Celtic R1a? After all, the Celts were obviously an Indo-European people, and even if we only assume that Proto-Celtic spread by the way of a small warrior elite somehow took over the copper age or bronze age trade netwroks in the Atlantic region, then there should be some R1a in Western Europe.

I absolutely agree. Proto Celtic could have been spread by a small groups of R1a aristocrats warrior from Central Europe. I don't believe that the Proto Celts speakers were exclusively R1a but I'm pretty sure that R1a was a major haplogroup among tribes such as Boii, Cantabri, Astures, Arverns, Parisii and Halsttat Celts.
R1b could have been there well before the arrival of Celtic languages as the Basque R1b shows.

Yetos
29-12-11, 01:26
Scythians primary R1a M-17
Scythians,
Clavdius. Olympiodoros, Πρισκος of Byzantium, write about them.
they cognate Scythians as Goths, Scythian and Goth is same for them,
compare also the Great Scythia of Balkans, where Herodotus places the Getae,
compare also that Getae are mentioned far to North of Iran where R1a M-17 is enough,
a queen that moved from east of Caspian sea to Balkans, from there to Norway,

that R1a M-17 in his way west bring mess and carry other HG with him,


Celts, maybe did not moved from North but from South,
Maybe they moved from minor asia to Central Europe,
the only that can help us is Grammar,
example how Past tense is Formed? or how cases forms etc,
the Pass of Celts to Europe might be Before Hettit or same time,


Luca Cavalli-Sforza Piazza claima that Kurgan and Yamnaa was not a Scythian but a minor Asian culture,

the move west of Scythians must be connected with the split of P-Q languages,

the only problem in that is Caucasus M-17 Turkic speaking,

meaning that Scythians probably as Getae entered balkans from North and stop at Dinaric Alps a Celto Illyrian area, and find exit to Scandinavia,
After fall of Roman empire they pushed them shelfs more west reaching Brittish Isles,
with a chance to carry I Hg with them.

Isolated r1a M17 exist also in Spain,

so the possibility that Minor asian R1b (or R1a) moved from Balkans to Kurgan Yamnaa etc ,
and from there moved west and an about 2000 - 1000 BC entrance from North of R1a that pushed R1b might be possible,
also the case of R1b not Be so IE as we believe (only some subclades).
also a HG that is not searched is J2 the south corridor from France to India.

a probably inner name of Dutch Deutsch Dacian of what Greek called Thracian-Getae and what Latins named Germanic.

zanipolo
29-12-11, 02:05
If R1a was indeed spread by Corded Ware, which seems all too likely since it has been found in Corded Ware sites (Eulau), then it stands to reason that it was present as far west as the Rhine as early as the Copper Age. My opinion is that there may be a minor Celtic component to R1a, which would explain the levels in Auvergne and also Cantabria. But, until we have a closer resolution of the local R1a subclades in these regions, we will not know for certain.

yes , I believe it was the corded ware and it stayed north of the danube and west of the dniepr initially.

it would have been a germanic , celtic-germanic and nordic strain after leaving the caspian sea area

ThatConfusedR1AGuy
29-12-11, 05:39
Thanks for all the helpfull responses!

I understand that tracing my ancestry back 1000ish years is hard (if not impossible!) but my DNA results and 12th century documentation seems to give me the most solid lead yet. I'd be curious to know what group the small french R1a subclade belongs to...

Would I be mistaken in thinking that R1a needs a lot of more research as far as understanding and discovering new subclades is concerned?

Thanks again!
TCR1AG

rms2
29-12-11, 19:45
read from post #4 of this thread, it caould be from the east germanic burgundians

I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question.

I am wondering on what study the Auvergne frequency of ~5% R1a is based. I am also wondering how that was extrapolated to the big ~5% shaded area in France.

What was the sample size? Seems to me we should know these things before we get too excited.

rms2
29-12-11, 19:55
I absolutely agree. Proto Celtic could have been spread by a small groups of R1a aristocrats warrior from Central Europe. I don't believe that the Proto Celts speakers were exclusively R1a but I'm pretty sure that R1a was a major haplogroup among tribes such as Boii, Cantabri, Astures, Arverns, Parisii and Halsttat Celts.
R1b could have been there well before the arrival of Celtic languages as the Basque R1b shows.

The trouble with all that is there is really nothing in the distribution of the ancient Celtic homelands relative to the modern distribution of R1a to justify it, except the assumption that R1a is somehow responsible for the origin of all Indo-European languages.

R1b clearly dominates in the old homelands of the Celts; further than that, R-P312 and its subclades dominate in the old homelands of the Celts. R1a is scarce. What there is of it can often be accounted for historically, e.g., Norwegian Vikings in Scotland, Slavs in central and southern Europe.

I am still wondering upon what kind of sample size from what study or studies we are basing our excitement over this French aberration (small as it is) of around 5% R1a.

Notice that R1a is so scarce in western Europe (the old stomping ground of the Celts) that a finding of around 5% in one rather de-populated area of France gets everyone in a tizzy of "Kurgan" ecstasy.

spongetaro
29-12-11, 20:02
R1b clearly dominates in the old homelands of the Celts; further than that, R-P312 and its subclades dominate in the old homelands of the Celts. R1a is scarce. What there is of it can often be accounted for historically, e.g., Norwegian Vikings in Scotland, Slavs in central and southern Europe.

The frequency of R1b P312 in Austria is quite problematic if we assume that R1b P312 spread from Central Europe to western Europe.


The high frequency of R1b P312 in former non IE area (Basque country, Aquitania, Iberia...) is quite problematic too



Notice that R1a is so scarce in western Europe (the old stomping ground of the Celts) that a finding of around 5% in one rather de-populated area of France gets everyone in a tizzy of "Kurgan" ecstasy.

There are distributions of R1a in western Europe (Northern Spain, île de France) that aren't explained by Germanic or Slavic migrations. A celtic origin is just a solution among other. Can we discuss it on this thread?

Taranis
29-12-11, 20:10
The trouble with all that is there is really nothing in the distribution of the ancient Celtic homelands relative to the modern distribution of R1a to justify it, except the assumption that R1a is somehow responsible for the origin of all Indo-European languages.

R1b clearly dominates in the old homelands of the Celts; further than that, R-P312 and its subclades dominate in the old homelands of the Celts. R1a is scarce. What there is of it can often be accounted for historically, e.g., Norwegian Vikings in Scotland, Slavs in central and southern Europe.

I am still wondering upon what kind of sample size from what study or studies we are basing our excitement over this French aberration (small as it is) of around 5% R1a.

Notice that R1a is so scarce in western Europe (the old stomping ground of the Celts) that a finding of around 5% in one rather de-populated area of France gets everyone in a tizzy of "Kurgan" ecstasy.

I think that the case for R1a being connected indeed with the Proto-Indo-Europeans is fairly solid. At least, I would say that the connection with Corded Ware and R1a is pretty obvious: it wasn't in Europe before the Corded Ware period. Which is why I want to ask: what alternative is there realistically to the Kurgan hypothesis? I don't see one, at least if you realize that PIE must have been a language of the Copper Age.

zanipolo
29-12-11, 22:48
The trouble with all that is there is really nothing in the distribution of the ancient Celtic homelands relative to the modern distribution of R1a to justify it, except the assumption that R1a is somehow responsible for the origin of all Indo-European languages.

R1b clearly dominates in the old homelands of the Celts; further than that, R-P312 and its subclades dominate in the old homelands of the Celts. R1a is scarce. What there is of it can often be accounted for historically, e.g., Norwegian Vikings in Scotland, Slavs in central and southern Europe.

I am still wondering upon what kind of sample size from what study or studies we are basing our excitement over this French aberration (small as it is) of around 5% R1a.

Notice that R1a is so scarce in western Europe (the old stomping ground of the Celts) that a finding of around 5% in one rather de-populated area of France gets everyone in a tizzy of "Kurgan" ecstasy.

what is the homeland of the celts?

do you mean piedmont and south swiss area for its R1b or its mix with the illyrians in noricum and its R1a?

rms2
30-12-11, 16:58
what is the homeland of the celts?

do you mean piedmont and south swiss area for its R1b or its mix with the illyrians in noricum and its R1a?

No, I don't have in mind those old 19th and early 20th century maps showing an oval blob in Central Europe with arrows sticking out of it marking the supposed "invasion" paths of the Iron Age Celts. Are there any archaeologists who still subscribe to such a thing? I doubt it.

What I had in mind when I mentioned the ancient homelands of the Celts was pretty much all of western Europe, from the Rhine-Danube region to the Pillars of Hercules and on to Ireland and northern Scotland.

The formation of the Celts as an ethno-linguistic group probably took a thousand years or more and was a complex process involving trade and the need to communicate over a wide area. The idea that it was imposed from above by some sort of predominantly R1a "elite" just doesn't make much sense, given the evidence.

rms2
30-12-11, 17:16
The frequency of R1b P312 in Austria is quite problematic if we assume that R1b P312 spread from Central Europe to western Europe.


The high frequency of R1b P312 in former non IE area (Basque country, Aquitania, Iberia...) is quite problematic too




There are distributions of R1a in western Europe (Northern Spain, île de France) that aren't explained by Germanic or Slavic migrations. A celtic origin is just a solution among other. Can we discuss it on this thread?

It is very likely the Basques, etc., were once predominantly G2a and have only become mostly R1b via admixture, as they have come to resemble their predominantly R1b neighbors. We see a similar phenomenon among the Ossetians, who speak an Iranian language and were probably once mostly R1a, but who are now mostly G2a like their Caucasian neighbors.

You can't really use the frequency of a y haplogroup in a given area to judge whether or not it came from there or was once very frequent there. One has to look at haplotype variance and the SNP trail. Judging strictly by frequency, one would expect all kinds of R1b to be showing up at Neolithic sites in western Europe, yet that is clearly not happening. The oldest R1b yet found in Europe dates to about 1,000 BC (Bronze Age).

The tiny percentages of R1a found in western Europe are mostly explicable by historic references. Why strain credulity by explaining them as "kurgan elites"?

The Romans, with their advanced civilization and advanced administrative, political, and military systems were unable to impose their language on all of their empire. The Germanic barbarians, the Vikings, and the Normans were even less able to impose their languages on the people they conquered. How likely then is an "elite dominance" model for the transmission of early Indo-European languages? Not very.

Ever notice how horse-riding steppe nomad incursions throughout history fizzle - linguistically, genetically and otherwise - at the Hungarian Plain?

Taranis
30-12-11, 17:25
No, I don't have in mind those old 19th and early 20th century maps showing an oval blob in Central Europe with arrows sticking out of it marking the supposed "invasion" paths of the Iron Age Celts. Are there any archaeologists who still subscribe to such a thing? I doubt it.

What I had in mind when I mentioned the ancient homelands of the Celts was pretty much all of western Europe, from the Rhine-Danube region to the Pillars of Hercules and on to Ireland and northern Scotland.

The Classical 19th/20th century of idea of the origin of the Celts in the cultures of Hallstatt and La-Tene comes from the correlation between archaeological culture of the Gauls and the Celtic languages. That these people of Hallstatt and La-Tene spoke a Celtic language is beyond doubt (it is a favourite question I often ask, if Hallstatt was not Celtic, what was it then? Germanic? Etruscan? Slavic? none of this makes any sense).

I think, a part of the "Celtic" problem is the detour that early 2000s genetics brought into the discussion. By saying that R1b was indigenous to Western Europe, and by saying that the large-scale genetic makeup of Western Europe was basically unchanged since the end of the last ice age except for a few minor additions, it was to argue that Indo-European languages had to spread without large-scale immigration, and that a spread from the culture of Hallstatt and La-Tene was without any basis.


The formation of the Celts as an ethno-linguistic group probably took a thousand years or more and was a complex process involving trade and the need to communicate over a wide area. The idea that it was imposed from above by some sort of predominantly R1a "elite" just doesn't make much sense, given the evidence.

If we however acknowledge that R1b is not native to Western Europe, which it clearly isn't, we must argue for some kind of large scale population replacement, either through invasion or immigration, in Western Europe, and that point the idea of an invasion is not that far-fetched. Also, there is enough archaeology to argue for discontinuities in Western Europe, especially when and how the Beaker-Bell Culture came to an end.

I mean, I know of the so-called "stelae people" hypothesis, but does it really make sense? Does it make sense for people from Crimea to migrate by sea all the way to western Portugal, without leaving much evidence, and then spreading the Proto-Celtic language from there across all of Western Europe? Does it really make sense to assume Proto-Celts or Proto-Indo-Europeans were in North Africa and Sardinia?

Taranis
30-12-11, 17:27
It is very likely the Basques, etc., were once predominantly G2a and have only become mostly R1b via admixture, as they have come to resemble their predominantly R1b neighbors. We see a similar phenomenon among the Ossetians, who speak an Iranian language and were probably once mostly R1a, but who are now mostly G2a like their Caucasian neighbors.

You can't really use the frequency of a y haplogroup in a given area to judge whether or not it came from there or was once very frequent there. One has to look at haplotype variance and the SNP trail. Judging strictly by frequency, one would expect all kinds of R1b to be showing up at Neolithic sites in western Europe, yet that is clearly not happening. The oldest R1b yet found in Europe dates to about 1,000 BC (Bronze Age).

The tiny percentages of R1a found in western Europe are mostly explicable by historic references. Why strain credulity by explaining them as "kurgan elites"?

The Romans, with their advanced civilization and advanced administrative, political, and military systems were unable to impose their language on all of their empire. The Germanic barbarians, the Vikings, and the Normans were even less able to impose their languages on the people they conquered. How likely then is an "elite dominance" model for the transmission of early Indo-European languages? Not very.

Ever notice how horse-riding steppe nomad incursions throughout history fizzle - linguistically, genetically and otherwise - at the Hungarian Plain?

I have two issues here: the Basques have almost no G2a, less than the average Iberians or average French. The second is that we know that R1a was in Europe since the Copper Age. What - other than a magic barrier of some kind at the Rhine - should have prevented people carrying it from moving to Western Europe within the past 4000 or so years?

rms2
30-12-11, 17:29
I think that the case for R1a being connected indeed with the Proto-Indo-Europeans is fairly solid. At least, I would say that the connection with Corded Ware and R1a is pretty obvious: it wasn't in Europe before the Corded Ware period. Which is why I want to ask: what alternative is there realistically to the Kurgan hypothesis? I don't see one, at least if you realize that PIE must have been a language of the Copper Age.

I think R1a has some connection to the eastern spread of Indo-European, but I think it is overly simplistic and premature to make it the y-dna source of all of PIE, especially in the West. There is too much we do not know yet and too much that simply does not make sense if Indo-European is attributed solely to R1a.

The prevalence of R1b in Armenia and eastern Anatolia, which Gamkrelidze and Ivanov argue is the Urheimat of Indo-European (whether or not one agrees with them), and the new Case for Euphratic (http://www.science.org.ge/2-3/Gordon Whitteker.pdf) are factors that should be considered.

It is very possible that the R1a steppe population was Indo-Europeanized under R1b influence and not the other way around.

Aside from all that, I think it highly unlikely that any of the R1a showing up on Maciamo's map in France is Bronze Age Celtic. I just don't see why it should be when it could easily be a combination of Germans, Slavs, White Russian emigres, Jews, etc.

rms2
30-12-11, 17:36
I have two issues here: the Basques have almost no G2a, less than the average Iberians or average French. The second is that we know that R1a was in Europe since the Copper Age. What - other than a magic barrier of some kind at the Rhine - should have prevented people carrying it from moving to Western Europe within the past 4000 or so years?

No magic barriers, but perhaps there were human barriers. R1a has had lots of time since the Copper Age to move into western Europe in a big way, yet it never managed it.

As for the Basques, I think they have their R1b predominance by becoming genetically admixed. I think it likely they were once mostly G2a, but perhaps they were once mostly I2 of some kind. Either way, they are a small minority and should not be regarded as the measure of western European R1b, which is overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking.

We aren't still laboring under the illusion that the Basques are Paleolithic survivors, are we?

razor
30-12-11, 17:47
It is very possible that the R1a steppe population was Indo-Europeanized under R1b influence and not the other way around.



I'd be curious to know how you explain this archaeologically. The theory that Maikop victoriously spread to the steppes just doesn't wash. So what's your version?

Taranis
30-12-11, 17:51
I think R1a has some connection to the eastern spread of Indo-European, but I think it is overly simplistic and premature to make it the y-dna source of all of PIE, especially in the West. There is too much we do not know yet and too much that simply does not make sense if Indo-European is attributed solely to R1a.

The prevalence of R1b in Armenia and eastern Anatolia, which Gamkrelidze and Ivanov argue is the Urheimat of Indo-European (whether or not one agrees with them), and the new Case for Euphratic (http://www.science.org.ge/2-3/Gordon Whitteker.pdf) are factors that should be considered.

It is very possible that the R1a steppe population was Indo-Europeanized under R1b influence and not the other way around.

Aside from all that, I think it highly unlikely that any of the R1a showing up on Maciamo's map in France is Bronze Age Celtic. I just don't see why it should be when it could easily be a combination of Germans, Slavs, White Russian emigres, Jews, etc.

The problem is this: the eastern/western distinction that you see in Indo-European doesn't really exist in that way, especially if you consider language families like Germanic, Greek and Tocharian which all criss-cross the "eastern/western" distinction. My opinion is that any origin of the Indo-European languages in Anatolia requires that Proto-Indo-European is not a language of the Chalcolithic but of the Neolithic, which is a quite futile thing to argue in my opinion if you consider that there are common words for metals and metal-working in PIE.

EDIT: I would be also *highly* sceptical of the paper, because there no evidence for sound correspondence in the purported loans given in the paper.


No magic barriers, but perhaps there were human barriers. R1a has had lots of time since the Copper Age to move into western Europe in a big way, yet it never managed it.

As for the Basques, I think they have their R1b predominance by becoming genetically admixed. I think it likely they were once mostly G2a, but perhaps they were once mostly I2 of some kind. Either way, they are a small minority and should not be regarded as the measure of western European R1b, which is overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking.

We aren't still laboring under the illusion that the Basques are Paleolithic survivors, are we?

Basque is clearly not a Paleolithic language, no, but this is exactly my point. The "native" (non-IE loanwords) vocabulary is that of a language of the Copper Age, which includes agricultural terms, words for domesticated animals and most importantly also metals and metal-working. The only archaeological culture that matches such a "package" is the Beaker-Bell Culture. If you say that Beaker-Bell was already Indo-European, you have a huge problem explaining where the Basques go their metal terms from.

Note that I am not necessarily saying that Basque was the language of Beaker-Bell (there is also the Iberians to be considered), but I think that a strong case can be made that Beaker-Bell was a non-Indo-European culture.

EDIT: What should be also added is, as the late vascologist R.L. Trask pointed out, that the number of Celtic loanwords into Basque is extremely few. It is not what we would expect if the Basques were surrounded for thousands of years by Celts or Indo-Europeans.

Diviacus
30-12-11, 18:05
...but I think that a strong case can be made that Beaker-Bell was a non-Indo-European culture.
However, some renowned historians think it was an Indo-European culture !

Taranis
30-12-11, 18:10
However, some renowned historians think it was an Indo-European culture !

Then, how do you explain Basque terms for metal-working and metals?

Diviacus
30-12-11, 18:15
Then, how do you explain Basque terms for metal-working and metals?
I will not answer for them, but why would not these terms been borrowed from their neighbours ?

spongetaro
30-12-11, 18:32
The prevalence of R1b in Armenia and eastern Anatolia

Which subclades of R1b prevail in Armenia? Because Near eastern countries like Jordan or Syria have a lots of R1b too. Pharaon Tut was also R1b. However I'm not sure that those West and south west asian R1b are linked to Proto IE people.

spongetaro
30-12-11, 18:43
The problem is this: the eastern/western distinction that you see in Indo-European doesn't really exist

The association of R1b with proto Celtic speakers only relies on the assumption that this so called "eastern/western" distinction among IE languages matches the R1b/R1a distribution.

Archeology and the Kurgan hypotesis doesn't make such a distinction between two "ethnic" entities within the Kurgan as Maciamo does (South Yamna R1b vs North Yamna R1a).

razor
30-12-11, 18:59
Archeology and the Kurgan hypotesis doesn't make such a distinction between two "ethnic" entities within the Kurgan as Maciamo does (South Yamna R1b vs North Yamna R1a).

Exactly. There is nothing in the archaeology of the steppes which would justify such a neat division. One may, of course, argue that both R1a and R1b (and other haplogroups) were present in the mother cultures of Yamna (if the history of R1b as reconstructed would allow it). Otherwise, one may examine the Jean Manco theory (viz., that R1b was a later addition to the expanding IE hosts, at first minor, then more successful once they reached Central Europe). Other theories seem less plausible at the moment.

Taranis
30-12-11, 20:25
I will not answer for them, but why would not these terms been borrowed from their neighbours ?

Well, from which neighbours? I will give you a list of the words below:

hammer - gabi
forge - sutegi
lead - beruna
smith - (h)arotz
blacksmith - olagizon
iron - burdina

These words today are unique to Basque and have no cognates in Indo-European languages. Had the Beaker-Bell people been Indo-Europeans and spread metal-working across Western Europe, why and how would the Basques have native terms? We would expect them to have borrowed Indo-European loanwords for metalworking, as for instance, the Finnic languages did.


The association of R1b with proto Celtic speakers only relies on the assumption that this so called "eastern/western" distinction among IE languages matches the R1b/R1a distribution.

Archeology and the Kurgan hypotesis doesn't make such a distinction between two "ethnic" entities within the Kurgan as Maciamo does (South Yamna R1b vs North Yamna R1a).

Well, to pick up my examples:

- The Germanic peoples today clearly have substantial amounts of R1a, and this is to be expected if we assume that the Battle Axe Culture is an offshot of Corded Ware Culture, which is known from graves (Eulau) to have been carriers of R1a. From the linguistic perspective, the Germanic languages have an ancient connection with Balto-Slavic (predating the Centum/Satem split), but became Centumized later on.

- The Tocharians are known to be R1a. You might argue that they are R1b-M73 instead (going from the present-day Uighurs, which are known to have conquered and absorbed the Tocharians when they invaded the Tarim basin), but if you consider the tree of R1b then this is far too early and far too ancient to be seriously considered. My opinion is that R1b-M73 is more likely to be Turkic, and not Indo-European. From the linguistic perspective, you must either argue that Tocharian is one of the most ancient (after Anatolian) branches to diverge, or, which is the alternative that has also some backup, assume that Tocharian was close with Proto-Italo-Celtic.

- With the Greeks, it's a bit dicy, but in my opinion the ancient Greeks were absolutely carriers of R1a (at least, in part), especially when you take a look at southern Italy and Libya, both areas which were colonized by the Greeks in Antiquity.

All three examples clearly "violate" the R1a/R1b distinction. And if we look at things, it makes sense that only R1b-L11 (in Western Europe) really got part of the Indo-European "host".

spongetaro
31-12-11, 00:07
Well, from which neighbours? I will give you a list of the words below:

hammer - gabi
forge - sutegi
lead - beruna
smith - (h)arotz
blacksmith - olagizon
iron - burdina

These words today are unique to Basque and have no cognates in Indo-European languages. Had the Beaker-Bell people been Indo-Europeans and spread metal-working across Western Europe, why and how would the Basques have native terms? We would expect them to have borrowed Indo-European loanwords for metalworking, as for instance, the Finnic languages did.



Well, to pick up my examples:

- The Germanic peoples today clearly have substantial amounts of R1a, and this is to be expected if we assume that the Battle Axe Culture is an offshot of Corded Ware Culture, which is known from graves (Eulau) to have been carriers of R1a. From the linguistic perspective, the Germanic languages have an ancient connection with Balto-Slavic (predating the Centum/Satem split), but became Centumized later on.

- The Tocharians are known to be R1a. You might argue that they are R1b-M73 instead (going from the present-day Uighurs, which are known to have conquered and absorbed the Tocharians when they invaded the Tarim basin), but if you consider the tree of R1b then this is far too early and far too ancient to be seriously considered. My opinion is that R1b-M73 is more likely to be Turkic, and not Indo-European. From the linguistic perspective, you must either argue that Tocharian is one of the most ancient (after Anatolian) branches to diverge, or, which is the alternative that has also some backup, assume that Tocharian was close with Proto-Italo-Celtic.

- With the Greeks, it's a bit dicy, but in my opinion the ancient Greeks were absolutely carriers of R1a (at least, in part), especially when you take a look at southern Italy and Libya, both areas which were colonized by the Greeks in Antiquity.

All three examples clearly "violate" the R1a/R1b distinction. And if we look at things, it makes sense that only R1b-L11 (in Western Europe) really got part of the Indo-European "host".

Thank you. R1b-M173 may indeed be of Turkic origin. Also, what's your opinion about R1b L23? I don't think that it is linked with the Proto IE people.

rms2
31-12-11, 00:48
I'd be curious to know how you explain this archaeologically. The theory that Maikop victoriously spread to the steppes just doesn't wash. So what's your version?

I'm not going to try to argue with ten guys at once. Please use the Kurgan Theory to explain how R1a managed to spread Indo-European to the Atlantic coast. How does that "wash"? Not well.

I don't have all the answers, but, funny thing, neither do you.

spongetaro
31-12-11, 00:57
The tiny percentages of R1a found in western Europe are mostly explicable by historic references. Why strain credulity by explaining them as "kurgan elites"?

Well, Iranian people speak an Iranic language and only have 15% of R1a. Turkish people (from Turkey) don't have a majority of "Turkic" haplogroup too. The Greeks have low R1b and R1a frequencies.You gave the example of the Ossetians.

As you see, you don't need to have a massive influx of haplogroup to impose a language

spongetaro
31-12-11, 01:05
I'm not going to try to argue with ten guys at once. Please use the Kurgan Theory to explain how R1a managed to spread Indo-European to the Atlantic coast. How does that "wash"? Not well.


R1a spread Iranic to Southern Iran. There are only 15% of R1a in Iran. Half of it could be attributed to Turkish invasions.
The Persian genetic legacy might no exceed 10% of the Iran population.

Same for Turkey. only 16% of R1b and 7,5% of R1a (including Turkic R1b and R1a) yet Anatolia was fully Indo European speaking until the Turkic invasion.

the 8,5% of R1a in Northern Spain might be alone responsible for the spread of Celtic in Central Spain.

rms2
31-12-11, 01:13
The problem is this: the eastern/western distinction that you see in Indo-European doesn't really exist in that way, especially if you consider language families like Germanic, Greek and Tocharian which all criss-cross the "eastern/western" distinction. My opinion is that any origin of the Indo-European languages in Anatolia requires that Proto-Indo-European is not a language of the Chalcolithic but of the Neolithic, which is a quite futile thing to argue in my opinion if you consider that there are common words for metals and metal-working in PIE.

The centum/satem division does in fact exist, and unless you are prepared to come forth and announce what it is that makes you an expert and gives you the power to abrogate it, it is what it is.

Besides that, there is the mere geographical fact that Indo-European languages are overwhelmingly spoken in the West, where R1a is scarce.

I don't have all the answers. I am amazed when I run into so many folks who think they do.

The early Anatolian IE languages are especially archaic, as Anthony indicates in his book. If Euphratic in fact exists, that pushes Indo-European in that region still farther back in time.



EDIT: I would be also *highly* sceptical of the paper, because there no evidence for sound correspondence in the purported loans given in the paper.

Great. Hmmm. You are a guy who posts at Eupedia's Y-DNA forum. Gordon Whittaker is a linguist and professor at the University of Göttingen.

Your skepticism of Whittaker's work is duly noted.




Basque is clearly not a Paleolithic language, no, but this is exactly my point. The "native" (non-IE loanwords) vocabulary is that of a language of the Copper Age, which includes agricultural terms, words for domesticated animals and most importantly also metals and metal-working. The only archaeological culture that matches such a "package" is the Beaker-Bell Culture. If you say that Beaker-Bell was already Indo-European, you have a huge problem explaining where the Basques go their metal terms from.

Note that I am not necessarily saying that Basque was the language of Beaker-Bell (there is also the Iberians to be considered), but I think that a strong case can be made that Beaker-Bell was a non-Indo-European culture.

EDIT: What should be also added is, as the late vascologist R.L. Trask pointed out, that the number of Celtic loanwords into Basque is extremely few. It is not what we would expect if the Basques were surrounded for thousands of years by Celts or Indo-Europeans.

But the Basques clearly have been surrounded for millennia by Celts and other Indo-Europeans! That much is obvious. Are you attempting to deny that?

If Basque marital tradition was matrilocal, which I believe it was, then you have the perfect scenario for the introduction of outsider y-dna and the retention of the maternal language, since, in a matrilocal society, the groom goes to live with the bride's family. The male children would carry their father's y-dna but would speak their mother's language.

A similar scenario must surely explain how the Ossetians have become predominantly G2a over the centuries.

I think it likely the Beaker Folk spoke an early form of Celtic. How that happened exactly I cannot explain, but I don't feel the need for complete and tidy explanations of all facets of a phenomenon.

The Kurgan Theory has plenty of problems. All other explanations of the spread of Indo-European have their problems, too.

But I definitely do not accept the "R1a is ultimately responsible for all Indo-European languages" idea. It just doesn't make sense to me.

rms2
31-12-11, 01:20
R1a spread Iranic to Southern Iran. There are only 15% of R1a in Iran. Half of it could be attributed to Turkish invasions.
The Persian genetic legacy might no exceed 10% of the Iran population.

Same for Turkey. only 16% of R1b and 7,5% of R1a (including Turkic R1b and R1a) yet Anatolia was fully Indo European speaking until the Turkic invasion.

the 8,5% of R1a in Northern Spain might be alone responsible for the spread of Celtic in Central Spain.

What 8.5% R1a in northern Spain? Where are you getting such a figure?

Armenia's largest y haplogroup is R1b, and R1b is more frequent in Anatolia than is R1a.

Besides that, your arguments can be distilled down to this: if there is even the slightest hint of R1a anywhere, it is responsible for whatever version or versions of Indo-European are spoken in that region. You produce no real evidence, you simply assert that as the case.

Who can argue with that? Who needs to?

spongetaro
31-12-11, 01:27
What 8.5% R1a in northern Spain? Where are you getting such a figure?

Armenia's largest y haplogroup is R1b, and R1b is more frequent in Anatolia than is R1a.

Besides that, your arguments can be distilled down to this: if there is even the slightest hint of R1a anywhere, it is responsible for whatever version or versions of Indo-European are spoken in that region. You produce no real evidence, you simply assert that as the case.

Who can argue with that? Who needs to?

That was Cantabria! Sorry I should have precised.
Turkey have only 16% of R1b. A big part of it must be of the R1b-M173 and R1b L23 subclades whose the association with IE is doubtful

spongetaro
31-12-11, 01:30
You produce no real evidence, you simply assert that as the case.

Who can argue with that? Who needs to?

LOL you're an amateur just like me and everyone in this forum. No one has "evidences" until we have ancient Y dna from Proto Celtic people.

BTW the Urnfield ancient DNA from Germany showed more R1a than R1b.


I just tried to show that little amount of R1a can be responsible for the spread of an IE language.

rms2
31-12-11, 01:39
The Classical 19th/20th century of idea of the origin of the Celts in the cultures of Hallstatt and La-Tene comes from the correlation between archaeological culture of the Gauls and the Celtic languages. That these people of Hallstatt and La-Tene spoke a Celtic language is beyond doubt (it is a favourite question I often ask, if Hallstatt was not Celtic, what was it then? Germanic? Etruscan? Slavic? none of this makes any sense).

I was not attempting to deny that Hallstatt and La Tene were Celtic, just the notion that their people were necessarily the original Celts and spread Celtic languages by means of Iron Age invasions from a Central European Celtic Urheimat.



I think, a part of the "Celtic" problem is the detour that early 2000s genetics brought into the discussion. By saying that R1b was indigenous to Western Europe, and by saying that the large-scale genetic makeup of Western Europe was basically unchanged since the end of the last ice age except for a few minor additions, it was to argue that Indo-European languages had to spread without large-scale immigration, and that a spread from the culture of Hallstatt and La-Tene was without any basis.

Hallstatt and La Tene are too late, it seems to me, to explain the spread of the Celtic languages. So, I do think there is no basis to see them as the ultimate source of the Celtic languages.

There is no evidence of large-scale Hallstatt or La Tene invasions.



If we however acknowledge that R1b is not native to Western Europe, which it clearly isn't, we must argue for some kind of large scale population replacement, either through invasion or immigration, in Western Europe, and that point the idea of an invasion is not that far-fetched. Also, there is enough archaeology to argue for discontinuities in Western Europe, especially when and how the Beaker-Bell Culture came to an end.

I agree, but that is much earlier than Hallstatt and La Tene.



I mean, I know of the so-called "stelae people" hypothesis, but does it really make sense? Does it make sense for people from Crimea to migrate by sea all the way to western Portugal, without leaving much evidence, and then spreading the Proto-Celtic language from there across all of Western Europe? Does it really make sense to assume Proto-Celts or Proto-Indo-Europeans were in North Africa and Sardinia?

Why not? I don't know. It makes as much or sense as the idea that Indo-European was spread all the way to the Atlantic coast by R1a from the Pontic-Caspian steppes.

rms2
31-12-11, 01:53
LOL you're an amateur just like me and everyone in this forum. No one has "evidences" until we have ancient Y dna from Proto Celtic people.

BTW the Urnfield ancient DNA from Germany showed more R1a than R1b.


I just tried to show that little amount of R1a can be responsible for the spread of an IE language.

I'll readily admit I'm an amateur. Glad you will, too.

I don't think the small amount of R1a in western Europe is responsible for the Indo-European languages there. I don't see a reasonable argument that it could be. Much more sophisticated groups in much larger numbers have failed to transmit their languages over much smaller areas. Didn't happen.

BTW, if by "Urnfield" you are talking about the very un-Urnfield Lichtenstein Cave remains, there were two supposed R1a found there, a father and son, as well as one R1b. I say "supposed R1a" because, as far as I can tell from reading that report, which is in German, the scientists did not actually SNP test the remains, nor did they identify them as R1a. They simply identified them by haplotype and by their own numbering system that signified which set of remains was which. Hobbyists like you and me declared those two to be R1a based on their haplotype. Here is something I posted about them elsewhere, back in June:



Regarding the two "R1a" individuals, M10 and M11, who were apparently father and son, as far as I can tell, they were not SNP tested (evidently no one was). The idea that they were R1a is a guess based on a 12-marker haplotype. The haplotypes of the 19 males from whom y-dna was obtainable are shown on page 93. The shared haplotype of M10 and M11 is "Y5" on that chart. It seems to me the notion that they were R1a hangs on a slender thread, i.e., that they have 19=15, 439=11, and 390=25. Someone tell me if I am missing something, but those two could just as easily be R1b, because there are plenty of R1b men who have those marker values. I don't see anything startlingly R1a about their haplotype.

Of course, I could be wrong. My German is pretty rusty. Maybe they tested them for M17, but I didn't see it in the report if they did.

Taranis
31-12-11, 01:56
The centum/satem division does in fact exist, and unless you are prepared to come forth and announce what it is that makes you an expert and gives you the power to abrogate it, it is what it is.

Besides that, there is the mere geographical fact that Indo-European languages are overwhelmingly spoken in the West, where R1a is scarce.

I do not deny that the Centum/Satem division exists, because it clearly does. But it is not the whole story. What I have been trying to say is that the Centum/Satem divisions are later innovations and that many common features in the branches of Indo-European do not obey to the Centum/Satem split. On top of that, the R1a/R1b division (or, well, I should perhaps more appropriately say, "R1a" v.s "no R1a", because that is much closer to reality) does not correlate as well with the Centum/Satem split as you might think it would.


I don't have all the answers. I am amazed when I run into so many folks who think they do.

Honestly, I really do not claim to have all the answers, but I have definitely observed a lot of other evidence (some which I have presented here) which paints the picture that you seem to have as extremely problematic.


The early Anatolian IE languages are especially archaic, as Anthony indicates in his book. If Euphratic in fact exists, that pushes Indo-European in that region still farther back in time.

They are archaic, yes, and they also have many innovations found nowhere else at the same time. This is certainly an argument that speaks for the Anatolian languages to be the first branch of IE to have diverged. However, even if we assume that Anatolian, diverged earlier, then we still must that the other branches of IE (which includes Celtic and the other western IE languages like Italic, Germanic and Greek) diverged from a common language at a later point.


Great. Hmmm. You are a guy who posts at Eupedia's Y-DNA forum. Gordon Whittaker is a linguist and professor at the University of Göttingen.

Your skepticism of Whittaker's work is duly noted.

No offense to you, but I find such a statement mildly insulting. The "call to academic authority" is quite flawed in my opinion. As a matter of fact, aquisition of an academic grade does not make people immune from commiting blunders. The world would be a better place if that was the case. My opinion is that authority in such discussions does not come from the academic grade, but from the arguments themselves. I see the linguistic methodology lacking in Whittaker's work (mind you, sound correspondence is part of the linguist's tools-of-trade since the 19th century), and thus I see it's argumentative authority quite diminished.


But the Basques clearly have been surrounded for millennia by Celts and other Indo-Europeans! That much is obvious. Are you attempting to deny that?

Well, I definitely think it is worth to ask the question: have they really been surrounded for that long? Note that I do not have an answer here, but I definitely think that the relative scarcity of Celtic loanwords in Basque is outstanding. But it's clear that towards their southeast, the Basques were adjoined in Antiquity by the Iberians, another non-Indo-European people which inhabited a large stretch of Iberia, from the Roussillon to central-eastern Andalusia.

Note that the exact relationship of Basque and Iberian is unclear (the two languages may not have been part of the same language family, but it seems likely that there at least was some kind of a sprachbund between the two languages), but if we look today into the former areas of the Iberians, we also find large amounts of R1b.


If Basque marital tradition was matrilocal, which I believe it was, then you have the perfect scenario for the introduction of outsider y-dna and the retention of the maternal language, since, in a matrilocal society, the groom goes to live with the bride's family. The male children would carry their father's y-dna but would speak their mother's language.

I do not deny that early Basque marital tradition may have been matrilineal, but that does not explain how the Basques end up with non-Indo-European words for metal-working.


A similar scenario must surely explain how the Ossetians have become predominantly G2a over the centuries.

The Ossetian language, it should be noted, is the sole survivor of the Scythian/Sarmatian languages.


I think it likely the Beaker Folk spoke an early form of Celtic. How that happened exactly I cannot explained, but I don't feel the need for complete and tidy explanations of all facets of a phenomenon.

Sorry, I think that the fact that the Basque language, which is clearly an isolate language today, has "native" words for metals and metal-working which are clearly not borrowed from the Celtic languages is not just a tiny detail, this is in my opinion a very large obstacle.


The Kurgan Theory has plenty of problems. All other explanations of the spread of Indo-European have their problems, too.

Well, if we look at the core vocabulary of PIE, we do find common terms for agriculture, for domesticated animals (notably the horse!), for metal-working, and for warfare. This, in my opinion, narrows the context in which the language must have been spoken down quite a bit.


But I definitely do not except the "R1a is ultimately responsible for all Indo-European languages" idea. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I did not say this, but I think nonetheless that a strong case can be made that the original Proto-Indo-Europeans were indeed majorly carriers of R1a, and not R1b.

rms2
31-12-11, 02:15
I did not mean to be insulting, but you seem to claim the ability to sweep Whittaker's work aside with a simple assertion that I am not really qualified to judge. Like I said, your skepticism is duly noted.

Regarding the last line of your post above, we disagree. I don't think the case for that is strong at all.

rms2
31-12-11, 02:21
I am still left wondering where the ~5% R1a that justifies the shaded blob in France on Maciamo's map comes from. I know he said it was from a sample from Auvergne, but from what study? What was the sample size? For example, if it was 20, that would mean one man was R1a. If it was 100, 5 of them were. Could be much ado about nothing.

razor
31-12-11, 02:29
I did not mean to be insulting, but you seem to claim the ability to sweep Whittaker's work aside with a simple assertion that I am not really qualified to judge. Like I said, your skepticism is duly noted.

Regarding the last line of your post above, we disagree. I don't think the case for that is strong at all.

I think the Pontic-Caspian theory of IE origins is getting stronger all the time, in all areas (esp. linguistic and archaeological). The marginal dissenters are just that. The exact % of the original IE haplogroups is just a guess, and predominance of R1a would currently be the best probable solution (in terms of Ockham's razor). But only ancient DNA can make this probability a certitude. And the amended post-Gimbutas "kurgan theory" is perfectly comfortable with the notion that other haplogroups drawn into the IE vortex would have continued the expansion west of the Rhine and elsewhere.

spongetaro
31-12-11, 02:29
I am still left wondering where the ~5% R1a that justifies the shaded blob in France on Maciamo's map comes from. I know he said it was from a sample from Auvergne, but from what study? What was the sample size? For example, if it was 20, that would mean one man was R1a. If it was 100, 5 of them were. Could be much ado about nothing.


French legislation doesn't enable the development of DNA testing. So I agree that we can't really draw conclusions on France until we have a sufficient sample size.

rms2
31-12-11, 02:40
I think the Pontic-Caspian theory of IE origins is getting stronger all the time, in all areas (esp. linguistic and archaeological). The marginal dissenters are just that. The exact % of the original IE haplogroups is just a guess, and predominance of R1a would currently be the best probable solution (in terms of Ockham's razor). But only ancient DNA can make this probability a certitude. And the amended post-Gimbutas "kurgan theory" is perfectly comfortable with the notion that other haplogroups drawn into the IE vortex would have continued the expansion west of the Rhine and elsewhere.

Obviously, we disagree, if by "the Pontic-Caspian theory of IE origins" you mean to equate the spread of IE with y haplogroup R1a.

"Ockham's Razor" would not certainly not attribute the spread of IE languages in the West to y haplogroup R1a. It requires a lot of special pleading and dulling of the razor to accomplish that trick.

rms2
31-12-11, 02:45
French legislation doesn't enable the developpment of DNA testing. So I agree that we can't really draw conclusions on France until we have a sufficient sample size.

Yes, it would be nice if Maciamo reappeared on this thread to tell us how he got that figure for his map.

razor
31-12-11, 04:13
re
Obviously, we disagree, if by "the Pontic-Caspian theory of IE origins" you mean to equate the spread of IE with y haplogroup R1a.

"Ockham's Razor" would not certainly not attribute the spread of IE languages in the West to y haplogroup R1a. It requires a lot of special pleading and dulling of the razor to accomplish that trick.
I don't know who you are responding to here, but it obviously isn't me, since I do not assert any exclusive role to the haplogroup you seem to have an issue with.

rms2
31-12-11, 15:51
re
I don't know who you are responding to here, but it obviously isn't me, since I do not assert any exclusive role to the haplogroup you seem to have an issue with.

I didn't use the word "exclusive" with regard to your previous post. I was obviously responding to you (and you know it or you wouldn't have quoted my post), but it doesn't matter.

I don't have an "issue" with any haplogroup, that would be ridiculous. What I have an issue with is the idea of the "predominance of R1a" among the original Indo-Europeans, whoever they were, if such a people can even be said to have existed.

Look at this thread. You have people here so enamored with that very simplistic notion that they are attributing the spread of the Celtic languages to R1a based on a supposed frequency of ~5% R1a in an unknown sample from Auvergne, France.

Taranis
31-12-11, 16:03
Look at this thread. You have people here so enamored with that very simplistic notion that they are attributing the spread of the Celtic languages to a supposed frequency of ~5% R1a in an unknown sample from Auvergne, France.

rms2 please, there's really no reason to get polemic.

What I would like to know from you, although I confess that it is somewhat offtopic, is your opinion on the Iberians (that is, the ancient non-Indo-European people of eastern Iberia).

I would like to add here that I will get back to a more formal, more elaborate reply regarding Whittaker's work.

rms2
31-12-11, 16:45
What is especially "polemic" about what I posted, in contrast, say, with what you have posted on the same subject?

I am not certain what you mean by my opinion on the Iberians, but I suppose you are asking what y haplogroup I think was predominant among them. In answer to that, I would say that I do not know. It might have been R1b; it might have been E1b1b; it might have been G2a; it might have been I2 of some kind. I do not know.

How do you feel about the prevalence of R1a among some non-Indo-European speaking peoples?

Let's assume for a moment that Bronze Age steppe people were mostly R1a and spoke some kind of early Indo-European dialects. How did they, unsophisticated as they were, spread Indo-European language and culture all the way to the Atlantic, to the furthest shores of Ireland and Portugal? Other far more sophisticated and powerful peoples have failed to transmit their languages over much smaller areas. How did these Bronze Age R1as accomplish such a monumental task without actually moving west en masse themselves?

The Basque/Iberian thing is always the resort of R1a=Indo-European partisans. But think for a minute. Which is more likely, that the Basques have become more like their neighbors in terms of y-dna via admixture, or that the entire population of western Europe shifted its language and culture from Basque-like non-Indo-European to Indo-European? Which change is the more profound, the more startling, the more difficult to accomplish: the shift in y-dna of a small minority, or the shift in language and culture of a very much larger population over a very large geographic expanse?

I think western Europe got its Indo-European language and culture from tribes who were predominantly R1b. Eastern Europe and India are a different story. There the carriers were predominantly R1a, which, by the way, is closely related to R1b. I am not sure who the original Indo-Europeans were. I am not sure it is even correct to speak in such terms, since Indo-European probably evolved via a series of complex interactions of peoples and was not a static thing.

No offense, Taranis, but what qualifies you to launch a formal, elaborate reply to Whittaker's The Case for Euphratic? Can you read Sumerian cuneiform like Whittaker and do the work he did? And what qualifies any of us here to properly assess the refutation you obviously intend to make? You did something similar with Koch's preliminary publication of his idea that Celtic evolved first within the Bronze Age Atlantic Trading Network. Koch's work, like Whittaker's, didn't fit the R1a kurgan template, so you attacked it. Yet Koch is perhaps the world's premier Celticist. Whittaker, likewise, is a linguist whose The Case for Euphratic is presented by no less an authority than Thomas Gamkrelidze.

I understand that this is not religious dogma and that the word of authorities is subject to counter argument even by the lowly denizens of forums like this one. But most of us here are unqualified to criticize Whittaker's work or Koch's work or Gamkrelidze's work or to properly assess such criticisms leveled by others.

So, honestly, you can spare me your criticism of Whittaker's work, unless you are secretly really James Patrick Mallory. What you said about it before was sufficient. Your skepticism, based on your unwavering adherence to the Kurgan Theory, has been duly noted.

MOESAN
31-12-11, 16:50
You are talking about less than 20 km , these maps are not entirely accurate., so, HOW YES AND NO was correct in his statement ,in my opinion.

The other only explanation and its less accurate is the visigoth period, which is basically on the extreme border of Gallic lands of where they settled.


sure you know but we have to stress it: the french samples are not so well sampled concerning origin, and for Auvergne the sample is very too poor for extrapolating to much - wait and see...
and as says one of us, Auvergne (what Auvergnats: the industrial Clermont-Ferrand citizens?) is not to far from the ancient Burgundy territory - and FOREZ (between Clermont-Ferrand and Lyon approximatively) received a lot of Burgunds even if little fewer thantLyon and Savoie or S-Burgundy and S-Franche-Comté so ...) this region show more blonds than true Auvergne, as do Lyonnais and Savoie - the Lyonnais & Rhône-Alpes region of France show also some Y-I1, I do'nt know for Y-R-U106...

Taranis
31-12-11, 18:09
No offense, Taranis, but what qualifies you to launch a formal, elaborate reply to Whittaker's The Case for Euphratic? Can you read Sumerian cuneiform like Whittaker and do the work he did? And what qualifies any of us here to properly assess the refutation you obviously intend to make? You did something similar with Koch's preliminary publication of his idea that Celtic evolved first within the Bronze Age Atlantic Trading Network. Koch's work, like Whittaker's, didn't fit the R1a kurgan template, so you attacked it. Yet Koch is perhaps the world's premier Celticist. Whittaker, likewise, is a linguist whose The Case for Euphratic is presented by no less an authority than Thomas Gamkrelidze.

I understand that this is not religious dogma and that the word of authorities is subject to counter argument even by the lowly denizens of forums like this one. But most of us here are unqualified to criticize Whittaker's work or Koch's work or Gamkrelidze's work or to properly assess such criticisms leveled by others.

So, honestly, you can spare me your criticism of Whittaker's work, unless you are secretly really James Patrick Mallory. What you said about it before was sufficient. Your skepticism, based on your unwavering adherence to the Kurgan Theory, has been duly noted.

Honestly, you really misunderstand the point I am making. I get where you're coming from, and I understand your point, but I don't think that you really fully understand what I was trying to say. This is not about the Kurgan hypothesis, this also not about me bashing Whittaker or Koch (by the way, Koch explicitly said in his paper that his reinterpretation of the origin of the Celtic languages does not conflict with the Kurgan hypothesis), but the basic criticism that I have, and I have that criticism without any reservations, is that any new hypothesis should be subject to absolute scrutiny and a diligent methodology.
I do not mind new an innovative hypotheses at all, please do not get me wrong there. Science would not get ahead if nobody was posting new radical new ideas. But, if they do not follow their methods with absolute diligence, I want to know why.
Do not get me wrong: I do not criticize the persons in question, I do not criticize the knowledge they have accumulated (which, on certain specific fields in question, no doubt is greater than mine) nor their ideas, but I do criticize their methodology. No matter what field of science you are in, the benchmark of scrutiny and diligence should be the same. Linguistics is a field of science. Why should a lesser standard apply for linguistics than for other fields of science?

razor
31-12-11, 18:45
R1a is one thing and the Indo-European urheimat is another. I do think that a good case can be made for the predominance of R1a among the PIEuropeans of the Pontic-Caspian. But if it turns out that this was incorrect it will make no difference to the urheimat theory at all.
Since you wish to confuse the two I guess you're more interested in talking to yourself. Carry on. I like my mainstream authorities better than your marginals.

zanipolo
01-01-12, 10:23
R1a is one thing and the Indo-European urheimat is another. I do think that a good case can be made for the predominance of R1a among the PIEuropeans of the Pontic-Caspian. But if it turns out that this was incorrect it will make no difference to the urheimat theory at all.
Since you wish to confuse the two I guess you're more interested in talking to yourself. Carry on. I like my mainstream authorities better than your marginals.

as per link which says this southern swedish lands was originally gothic ( german ).
Would it mean that the Goths where originally an east-germanic tribe , with R1a that first moved into southern sweden and then later moving to modern polish lands, then black sea area etc etc etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Götaland

where they called something else before

could they be original Pomeranian culture?

Taranis
01-01-12, 14:34
I am not certain what you mean by my opinion on the Iberians, but I suppose you are asking what y haplogroup I think was predominant among them. In answer to that, I would say that I do not know. It might have been R1b; it might have been E1b1b; it might have been G2a; it might have been I2 of some kind. I do not know.

I also seem to have the impression that you do not want to know because you have your pre-fabricated opinion that R1b must be Indo-European.


How do you feel about the prevalence of R1a among some non-Indo-European speaking peoples?

Well, first off I would only associated R1a1a with the Indo-Europeans, and in many cases that I can think of, it's prevalence elsewhere can be explained by historic processes (Arabization of Libya - which was partially Greek previously, Turkification of Anatolia and Central Asia, etc.). But this really isn't my point. The point is that we have the evidence from ancient DNA that a mass immigration of R1a-bearing people occured into Central/Eastern Europe with the Corded Ware period.

Anyways, do you think that R1b was the "original" Indo-European haplogroup, because that seems the point you're trying to make.


Let's assume for a moment that Bronze Age steppe people were mostly R1a and spoke some kind of early Indo-European dialects. How did they, unsophisticated as they were, spread Indo-European language and culture all the way to the Atlantic, to the furthest shores of Ireland and Portugal? Other far more sophisticated and powerful peoples have failed to transmit their languages over much smaller areas. How did these Bronze Age R1as accomplish such a monumental task without actually moving west en masse themselves?

Well, consider for a moment that the language situation in Antiquity was a vastly different one from today, and the areas across which non-Indo-European languages were spoken in Western Europe was considerably larger than the tiny blotch of the Basque country: Aquitanian (the ancestor language of Basque) was probably spoken all the way to the Garonne, and from there to the Central Pyrenees. Iberian was spoken across a large arc from the Roussillon to eastern Andalusia.


The Basque/Iberian thing is always the resort of R1a=Indo-European partisans. But think for a minute. Which is more likely, that the Basques have become more like their neighbors in terms of y-dna via admixture, or that the entire population of western Europe shifted its language and culture from Basque-like non-Indo-European to Indo-European? Which change is the more profound, the more startling, the more difficult to accomplish: the shift in y-dna of a small minority, or the shift in language and culture of a very much larger population over a very large geographic expanse?

Actually, you're the one who's making a bigger assumption here, since people cannot replace their genes, but they can obviously swap their language.

But, my opinion the questions must be asked differently:

- Was the Beaker-Bell Culture Indo-European speaking? I would answer that question with no, because then we have a huge problem explaining how the Basques ended up with their indigenous terms for metals and metal-working, instead of borrowing them from Proto-Indo-European or Celtic (which would be expected). If you know an alternative how the Basque language, at a later or earlier point, acquired such terms, please tell me.

- Was the Beaker-Bell Culture carriers of R1b-carrying? I would say it is possible, if not likely, but of you look at the structure of R1b, it carries quite the inverse spread pattern of the historic Beaker-Bell Culture.

- Note that if we answer the above question with "no", the possibility that R1b was indeed carried by a branch of Indo-European peoples becomes inevitable. If what you say about people acquiring majority R1b via intermixing is a possibly, a later spread of R1b (that is, only during the Bronze Age) is also a firm possibility.


I think western Europe got its Indo-European language and culture from tribes who were predominantly R1b. Eastern Europe and India are a different story. There the carriers were predominantly R1a, which, by the way, is closely related to R1b. I am not sure who the original Indo-Europeans were. I am not sure it is even correct to speak in such terms, since Indo-European probably evolved via a series of complex interactions of peoples and was not a static thing.

We are talking in both cases only about specific subclades of R1b-L11 and R1a-M417, which makes the statement that they are "closely related" dubious since you have to go back into the Mesolithic/Paleolithic for them to be just exactly that.

Unless you are arguing for Paleolithic continuity of the Indo-European languages (which doesn't really make any sense because, as mentioned, PIE was a language that included agricultural terms, words for domesticated animals and for metal-working), this really doesn't make any sense. Note that this is also a partial (valid) criticism of Euphratic, and of the hypothesis that the Indo-European languages are purportedly Neolithic in age.


So, honestly, you can spare me your criticism of Whittaker's work, unless you are secretly really James Patrick Mallory. What you said about it before was sufficient. Your skepticism, based on your unwavering adherence to the Kurgan Theory, has been duly noted.

Well, I will get back to this at some later point. I would like to reiterate that my scepticism of the Euphratic hypothesis has not the slightest to do with the question wether the Kurgan hypothesis is correct or not. If you are trying to tell me something else with that, well that is not my problem.

spongetaro
01-01-12, 14:55
but of you look at the structure of R1b, it carries quite the inverse spread pattern of the historic Beaker-Bell Culture.

What do you mean exactly?

Taranis
01-01-12, 15:04
What do you mean exactly?

Well, if we assume that R1b indeed entered Europe via southwestern Iberia from the early 3rd millennium BC (the oldest Beaker-Bell sites are from Portugal, bear that mind), would we really expect two large subclades (U106 and S116), one mainly in Central and Northern Europe and the other in all of Western Europe (including Italy). You have the same problem when you look at the major subclades of S116 (L21, U152, Z196). I would argue that a Central European entry point for R1b into Western Europe is far more likely to explain the pattern of R1b subclades than the entry from the Southwest.

For that reason, I believe that either: R1b "hijacked" the Beaker-Bell culture in the reverse direction, or R1b has an even later entry into Western Europe that occured only during the Bronze Age.

spongetaro
01-01-12, 15:07
Well, if we assume that R1b indeed entered Europe via southwestern Iberia from the early 3rd millennium BC (the oldest Beaker-Bell sites are from Portugal, bear that mind), would we really expect two large subclades (U106 and S116), one mainly in Central and Northern Europe and the other in all of Western Europe (including Italy). You have the same problem when you look at the major subclades of S116 (L21, U152, Z196). I would argue that a Central European entry point for R1b into Western Europe is far more likely to explain the pattern of R1b subclades than the entry from the Southwest.

The Bell Beakers are recorded first in Iberia and a bit later in Netherlands. We can figure out two groups of R1b L11 evolving respectively in S116 (Iberia) and U106 (Netherland).
Note that highest variance for R1b U152 is not Central Europe but south eastern France which means that a lots of Italian and Central European U152 came from the West and the south which is really consistent with a Bell Beaker spread. (from the south west to the rest of Europe)

Taranis
01-01-12, 15:22
The Bell Beakers are recorded first in Iberia and a bit later in Netherlands. We can figure out two groups of R1b L11 evolving respectively in S116 (Iberia) and U106 (Netherland).
Note that highest variance for R1b U152 is not Central Europe but south eastern France which means that a lots of Italian and Central European U152 came from the West and the south which is really consistent with a Bell Beaker spread. (from the south west to the rest of Europe)

Okay, these are valid points that really speak in favour of a Beaker-Bell spread. I think it would be useful if we knew more about Z196 in this regard.

What about the variance of U106, though?

rms2
01-01-12, 19:20
I also seem to have the impression that you do not want to know because you have your pre-fabricated opinion that R1b must be Indo-European.

My "pre-fabricated" opinion? Where did I get it, all "pre-fab" and ready-made like that? When I got into genetic genealogy, the idea was that R1b had been in Western Europe since before the LGM and signified descent from the Cro Magnons.

I don't think you know to which y haplogroups the ancient Iberians belonged because, actually, no one knows that. Very little is known about the Iberian language itself, even if it was one single thing.

Thus far no R1b predating the Middle Ages has been found anywhere in Iberia. That could change tomorrow, but so far there isn't much evidence the Iberians were predominantly R1b.

If one of us holds a "pre-fabricated" notion about the early Indo-Europeans, it isn't me.


. . .
Actually, you're the one who's making a bigger assumption here, since people cannot replace their genes, but they can obviously swap their language . . .

That is silly. People can't replace their genes, nor did I say they could. But human populations can change in genetic configuration and proportions over time. A population can go from belonging predominantly to one y haplogroup to belonging to another.

That much should be obvious.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to deal with the rest of your post. I dislike these quote/counter quote exchanges, and regard most of your arguments as lacking substance. We're probably better off if we just agree to disagree.

Taranis
02-01-12, 12:06
My "pre-fabricated" opinion? Where did I get it, all "pre-fab" and ready-made like that? When I got into genetic genealogy, the idea was that R1b had been in Western Europe since before the LGM and signified descent from the Cro Magnons.

I don't think you know to which y haplogroups the ancient Iberians belonged because, actually, no one knows that. Very little is known about the Iberian language itself, even if it was one single thing.

Thus far no R1b predating the Middle Ages has been found anywhere in Iberia. That could change tomorrow, but so far there isn't much evidence the Iberians were predominantly R1b.

If one of us holds a "pre-fabricated" notion about the early Indo-Europeans, it isn't me.

I can tell you very simply where I see a pre-fabricated opinion on your side: namely the unwavering association of R1b - and indeed only R1b - with the Celts. I do admit that first glance, such an impression is quite self-evident, but I do not think that this statement bears up to closer scrutiny, and I have elaborated on the reasons why.

I must confess that I am a bit baffled by your claim that there isn't much evidence that the Iberians are associated with R1b, because frankly, I would have expected you to know about R1b-M167, which has it's highest concentrations in Catalonia, (and after that, in the Basque Country), and which in turn is a subclade of R1b-Z196, which in turn - from the looks of it - one of the major subclades of R1b-P312.

Regarding my opinions about the early Indo-Europeans, I would like to reiterate that this comes not from any fixiated, pre-fabricated opinion, but from the fact that I do consider the Kurgan hypothesis the most stable, most sensible hypothesis (thus far), and that all alternatives I have seen thus far (Anatolian hypothesis, Paleolithic continuity, Out-of-India hypothesis, etc.) pose significantly greater problems with them.


That is silly. People can't replace their genes, nor did I say they could. But human populations can change in genetic configuration and proportions over time. A population can go from belonging predominantly to one y haplogroup to belonging to another.

That much should be obvious..

Yes, but my point is that people can also swap languages, there's plenty of examples of that. Take alone how the Celtic-speaking peoples of Continental Europe, in a fairly short period of time, adopted Latin, or how the Turks, who were essentially a minority in Anatolia without a significant genetic impact, pressed their language onto basically the whole of Anatolia. Why are you so adamantly opposed to the very idea that same could have happened in Bronze Age Western Europe?


Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to deal with the rest of your post. I dislike these quote/counter quote exchanges, and regard most of your arguments as lacking substance. We're probably better off if we just agree to disagree.

Lacking substance? I'm afraid that all my points of criticism, especially those derived from the field of linguistics, are absolutely valid, and that you can go ahead and look them up if you like. I have partially provided you with the information myself. If however the bolded part above is your less-than-polite way of saying "I do not wish to consider myself beat in this discussion", then I agree we should really leave it at just that.

PS: I would like to reiterate that I do not wish to sound impolite or offending, if this was the case, I would like to apologize for the hitherto harshness of my words.

zanipolo
04-01-12, 23:51
from forumdiversity site

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9622/r1acladessnp.jpg

interesting the designated haplotypes

dated December 2011

ThatConfusedR1AGuy
05-01-12, 04:37
Alright, This will probably have a lot of reasons to be wrong, but I think I might have a way to explain the 5ish% R1a found in France.

I was reading a little bit of history about the Frankish people and their origins, and I came across this link:
(I cant post links, so Google "history of the franks" and it should be the first link)

This Book is written by Gregory of Tours, a man born in 538 and was a historian of his time. What I find interesting is his claim of the origins of the Frankish people:

This is the evidence that the historians who have been named have left us about the Franks, and they have not mentioned kings. Many relate that they came from Pannonia and all dwelt at first on the bank of the Rhine, and then crossing the Rhine they passed into Thuringia, and there among the villages and cities appointed long­haired kings over them from their first or, so to speak, noblest family.
(Book 2 Section 9)

Now, he says that it is believed (by historians of his time) that the Franks came from Pannonia, a place located in the Balkans. This Pannonia could Either mean the Roman province, or the Actual Central Balkan region...But either way they point to a Balkan root of some of the Franks. I might be mistaken, but I believe that I have also read a few theories that R1a in the Balkans is the most diverse in Europe and might be one of it's places of origin (into Europe).

Im far from an expert, but I thought this was interesting seeing as how the Franks Dominated the Area that that small amount of R1a seems to be spread in France.

Thanks!

Diviacus
05-01-12, 11:31
This Book is written by Gregory of Tours, a man born in 538 and was a historian of his time. What I find interesting is his claim of the origins of the Frankish people:
...
Now, he says that it is believed (by historians of his time) that the Franks came from Pannonia, a place located in the Balkans. This Pannonia could Either mean the Roman province, or the Actual Central Balkan region...But either way they point to a Balkan root of some of the Franks.

It's only a legend ! You will also see that it has also been said that the Franks had a Troyan origin (as most of the ancient peoples) !:smile:

spongetaro
05-01-12, 13:58
I must confess that I am a bit baffled by your claim that there isn't much evidence that the Iberians are associated with R1b, because frankly, I would have expected you to know about R1b-M167, which has it's highest concentrations in Catalonia, (and after that, in the Basque Country), and which in turn is a subclade of R1b-Z196, which in turn - from the looks of it - one of the major subclades of R1b-P312.

R1b M167 is likely to be of non ie origin (Iberian or Basque). However I don't know much about the other S116* found in Iberia, in western Iberia precisely.
Does anyone know if most of S116* in Iberia is Z196? And Which subclades are the most prevalent besides M167?

ThatConfusedR1AGuy
05-01-12, 23:06
It's only a legend ! You will also see that it has also been said that the Franks had a Troyan origin (as most of the ancient peoples) !:smile:

Haha! I know it is a unlikely possibility, but if true could explain the R1a spread in France. From what I understand, his work is one of the sources we have come to use to understand what the Franks where like. And when you say Troyan I assume you mean the Central Bulgarian province? And didn't mis type Trojan. :)

Thanks

MOESAN
15-01-12, 20:17
All France was conquered by Germanic tribes: Franks, Burgunds, Visigoths, Normans... These people had only a minimal genetic impact on the overall population. For example there are only traces of I1 and R1a in what used to be the Visigothic kingdom in south-west France. How could Burgundy have over 5% of R1a when even Baden-Württemberg and Alsace have less than 5% ? Then, let's not confuse the modern region of Burgundy, centered on the medieval Duchy of Burgundy, with the ancient Kingdom of Burgundy, where the actual Burgunds settled, and which encompassed all the land from modern Burgundy all the way down to Provence along the Rhone, as well as the French Alps and Switzerland. If there is any Germanic haplogroup that is present in surprisingly high density in that region, it is R1b-S21 (R1b-U106), not R1a.

The Franks had the biggest impact over Gaul, be it genetic, cultural, linguistic or political; but that is because their homeland had been adjacent to Gaul (around modern Belgium) for several centuries, and they just annexed Gaul to their existing kingdom, while all the other tribes moved in from farther away, in smaller numbers. Yet even the Franks' genetic legacy is barely visible beyond the top north of France. The Parisian region is hardly Germanic. Even Alsace, where a Germanic language is traditionally spoken, barely has 6% of I1 and 5% of R1a (about half of Macedonia, and less I1 than the Celtic strongholds of Wales and Ireland).

Then it is not because East Germany has a lot of R1a today that East Germanic tribes necessarily did too. What many people fail to understand is that when a mass migration happens from one place to another, like the Völkerwanderung of the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages, people and their genes leave a region and new people move in to fill the vacuum. I believe that a good part of the R1a in East Germany (and of course Poland) today arrived with the Slavs after Germanic tribes left. Germanic people obviously all have/had R1a, but I doubt that ancient tribes like the Goths or Burgunds had over 30% of R1a (10-15% seems more reasonable).

just some thoughts
Eastern Germanic people was settled (and partially formed) in a previous strong 'corded' region, people where Y-R1a seams have been very common so even if other R1a can be arrived with historical Slavs and more recent Polish People... a deeper survey would be necessary...
France for what I know is a very bad sampled country (medical, not anthropological researchs) and Ile-de-France and Clermont-Ferrand are places where we can be sure to find some 'fresh frenchies' or people new arrived from other provinces - for Alsace you posted after a modifications on percentages for I1 from 6% to 10% on your map -
the germanic impact (Saxons, Franks, Burgundians, Alamans, Vikings) on French people seams being stronger than you say in the previous germanic settlements -phenotypically speaking it's evident ( percentages of 'nordid' types) for Normandy, Artois-Flandres-Picardie (North), extreme North-Ile-de-France, Alsace-North-Lorraine and in a less strong way in Lyonnais-Savoie (Burgundians setllements) - more light blond meso-brachycephalic types (maybe a mixture with blond sort of 'borreby's') in the East than in the North as a whole - some regions between them (Somme valley in Picardie, South Île-de-France, Champagne, Bourgogne, highlands Lorraine, Franche-Comté, Bresse, Dauphiné south the Savoie, Forez West Lyonnais) seam have kept more celtic-preceltic and maybe Bell-beakers population and lesser typical germanic "blood" - for I believe, the dark blond dolichocéphalic element (dominant in Germanics) seams have been carried by R-U106, I1 & surely Western R1a... The light blond brachycephalic element, now common in some regions of germanic countries, is maybe of older stock in Central-Northern Europe but my knowledge stops there...
in Normandy and other regions as a whole, the %'s varies according to the proximity of coasts or big rivers, and diminish according to the presence of 'bocages' and hills or mountains (but Savoie, between a burgundian and an alaman impact) - I should guess a 15 to 25% of Germanics demic contributions in these regions, that is more than nothing -
at the opposite side, the lands "invaded" by Goths, Vandales, Alans and others "travelling" germanic (+ iranic) tribes seam having received lesser influence, in FRANCE -

MOESAN
15-01-12, 20:25
I just add that I've prepared something about the presence of Y-R1a (and R1b & I1) in Norway but I see now that the map Maciamo made give a very different distribution of this HG in Norway compared to the survey of Myhre-Dupuy/Stenersen/Lu/Olaisen -
so I wait and maybe shall see?

MOESAN
15-01-12, 20:57
before any answer from Maciamo, I keep on:
In suveys about today Shetland/Orkney and historical-present day Cambria-West-Lancashire, the so considered 'viking' local populations of the Middle Ages in the Isles seam poor enough for Y-I1 and rich for Y-R1a - it could explain the presence of a not to high but honorable % of R1a in Scotland and in Northern Ireland ? it can have been bottlenecks and founder effects on small male sailors populations? curiously the modern population of W-Lancashire (where it's true subsequent mixtures took place with time with other british-saxon populations), Y-I1 is commoner today than in the Middle Ages -
when looking at the distribution in the norwegian survey we see that in W-N-W Norway the present day population is not the less dense for R1a even if weak enough but is the less for I (not precised what kind of I) - Scotland is poor enough for Y-I1 in region where we should be waiting more I1 (Caithness, Shetland, Orkney, N-E Grampians) - for original Celts I don't trust to much in a measurable presence of Y-R1a
about Y-R1a in South Europe we can imagine others sources than the germanic people (or slavic): almost sure some of the first greek (Hellenes) settlers in Western Mediterranee had a higher score for Y-R1a than the present day mean percentage of Greece taken as a whole - and others people of the Eastern Mediterranee possess also some appreciable percentages - Sicily is not too poor, but there, we have the 2 possibilities: ancient Greeks or Near-Easterners or Normands...

MOESAN
19-02-12, 21:12
I take again this thtread : are the hotspots of Y-R1A always in « Auvergne » for France

or are there some changes in the present day distribution ?
This thread gave way to a lot of interpretations concerning other Hgs and SNPs, that is normal -
just some remarks (I hope they will be usefull to reshape some theories):


AUVERGNE is to be precised - the very province of Auvergne was composed of the departments of Cantal and Puy-de-Dôme (with there an industrial town, Clermond-Ferrand, that attracted workers of the whole country and foreign workers (Poles, Italians, not too far ago : Portugueses)) – we can « ethnically » put into this natural and previous cultural region the department of Haute-Loire (Velay province) and some outskirts like extreme south of department Allier, and north of departments of Lozère and Aveyron (comprised in provinces of Haut-Languedoc and Rouergue) :
The adjacent departments of Loire (Forez province) that was settled by Burgund tribes is linked better to the Lyonnais (department Rhône) and phenotypically it is confirmed (or it was confirmed before people leave the countryside for the big towns) -
I think Burgund elites settled more the plains and large valleys thant the most hilly districts, and spite then name of Burgundy given to the region closed to departments of Côte-d'Or and Saône-et-Loire and Yonne, the weight of burgundic demic influence was stronger southernmost, around Lyon I think : some weight in Côte d'Or (Dijon region) but not in more hilly parts as the « pays » Morvan
and the « pays » of Charolais – some influence of Burgunds can be seen too in other eastern parts of France, I suppose, like Franche-Comté, Bresse, Western Savoie, West Dauphiné and along the Rhône valley (always the same boulevards for invasions and colonizations)
*: the town of Bourgoin is in the department Isère, N.Dauphiné, not in Burgundy
– So it would be interesting knowing what kind of « Auvergnats » was tested and from what parts of « Auvergne » they went (about Y-R1a) -
I think Burgunds demic influence was heavy enough (15% or little more of the present day genetic heritage in some districts?) -
for the Netherlands (I think to an other member on this topic), their annexion to Burgundy (Burgoyne) is late enough and at this stage of History (feodal period and latter) there was more family « immobilier » quarrels between noble cousins than ethnies or tribes wars - and frontiers moved faster then than populations did (ahead & back, according to destiny), apart the mercenaries not to numerous -
*: but classical anthropologic surveys of some cemeteries drown by sea in Zeeland and Noord-Brabant dating from the last Middle Ages showed a possible influence of Southern newcomers (where from ? Walloon ? Roman Lorraine ? Further?) : deplaced populations involved in populating ? At what level??? Hard to answer...


This topic has been the occasion for someones to evocate the Bell Beakers and other peoples -
We have more believings for the moment on this question than confirmed facts before ancient DNA will be extracted – So at this stage I do only bets based on general constatations :
I do not think first B.B.s of Central-Western Europe was Y-R1b ( I have even dreamed they was Y-I2a2 and I2a1b, but it is based on no serious ground apart « masculine intuition ») but their cultural impact seams to me having been very strong upon populations of the Alps and North the Alps that was rich for Y-R-U152 -
the first most evident sources for Y-R1a in Western Europe seams the Corded people present from the pre-Calcholithic in Northern Germany but in France it could be arrived either with infliltrations among the Urnfields people (some archeologic traces), or after its participation in the formation of the germanic people (the Easternmost of them upon all) – and I forgot here the presence of Corded people seamingly associated with the Bell Beakers found in Brittain (-2400>>) and with the culture of Wessex and the Armorican culture of tumuli (-2000>>) this last ones can explain some Y-R1a lignages classified as 'celtic' – a Y-R1a of south-eastern european (Greeks?) origin is not absolutely impossible in South – waiting more I think at this point that Y-R1a is not responsible of a total and direct indo-europeanisation of Western Europe
helas ! The DNA studied in the Lichstenstein Cave (Urnfields) is of little interest because these sepultures was those of closed related people : the high presence of Y-I2a2 (ex I2b) is not a surprise in that region - but elaborate theories on the presence of 2 x Y-R1a and 1 x Y-R-U106 is out of worth -

NickP
25-07-12, 18:09
Interesting map; pretty good job overall. I agree with many parts of it, and it makes sense in general; I wonder how the areas in western Europe that have higher frequencies got it and through what people. Outside of Europe one would find Iranic peoples and north Indians also having high amounts. But there are some things I'm not so sure about for this version. Is this really the latest most updated one? Was there a high amount of samples that was fairly evenly distributed? One thing I find odd is how heavily you put the whole area of Romania as R1a while the rest of the Slavic Balkans has only low amounts in the 10%+ plus range. I know the northern and eastern parts of Romania have higher amounts, but I've never seen them quite as high as on this map before. Every study I've ever seen for them had them as a population at somewhere between 18-20-22% R1a, at most no more than 24 in one study, but it varies, so I'm just checking. I seriously doubt big regions of the country are in some of these ranges as on this map, and I don't think the vast majority of regions go any higher than 30, let alone the 40%+ range you included the northern part in. Even the official Eupedia page for the frequencies only has it at 18 % overall, but based on this map one would think the average would be over 30% for the whole, which I don't think is true http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml. There is, of course, in reality some "spillover" and transition in the northern border areas to Ukraine, Hungary, Moldova (which is normal), but the difference is fairly noticeable when comparing to most of the country. You made it look like as soon as you hit the border with Romania from the south you suddenly get much higher amounts of R1a, that grow every few miles you go northward, which I doubt, and it's not even like that; certain regions have different amounts. Also, I know especially northern Croatia/Slavonia, as well as Slovenia have considerably higher amounts of R1a than Romania from the heavy Slavic settlement there. It seems this map just accounts for broad , gradually changing patterns kind of emanating out steadily as concentric rings from the core region around northern Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Russia area rather than precise areas of change.

I think the most accurate map I've seen so far is this one http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/R1A_map.jpg, which actually breaks it down by regional subdivisions within countries and takes into account detail between areas. Most maps I've seen also put the northern Greece/Macedonia area as high in R1a yet I didn't see that on the one in this thread. There's parts of Bosnia and Serbia that have higher amounts also.

Also, I wonder how accurate these are as well
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/R1a-map.JPG
http://www.r1a.org/img/map.jpg
http://lukferi2.webs.com/R1a_distribution_Eurasia.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__zYu2MdAxIk/SXE7kt-4uYI/AAAAAAAAB6E/oQ0-ik93i5A/s400/Picture+3.png

Romanians cluster more to the south and in the middle of the Balkan population cluster despite their more northern geographic location on most charts I've seen, which reflects the paleo-Balkanic origin and core basis for their people, with many Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, some Bosnians etc being more north toward cental Euro/West Slav populations.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/images/nature07331-f1.2.jpg

Apparently the Balkans is fairly homogenous in most studies, with Aromanians being among the more distinct groups, but still not that much. http://www.carswell.com.au/wp-content/documents/homogenous-balkan-analysis.pdf

Found these markers, this one relating to Mediterranean ones http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg833/scaled.php?server=833&filename=medb.jpg&res=landing
this for Baltic http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9767/relbalt.jpg

an interesting way of grouping people
http://oi44.tinypic.com/zygj7c.jpg

Anyway, I know R1a isn't necessarily only Slavic, but is often thought to be linked to some kind of Indo-European migration, since other peoples like Iranics have it too; maybe some old Scythian or Sarmatian presence left a bit of an influence. Could be that some of the ancient Daco-Thracian peoples were of this group, or at least part of them, especially the elites. It also depends on the subclades as well though. Was just curious about some of these things.

al-kochol
07-04-13, 06:42
The Austrians fit well within the West Slavic region, encompassing what used to be the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austrians are closer to the Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians than to anybody else. Genetically the Austrians are more West Slavic than Germanic.

Austrians are predominantly descendants of germanised Slavs.

al-kochol
07-04-13, 06:54
All France was conquered by Germanic tribes: Franks, Burgunds, Visigoths, Normans... These people had only a minimal genetic impact on the overall population. For example there are only traces of I1 and R1a in what used to be the Visigothic kingdom in south-west France. How could Burgundy have over 5% of R1a when even Baden-Württemberg and Alsace have less than 5% ? Then, let's not confuse the modern region of Burgundy, centered on the medieval Duchy of Burgundy, with the ancient Kingdom of Burgundy, where the actual Burgunds settled, and which encompassed all the land from modern Burgundy all the way down to Provence along the Rhone, as well as the French Alps and Switzerland. If there is any Germanic haplogroup that is present in surprisingly high density in that region, it is R1b-S21 (R1b-U106), not R1a.

The Franks had the biggest impact over Gaul, be it genetic, cultural, linguistic or political; but that is because their homeland had been adjacent to Gaul (around modern Belgium) for several centuries, and they just annexed Gaul to their existing kingdom, while all the other tribes moved in from farther away, in smaller numbers. Yet even the Franks' genetic legacy is barely visible beyond the top north of France. The Parisian region is hardly Germanic. Even Alsace, where a Germanic language is traditionally spoken, barely has 6% of I1 and 5% of R1a (about half of Macedonia, and less I1 than the Celtic strongholds of Wales and Ireland).

Then it is not because East Germany has a lot of R1a today that East Germanic tribes necessarily did too. What many people fail to understand is that when a mass migration happens from one place to another, like the Völkerwanderung of the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages, people and their genes leave a region and new people move in to fill the vacuum. I believe that a good part of the R1a in East Germany (and of course Poland) today arrived with the Slavs after Germanic tribes left. Germanic people obviously all have/had R1a, but I doubt that ancient tribes like the Goths or Burgunds had over 30% of R1a (10-15% seems more reasonable).

You have just proved that Visigoths were not a Germanic tribe! Now, how can you prove that Slavs entered territory of modern Poland only "after Germanic tribes left"?

al-kochol
07-04-13, 07:03
I am not aware of any fusion between ancient Germanic tribes and Slavic or Iranian tribes, except for the Goths who settled north of the Black Sea.

I see 2 problems in the above: 1) "ancient Germanic tribes" are not Germanic yet, but Celtic; they only became Germanic after the invasion of Goths from Scandinavian peninsula; 2) "the Goths who settled north of the Black Sea" were not Goths in fact, which has been proved genetically.

adamo
11-04-13, 18:15
Excellent map although there should have 30-35% over Croatia . Bulgaria should have more 20%, less of the 10%. Macedonia and Greece should be more 15% and not 10% everywhere southern Balkans.

Eldritch
11-04-13, 19:34
Excellent map although there should have 30-35% over Croatia . Bulgaria should have more 20%, less of the 10%. Macedonia and Greece should be more 15% and not 10% everywhere southern Balkans.
Where are you getting those high R1a percentages for Croatia?

According to the latest study R1a in Croatia is 22.1 %

http://i.imgur.com/8o7rd3e.png

adamo
11-04-13, 20:11
Wow, really? I was always under the assumption that Croatian y-DNA was made up primarily of haplogroup I-M423 ( The Balkans I) at around 40% and haplogroup R1a , indicative of Slavic blood , pushing more towards mid to high thirties ( 30-35%) and not low twenties in percentage....

Eldritch
11-04-13, 20:26
Wow, really? I was always under the assumption that Croatian y-DNA was made up primarily of haplogroup I-M423 ( The Balkans I) at around 40% and haplogroup R1a , indicative of Slavic blood , pushing more towards mid to high thirties ( 30-35%) and not low twenties in percentage....

Well nope, the tab i posted is actually the best study ever done on Croatians just by it's big sample size compared to previous studies.

adamo
11-04-13, 20:53
I still personally believe and have researched that Croats have about 35% R1a. Although not a Slavic country per say, they are well within the genetic influence sphere of Slavs. If not 35% I would say at least about three out of every ten men is Slavic.

Eldritch
11-04-13, 20:59
I still personally believe and have researched that Croats have about 35% R1a. Although not a Slavic country per say, they are well within the genetic influence sphere of Slavs. If not 35% I would say at least about three out of every ten men is Slavic.
Are you arguing against the study or what?
Croats are still around 60% with Slavic Y-DNA (I2a1b + R1a) since they're Slavs after all.

And what does it mean not a Slavic country per say?

adamo
11-04-13, 21:47
Croatia is not , for example, Poland with it's 50-60% r1a. It's not Russia with 50% or Ukraine with 40-50%, it's not "hardcore" Slavic territory, but there is Slavic genetic influence in Croatia, at a lower level. And I2a1b is not indicative of Slavs, it's barely found in Poland and they are "core" territory Slavs. It is balkanian, for example Bosnians and herzegovinans have 50-60% I2a1b but much lower total R1a levels, I2a1b does not mean Slavs. R1a does.

Eldritch
11-04-13, 22:09
Croatia is not , for example, Poland with it's 50-60% r1a. It's not Russia with 50% or Ukraine with 40-50%, it's not "hardcore" Slavic territory, but there is Slavic genetic influence in Croatia, at a lower level. And I2a1b is not indicative of Slavs, it's barely found in Poland and they are "core" territory Slavs. It is balkanian, for example Bosnians and herzegovinans have 50-60% I2a1b but much lower total R1a levels, I2a1b does not mean Slavs. R1a does.
Look, your information is out of date, so what you need to do is brush up on all the latest developments, both in the academic world and genetic genealogy circles, and then participate in the discussions here.

I2a2a-Dinaric is just too young to not have been the result of a sudden
expansion not much more than 2000 years ago.

Now to figure out from where the expansion began? The traditional Slavic
"homeland" of the Pripet marshes is as good a guess as anything for me at
the moment.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2010-04/1270925314

adamo
11-04-13, 22:18
Anyways I'm only 19 I'm still learning lol...:)..... I always assumed that that the Balkans haplogroup I was the first arrival of haplogroup I within Europe and that eventually some of the Balkans men would migrate to Norway/Sweden creating the I1a of the Vikings? Or is it the opposite?

Eldritch
11-04-13, 22:25
Anyways I'm only 19 I'm still learning lol...:)..... I always assumed that that the Balkans haplogroup I was the first arrival of haplogroup I within Europe and that eventually some of the Balkans men would migrate to Norway/Sweden creating the I1a of the Vikings? Or is it the opposite?
Ok no problem.
Actually there's a general consensus among circles that I2a1b(The main subclade in Balkans) expanded there with Slavic invasions so by all means it can be considered a slavic Haplogroup.
According to Nordvedt original homeland of I2a1b is somewhere around today Moldova, about the frequency part it's not important to determine the origin, much more important is diversity.

I1a is entirely different matter, search some threads on here and you'll learn a lot.

adamo
11-04-13, 22:29
Wow really?? I2a1b originated in Moldova? I always thought it was from the heartland of Bosnia-Herzegovina.... What explains the crazy hot spot in Bosnia?

Eldritch
11-04-13, 22:38
Wow really?? I2a1b originated in Moldova? I always thought it was from the heartland of Bosnia-Herzegovina.... What explains the crazy hot spot in Bosnia?
Probably founder effect but remember that Bosnians are Slavic people too.
Actually I2a1b could even be considered more Slavic than R1a under certain circumstances, I2a1b is found where Slavs colonized bur R1a is found also in places where Slavs never settled.

adamo
11-04-13, 22:43
But didn't haplogroup I come into Europe from Greece and Balkans and settle in Bosnia/Herzegovina some 20,000+ years ago? And then eventually go to Scandinavia and was linked with gravettian culture in Europe? Isn't this all a bit too old for recent Slavic migrations? Isn't it a separate group?

adamo
12-04-13, 01:10
I mean wouldn't recent Slavic migrations be linked with R1a moving from parts of Ukraine/Russian steppes to places like Poland and Slovenia and not haplogroup I which was already present in Europe long before in the Balkans/Scandinavia areas, what does Balkans I have to do with slavics movements

al-kochol
12-04-13, 10:38
Croatia is not , for example, Poland with it's 50-60% r1a. It's not Russia with 50% or Ukraine with 40-50%, it's not "hardcore" Slavic territory, but there is Slavic genetic influence in Croatia, at a lower level. And I2a1b is not indicative of Slavs, it's barely found in Poland and they are "core" territory Slavs. It is balkanian, for example Bosnians and herzegovinans have 50-60% I2a1b but much lower total R1a levels, I2a1b does not mean Slavs. R1a does.

try to learn Croatian if you are not sure of their Slavic origin

adamo
12-04-13, 13:24
Yes they DO (Croatians) have Slavic origins, as their language would also suggest and genetics also upholds (20-35%) R1a. But these more recent Slavic invaders, coming from the Russian steppes and the Ukraine are similar to the Slavs that pushed west into Europe reaching such places as Poland, Slovakia, parts of Czech Republic and affecting Slovenians etc. in my opinion they sort of "mixed in" with the local indigenous haplogroup I2a1b men of the Balkans. This is what it is to be Croatian, some of them hold the genetic legacy of the indigenous haplogroup I men (40 or so percent) and others arrived more recently with the Slavic migrations and brought their immigrant language with them but, clearly, these R1a men where not the overwhelming majority, they significantly impacted Croatia but they are not as much as in Poland Ukraine, Belarus or Russia. Can someone correct me if my theory is invalid or incorrect? : )

nordicwarrior
12-04-13, 15:21
Yes they DO (Croatians) have Slavic origins, as their language would also suggest and genetics also upholds (20-35%) R1a. But these more recent Slavic invaders, coming from the Russian steppes and the Ukraine are similar to the Slavs that pushed west into Europe reaching such places as Poland, Slovakia, parts of Czech Republic and affecting Slovenians etc. in my opinion they sort of "mixed in" with the local indigenous haplogroup I2a1b men of the Balkans. This is what it is to be Croatian, some of them hold the genetic legacy of the indigenous haplogroup I men (40 or so percent) and others arrived more recently with the Slavic migrations and brought their immigrant language with them but, clearly, these R1a men where not the overwhelming majority, they significantly impacted Croatia but they are not as much as in Poland Ukraine, Belarus or Russia. Can someone correct me if my theory is invalid or incorrect? : )

I agree with your statement Adamo. There is a trend to dislocate the Slavic people from the R1a orientation-- why this is I'm not sure. At some point the maps tell you all you need to know. I think political agendas begin to creep into this field and this clouds what was at one point was painfully obvious.

When in doubt, check the maps.

adamo
13-04-13, 02:07
Thank you for the validation on my hypothesis, it is much appreciated! : )

al-kochol
13-04-13, 09:19
This is what it is to be Croatian, some of them hold the genetic legacy of the indigenous haplogroup I men (40 or so percent) and others arrived more recently with the Slavic migrations and brought their immigrant language with them but, clearly, these R1a men where not the overwhelming majority, they significantly impacted Croatia but they are not as much as in Poland Ukraine, Belarus or Russia. Can someone correct me if my theory is invalid or incorrect? : )
Both genetic stamps, R1a and I2a, came from the Eastern Europe, called in antiquity Scythia. I2a belonged to the Ostrogoths and they migrated South, therefore you won't find much of this stamp in Poland.

adamo
13-04-13, 21:45
No haplogroup I2a originated in southeastern Europe some 15,000 to 17,000 years ago. It is not linked to the far more recent migrations of R1a people's towards Eastern Europe getting closer to the Balkans such as Czech R1a, Slovenians, Croats r1a etc. different movements that where not all perpetrated at the same time by a Slavic group

adamo
13-04-13, 21:50
The original I2a movement certainly was not Slavic but there are younger, rarer sub-branches found at lower frequencies that may have moved around later with the influence of Slavs and incoming Slavic culture, but at the very core, I2a is not "Slavic" per say, it's indigenous balkanian

al-kochol
14-04-13, 02:41
I2a is not "Slavic" per say, it's indigenous balkanian

If I2a was Balkanian, you would not find 21% of it in Ukraine.

adamo
14-04-13, 02:58
Why not? It's found in 25% of Romanians which is just under Ukraine....it's also found in Moldova...what would stop it from reaching Ukraine at a one out of five boys frequency?

al-kochol
14-04-13, 04:22
Why not? It's found in 25% of Romanians which is just under Ukraine....it's also found in Moldova...what would stop it from reaching Ukraine at a one out of five boys frequency?

Do not forget of Visigoths who carried the same I2a as Ostrogoths. I2a did not originate in Balkans but in Scythia. There is still more people with I2a in the former Scythia (Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Czechia) then in the whole Balkans. About 15 million men in the former Scythian lands compared to about 7.5 million men in the Balkan peninsula.

adamo
14-04-13, 13:18
Didn't your I2a Ostrogoths pass through and set up a kingdom in Italy? Well if they did which I know they did they didn't genetically impact italians much did they with either I2a or R1a for that matter...maybe many of these army movements and kingdoms didn't necessarily affect much or change the genetic composition of all the places they went? In other words they didn't really successfully bring I2a to the Italians did they. Most DNA test related to your scythians that first enter history in 800 b.c show haplogroup R-M17 results. Often times, ancient historical accounts become disproved with time. The scythians where referred to as a variety of groups stretching from the Black Sea to central Asians Siberia. They where not a specific people but rather a variety of people's referred to at different times in history and in several places none of which was their original homeland. I think Ostrogoths having had I2a is more likely but clearly they did not spread this in all the places they ended up such as Italy, thus placing doubt on this theory in my opinion.

adamo
14-04-13, 13:40
Since Ostrogoths seem to be linked with Romanians, coastal Adriatic Illyrians where I2 dinaric is found at its highest frequencies maybe they where Ostrogoths but I don't think I2a had this Slavic-type movement from Russia/Ukraine down to those areas I just stated above,

al-kochol
15-04-13, 12:03
I don't think I2a had this Slavic-type movement from Russia/Ukraine down to those areas I just stated above,

Why not? We have over 15 million males in Eastern/Middle Europe carrying the I2a, compared to 7.5 million of the same gene in Balkans! Have you ever heard of people from the warm climate land, adjacent to the warm sea, who decided to migrate to the frozen steppes?

adamo
15-04-13, 13:35
Because that's just not where haplogroup I passed lol. It came to the Balkans via Europe thousands of years before contact with R1a men. Some of it later diversified and new younger sub-branches such as I2a2 was born that may have allied with Slavs and followed them around, but originally I just didn't enter Europe the same way or time as R1a they where two different cultures of which certain subgroups eventually met up and fused, but at the origin they have a different.....point of origin! Lol. Now unless haplogroup I crossed the Caucasus stayed on the coast of Black Sea and ended up near Moldova as its origin point but even then this would probably have took place at a different time than R1a movement to the area I just doubt it very much...either way its a different branch of the tree so they must have fusioned very recently during Slavic migrations. Haplogroup I like its brother J would go through Middle East and leave via Anatolia to Europe, just many many thousands of years before a few J2 men would enter Europe, I left for Europe long ago whereas majority of J decided to stay in Middle East and is still there today other than some later (5000 years ago possibly) Neolithic J2 moving to the southern MediterraneanMediterranean..... Totally different branch than R1 going around Central Asia, splitting off from Q and then going through Russian steppes..... The only reason the I men are white is because they moved from Middle East to Europe and have been in freezing Europe for the longest time during the LGM in the Balkans Refugia, after even the men of I1a migrating to northern Scandinavia......the men of R1 are also white because they moved to cold Central Asia and for thousands of years across frigid Russia eventually to Europe but....just not the same branch of humanity. R1a is Slavic and I is balkanian, Nordic (Scandinavian branch) etc.

Diurpaneus
17-05-13, 11:06
Why not? It's found in 25% of Romanians which is just under Ukraine....it's also found in Moldova...what would stop it from reaching Ukraine at a one out of five boys frequency?


Adamo,that's a very good point.

Whitout any doubt migrations also occured in the "south-to-north" direction.
I don't know if the carriers brought the HG. I2 with them, but:

-in the 1st century BC we have the expansion of the Getae-Dacians under the rule of Burebista.

-at that time Agrippa mentions:“Dacia, Getico finiuntur ab oriente desertis Sarmatiae, ab occidente flumine Vistula, a septentrione Oceano( the Northern border,the Ocean=Baltic Sea), a meridie flumine Histro. Quae patent in longitudine milia passuum CCLXXX, in latitudine qua cogitum est milia passuum CCCLXXXVI
and i dont't think he was taking pills, but the Romans knew those places because of the "Amber Road".

I am talking about some guys who appeared in the Roman sculptures&Trajan's Column whether with a western Polish-Baltic look, or an eastern Ukrainean-Russian look.

MOESAN
18-05-13, 01:02
Do not forget of Visigoths who carried the same I2a as Ostrogoths. I2a did not originate in Balkans but in Scythia. There is still more people with I2a in the former Scythia (Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Czechia) then in the whole Balkans. About 15 million men in the former Scythian lands compared to about 7.5 million men in the Balkan peninsula.

where did you find ancient Y-DNA telling you Ostrogoths and Ostrogoths were Y-I2a ???

Hauteville
30-11-14, 18:28
R1a in southern Italy according to Sarno et al.
Trapani 2,94%
Agrigento 2,22%
Enna 2,5%
Ragusa/Siracusa 8,89%
Catania 5,77%
Cosenza 6,67%
Matera 4%
Lecce 7,5%

Guachelin
14-02-15, 05:06
Perhaps the R1a in Burgundy can be attributed to the Alani tribes that settled in that area during the reign of the praetor Aetitius, he also allowed late comer Alani that couldn't find land to relocate to Armorica, modern Normandy.

Aetitius struck a deal with the Alani, he needed people who would pay the Roman tax collector, thus the Alani were allowed to dispossess (violently) the original inhabitants around Orleans, well Orleans is located near Burgundy and these people didn't adhere to political boundaries.

The Bishop of Rouen, or was it Amiens, complained to Aetitius about the violence with which the Alani displaced the inhabitants of Armorica, so he withdrew his permission, but too late.

AxelHagen
25-12-19, 12:33
Hey people! My paternal ancestor was from Hesse and my deep clade of R1a -FGC10360
My deep clade is R-FGC10360 and this website(https://phylogeographer.com/) showed me the story of this subclade in Europe. This subclade correlates with celtic and later with germanic tribes(Przeworsk, Oksywie and Wielbark cultures)
11683
11684
I think that is burgundian or other east germanic origin. R1a was in Germany and Poland before slavic migrations in this lands
11685
I think that R1a-Z280 is not only balto-slavic, because in W.Europe it can be found among germanic people and in areas where were not slavic or baltic migrations

Illyri
25-12-19, 17:45
Hey people! My paternal ancestor was from Hesse and my deep clade of R1a -FGC10360
My deep clade is R-FGC10360 and this website(https://phylogeographer.com/) showed me the story of this subclade in Europe. This subclade correlates with celtic and later with germanic tribes(Przeworsk, Oksywie and Wielbark cultures)
11683
11684
I think that is burgundian or other east germanic origin. R1a was in Germany and Poland before slavic migrations in this lands
11685
I think that R1a-Z280 is not only balto-slavic, because in W.Europe it can be found among germanic people and in areas where were not slavic or baltic migrations

Can you re-post your attachments. I cannot see them.
A minority of R-Z280 could indeed be germanic. Perhaps I am mistaken but I think that a R-Z280 ancient sample (dated around 1000 BC) was found in central Germany. If you look at the country report for FGC10360 on FTDNA, 4.65 % of the carriers live in Germany, while 2.33 % live in Denmark, Spain and England. However most of the carriers have reported origins from Slavic countries.
And do not give too much credit to that website. The generated paths are fun, but they are only based on the modern distribution according to yfull.com and assuming that the distribution was the same at the forming age of the subclades.

Mordred
10-10-20, 18:32
I agree with your statement Adamo. There is a trend to dislocate the Slavic people from the R1a orientation-- why this is I'm not sure. At some point the maps tell you all you need to know. I think political agendas begin to creep into this field and this clouds what was at one point was painfully obvious.

When in doubt, check the maps.There's nothing that would indicate any political agendas at all. In this case the Balkans could be called germanics as much as slavic if only observing a haplo. The eastern parts of Sweden, where I live, have up to 25-30% R1a. And as far as I know we're germanics. I would in this case suggest that some sort of pseudoscience like pan-slavisism is luring around the corner.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

TaktikatEMalet
11-10-20, 16:07
There's nothing that would indicate any political agendas at all. In this case the Balkans could be called germanics as much as slavic if only observing a haplo. The eastern parts of Sweden, where I live, have up to 25-30% R1a. And as far as I know we're germanics. I would in this case suggest that some sort of pseudoscience like pan-slavisism is luring around the corner.
Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

R1a is mostly Slavic, in balkans we can see which R1a clades were spread by slavs from 7th century.

However, there is some different R1a that could be pre Slavic (likely German) and an even smaller amount which could be "turkic" but again likely that ultimately even these were initially spread from russia because most turkic regions are a mix of russians, east asians, persians & arabs

Mordred
11-10-20, 16:15
R1a is mostly Slavic, in balkans we can see which R1a clades were spread by slavs from 7th century.

However, there is some different R1a that could be pre Slavic (likely German) and an even smaller amount which could be "turkic" but again likely that ultimately even these were initially spread from russia because most turkic people are a mix of russians, east asians, persians & arabsIt's not. It's more "Baltic" (not as in Baltic states), and is prevalent in countries and areas around, or close to, the Baltic Sea.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

Dibran
18-11-20, 07:28
It's not. It's more "Baltic" (not as in Baltic states), and is prevalent in countries and areas around, or close to, the Baltic Sea.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

It really depends which clades we're speaking about. If you were to say R1a-Z280>Z92 is Baltic you would be correct. R1a-Z280>CTS1211 more specifically connected to Slavs. Z280 in general being Balto-Slavic. Then there is R1a-M458 which may be called more specifically Proto-Slavic. Though recent aDNA for R1a-M458 in Singen Germany(Late Hallstatt) and an upcoming paper in peer review that supposedly found R1a-L1029 in Iron Age Bohemia(La Tene) could support its Pre-Slavic affiliation prior to taking part in the Proto-Slavic ethnogenesis. A similar scenario is likely for I-Y3120 which is likely pre-slavic, but no aDNA yet. Z284 is more Scando-Germanic, L664 more North-Western European, Z93 Central Asian.

Mordred
18-11-20, 15:52
It really depends which clades we're speaking about. If you were to say R1a-Z280>Z92 is Baltic you would be correct. R1a-Z280>CTS1211 more specifically connected to Slavs. Z280 in general being Balto-Slavic. Then there is R1a-M458 which may be called more specifically Proto-Slavic. Though recent aDNA for R1a-M458 in Singen Germany(Late Hallstatt) and an upcoming paper in peer review that supposedly found R1a-L1029 in Iron Age Bohemia(La Tene) could support its Pre-Slavic affiliation prior to taking part in the Proto-Slavic ethnogenesis. A similar scenario is likely for I-Y3120 which is likely pre-slavic, but no aDNA yet. Z284 is more Scando-Germanic, L664 more North-Western European, Z93 Central Asian.I'm talking about modern times not 3k years ago. Since then the European population has very much migrated and mixed with each other. I could go on and repeat all the historical events how this happened, but I think it won't be needed. Extremely small samples are theories and not actual facts.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

Dibran
18-11-20, 16:24
I'm talking about modern times not 3k years ago. Since then the European population has very much migrated and mixed with each other. I could go on and repeat all the historical events how this happened, but I think it won't be needed. Extremely small samples are theories and not actual facts.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

Is that so. And what actual "facts" do you have to make such a broad generalization as "R1a is Baltic" in a modern sense?

A sample is not a theory, a sample is aDNA. So far you can say Z280 is Balto-Slavic and Z92 is Baltic. Not sure how that's a theory. Plenty of Z280 littered throughout the Baltics in aDNA exactly where it is most prevelant today. The same is not true for other R1a branches. If your broad generalization of lineages being Baltic was even true, we should see Baltic specific clades with diversity predating the medieval in other R1a lines. This is simply not the case. M458 for example is lacking in Balts and they have little to no diversity in these lines going back no further than 400CE. It is mostly common in Slavs(more specifically West Slavs and Central Europeans).

Z284 ancient and modern is mostly associated with Scandinavians. Your statement holds no relevance unless you go far back to Corded Ware Culture that swept through the Baltic. Even less relevant when taking into account modern distribution of R1a clades.

Additionally, Z93 is Central Asian and oldest samples were found in Eastern Europe. There is also a wealth of R1a-M417 between Germany, Slovakia and the steppe.

Mordred
18-11-20, 16:29
Is that so. And what actual "facts" do you have to make such a broad generalization as "R1a is Baltic"?

A sample is not a theory, a sample is aDNA. So far you can say Z280 is Balto-Slavic and Z92 is Baltic. Not sure how thats a theory. Plenty of Z280 littered throughout the Baltics. The same is not true for other R1a branches.Cool, I'm not stubborn, show me the plenty of number of samples and I will check it out.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

Dibran
18-11-20, 16:41
Cool, I'm not stubborn, show me the plenty of number of samples and I will check it out.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

I don't have to show you anything. The burden of proof is on you for making such a broad generalization/statement and treating it as a fact. Please show and explain how all R1a branches (in moderns no less) are originated, or spread from the Baltic?

You may have a case for Z280 and more specifically its subclade Z92. However, I want to see your explanation for M458/Z284/L664/Z93 and how its from/spread out of the Baltics. You will have a harder time making your case if you're only referring to modern samples and not"3000 years ago" as you said.

Mordred
18-11-20, 16:45
I don't have to show you anything. The burden of proof is on you for making such a broad generalization/statement and treating it as a fact. Please show and explain how all R1a branches (in moderns no less) are originated, or spread from the Baltic?

You may have a case for Z280 and more specifically its subclade Z92. However, I want to see your explanation for M458/Z284/L664/Z93 and how its from/spread out of the Baltics. You will have a harder time making your case if you're only referring to modern samples and not"3000 years ago" as you said.I was expecting such an answer. When it comes to what I wrote all the needed info is here on Eupedia so you don't have to be a Google anthropologist. I have more confidence to the academics and very well informed laymen on this forum than John Doe.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

Dibran
18-11-20, 18:42
I was expecting such an answer. When it comes to what I wrote all the needed info is here on Eupedia so you don't have to be a Google anthropologist. I have more confidence to the academics and very well informed laymen on this forum than John Doe.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

Of course. As I expected you wouldn't explain your claims with any facts/evidence.

You reference Eupedia as having all the needed info to make your point, which doesn't even make such a claim that you proposed regarding R1a. If you just took 2 seconds to go to the R1a section page here on Eupedia(https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml), you would see that no where is it stated all R1a in moderns(or even ancients) is the results of spread from the Baltics.

Additionally, this is a genetics forum, not some forum run by actual scientists and academic participants in studies. There is also a number of recent aDNA studies that have yet to be added to/updated on this sites Haplogroups and their respective pages.

I can tell by your very responses that you don't keep up with the topic. If you're going to act like a wise guy, at least know what you're talking about and back it up, " John Doe".

Mordred
18-11-20, 19:16
Of course. As I expected you wouldn't explain your claims with any facts/evidence.

You reference Eupedia as having all the needed info to make your point, which doesn't even make such a claim that you proposed regarding R1a. If you just took 2 seconds to go to the R1a section page here on Eupedia(https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml), you would see that no where is it stated all R1a in moderns(or even ancients) is the results of spread from the Baltics.

Additionally, this is a genetics forum, not some forum run by actual scientists and academic participants in studies. There is also a number of recent aDNA studies that have yet to be added to/updated on this sites Haplogroups and their respective pages.

I can tell by your very responses that you don't keep up with the topic. If you're going to act like a wise guy, at least know what you're talking about and back it up, " John Doe".You don't have to copy cat my answers. Are you an adult? This forum is enough for factual knowledge. You have indeed no references at all. Not one. You just don't make any sense at all, it's called nonsense. I consider it a total waste of time. Anyway thanks for yet again learning nothing but to be observant with self proclaimed Google scientist. You're welcome.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

Dibran
18-11-20, 19:37
You don't have to copy cat my answers. Are you an adult? This forum is enough for factual knowledge. You have indeed no references at all. Not one. You just don't make any sense at all, it's called nonsense. I consider it a total waste of time. Anyway thanks for yet again learning nothing but to be observant with self proclaimed Google scientist. You're welcome.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

Nice Strawman/Ad Hominem. You're obviously a troll. Reported.

Mordred
18-11-20, 21:58
Nice Strawman/Ad Hominem. You're obviously a troll. Reported.Lol. So your mom is moderator on this forum? Stop embarrassing yourself mate. This is my last answer comment in our conversation. Take care and stay safe at least.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

Dibran
18-11-20, 23:44
Lol. So your mom is moderator on this forum? Stop embarrassing yourself mate. This is my last answer comment in our conversation. Take care and stay safe at least.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

Anyone with an atoms weight of understanding on R1a branches will know you're the one actually embarrassing yourself here. What's the matter "Bjornsson", did your R1a is all Baltic theory not hold water on Anthro that you're trying to spread your misinformation here?

You claim Eupedia has all the facts. I cited you their R1a article which doesn't even propose your hogwash claims(which I doubt your read btw). You have the audacity to call me a Google scientist. Clearly, its you who are wasting your time on google instead of actually reading some peer reviewed papers. For once, you should read the sources you claim you're quoting. Again, read the article and cite for us exactly where Eupedia claims all R1a branches including moderns spread from the Baltic. Comment sections aren't evidence or facts.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml

https://i.postimg.cc/MpkZ0nDS/R1a-migration.png

Mordred
19-11-20, 00:43
Anyone with an atoms weight of understanding on R1a branches will know you're the one actually embarrassing yourself here. What's the matter "Bjornsson", did your R1a is all Baltic theory not hold water on Anthro that you're trying to spread your misinformation here?

You claim Eupedia has all the facts. I cited you their R1a article which doesn't even propose your hogwash claims(which I doubt your read btw). You have the audacity to call me a Google scientist. Clearly, its you who are wasting your time on google instead of actually reading some peer reviewed papers. For once, you should read the sources you claim you're quoting. Again, read the article and cite for us exactly where Eupedia claims all R1a branches including moderns spread from the Baltic. Comment sections aren't evidence or facts.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml

https://i.postimg.cc/MpkZ0nDS/R1a-migration.pngIf you read my comment this is actually what I said mate. These migrations are more than 3500+ years ago. That's exactly what I wrote. Do you really expect that in 3500 years things stay the same, then you're delusional. What exactly does this map tell you I do wonder. These things are exactly why I wouldn't trust any Google Scientist. You're actually making a bigger embarrassment of yourself than I could imagine.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

DuPidh
19-11-20, 02:10
If you read my comment this is actually what I said mate. These migrations are more than 3500+ years ago. That's exactly what I wrote. Do you really expect that in 3500 years things stay the same, then you're delusional. What exactly does this map tell you I do wonder. These things are exactly why I wouldn't trust any Google Scientist. You're actually making a bigger embarrassment of yourself than I could imagine.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

Sneaky Serb?

Mordred
19-11-20, 02:32
Sneaky Serb?Yeah, my I ask how you found out?

Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

Dibran
19-11-20, 14:01
Sneaky Serb?

Figures hes a Serb. Makes perfect sense now.

Dibran
19-11-20, 14:04
If you read my comment this is actually what I said mate. These migrations are more than 3500+ years ago. That's exactly what I wrote. Do you really expect that in 3500 years things stay the same, then you're delusional. What exactly does this map tell you I do wonder. These things are exactly why I wouldn't trust any Google Scientist. You're actually making a bigger embarrassment of yourself than I could imagine.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

Enough Red herrings/strawman you mentally inept fool.

Your original argument was claiming all R1a branches more recently are the result of spread from the Baltic. You're WRONG. You have supplied zero evidence to elucidate this point and continue to mock instead of provide anything if merit. You made the claim its on you to prove.

You said "I'm talking about modern times not 3k years ago."

Prove it or shut your mouth.

DuPidh
19-11-20, 14:54
[QUOTE=Mordred;615364]Yeah, my I ask how you found out?

Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE
I can smell a Serb miles away!

Mordred
19-11-20, 15:19
LOL. I've been a member on this forum for 10 years. I've actually haven't seen so much Google Science in so few posts. I'm actually Micronesian. And finding that actually speaking to full stupidity with nonsense is making everyone laugh. Some are just mentally trained to automatically call others like Serb or similar which actually doubles down your own stupidity.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

TaktikatEMalet
21-11-20, 12:10
[QUOTE=Mordred;615364]Yeah, my I ask how you found out?
Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE
I can smell a Serb miles away!

Nothing wrong with him being Serb, leave that nonsense out

It isn't Serbs who helped make Balkans poor, you know who did that

DuPidh
21-11-20, 17:31
LOL. I've been a member on this forum for 10 years. I've actually haven't seen so much Google Science in so few posts. I'm actually Micronesian. And finding that actually speaking to full stupidity with nonsense is making everyone laugh. Some are just mentally trained to automatically call others like Serb or similar which actually doubles down your own stupidity.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

yes! Micronesians and Serbs lough when they see bananas!